CULTURAL INFLUENCE ON BRAND MEANING

Ivana First, PhD

University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics
I. Filipovića 4, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia
ifirst@efri.hr +385 91 355169

This research was supported by The University of Rijeka Trust, Croatia

 ABSTRACT
The literature provided evidence that people in different cultures do not process information
in the same way. Since brand meaning is to a great extent the result of human interpretation it
is thus predicted that brand meanings differ in different countries. The cross-cultural panel of
interviews was gathered and analysed in order to investigate whether the prediction holds
true. The results show that in the low context cultures individuals have narrower,
functionally-oriented associations with the brands, whereas in the high context cultures
individuals have broader situational and symbolic associations, but on the national level those
associations are not shared. Practitioners are advised to be more prudent in cross-cultural
research as well as to become aware of the cultural specifics in the target countries, so that
their communication is better targeted.

Keywords: brand, brand meaning, cross-cultural, images

 CULTURAL INFLUENCE ON BRAND MEANING

INTRODUCTION
Literature increasingly suggests that the strength of a brand is not based on creating a
difference in consumer perceptions, but due to the meaning that the brand creates, and
therefore managing the brand meaning is a task essential to a successful “strong brand”
strategy (Kay 2006). The meaning of a brand is not predetermined in some brand identity
booklet. Brand meaning is constructed in consumers’ minds. Therefore, it depends on
consumer knowledge base (Berthon, Pitt, and Campbell 2008).
One of the most important reasons for the differences in knowledge base is the difference in
culture. The literature provided evidence that people in different cultures do not process
information in the same way (Nisbett et al. 2001). Specifically, scholars found that East
Asians are more field dependent. They pay great attention to the context and focus on the
relationship between objects and the field (Hall 1989). One of the first and most easily
noticeable causes of different brand interpretation is language. Pictures are assumed to be
somewhat more universal and easier to standardise (Moriarty and Duncan 1990). However,
pictures cause more subtle and therefore potentially more serious problems. This is because it
is even more difficult to understand how pictures are understood by consumers in different
cultures. Especially in the light that consumers belonging to integrated cultures associate
more associations that are wider in their meaning than consumers in specific cultures
(Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 1996).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Brand Meaning
Brand meaning is not clearly defined in the literature. For example, Oakenfull et al. (2000)
present the results of research devoted to developing a measurement tool for brand meaning,
however the paper is devoid of a clear definition of what brand meaning is. Davis (2007,
p.255) later interprets Oakenfull et al.’s (2000) understanding of brand meaning as “the most
definitive or core attributes of the brand that the consumers perceive”.
In a study by Henderson et al. (2003), brand meaning is considered equal to a brand
association. Moore and Homer (2008) also use the terms ‘brand associations’ and ‘brand
meanings’ as synonyms, and Feldwick (2002) even defines brand meaning as the collective
associations and beliefs that a consumer has about a brand. Keller (2003b) suggest that
providing a brand with meaning actually implies explaining to consumers what a particular
product can do for them and why it is special and different from the others in the category.
Thus, he strongly relates meaning to brand benefits. Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry (2003)
stress that brands are not only fixed cognitive associations of meanings as implied by the
strategic brand management models of Keller (2003a) and Aaker (1996), but also dynamic,
expanding social universes composed of stories.
Finally, Franzen and Bouwman (2001) speak of mental links between brand names, images
and cognitions in a consumer's memory that cause the brand to acquire meaning. They also
differentiate between four layers of brand meaning, depending on the level of socialisation at
which the meaning gets created - starting from the private meaning to the social one.
From the summarised definitions, it can be seen that the terms most often equated or related
to brand meaning are brand associations and brand attributes. A detour into the field of
psychology and neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) offers the following definition of
meaning in general. Meaning is related to the intention or significance of a message or
experience. It is the natural consequence of interpreting experience using inner
representations or experiences that are associated with external cues and events. Therefore,
the meanings that people construct and how these meanings are constructed are connected
with the richness and flexibility of each person’s internal representations of the world.
Fundamentally, meaning is a product of one’s values and beliefs (Dilts and DeLozier 2000,
p.703).
The Concept of Culture
With the growing opportunities for intercultural interaction since the fifties, the world has
seen a proliferation of modern studies on culture. There are two connected but different views
on what is the culture. Hofstede (2001) considers ideas and especially their attached values to
be the core of culture, while Trompenaars (1994), positions meaning and human
interpretation at its core. According to him, the different interpretations of (even possibly
equal) norms and values distinguish cultures. The latter is a more contemporary view. Some
more simple definitions consider culture to be the way a group of people lives (Romani 2004)
and makes decisions (Leo, Bennett, and Härtel 2005).
Culture is a multilayered phenomenon that consists of artefacts, values and underlying
assumptions. Artefacts are the most easily observed manifestation of culture, whereas
underlying assumptions are the most hidden and often the most taken for granted
manifestation of culture (Schein 1988). In this light, culture is often described as an iceberg.
About 10% of the iceberg (behaviour) is observable and easy to spot. The remaining 90% of
the iceberg (values and norms) is hidden below the surface, and is the more troublesome part.
Table 1. An Overview of Societal Dilemmas and Cultural Dimensions
Nature of the individual Relationship with Relationship to Time perception
Author(s)
other beings nature
Hofstede 2001 Individualism vs. Power distance Uncertainty Long-term vs. short-
collectivism avoidance term orientation
Masculinity vs. Femininity
Trompenaars Universalism vs. Equality vs. Inner vs. outer Sequential time vs.
1994 particularism hierarchy direction synchronised time
Individualism vs.
communitarism
Analysed specifics vs.
integrated wholes
Achievement vs. ascription
Schwartz 1999 Conservatism vs. autonomy Hierarchy vs. Mastery vs.
egalitarianism harmony
House et al. 2004 Assertiveness Power distance Uncertainty Future orientation
Performance orientation Gender avoidance
In group collectivism egalitarianism Humane
Institutional collectivism orientation
Source: adapted from Brannen et al. 2004.
Most social scientists (e.g. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961; Schwartz 1999; Hofstede 2001;
Trompenaars 1994) have long recognised the complexity and multidimensionality of the
concept of culture and hence opted to describe them. Each cross-cultural researcher depicts
cultural difference by using different cultural dimensions. Despite the differences, all of the
above-mentioned studies started their search for the dimensions by identifying and focussing
on more or less equal societal dilemmas. Table 1 presents the key societal dilemmas and
cultural dimensions that various researchers have identified. The identified cultural
dimensions serve as a key to understand how various cultures react when faced with societal
dilemmas.
Some research (cf. Pankhania, Lee and Hooley 2007) suggests that marketers should take into
account cultural diversity within countries as well as between them, because culture has many
boundaries. Nevertheless, nationality remains the most viable proxy for culture because the
members of a nation share an understanding of its institutional systems, a bond of identity,
and an experiential understanding of the world (Hofstede 2001; Brannen et al. 2004).
Furthermore, it has a tendency to stay stable over the time, because of its mechanism to resist
change across many generations (Hofstede 2001).
The Role of Culture on Brand Meaning
In general, research in cross-cultural marketing has discovered that culture might motivate
corporate decision makers to deliberately choose a different brand positioning in different
countries. However, even if identical positioning is applied across nations, the same brand
might be perceived differently in different cultures (Foscht et al. 2008). The difference may
be caused due to: the adaptation of advertising to better adjust to cultural traditions and
norms; and different understandings of applied communication. This research focuses on the
latter.
A number of researchers have argued that national cultural differences are in fact engraved in
consumers’ perceptions (Watson et al. 2002). Therefore, although metaphors are used by
advertising creators to convey brand meaning and enhance brand information processing,
little is understood about consumers' comprehension of intended meaning (Morgan and
Reichert 1999), and even less about consumers’ comprehension in different cultural settings.
For consumers from different socioeconomic backgrounds, it is likely that the same stimuli
do not necessarily build equivalent symbolic associations (Khalid and Helander 2004), but
rather very different sets of metaphors, personal meanings, and cultural traditions of
meanings (Thompson, Pollio, and Locander 1994).
This is because the messages, events and experiences that consumers find the most
meaningful are those which are the most connected to their core values (Dilts and DeLozier
2000). Due to differences in culturally based traditions, religions, and histories, individuals in
distinct cultures tend to hold different sets of values and preferences (Aaker 2000). Hence,
altering beliefs and values can immediately change the meaning of transmitted messages,
events and experiences (Dilts and DeLozier 2000). The same experience or incident takes on
different meanings to different individuals depending on their internal mind maps and
embedded previous knowledge (Berthon, Pitt, and Campbell 2008).
In their study of the variations in consumer interpretation of visually complex advertising,
Bulmer and Buchanan-Oliver (2006) explain that the interpretation of visual stimuli in
advertising is linked to literary and cultural traditions that differ from cultural group to
cultural group. Monga and John (2007) conducted a study in which they hypothesise and then
confirm through empirical research that consumers from Eastern cultures, who tend to be
holistic thinkers, perceive a higher brand extension fit and evaluate brand extensions more
favourably than their more analytical Western counterparts do.
In another study, Costa and Pavia (1992) speak of numbers and their meanings, and confirm
with an experiment that brands consisting of numbers have an extra meaning that is
understood only by some societies (in their study American), due to the “excess meaning” of
certain numbers in those cultures. Bjerke and Polegato (2006), in a cross country
investigation of beauty and health visual representations, confirmed that different cultures do
not interpret beauty and health symbols equally. The same authors in another research
(Polegato and Bjerke 2006) studied the understanding and appeal of controversial Benetton
advertisements across cultures and again revealed inconsistencies. To summarise, culture acts
as a “stringent screener” (Jun and Lee 2007) that greatly influences the meaning of
advertising messages.
Based on the three exposed theoretical pillars, three propositions can be constructed. Firstly,
meaning is a product of personal values and beliefs; secondly, personal values and believes
are different in different cultures and consequently; thirdly, brand meaning is different in
different cultures. These propositions directed the empirical part of the research in which it
was the aim to discover to which extent are the meanings of global brands associated to
symbolic or functional meanings in the culturally different countries.

METHODOLOGY

Given the purpose of this paper and the nature of the research question, a mainly theory-free
inductive approach was employed (Yin 1998). 19 in-depth interviews were conducted in the
period between January and October 2008, all in an online communicator setting. In this
study each interviewee was asked to collect and submit images to the interviewer that
indicate what the brand means or does not mean to him or her. The interviewee was then
asked to describe those images and why they represented a brand. This research procedure
was inspired by the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique – ZMET (Coulter and Zaltman
1994), however only the initial stages of the technique were applied. Coulter, Zaltman, and
Coulter (2001) claim that the ZMET method, because it is a consumer supplied images
technique, can provide up to 90% of the information available from a larger set of classical
interviews in just four to five in-depth interviews. It is hence considered particularly
appropriate for this across countries allocated qualitative research.
In order to ensure the external validity of the findings (Eisenhardt 1989), this research was
conducted on five global brands (Coca-Cola, Nokia, Toyota, Google, and Nike). As for the
countries, The United States, India, Austria and Finland were chosen. The main reason for
choosing the surveyed countries was that they belong to different cultural clusters (according
to the study by House et al. 2004) and different continents and that the average young
graduates’ English in those countries was good.
Since the objective of the study was to research the relationship among variables, rather than
generalise results to the population at large, the technique considered most appropriate was
the matched samples (Hofstede 1991; Verhage, Yavas, and Green 1991). For the above
reasons, young business-related graduates younger than 33 and not highly internationally
exposed were chosen.
To get an initial idea of the findings, data was analysed for whether the images are primarily
direct meanings i.e. either a product or a logo or less direct meanings i.e. symbolic or
experiential associations. Deeper insight was gained by categorising images (and more
precisely their descriptions) along 10 types of brand meanings proposed by Franzen and
Bouwman (2001). Those are: brand signs, sub-brands, provenance, product-related brand
meanings, situational meanings, symbolic meanings, perceived quality, perceived price,
presentation and advertising, and other communications means.
 RESULTS

Analysis of the images

Altogether about 200 images were collected. For Coca-Cola, most of the interviewees
submitted items depicting the Coca-Cola logo, Christmas associations, sugar and ice. In the
case of Google, most of the images frequently depicted the Google logo, followed by the
symbols representing ideas and searching activity. The vast majority of Nike’s images
represented sport or activity in general. Nokia’s and Toyota’s images were dominated by
phones and cars respectively.
For the purpose of this study it was considered important to examine whether images of
studied countries depict more direct meanings i.e. either a product or a logo or less direct
meanings i.e. symbolic or experiential associations. Table 2 presents per country percentages
of images that were closely related to the brand as opposed to those more figurative and
symbolic in meaning.
Table 2. The Percentages of Symbolic Images
Brand Finland India United States Austria Total
Coca-Cola 40% 80% 50% 60% 58%
Google 60% 80% 50% 40% 58%
Nike 80% 80% 50% 60% 68%
Nokia 100% 60% 0% 60% 61%
Toyota 80% 80% 25% 40% 58%
Total 72% 76% 37% 52%

As the table shows, across the brands most of the Indian respondents submitted images that
depicted neither the logo nor the name of the brand, but were rather more symbolic in
meaning. This is in line with the India’s high-context culture (Hall 1989). In such cultures
people create close connections over a long period of time and many details are not made
explicit because most members share a broad common knowledge base. In such cultures,
things carry many situational meanings. On the contrary, in the low-context cultures, like the
United States and Austria, people tend to have connections of shorter duration or for a
specific reason. In these societies, most things need to be spelled out explicitly. Therefore, the
Austrian and the American images, as anticipated, were more closely related to the physical
and visible manifestation of a particular brand.
Finish associations were the most versatile in terms of how much they emphasised the visible
elements of the brands. Being a Finnish brand, Nokia evoked very deep and varied meanings
for the Finnish respondents, none of whom submitted an image of Nokia’s logo or a cell
phone. On the other hand, Nokia occupies a very marginal role in the United States market,
so all of the American images depicted a non-symbolic image of a cell phone. A more
detailed explanation of the images as well as the other meanings associated to the studied
brands follows in a separate subchapter for each brand.
Analysis of meanings
Further analysis was conducted in terms of discovering the most often mention meanings.
These meanings were captured in the interview process that initiated with describing the
pictures interviewees submitted and continued with a set of auxiliary questions.
 From 93 meanings for Coca-Cola, the most often mentioned (8 or more mentions) were
refreshing, not healthy, cold, Christmas and sweet. As the table 3 shows, in different countries,
different meanings were mentioned the most. Although refreshing was a very strong
association in Finland, India, and Austria, it was much weaker in the United States. Similarly,
the Austrians were very preoccupied with Coca-Cola not being healthy, while the other nations
and especially the Finnish respondents did not seem to be worried about it. Table 3 shows the
most often mentioned meaning per country as well as the type of meaning identified by
Franzen and Bowman (2001). Across the countries the first two most often mentioned meaning
were product related, whereas only the third was situational. The difference among countries
can be read out from the low-context United States’ focus almost exclusively on product
related meanings.
Table 3. The Primary Meanings for Coca-Cola per Country
Country Meaning 1 Meaning type Meaning 2 Meaning type Meaning 3 Meaning type Meaning 4 Meaning type
Austria Not healthy Product related Refreshing Product related Christmas Situational
Finland Refreshing Product related Not healthy Product related Christmas Situational Global Provenance
India Refreshing Product related Cold Product related Bonding with friends Situational
US Cold Product related Sweet Product related

In the analysis of the responses for Google, among 59 meanings, gives answers and fast were
the most often mentioned ones (14 and 12 times). Table 4 shows that Google has a less
developed association networks in consumer minds in India and the United States than in
Finland and Austria, where Finnish respondents report the most versatile types of meanings,
whereas Austrian focus on the product related meanings. Across the countries again product
related meanings were the two primary meanings.
Table 4. The Primary Meanings for Google per Country
Country Meaning 1 Meaning type Meaning 2 Meaning type Meaning 3 Meaning type Meaning 4 Meaning type
Austria Gives answers Product related Not old Product related Fast Product related No privacy Product related
Finland Gives answers Product related Fast Product related World Provenance Life saver Symbolic
India Gives answers Product related Fast Product related
US Fast Product related Powerful Provenance

Nike is the brand to which 84 meanings were elicited. Across all the countries, the most
strongly associated meaning was by far product related sports (15 mentions). The other most
often mentioned meanings varied per country, as table 5 presents, and were reported by much
fewer respondents than sports.
Table 5. The Primary Meanings for Nike per Country
Country Meaning 1 Meaning type Meaning 2 Meaning type Meaning 3 Meaning type
Austria Sports Product related Sweat Product related Sweat shops Provenance
Finland Sports Product related
India Sports Product related
US Sports Product related Expensive Perceived price

When it comes to Nokia, the meanings were the most dispersed within and among countries.
Although reliability was the most often mentioned generally, it got only eight mentions.
Some of the elicited meanings for Nokia (like in the case for Coca-Cola and Google) are very
country-specific. These are: sturdiness and durability in India, innovation in Austria, and
ordinariness and Finnish origin in Finland. Nevertheless most of the meanings as table 6
shows were still product related.
Table 6. The Primary Meanings for Nokia per Country
Country Meaning 1 Meaning type Meaning 2 Meaning type Meaning 3 Meaning type
Austria Innovative Product related Reliable Product related Communication Product related
Finland Finnish Provenance Not exciting Product related
India Sturdy Product related Reliable Product related Good Perceived quality
US Hi-tech Product related Smooth keypads Product related

The last brand studied was Toyota. Out of 82 meanings, similarly to Nokia, the reliability
meaning was evoked the most often (9 mentions); however, not in India (table 7). On the
other hand, the Indians associated Toyota with class, grace and luxury, which the other
countries’ respondents did not. The meaning reliable however needs to be given an additional
explanation. From the responses it could be read out that reliable Toyota in the United States
signified a good quality, well-respected car, in Austria, a good, safe choice, positive car,
whereas in Finland a reliable, but not highly appreciated car. Like in the case of Coca-Cola,
although product related meanings lead, there are also a number of symbolic meanings.
Table 7. The Primary Meanings for Toyota per Country
Country Meaning 1 Meaning type Meaning 2 Meaning type Meaning 3 Meaning type
Austria Reliable Product related Not luxury Product related
Finland Reliable Product related Average Product related Not exciting Symbolic
India Comfort Product related Expensive Perceived price Class Symbolic
United States Reliable Product related High quality Perceived quality

CONCLUSION

The exposed results show that although submitted images differed greatly among countries,
the primary meanings captured from the interviews were more alike. More interestingly,
when it comes to the type of images they were rather symbolic in certain countries while in
others not, which was in line with the differences in the culture. On the other hand, when it
comes to types of meaning, in almost all the countries and across all the brands the first two
meanings were not symbolic, but functional, product related.
Several conclusions might be drawn. Firstly, in low context cultures individuals have
narrower, functionally-oriented associations with the brands. Secondly, in high context
cultures individuals have broader and situational or symbolic associations, but on the national
level those associations are not shared, and therefore again the most basic functional
associations dominate the collective national brand association. Thirdly, even the same
rational associations, might cause different emotional associations, as shown for the meaning
reliable for Toyota.
In light of the findings, practitioners are advised to become aware of the cultural specifics in
the target countries, so that their communication is better targeted on functional, symbolic or
experiential benefits, depending on the type of association most prevalent in a given culture.
Secondly, practitioners are advised to direct their creative energy in creating as many
experiences for their consumers and potential consumers, as possible, so that in turn
consumers can expand their brand associations’ networks and so become more related to the
brand and use it more often with great passion. Thirdly, in their marketing research
practitioners should focus on investigating not only rational, but also emotional associations
as those although more difficult to discover might be more influential in forming brand
attitude. Finally, they are advised to analyze the results of their marketing research in a more
analytic manner so that the responses be analyzed based on more criteria. This is because in
this research it was shown that when only images (representing the first association) are
analyzed they yield different results that when the whole answers are added to the analysis.
There were several limitations of this study. The study was adjusted to an online setting, so
some of the association elicitation techniques such as images grouping and mind mapping
could not have been conducted. Such techniques might have provided some additional
relevant data on brand meanings. Furthermore, interview transcripts interpretations are
heavily dependent on “personal history and cultural background” (Thompson, Pollio, and
Locander 1994), hence although the coding of the responses was done with maximum
diligence, validity of the procedure could have been increased by employing more than one
coder, as was the case, and preferably even from the four studied countries. Finally, data was
gathered qualitatively (with a lot of data on a small number of cases), while the reported
results are rather quantitative. This is not to say that the entirety of the data was not
evaluated, but because this is the early stage of the research, author is focused on identifying
the differences in meanings before including the complexity of qualitative data in the report.
To further strengthen the results repeating the study with more brands and in more cultures
would be useful. It would also be interesting to conduct the study in native languages of the
respondents and analyse whether it causes a difference in results. In addition, it might prove
beneficial to perform the coding of the responses of this research by a multicultural team.
Finally, more qualitative type of analysis will have to be performed in order to understand the
full scope of the differences in brand meanings among cultures.

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands. New York: The FreePress.
Aaker, David A., V. Kumar, and George S. Day (2001), Marketing Research (7th ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Berthon, Pierre, Leyland F. Pitt, and Colin Campbell (2008), “Does Brand Meaning Exist in
Similarity or Singularity?,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (3), 356-361.
Bjerke, Rune and Rosemary Polegato (2006), “How Well Do Advertising Images of Health
and Beauty Travel across Cultures? A Self-concept Perspective,” Psychology &
Marketing, 23 (10), 865-84.
Brannen Mary Yoko, Carolina Gómez, Mark F. Peterson, Laurence Romani, Lilach Sagiv
and Pei-Chuan Wu (2004), “People in Global Organizations: Culture, Personality, and
Social Dynamics,” in The Blackwell Handbook of Global Management, Henry W. Lane,
Martha L. Maznevski, Mark E. Mendenhall and Jeanne Mcnett, eds. Blackwell
Publishing, 26 - 54.
Brown, Stephen P., Robert V. Kozinets, John F. Sherry Jr. (2003), “Teaching Old Brands
New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning,” Journal of Marketing,
67 (3), 19-33.
Bulmer, Sandy and Margo Buchanan-Oliver (2006), “Advertising across Cultures:
Interpretations of Visually Complex Advertising,” Journal of Current Issues & Research
in Advertising, 28 (1), 57-71.
Costa, Janeen Arnold and Teresa M. Pavia (1992), “What it all adds up to: Culture and alpha-
numeric brand names,” Advances in Consumer Research, 19 (1), 39-45.
Coulter, Robin Higie and Gerald Zaltman (1994), “Using The Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation
Technique to Understand Brand Images” Advances in Consumer Research, 21 (1), 501-
07.
Coulter, Robin Higie, Gerald Zaltman, and Keith S. Coulter (2001), “Interpreting Consumer
Perceptions of Advertising: An Application of the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation
Technique,” Journal of Advertising, 30 (4), 1-21.
Davis, Teresa (2007), “Brand Meaning and Children: A Thematic Categorisation Task,”
Journal of Brand Management, 14 (3), 255-66.
Dilts, Rober and DeLozier Judith (2000), Encyclopedia of Systemic NLP and NLP New
Coding. Scotts Valley: NLP University Press.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989), “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 532-32.
Feldwick, Paul (2002), What is Brand Equity Anyway?. Oxfordshire, UK: World Advertising
Research Center.
Foscht, Thomas, Cesar Maloles III, Bernhard Swoboda, Dirk Morschett, and Indrajit Sinha
(2008), “The Impact of Culture on Brand Perceptions: A Six-nation Study,” Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 17 (3), 131-42.
Franzen, Giep and Margot Bouwman (2001), The Mental World of Brands: Mind, Memory
and Brand Success. Oxfordshire: World Advertising Research Center.
Hall, Edward T. (1989), Beyond culture [Reprint]. New York: Anchor Books.
Hampden-Turner, Charles M. and Fons Trompenaars (1996), “A World Turned Upside
Down: Doing Business in Asia,” in Managing Across Cultures: Issues and Perspectives,
Pat Joynt and Malcom Warner eds. London: International Thomson Business Press,
275–305.
Henderson, Pamela W., Joseph A. Cote, Siew Meng Leong, Bernd Schmitt (2003), “Building
Strong Brands in Asia: Selecting the Visual Components of Image to Maximize Brand
Strength,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20 (4), 297-313.
Hofstede, Geert (1991), Cultures and Organization: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-
Hill.
Hofstede, Geert (2001), Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, Robert, Paul Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter Dorfman and Vipin Gupta (2004),
Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand
Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Jun, Jong Woo and Hyung-Seok Lee (2007), “Cultural Differences in Brand Designs and
Tagline Appeals,” International Marketing Review, 24 (4), 474-91.
Kay, Mark J. (2006), “Strong Brands and Corporate Brands,” European Journal of
Marketing, 40 (7/8), 742-60.
Keller, Kevin L. (2003a), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 595-600.
Keller, Kevin L. (2003b), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing
Brand Equity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Khalid, Halimahtun M. and Martin G. Helander (2004), “A Framework for Affective
Customer Needs in Product Design,” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5 (1), 27-
42.
Kluckhohn, R. Florence and Fred L. Strodtbeck (1961), Culture: A Critical Review of
Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Leo, Cheryl, Rebekah Bennett, and Charmine E. J. Härtel (2005), “Cross-Cultural
Differences in Consumer Decision-Making Styles,” An International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 12 (13), 32-62.
Monga, Alokparna Basu and Deborah Roedder John (2007), “Cultural Differences in Brand
Extension Evaluation: The Influence of Analytic versus Holistic Thinking,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 33 (4) 529-36.
Moore, David J. and Pamela Miles Homer (2008), “Self-brand Connections: The Role of
Attitude Strength and Autobiographical Memory Primes,” Journal of Business Research,
61 (7), 707-14.
Morgan, Susan E. and Tom Reichert (1999), “The Message Is in the Metaphor: Assessing the
Comprehension of Metaphors in Advertisements,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 1-12.
Moriarty, Sandra E. and Thomas R. Duncan (1990), “Global Advertising: Issues and
Practices,” Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 13 (2), 313-13.
Nisbett, Richard E., Kaiping Peng, Incheol Choi, and Ara Norenzayan (2001), “Culture and
Systems of Thought: Holistic versus Analytic Cognition,” Psychological Review, 108 (2),
291-310.
Oakenfull, Gillian, Edward Blair, Betsy Gelb, and Peter Dacin (2000), “Measuring Brand
Meaning,” Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (5), 43-53.
Pankhania, Asha, Nick Lee, and Graham Hooley (2007), “Within-country Ethnic Differences
and Product Positioning: a Comparison of the Perceptions of Two British sub-cultures,”
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15 (2/3), 121-38.
Polegato, R. and R. Bjerke (2006), “The Link between Cross-Cultural Value Associations
and Liking: The case of Benetton and its advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research,
46 (3), 263-73.
Romani, Laurence (2004), “Culture in Management: the Measurement of Differences” in
International Human Resource Management, Anne-Wil Harzing and Ruysseveldt, Eds. 2
ed. London: Sage Publications.
Schein, Edgar H. (1988), Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1999), “A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for
Work,” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48 (1), 23-47.
Thompson, Craig J., Howard R Pollio, and William B. Locander (1994), “The Spoken and
the Unspoken: A Hermeneutic Approach to Understanding the Cultural Viewpoints That
Underlie Consumers' Expressed Meanings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 432-
52.
Trompenaars, Fons (1994), Riding the Waves of Culture. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Verhage, Bronislaw J., Ugur Yavas, and Robert T. Green (1990), “Perceived Risk: A Cross-
cultural Phenomenon,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 7 (4), 297-303.
Yin, K. Robert Ed. (1998), The Abridged Version of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.