Download Development of archetypes of international marketing

Journal of International Business Studies (2006) 37, 499–524
& 2006 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506 $30.00
www.jibs.net
Development of archetypes of international
marketing strategy
Lewis KS Lim1,2, Frank Acito1
and Alexander Rusetski1,3
1
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana, USA; 2Nanyang Business
School, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore; 3School of Administrative Studies,
York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence: Lewis Lim, Division of
Marketing and International Business,
Nanyang Business School, Nanyang
Technological University, S3-B2C-95
Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 679798,
Singapore.
Tel: þ 65 6790 4095;
Fax: þ 65 6791 3697;
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The extant business literature contains three separate characterizations of
international marketing strategy: standardization–adaptation, concentration–
dispersion, and integration–independence. These characterizations have, for
decades, informed researchers, students, and practitioners alike of the strategic
options a multinational firm might have in formulating its cross-border
marketing approaches. Although useful, these characterizations have yet to
be unified within an integrative classification scheme that considers the gestalt
combinatorial patterns along multiple strategy dimensions. Toward creating
such a classification scheme, this paper proposes a holistic conceptualization of
international marketing strategy grounded in configurational theory, whereby
strategies are viewed as multidimensional archetypes. We present evidence of
three distinct international marketing strategy archetypes obtained through an
exploratory case coding/clustering study. After discussing the characteristics,
possible drivers, and contingent performance potentials of these archetypes,
we offer directions for future research.
Journal of International Business Studies (2006), 37, 499–524.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400206
Keywords: international marketing; global marketing; standardization vs adaptation;
configurations; case survey methodology; cluster analysis
Introduction
Classification is especially important to the study of organizational strategies;
strategies consist of the integration of many dimensions which, in turn, can be
configured in seemingly endless combinations. Without a classification
scheme, the strategy researcher must deal individually with the many variables
of interesty and must generally assume that all combinations are possible. A
strategy classification scheme helps bring order to an incredibly cluttered
conceptual landscape.
(Hambrick, 1984, 27–28)
Received: 25 November 2003
Revised: 14 October 2005
Accepted: 2 November 2005
Online publication date: 25 May 2006
For the past four decades, business scholars have sought to
characterize and classify the international marketing strategies of
multinational firms (Buzzell, 1968; Keegan, 1969; Hovell and
Walters, 1972; Özsomer and Prussia, 2000). Of ultimate concern
among these scholars is the performance potential associated with
any type of international marketing strategy. A more fundamental
goal of classifying these strategies, though, is simply to help
researchers, students, and practitioners in the field understand the
different strategic options a multinational firm might have in
structuring its marketing approaches across country markets.
For the most part, the literature has characterized international
marketing strategy from one of three perspectives (Zou and
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
500
Cavusgil, 2002). The most common characterization of international marketing strategy is along the
standardization–adaptation dimension (e.g., Jain,
1989). From this perspective, international marketing strategies are differentiated according to the
degree of standardization (vs adaptation) pursued
with respect to one or more of the marketing mix
elements (e.g., product, price, promotion). Thus, a
standardization strategy is characterized by the
application of uniform marketing mix elements
(i.e., product design, pricing, distribution, etc.)
across different national markets. Conversely, an
adaptation strategy is characterized by the tailoring
of marketing mix elements to the needs of each
market.
A second way of characterizing international
marketing strategy stems from the concentration–
dispersion perspective (e.g., Roth, 1992). This perspective, rooted in Porter’s (1986) analysis of
international competition and most recently
reflected in Craig and Douglas’s (2000) theory of
configural advantage, is concerned more with the
geographic design of the international marketing
organization. The underlying premise of this perspective is that a multinational firm should seek an
optimal geographic spread of its value-chain activities such that synergies and comparative advantages across different locations can be maximally
exploited. International marketing strategies, then,
are differentiated according to the extent to which
one or more aspects of the marketing value chain
are consolidated or ‘concentrated’ at particular
geographic locations, vs being scattered or ‘dispersed’ across various country markets.
A third characterization of international marketing strategy is concerned with how competitive
marketing activities across country markets are
orchestrated. This perspective, referred to here as
the integration–independence perspective, is heavily
influenced by the competitive ‘warfare’ description
of Hamel and Prahalad (1985). The key question
here is whether a multinational firm treats its
subsidiary units as standalone profit centers (i.e.,
independently), or as parts of a grander strategic
design (i.e., as integrated units). Accordingly, international marketing strategies should be differentiated according to the degree of consultation and
integrated action across markets, and the willingness to which a performance outcome in any
one market is sacrificed in order to support the
competitive campaigns in other markets.
Each of the above three major characterizations
captures an important facet of international mar-
Journal of International Business Studies
keting strategy. Specifically, as the standardization–
adaptation characterization is concerned with the
degree of harmonization of the marketing mix
elements, it captures the market offering aspect of
international marketing strategy. In comparison, as
the
concentration–dispersion
characterization
deals with the geographical design of the marketing
value chain, it captures the structural/organizational
aspect of international marketing strategy. Finally,
as the integration–independence characterization
concerns the planning, implementation, and control elements of competing in a global marketplace,
it captures the competitive process aspect of international marketing strategy. Together, these characterizations potentially provide rich descriptions of
the ways in which a multinational firm can choose
to serve its customers, organize itself, and compete
in the international marketplace.
Unfortunately, the potential to richly describe
holistic patterns of international marketing strategies does not appear to be completely facilitated by
conceptual and methodological advances in the
field. Until very recently, scholars have relied on
unidimensional schemes to discuss international
marketing strategies, and/or have discussed them
from a single perspective. For example, Jain’s (1989)
treatment of the construct ‘marketing program
standardization’ seems to be a general unidimensional one, with complete standardization on one
end of the pole and complete adaptation on the
other.1 Likewise, Olusoga (1993) defines and measures ‘market concentration’ mostly in general
terms: that is, without distinction among varying
degrees of concentration for different value chain
activities. Consequently, one would suspect that
students and practitioners exposed to this literature
might be, at best, equipped to think of international marketing strategies in terms of simple
categorical labels such as ‘standardized’, ‘adapted’,
‘concentrated’, etc., without a deep understanding
of what they imply at a holistic level.
The recent effort by Zou and Cavusgil (2002) to
model the construct of international (global)
marketing strategy represents a significant step
toward a truly multidimensional approach to this
concept. Zou and Cavusgil (2002) propose a
second-order factor construct, termed the ‘GMS’,
which overarches eight first-order dimensions of
global marketing strategy spanning the three broad
characterizations.2 Thus any multinational firm’s
global marketing strategy, with given degrees of
standardization, concentration, and integration,
can be captured by a single GMS score. However,
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
501
such a second-order factor construct, while providing an aggregate measure of the degree of ‘globalness’ of a multinational’s marketing strategy, is not
modeled to take into account possible interactions
among the first-order strategy dimensions. Specifically, by virtue of its linear approach, it is not
designed to capture qualitatively distinct patterns of
strategy made up of different combinations of
strategy elements. This limitation is regrettable
because the various strategy elements are likely to
interact and combine themselves into multidimensional ‘gestalts’ (Miller, 1981, 1986; Meyer et al.,
1993).
All of the above problems point to the need for a
more intricate, yet robust, method for describing
and classifying international marketing strategies.
To that end, we present a holistic and unified
approach to viewing international marketing strategy, an approach that is grounded in the configurational theory of organizations (Miller, 1981,
1986, 1996; Meyer et al., 1993), and which sees
strategies as multidimensional archetypes. This
approach not only takes into account the different
ways in which any given international marketing
strategy can be characterized (i.e., in terms of
standardization–adaptation, concentration–dispersion, and integration–independence), but also considers the overall configurational pattern of the
strategy, in terms of its positions along the different
dimensions. Thus our approach offers significant
advantages over any single characterization of
international marketing strategy, or any single
aggregate score of the ‘globalness’ of marketing
strategy (Zou and Cavusgil, 2002).
To support our conceptualization, we report a
case coding/clustering study in which we utilized a
taxonomic procedure for uncovering several distinct archetypes of international marketing strategy. Although the results cannot be taken as
conclusive because of the exploratory nature of
our analysis, the presence of archetypes within a
limited sample provides preliminary evidence for
the efficacy and theoretic value of the configurational approach.
Our proposed approach makes three fundamental
contributions to the international marketing literature. First, our notion of strategy archetypes
arguably represents the first truly multidimensional
way of describing and classifying international
marketing strategies. By differentiating strategies
in terms of their relative proximities in multidimensional space, our approach provides a novel
integrative perspective on the various strategic
marketing options that can be or have been
pursued by multinational firms, and allows a more
meaningful comparative evaluation of international marketing strategies. Second, beyond identifying strategy archetypes per se, our approach
provides a starting point for inquiring into their
evolution as well as for a contingent analysis of
their performance potential. By virtue of the
multidimensionality in their configurational patterns, the archetypes contain rich information
about the marketing behaviors of multinational
firms and about factors that might contribute to
their effectiveness. This presents a valuable opportunity to consolidate our knowledge of international marketing and international strategy. Third,
our approach has pedagogic value. By demonstrating the presence of archetypes of international
marketing strategies and discussing their contingent performance potential, we bring forth an
important set of ideas and a useful framework for
future teaching of international marketing. Students and practitioners could then better appreciate
the multifaceted nature of international marketing
without having to rely on unidimensional labels or
dichotomies.
The next section of this paper reviews the field’s
past efforts in characterizing and classifying international marketing strategy, and reiterates the need
for a more robust approach to delineating strategies. We then introduce our proposed archetype
approach and highlight its foundations in configurational theory. Next, we illustrate the utility of
our approach by examining data from our case
coding study for the presence of archetypes. Based
on the findings, we explore the likely drivers of
archetypes and potential archetype performance
variations.
The study of international marketing
strategy: toward a unified multidimensional
characterization
The marketing literature has dealt with international advertising issues since at least the early
1960s (e.g., Elinder, 1961; Roostal, 1963; Fatt,
1964), but it was Buzzell (1968) who offered the
first systematic discussion of standardization as a
type of international marketing strategy. A standardization strategy was defined as the harmonization
of the various marketing mix elements (e.g.,
product design, pricing, distribution, etc.) across
different country markets. Conversely, a localization or adaptation strategy would be the adoption
of a unique marketing mix in each market. Buzzell
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
502
(1968) provided several reasons for favoring a
standardization policy, including cost savings, consistency in customer dealings, and the exploitation
of a universal appeal, and urged multinational
executives to consider moving away from the
then-prevalent adaptation policy.
Following Buzzell (1968), the international marketing literature continued to debate the merits of a
standardization strategy. Perhaps the most notable
proponent of standardization was Levitt (1983),
who argued that diminishing cultural differences
across countries due to technological advancements necessitate a global (standardized) strategy
that best captures worldwide economies of scale.
Other supporters of this view included Rutenberg
(1982), Henzler and Rall (1986), Jain (1989), and
Zou et al. (1997), who provided various arguments
revolving around scale advantage and consistency
in marketing planning and actions. On the other
side of the debate were scholars such as Boddewyn
et al. (1986), Kotler (1986), Douglas and Wind
(1987), Ohmae (1989), and Sheth (1986), who
variously pointed out the barriers to worldwide
marketing standardization, including governmental and trade restrictions, inter-country differences
in marketing infrastructure, and local management
resistance.
The debate between standardization and adaptation remained largely unresolved through the
1990s (see Theodosiou and Leonidou, 2003). More
significantly, perhaps because of the intensity and
prominence of the debate, the literature in the
1980s and 1990s began to treat standardization and
adaptation as fixed alternative options in international marketing strategy. The titles of several
articles published during this period (e.g., Samiee
and Roth, 1992; Szymanski et al., 1993; Solberg,
2000) suggested that the academic community had
come to accept the concept of international
marketing strategy itself as falling along a single
continuum of standardization vs adaptation. Moreover, several scholars had begun using unidimensional scales to measure variations of international
marketing strategies. For example, in a follow-up
empirical study to Jain (1989), Samiee and Roth
(1992) used a single index to measure global
marketing standardization.
Yet a careful reading of the literature reveals that
the state of knowledge was also evolving toward a
multidimensional view of international marketing
strategy. As early as 1969, Keegan (1969) proposed
looking at the issue of standardization vs adaptation from both the product and promotion points
Journal of International Business Studies
of view. He described four qualitatively different
strategies, which could arise from crossing the
product-standardization-versus-adaptation dimension with the promotion-standardization-versusadaptation dimension. In addition to these four
types of strategy, Hovell and Walters (1972) suggested including variations in terms of the other
marketing mix elements, such as distribution and
personal selling approaches. In the empirical realm,
Sorenson and Wiechmann (1975) found that multinational firms vary their marketing approaches
across different country markets along as many as
12 dimensions. Finally, Quelch and Hoff (1986)
discussed partial vs full standardization as well as
partial vs full adaptation along more than 20
dimensions of business functions, products, marketing mix elements, and countries.
Notwithstanding the momentum toward a multidimensional approach to describing and capturing
international marketing strategies, the preponderance of studies until at least the mid-1980s had
really focused only on the market offering aspect
(i.e., the marketing mix) of international marketing
strategy. However, two streams of research were to
emerge to give rise to two additional strategy
characterizations – description schemes based on
the structural/organizational and on the competitive process aspects of international marketing.
As identified by Zou and Cavusgil (2002), the
concentration–dispersion characterization of international marketing strategy can be traced to
Porter’s (1986) ‘design’ framework. The focus of
analysis is on the structuring of value-chain
activities (e.g., R&D/product development, aftersale service, logistics and distribution) across international locations. The measurement scale implied
by this perspective is in terms of geographic
‘concentration’ vs ‘dispersion’ of each of the
value-chain functions (Roth et al., 1991; Roth,
1992). Porter (1986) argued that multinational
firms should seek an optimal value-chain ‘configuration’ such that scale and national comparative
advantages are exploited, while balancing responsiveness to local needs. More specific to the
marketing area, Craig and Douglas (2000) explicated how the spatial configuration of marketing
value-chain activities, made up of differential
concentration–dispersion levels, could influence
the tightness of the operational interlinkages across
markets and the development of border-spanning
learning and market-sensing capabilities. These
outcomes in turn determine the ‘configural’ advantage of the firm.
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
503
The other emerging characterization, the integration–independence characterization, is grounded
in the competitive ‘warfare’ description of Hamel
and Prahalad (1985). This perspective is concerned
with the extent to which a multinational firm
orchestrates its competitive moves on an international basis and leverages its competitive position
in one market to achieve an advantage in other
markets (e.g., by cross-subsidizing its competitive
campaigns across different countries). In other
words, the key issue here is whether a multinational
firm treats its subsidiaries as independent profit
centers or as an integrated group of business units.
Hamel and Prahalad (1985) illustrate the latter
behavior with an example about Goodyear retaliating against Michelin’s incursion into the US tire
market by launching an attack in Michelin’s home
base, Europe, thereby tying up Michelin’s resources
and restraining its ability to compete. Such actions
require close coordination among different country
offices and compromises in country-level profitability. This perspective therefore implies that
international marketing strategy should be measured in terms of the degree of integration in
competitive moves and decision-making, the integration of competitive response, and cross-unit
communication and mutual consultation (Hout
et al., 1982; Yip, 1989).
Noting the diverse (three-fold) conceptualizations of international marketing strategy, Zou and
Cavusgil (2002) made the first important attempt at
the turn of the century to unify the concept and
develop a measure that reflects its multidimensional nature. They conceived of a second-order
factor, labeled the ‘GMS’ (acronym for global
marketing strategy), that incorporated eight firstorder strategy sub-dimensions spanning standardization–adaptation, concentration–dispersion, and
integration–independence (one of the dimensions,
standardized price, was dropped during their
empirical analysis). With the GMS construct, they
made it possible to capture the overall ‘globalness’
of a firm’s international marketing strategy using a
single score. The limitation of the GMS model,
however, is that it is not able to detect the
dominant combinatorial patterns in the data,
patterns that would reveal the true multidimensional character of international marketing strategies. Furthermore, to use the GMS score alone to
account for variations in multinational firm performance may prove causally ambiguous, as several
qualitatively distinct patterns of strategy could
technically share the same GMS score. For example,
Table 1 shows two somewhat distinct patterns of
international marketing strategy, represented by
variations along the first-order dimensions of the
GMS model. Using the factor loadings reported in
Zou and Cavusgil (2002) as weights, the overall
GMS scores computed for the two strategies turn
out to be exactly equal.
In summary, although the literature has begun to
acknowledge the need to integrate and unify the
various characterizations of international marketing strategy in order to derive a rich description and
classification scheme, existing conceptual and
methodological advances have yet to completely
facilitate this endeavor. In particular, progress has
yet to be made far beyond the use of unidimensional labels such as ‘standardized’, ‘adapted’, and
‘concentrated’, or the use of aggregate scores of
globalness, to describe international marketing
strategies. The field is still in need of a more
sophisticated and robust method for delineating
patterns and types of strategy.
Strategy archetypes: a configurational
approach
The configurational theory of organizations (Miller,
1981, 1986; Meyer et al., 1993) supplies the primary
basis for conceptualizing our proposed holistic
approach to viewing international marketing strategy. Configurational theory holds that organizational effectiveness arises out of superior
combinations of strategic and structural characteristics (Miller and Mintzberg, 1983; Doty et al., 1993;
Ketchen et al., 1997). In keeping with the configurational perspective, our approach is grounded in
the premise that any concept of strategy is inherently multidimensional, and that various elements
of strategy can interact or combine differently in
multidimensional space. As Miller (1986, 235–236)
aptly puts it in his well-noted piece:
The elements of strategy, structure, and environment often
coalesce or configure into a manageable number of
common, predictively useful types that describe a large
proportion of high-performing organizations. The configurations (or ‘gestalts’, or ‘archetypes’, or ‘generic types’) are
said to be predictively useful in that they are composed of
tight constellations of mutually supportive elements.
Applied to the present context, it is the different
‘constellations’, or configurations, of strategy elements that make up a ‘universe’ of international
marketing strategies. Thus, to richly describe international marketing strategies, one must look
beyond single strategy dimensions for modal
combinatorial patterns across multiple dimensions.
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
504
Table 1
Example of two combinations of strategy ratings sharing the same GMS score
Strategy dimension
GMS1: product standardization
GMS2: promotion standardization
GMS3: standardized channel design
GMS4: concentration of marketing activities
GMS5: coordination of marketing activities
GMS6: global market participation
GMS7: integration of competitive moves
Total GMS score
Firm 1a
Firm 2a
3.86
2.10
0.29
0.78
1.65
2.32
1.29
6.82
0.35
2.14
1.64
0.64
5.32
1.86
2.63
6.82
a
Factor scores for strategy dimensions and for the GMS were obtained by multiplying standardized factor loadings reported in Zou and Cavusgil (2002)
by corresponding standardized item scores from their original data set and summing up resulting products.
When patterns are distinctive and exemplary, they
can be called the archetypes of strategy. When
discovered, such archetypes may be represented
using graphical snake-like line profiles that chart
different degrees of standardization, concentration,
and integration among themselves. However,
unlike the line profiles used by Wind (1986) and
Douglas and Wind (1987) to illustrate variations of
international marketing strategy, the archetypes
conceived here are not arbitrary line drawings or
stylized prototypes. There is an implied assertion
that archetypes are theoretically meaningful strategic forms that are at least viable and potentially
high-performing, if not approaching the ‘ideal’
types assumed by Doty et al. (1993) in their study
of configurations.
Miller (1981, 1986) offers three theoretical reasons for believing that only a few configurational
combinations would dominate any given strategy
domain. First, from a population ecology perspective (e.g., Hannan and Freeman, 1977), the environment tends to select out unviable, unsustainable,
or otherwise uncompetitive strategies, thereby
Journal of International Business Studies
leaving a limited number of superior strategic
options. Second, borrowing from ‘gestalt’ principles
(e.g., Kelly, 1955), organizations themselves tend to
be drawn toward configurations of strategy elements that are internally harmonious and mutually
reinforcing. Presumably, this could occur either as a
result of the organization’s own strategic choice
(Child, 1972) or through industry mimetic actions
and normative pressures (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983), Third, as suggested by studies of organizational evolution (e.g., Miller and Friesen, 1984),
organizational change often occurs either in small
incremental steps or in ‘quantum leaps’, implying
that many hybrid forms are often avoided or left
unexplored. Consequently, even as the study of
strategy moves onto a more complex, multidimensional plane, researchers need to deal with only a
limited number of strategy configurations out of
numerous technically possible combinations.
Implementing the configurational approach to
the study of international marketing strategy
would involve three major steps. First, the specific
dimensions that collectively define the concept of
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
505
international marketing strategy should be identified. This is in line with the recommendation of
Ketchen et al. (1993), who find that configurations
derived from theory-based dimensions have greater
predictive validity. As the literature accepts three
treatments of strategy – standardization–adaptation
(capturing the market offering aspect), concentration–dispersion (capturing the structural/organizational aspect), and integration–independence
(capturing the competitive process aspect) – these
three broad groups of dimensions should be used
concurrently to identify international marketing
strategy archetypes. Second, a procedure for selecting a suitable sample of international marketing
strategies, to objectively quantify these strategies in
terms of the three sets of dimensions, and to
statistically detect and delineate combinatorial
patterns within the sample, should be performed.
To demonstrate this procedure, we describe below a
structured case coding/clustering methodology
used for uncovering strategy archetypes. Third,
the derived archetypes should be meaningfully
interpreted and analyzed for possible drivers and
contingent performance factors. To that end, we
examine the background characteristics of our
uncovered archetypes and look to the broader
international business literature to make predictions about their relative performance.
It should be noted that the approach outlined
above is closer to the taxonomic approach espoused
by McKelvey (1975) and Hambrick (1984), and used
by Miller and Friesen (1977, 1978, 1980), Woo and
Cooper (1981), and Hambrick and Schecter (1983)
to empirically uncover configurational archetypes
of organizational design or strategy. A taxonomic
approach is appropriate when extant theory does
not yet permit an a priori identification of superior
strategy configurations (Meyer et al., 1993). However, in more mature domains, where typologies of
effective configurations have already been developed (e.g., the typology of Miles and Snow, 1978),
researchers have been able to employ a typological or
‘ideal profile’ approach to test hypotheses about
certain configurational ideal-types (e.g., Gresov,
1989; Doty et al., 1993; Vorhies and Morgan,
2003). Those hypotheses are concerned mostly
with the effect of ‘fit’ among elements of strategy
(measured in terms of deviation from ideal profiles)
on firm performance. Related to fit is the issue of
equifinality among configurations: that is, whether
different configurations achieving varying forms of
fit can be equally effective (Gresov and Drazin,
1997). In this paper, we primarily pursue a
taxonomic approach to develop international marketing strategy archetypes. Our subsequent exploration of contingent performance issues will,
however, leave scope for the future use of the
typological approach.
Most importantly, our proposed approach serves
to address current limitations in the characterization of international marketing strategy. First, our
approach represents a significant advancement
from the traditional unidimensional way of classifying strategies based on any of the standardization–adaptation,
concentration–dispersion,
or
integration–independence perspectives alone. The
archetypes conceived here are multidimensional in
nature, and they encompass strategy elements from
all three perspectives. Second, our approach differs
from Zou and Cavusgil’s (2002) second-order factor
model in that it permits the identification of gestalt
patterns resulting from different combinations of
strategy dimensions, as opposed to a single aggregate measure of strategy ‘globalness’. Overall, our
approach facilitates a more profound understanding of international marketing strategy in terms of
holistic combinatorial patterns.
Evidence of archetypes: an exploratory case
coding/clustering study
To demonstrate the utility of our proposed configurational approach, we undertook an exploratory
case coding/clustering study, which, we believe,
was the first of its kind in international marketing.
Our study consisted of two phases. Phase I involved
a ‘case survey’ methodology (Larsson, 1993), also
known as the ‘structured case content analysis’
method (Jauch et al., 1980), to quantify the
international marketing strategies of firms featured
in a sample of published cases. We believe that
published cases are a useful source of data for our
research. Even though these cases are written
mostly for teaching purposes, they contain factual
and detailed information about the practices and
strategic designs of actual firms. Such information,
having been gathered through tedious fieldwork, is
extremely rich and not easily extracted through
quantitative surveys. Moreover, case writers normally rely on multiple key informants and archival
records to construct the cases (Jauch et al., 1980).
Much of the information contained in the cases
would have been cross-validated to the extent
possible (for prescriptions of case-writing practices,
see Corey, 1998; Roberts, 2001). Compared with
using other forms of secondary data, such as annual
reports, the use of cases also affords the advantage
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
506
of enabling measures of process variables, that is,
variables dealing with the processes of strategy
formulation and implementation. Such processes
often are not publicly observable but are central to
at least one dimension of international marketing
strategy (the integration–independence dimension). Finally, with cases, unlike with survey
respondents, the data source (i.e., the case documents themselves) resides permanently in our
premises. It is always possible to return to the
source for clarification of item ratings and/or for
exploration of additional items.
To overcome the problem of comparability across
cases due to different units of analysis and different
case types, we select only cases that describe, in a
reasonably detailed manner, the actual international marketing strategies of firms at the business
unit level at any given point in time. More
precisely, each case should:
(1) be concerned with the strategic marketing issues
of a firm operating in an international environment;
(2) relate to an identifiable business unit for which
a single, distinct marketing strategy is formulated and executed;
(3) report the key aspects of the firm’s overall
international marketing strategy (as opposed
to being focused on a particular international
marketing event or decision, or a particular
country strategy); and
(4) describe an actual, rather than a planned,
international marketing strategy that has been
in implementation for a reasonable period of
time.
In accordance with these principles, we developed a
case qualification checklist (see Appendix A) and
stringently applied the criteria to our selection of
cases. Furthermore, for each case selected for
coding, we clearly specified the level of analysis at
which the coder should interpret the international
marketing strategy of the featured firm (e.g.,
company, product division, or brand level corresponding to a strategic business unit), as well as the
geographic scope of the firm’s international marketing strategy (e.g., worldwide or regional).
Our case selection process thus generated a
sample of exemplars of international marketing
strategies that existed at some point in time. To
the extent that companies chosen to be featured in
published cases are usually notable industry players
with a certain level of financial stability and
solvency, it can be argued that they are at least
Journal of International Business Studies
moderately successful adapters in population ecology terms (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Consequently, taxonomic archetypes found among these
companies would represent viable strategic forms.
(This does not imply, however, that any of these
archetypes is maximally effective. Archetype performance potential has to be examined in relation
to contingent fit, a subject we shall address later in
this paper.)
The process of translating the qualitative descriptions in the case into quantitative measures was
facilitated by a detailed coding scheme. Appendix B
shows the coding scheme that was used for
measuring the international marketing strategies
featured in our sample of cases. The coding scheme
contained 16 scale items: seven measuring the
standardization–adaptation dimensions, five measuring the concentration–dispersion dimensions,
and four measuring the integration–independence
dimensions of the featured firm’s international
marketing strategy. Each scale item was an 11-point
bipolar scale with extreme descriptors at both
ends.3 To ensure that the coders fully understood
the meanings of the coding dimensions, we also
provided the coders with detailed definition cards
for all of the coding scheme scale items and an
instruction booklet that they could refer to as they
undertook the coding task. Besides rating the scale
items, a coder attending to a given case was
required to reference particular sections of the case
that contained information supporting his/her
ratings. In undertaking the assignment of numerical values along various dimensions based on case
narratives, the coder effectively replaced the role of
the key informant (as in a typical survey) on behalf
of the featured firm.
We recruited and trained two successive groups of
student assistants to serve as coders in our project.
All coders were provided with a detailed instruction
sheet, thoroughly briefed on the project requirements, and taken through several practice examples
of item-coding procedures before being put on an
independent trial. After successfully completing the
trial and being debriefed on particular procedural
issues and techniques, the coders began a semesterlong coding job. Each week, the coders were
assigned specific cases taken from our case pool.
Every case was coded by two coders, who subsequently met to compare their item ratings and
resolve any discrepancies. We defined a discrepancy
as a difference of more than two points on an
11-point scale between the two coders’ ratings.
Whenever there was a discrepancy, the coders
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
507
concerned had to discuss their respective reasons
for the rating given, come to an agreement
regarding the source of the difference (which was
usually due to differences in the interpretation of
the text), and then voluntarily adjust their ratings
to within a two-point difference. Only in rare
instances were the coders unable to successfully
resolve a discrepant item. In those rare instances,
we stepped in and arbitrated the differences by
recoding the items ourselves.
The above steps executed over an 8-month period
resulted in a coded case sample of about 80 cases.
Many cases inevitably contained some items that
could not be coded because of incomplete information in the case text. To reduce the number of
missing values in our data set, we removed cases
that did not have at least 10 out of the 16 items
coded. The resultant sample came to 51 cases. With
this final sample, we executed Phase II of our
taxonomic procedure.
Phase II of our procedure involved the preparation and analysis of our data set. To prepare our
data set for analysis, we first removed five items for
which ratings were not given in more than 30% of
the cases. For the remaining 11 items, we then
imputed all missing values with their respective
item means. We believed these two steps collectively helped us maintain the integrity of our data
(by focusing only on commonly rated items with
fewer missing values) while preserving our sample
size (by not having to perform listwise or pairwise
deletion).4
To statistically uncover archetypes of international marketing strategy from our data set, we
utilized cluster analysis because of the technique’s
‘unparalleled ability to classify a large number of
observations along multiple variables’ (Ketchen
and Shook, 1996, 453). Following Punj and Stewart’s (1983) recommendation, we applied a twostage procedure to cluster-analyze all 51 cases in the
data set along the 11 remaining dimensions. In the
first stage, the sample was subjected to hierarchical
clustering via Ward’s method, which generally
produces clusters whose centroids differ maximally
based on minimum within-cluster variance. At this
point, we relied on multiple criteria as suggested by
Milligan and Cooper (1985) and Ketchen and
Shook (1996) to determine the appropriate number
of clusters in our data set. Based on an inspection of
the dendrogram (see Figure 1) and an evaluation of
the pseudo-F, the cubic clustering criterion (CCC),
and the agglomeration distance-change statistics
(see Table 2), either a two- or a three-cluster
Figure 1 Dendrogram from hierarchical clustering procedure
via Ward’s method.
solution seemed acceptable. For example, from
the dendrogram, we noted three relatively dense
branches, indicating the presence of three ‘natural’
clusters (Ketchen and Shook, 1996). On the other
hand, the statistics favored a two-cluster solution,
with peak values of the pseudo-F, the CCC, and the
agglomeration distance-change found at two
(followed by three) clusters. In deciding between a
two- and a three-cluster solution, we therefore
considered the interpretability and meaningfulness
of each solution (Hair et al., 1998). A two-cluster
solution gave very little information, distinguishing clusters as merely high or low along all
dimensions. Such a pattern also implied a high
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
508
Table 2 Pseudo-F, cubic clustering criterion (CCC), and agglomeration distance-change statistics for possible cluster solutions
Statistic
Number of clusters
2
Pseudo-F
CCC
Agglomeration
distance-changea
14.49
5.003
644.48
3
4
5
10.33
8.67
8.11
3.061
2.066
1.953
280.00 201.18 168.92
a
Each column refers to the number of clusters prior to the change.
Explanatory notes on the statistics:
The pseudo-F statistic is intended to capture the ‘tightness’ of clusters,
and is in essence a ratio of the mean sum of squares between groups to
the mean sum of squares within group (Lattin et al., 2003: 291). The
value reported is obtained from SAS PROC FASTCLUS and is calculated as
ðT PG Þ=ðG 1Þ
PG =ðn GÞ
where G is the number of clusters, T is the total sum of squares, and PG is
the within-group sum of squares. Larger numbers of the pseudo-F usually
indicate a better clustering solution.
The Cubic Clustering Criterion (CCC) was developed by SAS (Sarle,
1983) as a comparative measure of the deviation of the clusters from the
distribution expected if data points were obtained from a uniform
distribution. The criterion is calculated as
1 EðR2 Þ
CCC ¼ ln
K
1 R2
2
2
2
where E(R ) is the expected R , R is the observed R2, and K is the
variance-stabilizing transformation (see Sarle, 1983). Larger positive
values of the CCC indicate a better solution, as it shows a larger
difference from a uniform (no clusters) distribution. However, the CCC
may be incorrect if clustering variables are highly correlated.
The agglomeration distance refers to the distance between clusters being
merged in each step. A larger distance indicates highly dissimilar clusters
being joined, suggesting that not joining them will preserve the natural
structure of the data. As distance-always grows, it is convenient to
compare the incremental distance-changes, with a large change
indicating that an appropriate solution has been found at the number
of clusters prior to the change (Ketchen and Shook, 1996: 446).
Pseudo-F ¼
correlation among all clustering variables, which
we knew was not true. In contrast, a three-cluster
solution appeared to offer richer insights into the
possible ways various dimensions of international
marketing strategy could be combined, thereby
illuminating subtler configurational patterns.5 For
these reasons, we chose a three-cluster solution.
Next, in the second stage of the clustering procedure, the centroid values from the hierarchical
clusters were used as seeds in an iterative K-means
algorithm to recluster the observations into exactly
three clusters. This was to ensure reliable cluster
groupings (Punj and Stewart, 1983; Ketchen and
Shook, 1996). The final group assignments and
centroid values are shown in Table 3.
The three clusters now represent three international marketing strategy archetypes. To interpret
the clusters, we rely on plots of the centroid values
Journal of International Business Studies
(see Figure 2). We complement our analysis of these
plots with what we call ‘pseudo-t’ statistics (see also
Table 3), each calculated as the absolute value of the
ratio of the difference between each pair of centroid
values along each dimension to the estimated
standard error of this difference (cf. Lattin et al.,
2003). Larger values of the pseudo-t indicate larger
differences in centroid values with tighter distributions.6
Archetype A
This archetype follows a comparatively more
standardized market offering policy. Companies
grouped under this archetype display, on average,
higher degrees of standardization in product
design, advertising theme, and pricing as compared
with the other archetypes (tX2.584). On the
dimensions of brand name and sales promotion
tactics, this archetype is also arguably more standardized than at least one other archetype
(tX3.346). Only on the dimension of channel
design is this archetype not evidently the most
standardized (average item rating: 5.8). However,
this archetype adopts a more concentrated marketing value chain design, in terms of its product
design and development (tX2.349) and advertising
and promotional planning functions (tX3.716). Its
logistics and distribution planning function is also
more concentrated than that of at least one other
archetype (t¼4.391). Moreover, this archetype
appears to be more integrated in its competitive
process in terms of competitive decision-making
(tX4.655). On the dimension of communication
and mutual consultation across country units, this
archetype is evidently more integrated than one
other archetype (t¼3.294). In view of its greater
degree of standardization, concentration, and integration, we label this archetype the Global Marketers. The case that is most representative of this
archetype, based on the least sum of squared
deviations from the cluster centroid, is Godiva
Europe (Lambin, 2004), a producer of premium
chocolates. At the time of writing, Godiva’s international marketing strategy typified what many
scholars would regard as a global or near-global
strategy. The following quotes from the case
illustrate the relatively more standardized market
offering policy, especially in the areas of product
design and advertising theme (average item ratings
of 8.5 and 8.0, respectively):
The Godiva facility in Belgium produces chocolates for the
entire world, with the exception of the United States.
Products exported from Belgium are identical for all
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
509
Different
brand name
in each market
Same
brand name
in each market
Product
designed for
each market
Same product
in each
market
Localized ad
theme for
each market
Same advertising
in each
market
Different mix of
promotion tools
in each market
Same sales
promotion tools
in each market
Channel structure
unique in
each market
Same channel
structure in
each market
Prices set
according to situation
in each market
Same price
position
in each market
Each country
responsible for product
design and development
Product design
and development
in a single location
Each country
responsible for logistics
and distribution
Distribution and
logistics consolidated
at a single location
Each country
responsible for advertising
and promotion
Advertising and promotion
planning consolidated
at a single location
Each country
formulates
own marketing plan
Marketing planning
tightly coordinated
across all markets
Country managers
do not share
information
Country managers
frequently share
information
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Infrastructure minimalists
Tactical Coordinators
Global Marketers
Figure 2
Centroid values of three archetypes derived from case coding/clustering procedure.
countries, but sales by item are differenty Today, the US
factory still produces a slightly different and more limited
assortment of chocolate pralines. These differences will
progressively vanish, and the trend is toward similar
production (p. 332).
Today, Godiva does not need to make itself known on the
international level: Its brand name is already globally
recognized. Its current concern, in line with the policy that
has been pursued for the past several months, is to create a
common advertising message for the entire world (p. 336).
Similarly, the quotes below illustrate the relative
high geographical concentration of Godiva’s marketing value chain, notably the product design/
development and the distribution/logistics planning functions (average items ratings of 8.5 and 7.5,
respectively):
The Belgian consumer is the reference point: ‘Shouldn’t a
product that has passed the test of the Belgian consumer, a
fine connoisseur of chocolate and a demanding customer,
be assured of success throughout the world?’ (p. 332).
Over the course of the past year van der Veken [President of
Godiva Europe, based in Brussels] had completely restructured the company. He started by firing the marketing and
sales staff and then changed the retail distribution network by
removing Godiva’s representation from numerous stores. He
then completely rethought the decoration and design of the
remaining stores, and established precise rules of organization
and functioning applicable to those stores (p. 336).
Events described in the case also suggest a tight
worldwide (triadic) coordination in Godiva’s marketing planning and competitive decision-making
process (average item rating: 8.0).
Journal of International Business Studies
510
Cluster assignments and centroid values
Case
Publisher/source
Case number
Cluster 1: archetype A
Barco
HBS
9-591-133
Benetton
HBS
9-396-177
Daewoo
HBS
9-598-065
Dunhill Holdings
Cranfield Univ.
588-002-1
Godiva Europe
Kerin and Peterson (2004)
—
Henkel
HBS
9-585-185
Loctite
HBS
9-594-021
Murphy Brewery
UCC
597-029-1
Jurassic Park
HBS
9-596-014
P&G Europe
HBS
300-085-1
Jain (2001)
Cardiff Business School
ICFAI
HBS
HBS
IMD
Ivey
HBS
MI
ICFAI
Stanford
HBS
Cluster 2: archetype B
Bausch & Lomb
HBS
Ben & Jerry’s
Ivey
Citibank
HBS/Wharton
Dendrite
HBS
DHL
HBS
Fike
Jain (2001)
Gallo Rice
HBS
Haier
Hewlett-Packard
Ikea
L’Oréal
ICFAI
HBS
ICFAI
CEMS
Mary Kay
Nando’s
HBS
WBS
20
594-006-1
503-055-1
9-504-025
9-804-001
IMD-5-0488
9B00A019
9-599-127
396-160-1
304-138-1
SM-121A
9-503-050
9-594-056
9A99A037
9-395-142
9-594-048
9-593-011
19
9-593-018
304-264-1
9-501-053
303-112-1
501-011-1
501-012-1
9-594-023
WBS-1999-4
Strategy level
Geographic
scope
Time period
Professional equipment
Fashion apparel
Diversified
Fashion and tobacco
Chocolates
Diversified
Adhesives and sealants
Breweries
Entertainment
Consumer packaged
goods
Automobiles
Perfumes
Electronics
Airlines
Sewing machines
Electronics
Breweries
Grocery retailing
Industrial sealing devices
General retailing
Web-based communications
Fashion apparel
Projection Systems Division
Corporation
Automobile business
Corporation
Corporation
Adhesives Group
Corporation
Murphy brands
Licensing business
Ariel Ultra brand
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Europe
Late 1980s
Early 1990s
Late 1990s
Late 1980s
Late 1980s
Early 1980s
Early 1990s
Late 1990s
Early 1990s
Late 1980s
Corporation
Rochas brand
Consumer electronics
Corporation
Corporation
Consumer electronics
Stella Artois brand
Disco supermarket chain
Corporation
Corporation
Web conferencing products
Apparel stores
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Europe
Worldwide
Latin America
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Early 1990s
Late 1980s
Early 2000s
Early 2000s
Early 1910s
Early 1990s
Late 1990s
Late 1990s
Early 1990s
Early 2000s
Early 2000s
Early 2000s
Eye care/lenses
Ice cream
Banking
Sales automation systems
Express delivery
Industrial control devices
Rice production and
marketing
Electric appliances
Computers
Furniture retailing
Beauty products
Corporation
Corporation
Corporation
Corporation
Corporation
Corporation
Gallo brand
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Early 1990s
Late 1990s
Early 1990s
Early 1990s
Early 1990s
Early 1990s
Early 1990s
Corporation
Home Products Division
Corporation
Elseve brand
Worldwide
Europe
Worldwide
Europe
Early 2000s
Late 1980s
Early 2000s
Late 1990s
Beauty products
Restaurants
Corporation
Corporation
Asia
Worldwide
Early 1990s
Late 1990s
Lewis KS Lim et al
PSA Peugeot Citröen
Rochas
Samsung
Singapore Airlines
Singer
Sony Europa
Stella Artois
Supermercados Disco
Utex
Wal-Mart
WebEx
Zara
Industry
International marketing strategy archetypes
Journal of International Business Studies
Table 3
Table 3 Continued
Publisher/source
Case number
Industry
Strategy level
Geographic
scope
Time period
R&A Bailey
Schering AG
Selkirk
UCD
BSE
Ivey
501-044-1
303-221-1
9A99M003
Wines and spirits
Specialty pharmaceuticals
Building materials
Bailey’s brand
Corporation
Bricks business
Worldwide
Worldwide
Asia
Late 1990s
Early 2000s
Late 1990s
Corporation
Corporation
Corporation
Advertising business
Corporation
Soy Sauce business
Microsoft Works program
Corporation
Culinary products
Corporation
Consumer brands division
Tesco chain
Corporation
Worldwide
Worldwide
Asia
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Worldwide
Early 1990s
Late 1990s
Early 1990s
Late 1990s
Late 1980s
Early 2000s
Late 1980s
Early 2000s
Early 1980s
Mid 1990s
Early 1990s
Early 2000s
Early 2000s
Cluster 3: archetype C
AXA
HBS
BRL Hardy
HBS
Carrefour
INSEAD
Euro RSCG
IMD
ICI Paints
IMD
Kikkoman
HBS
Microsoft
HBS
Montgras
HBS
Nestlé
HBS
Polygram Classics
HBS
Sargan plc
Cardiff Business School
Tesco
HBS
Toyota
ICFAI
Cluster 1 (archetype A)
n¼22
Centroid
Centroid
Std dev
Cluster 3 (Archetype C)
n¼13
Centroid
Std dev
‘Pseudo-t’ statistics for describing differences among
centroid values
A vs B
A vs C
B vs C
1.56
2.11
1.87
8.34
4.25
3.80
1.83
3.11
1.71
6.08
3.85
4.65
2.49
3.00
1.79
0.407
3.656
4.856
3.761
3.864
3.202
3.166
0.402
1.273
2.00
3.97
1.65
5.68
1.64
3.346
0.443
2.529
1.90
6.15
1.79
2.92
1.32
0.627
4.715
4.969
2.13
1.22
4.21
6.78
2.41
2.34
4.28
5.27
2.80
2.15
2.843
2.349
2.584
4.512
0.081
2.160
2.23
5.45
2.31
3.18
1.87
1.496
4.391
2.798
2.27
4.43
2.28
4.80
2.37
4.449
3.716
0.434
1.60
4.24
1.70
5.00
1.91
6.301
4.655
1.183
511
Journal of International Business Studies
Brand name standardization (ST_BRAND) 8.59
Product design standardization (ST_DESIGN)7.48
Advertising theme standardization
6.67
(ST_ADTHEME)
Sales promotion tactics standardization 5.96
(ST_PROMO)
Channel design standardization
5.79
(ST_CHANNEL)
Pricing standardization (ST_PRICING)
6.45
Product design and development
8.23
concentration (CONC_PDM)
Logistics and distribution planning
6.51
concentration (CONC_LOGDIST)
Advertising and promotional planning
7.79
concentration (CONC_A&P)
Competitive decision-making integration 7.79
(INT_DECISION)
Std dev
Cluster 2 (Archetype B)
n¼16
Lewis KS Lim et al
Dimension
9-793-094
Insurance
9-300-018
Wines and spirits
195-001-1 and 195-002-1 General retailing
IMD-5-0573
Marketing communications
GM-557
Paints
9-504-067
Foods manufacturing
9-588-028
Computer software
9-503-044
Wines and spirits
9-585-013
Foods manufacturing
9-598-074
Recorded music
594-047-1
Health care products
9-503-036
Retailing
304-100-1
Automobiles
International marketing strategy archetypes
Case
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
512
Archetype B
In contrast to the Global Marketers, this archetype
pursues a rather mixed standardization policy for
its market offering. While its brand name and
channel design elements are arguably more standardized (similar to the Global Marketers), its
advertising theme and sales promotion tactics are
relatively more localized as compared with at least
one other archetype (tX2.529). Along with Archetype C below, its product design and pricing
dimensions are also more localized than those of
the Global Marketers (tX2.843). Similarly, its
advertising and promotional planning function is
more geographically dispersed as compared with
the Global Marketers (t¼4.449). Nonetheless, its
product design/development and distribution/
logistics planning functions are moderately concentrated (average item ratings of 6.8 and 5.5,
respectively, in between the other two archetypes).
Compared with at least one other archetype, this
archetype is also apparently less integrated in its
competitive decision-making and communication
and mutual consultation (tX3.143). In view of its
selective approach of standardizing only the brand
name and channel design with corresponding
concentration of product design/development and
distribution/logistics functions, we label this archetype the Infrastructural Minimalists. Companies
classified under this archetype appear to emphasize
the provision of global infrastructure to their local
units with otherwise minimal intervention in the
respective local operations and decisions. A case
that is representative of this archetype, again based
on the least sum of squared deviations from the
cluster centroid, is Gallo Rice (Laidler, 1998),
featuring the Italian company F&P Gruppo, marketer of the Gallo brand of rice. According to the case,
the Gallo brand name was used by the company
across all country markets, resulting in a brand
name standardization average rating of 9.0:
The Gallo brand name and Gallo rooster logo were used
consistently across geographic marketsy (p. 2).
However, the exact line of rice sold differed from
country to country (average product design standardization rating: 3.0). Similarly, the communication strategy differed somewhat across country
markets (average advertising theme and sales
promotional tactics standardization ratings: 4.5
and 5.5, respectively). Nonetheless, most sales were
made to retailers rather than to institutions (average channel design standardization rating: 7.0). But
perhaps because of the nature of the product and
Journal of International Business Studies
the fact that the company uses local subsidiaries
and agents in different markets, the competitive
decision-making process across countries did not
appear to be tightly coordinated (average item
rating: 3.0). On the other hand, production was
concentrated in four countries – Italy, Germany,
Argentina, and Uruguay – with apparently centrally
controlled product design and development function (average item rating: 7.0):
Focused on the production of value-added rice, F&P Gruppo
described itself as ‘the rice specialist’ and was one of only a
few companies in the world involved in the entire process,
from growing and milling to the packaging and marketing
of brand rice. The company added value through research
and development of new and improved strains of highquality rice, proprietary manufacturing processes, and
packagingy A high percentage of the resulting profits
were, in turn, reinvested in research and development
(p. 1).
Archetype C
Like the Infrastructural Minimalists, this archetype
adopts a mixed standardization policy, but in a
different way. Although it is moderately standardized in the area of sales promotion tactics (average
item rating: 5.7), its product design, advertising
theme, pricing policy, and especially channel
design are more localized as compared with at least
one other archetype (tX2.584). And, although its
average brand name standardization rating is not
low (at 6.1), this rating is comparatively lower than
those of the other two archetypes (tX3.166). Its
marketing value chain activities, especially the
product design/development and distribution/
logistics functions, are also more dispersed
(tX2.160). Likewise, its advertising and promotional planning function is clearly more dispersed
than that of the Global Marketers (t¼3.716). But
perhaps how this archetype truly differs from the
Infrastructural Minimalists is that it is comparatively more integrated in its competitive process in
terms of communication and mutual consultation
(t¼3.143), even while its competitive decisionmaking process does not appear to be particularly
integrated. Because the emphasis of its international marketing strategy is in the coordination
(namely, mutual consultation) of tactics (namely,
sales promotion tactics) rather than in the standardization of tangible elements such as product
designs and channel design, or in the concentration of marketing functions, we label this archetype
the Tactical Coordinators. A case that is representative of this pattern is AXA: The Global Insurance
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
513
Insurance was one of the most heavily regulated industries
in the world, with wide variation in the degree and scope of
regulation. In general, all countries required that insurers
obtain a license to sell insurancey In addition, insurance
regulations often stipulated accounting methods and
reporting requirementsy Insurers were also limited in the
types of assets in which they invested premiums. In a few
countries, regulators also strictly controlled premium rates
and contract terms (p. 6).
Moreover, AXA’s international expansion in the late
1980s and early 1990s occurred mainly through
acquisitions, resulting in a complex holdings
structure with multiple registered company names
in different countries. Hence the average standardization item ratings for product design, channel
design, and pricing ranged from a low of 2.5 to 3.0.
The concentration of marketing value-chain activities was also apparently rather low (e.g., with an
average distribution and logistics planning concentration rating of 3.0), presumably because of the
lack of scale economies in sales and marketing
activities:
markets (average sales promotional tactics standardization rating: 7.5).
In summary, each of the three derived archetypes
exhibits a distinctive configuration of market
offering, structural/organizational, and competitive
process. The configurations are somewhat complex,
with no clear-cut correlations among the strategy
dimensions, which means that they would not
have been well captured using unidimensional
scales or an aggregate score alone.
To corroborate the above observation, we performed a descriptive canonical discriminant analysis based on the cluster groupings. Figure 3a shows
the positions of the various cases and their
respective cluster centroids relative to two canonical discriminant functions or axes. The horizontal
axis (Function 1), which discriminates the Global
a
2
Typically, sales and marketing, along with claims adjusting,
represented the two largest cost factors for an insurance
company, followed by underwriting and asset management.
Of these four activities, only claims adjusting and asset
management demonstrated any scale economies. Underwriting and sales were labor intense and generally varied in
direct proportion to the volume of premiums written (p. 3).
However, what stood out in the AXA case was a
moderate-to-high level of competitive process integration, with average competitive decision-making
and communication/mutual consultation ratings
of 5.0 and 7.5, respectively. The following quote
illustrates this pattern:
Still, Bebear’s objective was to make AXA not just a French
company with foreign subsidiaries, but a truly global
organization that would draw on the strengths of every
country in which it operated. To implement this objective,
he created the Strategy Committee, which would set
corporate objectives and oversee their implementation.
Apart from Bebear, the group included five senior French
executivesy and five representatives of AXA’s major foreign
operationsy The company also began to put into place a
common MIS systemy to improve the quality and
comparability of information in the company (p. 13).
As a result, some of AXA’s sales promotional tactics
could have been well coordinated across country
K-means cluster
Cluster A
Cluster B
Cluster C
Group Centroid
4
Function 2
Company (Goodman and Moreton, 1995). Like
many other multinational insurance firms, AXA
pursued a rather localized approach to marketing
its products, owing to heavy local regulation of
insurance sales:
Cluster B
Cluster A
0
Cluster C
-2
-4
-2
0
Function 1
2
4
b
0.8
0.6
ST_CHANNEL
CONC_PDM
ST_BRAND
0.4
CONC_LOGDIST
0.2
ST_PRICING
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
CONC_A&P
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-0.2
ST_DESIGN
-0.4
ST_ADTHEME
INT_CONSULT
INT_DECISION
-0.6
Figure 3 Plots from canonical discriminant analysis of cluster
groupings: (a) positions of cases and centroids relative to two
discriminant functions; (b) unstandardized coefficients for
Function 1 (horizontal) and Function 2 (vertical).
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
514
Marketers from the other two archetypes, is positively related to all of the 11 strategy dimensions
used in the cluster analysis (see Figure 3b). This
appears to be a broad-spectrum function that
behaves like Zou and Cavusgil’s (2002) aggregate
GMS factor. Cases rated collectively high on the 11
dimensions would tend to be classified under the
Global Marketers archetype. More interesting, however, is the vertical axis (Function 2), which, unlike
the GMS factor, serves to further discriminate
between the Infrastructural Minimalists (more
positive) and the Tactical Coordinators (more
negative). This function is positively related to
brand name standardization, channel design standardization, product design and development concentration, and distribution and logistics planning
concentration, all of which characterize the Infrastructural Minimalists archetype when highly
rated. This function is also negatively related to
sales promotional tactics standardization and integration of communication and mutual consultation, both of which are characteristic of the
Tactical Coordinators archetype when highly
rated. Thus, when a firm’s strategy does not
clearly belong to the Global Marketer archetype
(with high values on all dimensions), it will
fall under either the Infrastructural Minimalists
or Tactical Coordinator based upon the configuration of values it has on the determinants of
Function 2.
Evolutionary drivers of archetypes
Having found evidence of the existence of three
distinct archetypes of international marketing
strategy, it is appropriate at this point to ask how
the archetypes came about: that is, whether there
might have been any common exogenous forces
imposed on firms belonging to each archetype,
forces that have driven their similarity through one
or more of the evolutionary mechanisms described
by Miller (1981, 1986) – namely, environmental
selection, mimetic action, and firm strategic
choice. We tried to answer this question by
returning to the cases to look for commonalities
within clusters. In keeping with the configurational
thinking, we sought to identify holistic sets of
exogenous factors as drivers. Because of the qualitative nature of this step, we were limited in our
analytical precision. Yet we noted three interesting
patterns.
First, an inspection of the list of cases classified as
the Global Marketers reveals that many of these
businesses faced conditions favoring a global
Journal of International Business Studies
approach to managing their marketing operations,
such as minimal or diminishing cultural differences
in purchase and consumption behaviors, the lack of
or disappearing peculiar local regulations, scale
economies in marketing value-chain functions,
and the presence of ‘global’ competitors that
required the shared attention of all subsidiary
managers. Similar to the construct of ‘external
globalizing conditions’ defined by Zou and Cavusgil (2002), such conditions encourage, or even
necessitate, high levels of market offering standardization, value-chain concentration, and competitive process integration. For example, the Sony
Europa case (Kashani and Kassarjian, 1998)
describes how Sony’s European unit was grappling
with a set of market forces, including the increasing
consolidation of competitors and buyers. Along
with the potential for greater cost savings from
streamlining operations across markets and the
desire to unify the representation of regional
interests, this led to the creation of a pan-European
marketing organization (treated as a global marketing strategy when the geographic scope of analysis
is restricted to the region).
Second, an examination of the cases classified as
the Infrastructural Minimalists suggests that many
of these companies were involved in product
businesses where consumer tastes and preferences
differed significantly across countries. Several food
companies fall into this cluster, including Gallo
Rice, Ben & Jerry’s (an ice-cream producer), and
Nando’s (a fast-food chain), as do a couple of
beauty/grooming products companies, namely
Mary Kay and L’Oréal. In these businesses, there
might also be certain local regulations concerning
the production and sale of the product. Thus some
of the advantages of standardizing the market
offering might not be relevant to these firms.
Furthermore, perhaps because of the need to deal
with local competitors, a worldwide coordination
of competitive processes might not be necessary.
Nevertheless, there might still be substantial brand
equity effects associated with these businesses, as
demonstrated in the Ben & Jerry’s case (Hagen,
1999), where the company frequently used licensing mode to enter foreign markets. Also, there
could be established channel and distribution
strategies that have worked very well in these
industries, as demonstrated by Mary Kay’s (Laidler,
1996) frequent use of its direct selling method.
These companies therefore could have found it
advantageous to provide a minimal brand and
channel infrastructure for their international mar-
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
515
keting operations, but otherwise leave the major
marketing decisions to local managers.
Third, a look at the cases typifying the Tactical
Coordinators points to the possibility that many of
these companies not only did not experience any
market forces that encouraged standardizing their
market offering in a major way, but also did not see
substantial scale economies in consolidating any
part of their marketing value chains. The AXA case
mentioned earlier illustrates this possibility. Nonetheless, the similarity of competitive environments,
including the presence of shared competitors across
country markets, could have motivated these
companies to coordinate their competitive decisions and tactics on a worldwide scale. For example,
several companies, such as Nestlé, Euro RSCG, and
ICI Paints, faced global competitors even as they
operated in local country environments. It might
therefore have been critical for these companies to
have high degrees of communication and mutual
consultation as well as harmonization of competitive tactics across country units.
In summary, a combination of environmental
factors and market forces appears to drive the type
of international marketing strategy adopted by any
given multinational firm.
P1a: A configuration of environmental and market factors
that creates incentives for a global approach to marketing
management, including a high degree of similarity in
customer tastes and preferences across countries, the
absence of local regulations, the presence of scale economies in operating marketing value-chain activities, and the
presence of global competitors, is likely to engender a
strategy resembling the Global Marketers archetype.
P1b: A configuration of environmental and market factors
that does not particularly encourage a global marketing
management approach, including different customer tastes
and preferences across countries, existing local regulations,
and the need to deal with local competitors, but that at the
same time encourages sharing a common brand and
channel infrastructure, such as when there are global brand
recognition and established distribution strategies, is likely
to engender a strategy resembling the Infrastructural Minimalists archetype.
P1c: A configuration of environmental and market factors
that does not particularly encourage a global marketing
management approach, including different customer tastes
and preferences across countries, existing local regulations,
and the absence of scale economies in marketing operations, but that at the same time encourages the coordination of competitive decisions and tactics across markets,
such as the commonality of competitive environments and
shared competitors, is likely to engender a strategy
resembling the Tactical Coordinators archetype.
Archetype performance potential: subsidiary
network contingent fit considerations
After considering the possible drivers of the different international marketing strategy archetypes,
the next question one might pose is: ‘Which
archetype(s) is/are liable to lead to stronger multinational firm performance?’7 This is an important
question because, arguably, the ultimate concern
for the study of any area of strategy is to explain
firm performance variations (Rumelt et al., 1994).
(Here, of course, we take the position that performance variations among the archetypes are still
likely, even though it has been stated earlier that
each of the archetypes is potentially high performing.) However, this is also a difficult question
because the relationship between strategy and
performance is itself a complex issue. In particular,
the implementation context within which a firm
operates may influence the effectiveness of any
given strategy (Walker and Ruekert, 1987; Noble
and Mokwa, 1999). The implementation context
imposes peculiar constraints upon the firm, so firm
performance is partly a function of how unencumbered the strategy is by those constraints. An
important aspect of a multinational firm’s implementation context is its network of international
subsidiaries,8 given that a significant proportion of
a multinational’s marketing activities is executed
(whether or not planned) at the local subsidiary
level (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995; Solberg,
2000). Research suggests that subsidiary-level factors have the potential to either help or hurt the
effective implementation of a multinational’s
intended strategy (e.g., Wiechmann and Pringle,
1979; Hulbert et al., 1980; Hewett and Bearden,
2001). Therefore, in discussing the performance
potential of any international marketing strategy
archetype, the characteristics of the subsidiary
network need to be considered. In other words,
rather than simply order the relative superiority
of the different archetypes, it is necessary to
examine the contingent fit (Doty et al., 1993)
of each archetype with the subsidiary network
characteristics.
There are potentially several different subsidiary
network characteristics to be considered. These
include the scope of subsidiary responsibilities,
the level of autonomy held by each subsidiary,
the degree of subsidiary dependence on the head
office, and the degree of interdependence among
subsidiaries. One way to incorporate the effect of
these characteristics into the prediction of archetype performance is to model each characteristic as
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
516
a moderator of the archetype–performance relationship. Statistically, this involves analyzing the
interaction between each characteristic and the
various strategy variables that make up an archetype. This is referred to as the interaction approach
to studying contingent fit (Drazin and Van de Ven,
1985). However, as Miller (1981) and Meyer et al.
(1993) point out, such a ‘reductionist’ approach is
generally aimed at isolating the effects of single
contingency variables, and often unrealistically
assumes unidirectional linear relationships among
the variables. From the perspective of configurational theory, this approach is not ideal for understanding holistic combinatorial patterns of fit
between multiple strategy variables and multiple
contingency factors. An alternative approach that
is more consistent with the configurational thinking underlying this research is to identify configurations of contextual variables that fit well with
the respective strategy archetypes. Like the archetypes, each of these contextual configurations is a
multidimensional combination of distinct characteristics. This way, multiple subsidiary network
characteristics serving as contextual contingencies
can be simultaneously considered. Strategy archetypes and contextual contingencies that fit well
with each other can be viewed as extended configurations of mutually supportive elements, similar
in spirit to Miller’s (1986) matching of compatible
configurations of strategy and structure. At the
same time, when there is a lack of unique one-toone fit between strategy and context, equifinality
can be said to exist.
While the lack of data prevents a fresh taxonomic
discovery of common configurations of subsidiary
network characteristics along with an integrated
testing of fit with the strategy archetypes earlier
uncovered, research on multinational subsidiary
behavior has previously identified three configurations of subsidiary roles and structural contexts
(Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995). Because
these ‘subsidiary roles’ and ‘structural context’
variables appear to broadly describe the nature of
a multinational subsidiary network, the three
configurations can be used here to analytically
examine the contingent fit of the three uncovered
archetypes.
The specialized contributor
As described by Birkinshaw and Morrison (1995),
one type of subsidiary network is characterized by
high levels of subsidiary expertise in specific
functions or activities. Specifically, each subsidiary
Journal of International Business Studies
has a wide geographic scope but a narrow
functional scope of responsibilities. The degree of
strategic autonomy held by each subsidiary is
moderate, and subsidiaries are highly dependent
on the head office as well as on one another for
materials and resources. Because each subsidiary
contributes to the overall functioning of the multinational in a specialized manner, this subsidiary
network type is labeled the ‘Specialized Contributor’. In relation to previous literature, this type of
network resembles Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1986)
‘Contributor’, Jarillo and Martinez’s (1990) ‘Receptive’, and White and Poynter’s (1984) ‘Rationalized
Manufacturer’. Such a subsidiary network is likely
to impose constraints on the implementation of
either an Infrastructural Minimalist or a Tactical
Coordinator strategy archetype, because each subsidiary does not possess a full range of functional
(marketing) expertise to effectively determine a
local mixed adaptation strategy, even though it
possesses moderate strategic autonomy. Moreover,
the rationalized global design does not seem to be
compatible with the relatively dispersed marketing
value-chain structure of either of the two mentioned strategy archetypes. On the other hand,
this subsidiary network type seems to support a
Global Marketer strategy, because (a) the wide
geographic and narrow functional scope of subsidiary responsibilities facilitate the creation of a
standardized market offering, (b) the activity
specialization design accommodates a concentrated
marketing value chain, and (c) the moderate
autonomy and high interdependence among subsidiaries are conducive for achieving integration in
the competitive decision and marketing planning
process.
The local implementer
A second type of subsidiary network is characterized by both limited geographic scope and low
strategic autonomy assigned to each local subsidiary (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995). This type of
network also exhibits a high degree of subsidiary
dependence on the head office, as well as high
interdependence among subsidiaries for materials
and resources. Because each subsidiary is essentially
tasked to execute the strategy formulated by the
head office, such a subsidiary network is labeled the
‘Local Implementer’. This type of network closely
corresponds to Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1986)
‘Implementer’, D’Cruz’s (1986) ‘Branch Plant’, and
White and Poynter’s (1984) ‘Miniature Replica’
subsidiary types. Such a subsidiary network is
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
517
unlikely to facilitate a Global Marketer strategy,
given the lack of activity specialization on a
worldwide scale and the lack of strategic integration across subsidiaries. Also, because the subsidiaries’ marketing strategy formulation capabilities
are likely to be limited (because of the historical
lack of strategic autonomy), this subsidiary network
type seems incompatible with the Tactical Coordinator strategy, which requires a high degree of local
responsiveness. In contrast, the implementation of
an Infrastructural Minimalist strategy seems less
encumbered. Even though the Infrastructural
Minimalist strategy also requires some degree of
local initiative in the design of market offering
and competitive decision-making, the level of
corporate support in terms of branding, channel
structure, and product development is greater.
Individual subsidiaries could take advantage of
such infrastructure to build their local marketing
expertise.
The world mandate
A third type of subsidiary network is characterized
by the delegation of worldwide/regional responsibilities (or ‘mandate’) for entire product businesses
to individual subsidiaries (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995; Birkinshaw, 1996; Birkinshaw and Hood,
1998). Each subsidiary has almost complete strategic autonomy and functional control over its
mandated business, and is not dependent on the
head office or other subsidiaries for materials and
resources associated with that business. This type of
subsidiary network is referred to as the ‘World
Mandate’ (Birkinshaw and Morrison, 1995), and
closely corresponds to Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1986)
‘Strategic Leader’, Gupta and Govindarajan’s (1991)
‘Integrated Player’, and Roth and Morrison’s (1992)
‘Global Subsidiary Mandate’. Because subsidiaries
in this type of network have extensive management
capabilities and knowledge in at least one product
business, their managers are unlikely to be receptive to a Global Marketer strategy for the entire
range of the multinational firm’s products. Each
subsidiary’s managers may see unique linkages
among the various products, and hence be motivated to customize the market offerings for their
respective country market. At the same time,
because individual subsidiaries carry a full range
of functional expertise but not necessarily product
category expertise in all categories, some degree of
resource-sharing or cross-market consultation may
be desirable. Consequently, either an Infrastructural Minimalist or a Tactical Coordinator strategy
archetype may fit well with this subsidiary network
type, creating an equifinal situation. In the case of
an Infrastructural Minimalist strategy, country
subsidiaries can share certain infrastructural marketing strategy elements (e.g., brand name and
channel structure) that do not interfere with the
development of differential product mandates
across subsidiaries. In the case of a Tactical Coordinator strategy, subsidiaries merely consult regularly with one another to coordinate their competitive tactics (e.g., sales promotions) without undermining each subsidiary’s product-market authority.
In summary, the three archetypes may be differentially effective given different implementation
contexts, depending upon their contingent fit
within each context (see Figure 4):
P2a: When implemented within a subsidiary network
context that is characterized by a wide geographic but
narrow functional scope of subsidiary responsibilities,
moderate subsidiary autonomy, high dependence on the
head office, and high interdependence among subsidiaries,
the contingent fit of the Global Marketers archetype will be
the strongest, and hence its performance potential will be
the greatest among the three known archetypes.
P2b: When implemented within a subsidiary network
context that is characterized by a narrow geographic scope
of subsidiary responsibilities, low subsidiary autonomy,
high dependence on the head office, and high interdependence among subsidiaries, the contingent fit of the Infrastructural Minimalists archetype will be the strongest, and
hence its performance potential will be the greatest among
the three known archetypes.
P2c: When implemented within a subsidiary network
context that is characterized by a wide geographic and
functional scope of subsidiary responsibilities, high subsidiary autonomy, low dependence on the head office, and
low interdependence among subsidiaries, the contingent fit
of both the Infrastructural Minimalists archetype and the
Tactical Coordinators archetype will be equally strong, and
their performance potentials will be greater than that of the
Global Marketers archetype.
Note that strong contingent fit within each context
does not mean a complete lack of encumbrances or
constraints that may be posed to the strategy.
Therefore, archetype performance may not always
be optimized (as is likely with the Local Implementer network situation described above). In Gresov
and Drazin’s (1997) terms, this is possible because a
given context can place multiple, conflicting
demands on the organization, rendering all organizational strategies suboptimal in some ways.
However, when the subsidiary network context
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
518
Global Marketers
Specialized Contributor
• Wide geographic but narrow
functional scope of subsidiary
responsibilities
• Moderate subsidiary autonomy
• High dependence on head office
• High interdependence among
subsidiaries
Infrastructural Minimalists
Local Implementer
Tactical Coordinators
World Mandate
• Narrow geographic scope of
• Wide geographic and functional
subsidiary responsibilities
scope of subsidiary
responsibilities
• High subsidiary autonomy
• Low dependence on head office
• Low interdependence among
subsidiaries
• Low subsidiary autonomy
• High dependence on head office
• High interdependence among
subsidiaries
Dual-directional arrow denotes a contingent fit between an archetype and a configuration of subsidiary network characteristics.
Contingent fit implies strong performance potential. Multiple instances contingent fit for a given configuration of subsidiary
network characteristics indicate an equifinal situation (Gresov and Drazin, 1997).
Pattern of characteristics within dotted area may be viewed as an extended configuration of mutually-supportive elements. This can be
treated as a contingent ideal profile (Doty et al., 1993) and tested using a profile deviation methodology.
Figure 4
Contingent fit between archetypes and configurations of subsidiary network characteristics.
facilitates the implementation of more than one
strategy archetype, equifinality is present (as is
likely with the World Mandate network situation
described above). This is because alternative strategies are capable of meeting different subsets of the
contextual demands (Gresov and Drazin, 1997).
Conclusion and future directions
A fundamental element in the development of a scientific
body of knowledge is the availability of a widely accepted
and usable classification schemey (McKelvey, 1975, 509).
This paper began with the premise that the meaningful characterization and classification of international marketing strategies are essential to
understanding the various strategic options that a
multinational firm has in structuring its marketing
approaches across different country markets.
Indeed, the field has, over the years, attained a
good appreciation of the nature of international
marketing strategies simply by knowing how they
can differ. Beginning with Buzzell (1968), scholars
have tried to describe the international marketing
strategies of multinational firms using such category labels as ‘standardized’ vs ‘adapted’ (e.g., Jain,
1989). Later scholars have also invoked the categories of ‘concentrated’ vs ‘dispersed’ (e.g., Craig
and Douglas, 2000) and ‘integrated’ vs ‘independent’ (e.g., Hamel and Prahalad, 1985). These labels
have given researchers, students, and practitioners
Journal of International Business Studies
alike a useful vocabulary with which to describe the
very concept of ‘international marketing strategy’.
However, this paper also puts forth the argument
that, in order to advance our body of knowledge,
the study of international marketing strategy
should also take on a holistic, configurational view
and not be confined to a single characterization –
be it standardization–adaptation, concentration–
dispersion, or integration–independence – or be
reliant on a single index of ‘globalness’ (e.g., Zou
and Cavusgil, 2002). A configurational approach
provides tremendous utility not only in terms of
the richness of description, but also in its capacity
to guide scholarly and managerial thinking about
the multifaceted nature of international marketing
strategy. In adopting this approach, scholars and
managers should consider how the various strategy
dimensions combine or align themselves into
gestalt patterns or modal archetypes.
To substantiate our argument, we have conducted
a novel case coding/clustering study to uncover
distinct combinatorial patterns along 11 theorybased dimensions of standardization–adaptation,
concentration–dispersion, and integration–independence. We found three archetypes within a
sample of exemplars of international marketing
strategy. While one of these archetypes (the Global
Marketers) could well have been captured using a
single aggregate globalness score (e.g., the GMS,
Zou and Cavusgil, 2002), the other two archetypes
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
519
were detected mainly because we have used a
configurational procedure, which discriminated
between different mixed patterns of globalness.
The detection of these archetypes shows that
strategic marketing options available to multinational firms can be more richly described and
meaningfully compared when a holistic, multidimensional perspective that unifies the three
separate characterizations is taken.
After uncovering the archetypes, a further step to
synthesize our knowledge of international business
and international strategy necessarily includes the
identification of evolutionary drivers of the respective archetypes and an assessment of potential
performance variations among the archetypes. In
our study, several archetype drivers were induced
from common environmental factors and market
forces within case clusters. Archetype performance
potential, on the other hand, remains a more
complex issue involving the consideration of contingent fit between each archetype and the implementation context. As we are focusing on
marketing strategies of multinational firms, we
propose that configurations of subsidiary network
characteristics represent important implementation contexts. Indeed, subsidiary-level issues are
increasingly gaining attention within the international business literature (Ghoshal and Bartlett,
1990; Nohria and Ghoshal, 1997; Rugman and
Verbeke, 2001). More significantly, as international
marketing activities rely on the efforts of local
subsidiaries to occur, it is reasonable to expect the
type of subsidiary network to either facilitate or
hinder the effective implementation of any given
international marketing strategy. In the final
analysis, whether strategy archetypes result in
superior or equifinal performance would depend
on the extent to which their implementation is
unencumbered by the existing subsidiary network
characteristics.
The new holistic characterization of international
marketing strategy as archetypes and the added
understanding of archetype drivers and performance potential serve not only to advance the
theory of international marketing, but also to
provide a multifaceted perspective for teaching
the subject. To that end, our study has contributed
three archetypes of international marketing strategy that would not have been understood using
any of the traditional textbook descriptors (e.g.,
‘standardized’, ‘concentrated’, ‘integrated’, etc.)
alone. Yet these archetypes represent modal combinatorial patterns found among exemplars of inter-
national marketing strategies. Pedagogically, they
can facilitate a more in-depth discussion of the
different types of international marketing strategy,
especially when illustrated with representative
teaching cases. Furthermore, by linking them to a
relevant set of evolutionary forces, and raising the
issue of their contingent fit with certain subsidiary
network characteristics, a more insightful dialogue
about causal processes in the international marketing arena can be encouraged.
With the above conclusions in mind, an agenda
for the further study of international marketing
strategy archetypes and examination of their
drivers and performance variations is hereby proposed. A crucial first step in this agenda would be to
systematically validate the archetypes by gathering
additional evidence other than from published
cases. This would involve the measurement of
international marketing strategies using a variety
of alternative sources (e.g., archival records, interviews, surveys). In this regard, the diverse data
collection approaches of Miller and Friesen (1980),
Doty et al. (1993), and Ketchen et al. (1993), among
others, could be borrowed. Alternative procedures
for quantifying the dimensions of international
marketing strategy should also be explored. Cluster
analysis, or other statistical techniques, could then
be performed on the data to derive modal patterns
of international marketing strategy. To ensure
reliability, the derived archetypes should be crossvalidated with results from multiple data sets as
well as from different statistical procedures.
After a robust set of archetypes has been established, the next step in the research agenda would
be to systematically examine the observations
grouped under each archetype to analyze their
common evolutionary drivers. Perhaps it is the
environmental forces that dictate the adoption of a
particular type of strategy. Perhaps the historical
development or conventional practices of their
respective industries have somehow favored the
same kind of strategy. Or perhaps the competitive
and social interactions among different players
within a network of firms have encouraged the
sharing of knowledge and preferences with respect
to strategy design. In Miller’s (1987) terms, different
‘imperatives’ or causal forces can give rise to
configurational archetypes. These possible underlying causes should be thoroughly investigated
from multiple theoretical perspectives. In addition,
methods such as comparative case studies and
longitudinal tracking of strategy profiles for a panel
of firms may be utilized for empirical evaluations.
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
520
Finally, after archetypes have been identified and
their antecedents understood, the performance
potential of different archetypes would be the main
subject of interest. Direct comparisons of performance indicators across archetypes are unlikely to
result in any meaningful findings, because, as
discussed, the relationship between international
marketing strategy and multinational firm performance is likely to be contingent upon the implementation context. Traditional statistical testing
of strategy-performance moderators involving
interaction terms may also not be appropriate
because of the need to consider multiple contextual
contingencies. As illustrated above, the matching
of compatible configurations of strategy and
implementation contexts from a contingent fit
perspective (Miller, 1986; Doty et al., 1993) may
prove to be a more efficacious approach to understanding archetype performance variations. To
seriously pursue the contingent fit approach, richer
configurations
of
implementation
contexts
based on a comprehensive set of subsidiary
network characteristics and other relevant variables
should be explored from the same data set(s)
used to generate the strategy archetypes. Compatible matched pairs of these configurations
with the respective archetypes can then be treated
as extended configurations and tested for contingent fit using a profile deviation methodology
(Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985; Gresov, 1989),
which analyzes the effect of deviation (measured
in Euclidean distance) from each extended
configurational profile. As part of this assessment,
different forms of equifinality among the
archetypes (Gresov and Drazin, 1997) can also be
tested.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully thank the Indiana University Center for
International Business Education and Research (IU
CIBER) for funding the empirical component of this
study. We also thank Professors Alan Rugman, Hans
Thorelli, Keith Blois, Shaoming Zou, Rockney Walters,
Rebecca Slotegraaf, Krishna Erramilli, and Changsu
Kim for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of
this paper. Special thanks go to JIBS Departmental
Editor Professor G. Tomas M. Hult and the two
anonymous reviewers for their helpful criticisms and
guidance throughout the review process. Finally, we
thank the two groups of Kelley School student
assistants whom we engaged in Spring 2004 and Fall
2004 to perform the data coding.
Journal of International Business Studies
Notes
1
In Jain (1989), a brief section was devoted to
pointing out that the various marketing mix elements
(product design, brand name, packaging, etc.) can be
differentially standardized. Nevertheless, the author
did not discuss the potential implications of such
differential standardization levels. Moreover, the
author states, ‘Conceptually, standardization of one
or more parts of the marketing program is a function
of five [antecedents]y’ (Jain, 1989, 71), implying
either that standardization of one part of the
marketing program sufficiently qualifies as a ‘standardization’ strategy, or that standardizations of different
parts of the marketing program are conceptually
equivalent.
2
The eight first-order dimensions were product
standardization, promotion standardization, standardized channel structure, standardized price, concentration of marketing activities, coordination of
marketing activities, global market participation, and
integration of competitive moves.
3
All scale items were developed through extensive
consultations among the authors based on existing
definitions of strategy dimensions in the literature
(e.g., Zou and Cavusgil, 2002) and with the inputs of
colleagues who had knowledge of international
marketing. It is important to note that our coding
scheme scale is not comparable with a typical survey
scale. Even though each strategy dimension was
captured by only a single scale item, the process of
completing each scale item on our coding scheme was
a painstaking one involving a thorough reading of a
case by the coder concerned, a search for relevant
passages in the case to support the rating given, and
(if necessary) a discussion with the other coder to
resolve any discrepancies in each other’s ratings. We
therefore believe a single item scale was sufficiently
reliable for each dimension.
4
Admittedly, by removing the five items with high
incidence of missing values, the amount of information available for cluster-analyzing international marketing strategies was reduced, and the weight
distributed to each broad strategy dimension was
affected. Further, by replacing the remaining missing
values with item means, the total variance in the
dataset was reduced in unpredictable ways (we thank
one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing that
out). Unfortunately, missing data was an inherent
limitation of our data collection method, and we had
to deal with it in the most pragmatic way. We did,
however, examine the correlations between removed
and retained items, and found them to be moderately
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
521
high and significant within each broad strategy
dimension (e.g., integration–independence), meaning
the retained items should have captured some
information contained in the removed items. We did
also try to perform the cluster analysis using an equal
number of items (specifically, two) per broad dimensions, selecting the ones that had greater variance and
were less correlated with other items. The cluster
solution turned out to be similar to the one we report,
meaning our results were reasonably robust despite
the reduction of total variance and the redistribution of
weight among the three broad strategy dimensions.
5
Subtler distinctions were illuminated when the top
branch in the two-cluster solution (see dendrogram in
Figure 1) was treated as two sub-branches instead. As
we found later, those two sub-branches were associated with two (separate) mixed configurations of
standardization, concentration, and integration strategies, labeled as the Infrastructural Minimalists and the
Tactical Coordinators, respectively. