Standardized Global Brand Management Using C-D Maps

  • Charan K. Bagga
  • Niraj Dawar


In this chapter, we describe an application of the centrality-distinctiveness mapping (C-D mapping) methodology in the context of global brand positioning. C-D maps of different countries offer a way to visualize differences in consumer perceptions of brands across markets. Our methodology helps set consistent positioning and performance goals for a global brand across geographical markets. It also helps global brand managers with brand standardization versus localization decisions. Finally, it places actual brand performance in context: it helps explain differences in cross-border performance that are due to different locations on the C-D map for the same brand in different geographies. In sum, we believe that the C-D map methodology provides a means and a vocabulary for strategic conversations about global brand positioning between headquarters and local managers. It also suggests an implementation plan for overcoming brand-positioning challenges in different countries.


  1. Aaker, D.A., and E. Joachimsthaler. 1999. The lure of global branding. Harvard Business Review 77: 137–146.Google Scholar
  2. Alden, D.L., J.B.E. Steenkamp, and R. Batra. 1999. Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. The Journal of Marketing 63: 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagga, C.K., T.J. Noseworthy, and N. Dawar. 2016. Asymmetric consequences of radical innovations on category representations of competing brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 26 (1): 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brand Quarterly. 2014. Globalization: Apple’s one-size-fits-all approach. Accessed 25 June 2017.
  5. Das, G. 1993. Local memoirs of a global manager, Harvard Business Review 71(2): 38–47.Google Scholar
  6. Dawar, N., and C.K. Bagga. 2015a. A better way to map brand strategy. Harvard Business Review 93 (6): 90–97.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2015b. A simple graph explains the complex logic of the big beer merger. Harvard Business Review. Accessed 25 June 2017.
  8. Dawar, N., and T. Frost. 1999. Competing with giants: Survival strategies for local companies in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review 77: 119–132.Google Scholar
  9. Holt, D.B., J.A. Quelch, and E.L. Taylor. 2004. How global brands compete. Harvard Business Review 82 (9): 68–75.Google Scholar
  10. Hsieh, M.H. 2004. Measuring global brand equity using cross-national survey data. Journal of International Marketing 12 (2): 28–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 2014. 20 epic fails in global branding. Accessed 25 June 2017.
  12. Kapferer, J.N. 2002. Is there really no hope for local brands? Journal of Brand Management 9 (3): 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2005. The post-global brand. Journal of Brand Management 12 (5): 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kashani, K. 1989. Beware the pitfalls of global marketing. Harvard Business Review 67 (5): 91–98.Google Scholar
  15. Kish, P., D.R. Riskey, and R.A. Kerin. 2001. Measurement and tracking of brand equity in the global marketplace-the PepsiCo experience. International Marketing Review 18 (1): 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kotler, P. 1986. Global standardization—courting danger. Journal of Consumer Marketing 3 (2): 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levitt, T. 1983. The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review 61: 92–102.Google Scholar
  18. Loken, B., and J. Ward. 1990. Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (2): 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lund, S., J. Manyika, and J. Bughin. 2016. Globalization is becoming more about data and less about stuff. Harvard Business Review.
  20. Macdonald, E.K., and B.M. Sharp. 2000. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Research 48 (1): 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matthiesen, I., and I. Phau. 2005. The ‘HUGO BOSS’ connection: Achieving global brand consistency across countries. The Journal of Brand Management 12 (5): 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melewar, T.C., and C. Walker. 2003. Global corporate brand building: Guidelines and case studies. The Journal of Brand Management 11 (2): 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mervis, C.B., and E. Rosch. 1981. Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology 32 (1): 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Özsomer, A., and S. Altaras. 2008. Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing 16 (4): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park, H.J., and N.J. Rabolt. 2009. Cultural value, consumption value, and global brand image: A cross-national study. Psychology and Marketing 26 (8): 714–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perkins, A.W., and M.R. Forehand. 2011. Implicit self-referencing: The effect of nonvolitional self-association on brand and product attitude. Journal of Consumer Research 39 (1): 142–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosch, E., and B.B. Lloyd, eds. 1978. Cognition and categorization. Vol. 1, 978. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Roth, M.S. 1992. Depth versus breadth strategies for global brand image management. Journal of Advertising 21 (2): 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 1995. The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image strategies. Journal of Marketing Research 32: 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steenkamp, J.B. 2017. Global brand strategy: World-wise marketing in the age of branding. London, UK: Springer. ISBN: 978-1-349-94993-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steenkamp, J.B.E., R. Batra, and D.L. Alden. 2003. How perceived brand globalness creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies 34 (1): 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wind, J., S. Sthanunathan, and R. Malcolm. 2013. Great advertising is both local and global. Harvard Business Review.
  33. Yin Wong, H., and B. Merrilees. 2007. Multiple roles for branding in international marketing. International Marketing Review 24 (4): 384–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhou, K.Z., and K. Nakamoto. 2007. How do enhanced and unique features affect new product preference? The moderating role of product familiarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (1): 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haskayne School of BusinessUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Ivey Business SchoolWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations