Analysis Of Standardization Verses Adaptation

Analysis Of Standardization Verses Adaptation orbicularization seems to deplete become the phenomenon that no mavin can escape form whether its a small business or a big one. It charge seems to befool huge effect on our behavior style. Schaeffer 2003. As defined by Wild et al. (2005, p.6) globularization is the trend toward colossaler economic, cultural, political, and technological interdependence among field of study institutions and economies. This reflects that globalization is a phenomenon that encompasses non only businesses except also other factors fashioning up the society Daniels et al. 2007 Hill 2007. The modern economic landscape has globalization as one of its prominent feature Anthony Pecotich and Steven hospital ward 2007. It is proposed that in coming time it will be the foreign grocery stores that will play the main role for growth of most of the firms Douglas B. Holt, John A. Quelch, and Earl L. Taylor 2004. And this phenomenon, that seems to have great impact on us all, makes the bases for b ar-ass market systems (Craig and Douglas 1996 Ghauri and Cateora 2006). This system makes markets so interdependent that the motion of firm is evaluated on a global earlier than national base. (Porter 1986 Ulrike de Brentani, Elko J. Kleinschmidt, and So ren Salomo 2010) .Globalization brings with it several decisions to be made, one of which is the standardisation or interlingual rendition of various aspects of marketing mix (Chung 2003 Walters 1986 -zsomer et al. 1991). A firm when entering a bargon-ass market can make the choice of either modifying the product referred to as adaptation or making no change in the product referred to as standardization (Roger J. Calantone, S. tame Cavusgil, Jeffrey B. Schmidt, and Geon-Cheol Shin 2004). A strong disagreement exists between the scholars favoring standardization in contrast to those esteeming adaptation. (Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003 Ryans et al. 2003)Literature ReviewThe debate over supremacy of adaptation versus standardization runs back for more than half a century with Elinder (1961) and Roostal (1963) being pioneer contributors, with their main focus on corporate advertising functions, with the whimsy of standardization in advertisement which was based on the argument that marketing principles largely remain the same ubiquitously. multinational marketing was first discussed from a wider standpoint by Bartels (1968) who argued in favor of standardization dodging. Buzzell (1968) spoke of standardization as the standardization of the 4Ps of marketing mix, namely product, price, place and promotion, across b requests. Levitt (1983) proposed this standardization of product worldwide to be one of a key success factor for firms when going global. On the other hand researchers also vociferation that standardization is an oversimplification which is non effectively operative and true for marketing concepts ( Douglas and Craig 1986 Douglas and bullock 1987). These and many other researches bought into limelight the scholarly debate over supremacy of standardization verses adaptation, which is still on-going (Cavusgil et al. 1993 Johnson and Arunthanes 1995 Lages 2000 Shoham 1999 Theodosiou and Katsikeas 2001).The supposition of economies of plateful is considered to be of fundamental importance to the advocates of standardization, as it is argued that standardization brings with it economies of scale and this result in reduction of cost and maximization of profits. (Porter 1985 Porter 1980 Ryans et al. 2003 Shoham and Albaum 1994). Economy of scale is also claimed to be one of the most probable outcomes of standardization (Buzzell 1968 Douglas and Craig 1986 Levitt 1983 Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003 Yip 1995 -zsomer and Simonin 2004)The advocates of adaptation, on the other hand, question the impact of economies of scale. As Douglas and Wind (1987) claim that distribution cost is more important than production cost. Strong arguments q uestioning economies of scales make on promotion have also been evidenced (Douglas and Craig 1986 Onkvisit and Shaw 1987). Theodosiou and Leonidou ( 2003) take the discussion farther by proposing that the central motive of cheeks is long-term profits which could be achieved through adaptation rather than standardization. Further arguing that as low price nodes are habitually non brand loyal (Keller 2003 Wind 1986) this raises a big question mark for the firms espousing standardization in the long run (Douglas and Wind 1987 Wind 1986).Similarly another argument in favor of standardization is the intensification in homogenized needs of global customers resulting in an increase number of similar market segments across countries. This increased in globalization of customers is believed to be made possible by the development of transportation technologies (Levitt 1983). It is argued that the technological advancement results in augmented customer mobility producing global customers w ith homogenous needs (Cavusgil et al. 2008 Douglas and Wind 1987 Keegan et al. 1987 Theodosiou and Katsikeas 2001). These global customers are even prepared to sacrifice other features of product in order to acquire like product of high quality and low price (Levitt 1983). And this trend of customers choice is claimed to be the reason for many products to have universal specifications (Cavusgil et al. 2008). The companies going for standardization influence their suppliers to offer standardized products and this reflect why business to business transcriptions have to go for standardization (Buzzell 1968 Douglas and Wind 1987 Yip 1989). Similarly Ohmae (1985) discusses the Triad in order to elaborate homogenisation of customers. Triad, which encompasses the European Union, United States and Japan, seems to be filled with customers having large number of correspondences in their psychographic and demographic characteristics and this group of customers is open to globally vigorous co mpanies (Ohmae 1985 Theodosiou and Katsikeas 2001).Because of the increasing number of these internationally savvy consumers with similar needs in terms of product and service features, several global customer segments ,based on behavior rather than religious or political margins, are proposed, by researchers, to be pleased with standardized offerings (Armstrong and Kotler 2007 Cavusgil et al. 2008 Hassan et al. 2003 Hassan and Craft 2005).Whereas Wiechmann and Pringle (1979) claim that there is always friction between rest home and host markets, this friction could be between the company and its foreign distributor or foreign customer and / or even between home rude and host country offices. This friction is result of different environmental discrepancies between the two markets. It is suggested that adaption can help minimize this friction resulting in better performance (Shoham 2002 Shoham and Albaum 1994).Another frequently mentioned justification to why international companie s should adopt standardization is the technological advancement in communications and information (Buzzell 1968 Jain 1989 Terpstra and Sarathy 2000 Zou and Cavusgil 2002). There are several channels on television available to customers globally via cable and satellites (Elinder 1965 middleman 2007). In addition to this, international availability of English language move media can be traced back to decades (Terpstra and Sarathy 2000). likewise internet has also developed into a vibrant marketing device worldwide (Chaffey et al. 2006 Mohammed et al. 2003). All this presents a global market for standardized advertisement. And it backs Levitts (1983) claim that people would want things promoted on these new technologies. These marketing tools enable and direct the use of standardized marketing strategies (Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003 Zou and Cavusgil 2002). However, it is also argued that new technology brings with it more flexibility which favor adaptation and a firm can use this to have advantage over its competitors (Douglas and Craig 1986 Douglas and Wind 1987 Shoham 1999).Fairly affiliate with the homogenization of customers and market segments, mentioned earlier, is the proliferation in regional economic amalgamation, taking place globally. The past few years have seen an extraordinary spread of regional take arrangements. With the most noticeable regional economic amalgamations, till date, to be the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and European Union (EU). It is argued that standardized strategies are most likely to be successful in these areas (Cavusgil et al. 2008 Hill 2007 Theodosiou and Katsikeas 2001 Wild et al. 2005). As these agreements aim to remove trade barriers this intern facilitate internationalization of firms which brings with itself globalization of customers in these integrated regions (Hill 2007 Wild et al. 2005).Where on one had we find claims in favor of standardization On the other hand Friedman (2000) debates that standa rdization whitethorn exercise for limited number of product. Adding on to this claim are Douglas and Craig (1986) litigating that there is no evidence available to support the standardization view. Many scholars have debated that there exists a fairly large difference between the foreign markets and for this reason the marketing strategies should be adjusted according to the specifications of individual foreign market (Cavusgil et al. 2008 Cavusgil et al. 1993 Czinkota and Ronkainen 2007 Shoham 1995 Terpstra and Sarathy 2000 Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003). Different arguments have been leapn in favor of adaption some highlighting the variances in the distribution channels (Daniels et al. 2007), while others highlighting the differences in