Content area
Full Text
1. Introduction
Markets are rapidly integrating across borders, and for many product categories, consumers are able to choose between global and local alternatives. Due to their widespread recognition and distribution, many aspects favor global brands. From a utilitarian perspective, these include perceptions of higher quality as well as possible lower prices resulting from standardization and economies of scale; whereas from a hedonic perspective, the aspirational benefits and prestige of global brands may accord higher esteem and status to the purchaser ([27] Özsomer, 2012). Other aspects favor local brands, despite - rather, because of - globalization. Chief among these are the consumer benefits deriving from a strong association to the local environment, including perceptions of cultural sensitivity, authenticity, and responsiveness to local requirements, as well as the pride that comes from consuming brands that champion and support the cultural heritage and national economy, respectively ([10] Dimofte et al. , 2008; [30] Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004; [27] Özsomer, 2012).
The international marketing literature often portrays global and local brands as the two opposite ends of a dimension of globalness and there appears to be an implicit assumption that global brands are generally foreign owned (e.g. [17] Johansson and Ronkainen, 2005). Local brands are assumed to be distributed and owned domestically, whereas global brands are assumed to be distributed worldwide and owned by foreign entities. This operationalization confounds the geographical and ownership aspects of the brand. Because this false dichotomy could account for some of the mixed findings surrounding consumers' reactions to global vs local brands, we submit that these facets should be scrutinized independently as well as jointly.
The distinction between local and foreign-owned brands is particularly relevant in light of the critical role of consumers' home country biases ([4] Alden et al. , 2006; [31] Shankarmahesh, 2006; [42] Verlegh, 2007; [10] Dimofte et al. , 2008). [5] Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004) report that consumer ethnocentrism and patriotism strongly predict domestic purchasing behavior; however, these constructs are weak in explaining foreign product purchases. One could conjecture that home country biases would moderate country-of-origin (COO) effects. [35] Steenkamp et al. (2003) assert that "the positive association of perceived brand globalness with purchase likelihood will be weaker for more ethnocentric consumers" (p. 57). Thus, as highly ethnocentric consumers...