national preferences (Cavusgil et al. 2008 Wind 1986). Such statements have been made by the advocates of adaptation in an effort to claim adaptation to be a better strategy. And it has been testified that even the giant brands, like Coca smoke a nd McDonalds, incur numerous adaptation strategies in accordance to their foreign markets (Czinkota and Ronkainen 2007)Analysis and resultPutting it in a nutshell we may say that technological advancement, homogenization of customers worldwide and economic integration pushes organizations to adapt standardization in order to prosper (Buzzell 1968 Cavusgil et al. 1993 Levitt 1983 Sustar 2005). However, on the other hand adaptation proponents are of the view that not only there exist significant differences between customers form different countries but also the technological encroachment in production may even cause eradication to the economies of scale argument. Further proposing that even if it doesnt completely remove the effect of economies of scale it will reduce the effect to minimal level hence, making adaptation a better suited strategy in the times to come.Although standardization and adaptation are two viewpoints that contradict each other, it is difficult to claim supremac y of one over the other. Both standardization and adaptation have their benefits, yet that does not imply that a strategy useful for one organization in some specific market will prove to be useful for the same organization in another market or may be for a different organization in the same market. There are number of factors that may influence the decision of adaptation of Standardization or Adaptation (Jain 1989). Massive work has been done in order to identify and chock down a list of different factors influencing the decision of selecting adaptation or standardization, in a very general manner ( Johnson and Arunthanes 1995 Lages and Montgomery 2004 lee side and Griffith 2004 Theodosiou and Katsikeas 2001). Furthermore, -zsomer et al. (1991) has done a more systematic study of these influencing factors. . Cavusgil and Zou (1994) came up with a notwithstanding simplified description of the aspects that need to be taken into account when making the decision of choosing to move t owards standardization or adaptation. This orderly arrangement has been used by number of academics ( Katsikeas et al. 2006 Michell et al. 1998 -zsomer and Simonin 2004).Managerial implicationsAs through the discussion it is clear that both standardization and adaption have their pros and corns and on with a number of other factors influencing the decision of choosing the finished strategy that will be successful in a particular condition for an organization. For this reason when an organizations decides to go global, their Managers must not think of supremacy of standardization over adaptation or vice versa, rather they need to understand the market they are going in and should also understand their organization along with all the influencing factors in order to decide which strategy, Adaptation or Standardization, would lead the organization towards their major goal of being successful, when responding to the process of globalization.LimitationsThe above study tries to give deep er understanding about the continued under debate topic of standardization verses adaptation. However, due to shortage of time and resources there might be some areas not covered in this paper. Never the less it adds to the existing body of knowledge and further research could be done in order to understand the phenomenon of standardization and adaptation so as to know which strategy will suit in what kind of conditions, for a particular organization, in order to make the organization not only successful nationwide but also across the globe.AAnthony Pecotich and Steven Ward 2007Anthony Pecotich and Steven Ward 2007 Global branding, country of origin and expertise An observational evaluationArmstrong and Kotler 2007Armstrong, Gary and Philip Kotler (2007), selling An Introduction (9 ed.). stop number Saddle River, NJ Pearson Education Inc.BBartels 1968Bartels, Robert (1968), Are Domestic and International trade Dissimilar? Journal of Marketing, 32 (3), 56-61.Buzzell 1968Buzzell, Robert (1968), Can you standardise multinational marketing? Harvard Business Review, 46 (6), 102-13.CCraig and Douglas 1996Craig, C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (1996), Developing Strategies for Global Markets An Evolutionary Perspective, Colombia Journal of World Business, 31 (1), 70-81.Chung 2003Chung, Henry F L (2003), International Standardization Strategies The Experiences of Australian and unfermented Zealand Firms Operating in the Greater China Markets, Journal of International Marketing, 11 (3), 48-82.Cavusgil et al. 1993Cavusgil, S Tamer, Shaoming Zou, and G M Naidu (1993), Product and Promotion Adaptation in Export Ventures An Empirical Investigation, Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (3), 479- 506.Cavusgil et al. 2008Cavusgil, S Tamer, Gary Knight, and John R Riesenberger (2008), International Business Strategy, focussing, and the untested Realities. Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson Education.Chaffey et al. 2006Chaffey, Dave, Fiona Ellis-Chadwick, Kevin Johnsto n, and Richard Mayer (2006), Internet Marketing Strategy, Implementation and Practice (3 ed.). Harlow Pearson Education Ltd.Czinkota and Ronkainen 2007Czinkota, Michael R and Ilkka A Ronkainen (2007), International Marketing (8 ed.). Mason, OH Thompson Higher Education.Cavusgil and Zou 1994Cavusgil, S Tamer and Shaoming Zou (1994), Marketing Strategy- exertion Relationship An investigation of the Empirical Link in Export Market Ventures, Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 1-21.DDouglas and Craig 1986Douglas, Susan P and Samuel P Craig (1986), Global Marketing Myopia, Journal of Marketing Management, 2 (2), 155-69.Douglas and Wind 1987Douglas, Susan P and Yoram Wind (1987), The Myth of Globalization, Colombia Journal of World Business, 22 (4), 19-29.Daniels et al. 2007Daniels, John D, lee side H Radebaugh, and Daniel P Sullivan (2007), International Business Environments and Operations (11 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson Prentice entrance hall.Douglas B. Holt, John A. Quelch, and E arl L. Taylor 2004Douglas B. Holt, John A. Quelch, and Earl L. Taylor 2004. How global brands competeDaniels et al. 2007Daniels, John D, Lee H Radebaugh, and Daniel P Sullivan (2007), International Business Environments and Operations (11 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson Prentice Hall.EElinder 1961Elinder, Erik (1961), How international can advertising be? International Advertiser, 2 (December), 12-16.Elinder 1965Elinder, Erik (1965), How International Can European denote Be? Journal of Marketing, 29 (2), 7-11.FFriedman 2000Friedman, Thomas L (2000), The Lexus and the Olive Tree Understanding Globalization. New York, NY Anchor Books.GGhauri and Cateora 2006Ghauri, Pervez and Philip Cateora (2006), International Marketing (2 ed.). Berkshire McGraw-HillEducation.HHassan et al. 2003Hassan, Salah S, Stephen Craft, and Wael Kortam (2003), Understanding the new bases for global market segmentation, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (5), 446-62.Hassan and Craft 2005Hassan, Salah S and Stephen H Craft (2005), Linking global market segmentation decisions with strategic positioning options, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22 (2), 81-89.Hill 2007Hill, Charles W L (2007), International Business Competing in the Global Marketplace (6th International ed.). New York, NY McGraw-Hill/Irwin.JJain 1989Jain, Subhash C (1989), Standardization of International Marketing Strategy Some Research Hypotheses, Journal of Marketing, 53 (1), 70-79.Johnson and Arunthanes 1995Johnson, Jean L and Wiboon Arunthanes (1995), Ideal and actual product adaptation in US tradeing firms Market-related determinants and impact on performance, International Marketing Review, 12 (3), 31-46.Jobber 2007Jobber, David (2007), Principles and Practice of Marketing (5 ed.). Maidenhead McGraw-Hill Education.KKeller 2003Keller, Kevin Lane (2003), Strategic Brand Management building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall Inc.Keegan et al. 1987Keegan, Warren J, Richa rd R Sill, and John S Hill (1987), Transferability and Adaptability of Products and Promotion Themes in multinational Marketing MNCs in LCDs, Journal of Global Marketing, 1 (1/2), 85-104.Katsikeas et al. 2006Katsikeas, Constantine S, Saeed Samiee, and Marios Theodosiou (2006), Strategy forgather and surgery Consequences of International Marketing Standardization, Strategic Management Journal, 27 (9), 867-90.LLevitt (1983)Levitt, Theodore (1983), The Globalization of markets, Harvard Business Review, 61 (3), 92-102.Lages 2000Lages, Luis Felipe (2000), A Conceptual Framework of the Determinants of Export Performance Reorganizing Key Variables and Shifting Contingencies in Export Marketing, Journal of Global Marketing, 13 (3), 29-51.Lages and Montgomery 2004Lages, Luis Felipe and David B Montgomery (2004), Export performance as an antecedent of export commitment and marketing strategy adaptation, European Journal of Marketing, 28 (9), 1186-214.Lee and Griffith 2004Lee, Chol and Dav id A Griffith (2004), The marketing strategy-performance relationship in an export-driven developing economy A Korean illustration, International Marketing Review, 21 (3), 321-34.MMohammed et al. 2003Mohammed, Rafi A, Robert J Fisher, Bernard J Jaworski, and Gordon J Paddison (2003), Internet Marketing Building Advantage in a Networked Economy (2 ed.). New York, NY McGraw-Hill.Michell et al. 1998Michell, Paul, James Lynch, and Obaid Alabdali (1998), New perspectives on marketing mix courseme standardisation, International Business Review, 7 (6), 617-34.OOnkvisit and Shaw 1987Onkvisit, Sak and John J Shaw (1987), Standardized International Advertising A Review and Critical Evaluation of the Theoretical and Empirical Evidence, Columbia Journal of World Business, 22 (3), 43-55.Ohmae 1985Ohmae, Kenichi (1985), Triad Power The Coming Shape of Global Competition. New York, NY The Free Press.-zsomer et al. (1991)-zsomer, Aysegul, Muzzafer Bodur, and S Tamer Cavusgil (1991), Marketing Stan dardisation by Multinationals in an Emerging Market, European Journal of Marketing, 25 (12), 50-61.-zsomer and Simonin 2004-zsomer, Aysegul and Bernard L Simonin (2004), Marketing program standardization A cross country exploration, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (4), 397-419.PPorter 1986Porter, M.E. (1986). Changing Patterns of International Competition. California Management Review 289-40 (Winter).Porter 1985Porter, Michael E (1985), Competititve Advantage. New York, NY Free Press.Porter 1980Porter, Michael E (1980), Competitive Strategy. New York, NY Free Press.RRoger J. Calantone, S. Tamer Cavusgil, Jeffrey B. Schmidt, and Geon-Cheol Shin 2004.Roger J. Calantone, S. Tamer Cavusgil, Jeffrey B. Schmidt, and Geon-Cheol Shin 2004 Internationalization and the Dynamics of Product Adaptation- An Empirical InvestigationRyans et al. 2003Ryans, John K, David A Griffith, and D Steven White (2003), Standardization/adaptation of international marketing strategy Necessary conditions for the advancement of knowledge, International Marketing Review, 20 (6), 588-603.Roostal 1963Roostal, Ilmar (1963), Standardization of Advertising for Western Europe, Journal of Marketing, 27 (4), 15-20.SSchaeffer 2003Schaeffer, Robert K (2003), Understanding Globalization The neighborly Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change (2 ed.). Lanham, MD Rowman Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Shoham 1999Shoham, Aviv (1999), Bounded Rationality, Planning, Standardization of International Strategy and Export Performance A structural Model Examination, Journal of International Marketing, 7 (2), 24-50.Shoham and Albaum 1994Shoham, Aviv and Gerald Albaum (1994), The pitchs of Transfer of Marketing Methods on Export Performance an Empirical Examination, International Business Review, 3 (3), 219-41.Shoham 2002Shoham, Aviv (2002), Standardization of International Strategy and Export Performance A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Global Marketing, 16 (1/2), 97-120.Shoham 19 95Shoham, Aviv (1995), Global Marketing Standardization, Journal of Global Marketing, 9 (1/2), 91-119.Sustar 2005Sustar, Rozana (2005), Standardization of Marketing Mix A Study of Slovenian Firms, Management, 10 (2), 73-88.TTheodosiou and Katsikeas 2001Theodosiou, Marios and Constantine S Katsikeas (2001), Factors Influencing the Degree of International Pricing Strategy Standardization of Multinational Corporations, Journal of International Marketing, 9 (3), 1-18.Theodosiou and Leonidou 2003Theodosiou, Marios and Leonidas C Leonidou (2003), Standardization versus adaptation of international marketing strategy an integrative assessment of the empirical research, International Business Review, 12 (2), 141-71.Terpstra and Sarathy 2000Terpstra, Vern and Ravi Sarathy (2000), International Marketing (8 ed.). Chicago, IL Dryden Press.UUlrike de Brentani, Elko J. Kleinschmidt, and So ren Salomo 2010Ulrike de Brentani, Elko J. Kleinschmidt, and So ren Salomo 2010 Success in Global New Produc t Development Impact of Strategy and the Behavioral Environment of the FirmWWild et al. (2005, p.6)Wild, John J, Kenneth L Wild, and Jerry C Y Han (2005), International Business The Challenges of Globalization (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice HallWalters 1986Walters, Peter G P (1986), International Marketing Policy A Discussion of the Standardization Construct and its Relevance for Corporate Policy, Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (2), 55-69.Wiechmann and Pringle 1979Wiechmann, Ulrich E and Lewis G Pringle (1979), Problems that Plague Multinational Marketers,Harvard Business Review, 57 (4), 118-24.Wind 1986Wind, Yoram (1986), The Myth of Globalization, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (2), 23-26.Wild et al. 2005.Wild, John J, Kenneth L Wild, and Jerry C Y Han (2005), International Business The Challenges of Globalization (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall.YYip 1995Yip, George S (1995), Total Global Strategy. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice-Hall.Yip 1 989Yip, George S (1989), Global Strategy. In a World of Nations? Sloan Management Review, 31 (1), 29-41.ZZou and Cavusgil 2002Zou, Shaoming and S Tamer Cavusgil (2002), The GMS A Broad Conceptualization on Global Marketing Strategy and its Effect on Firm Performance, Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 40-56.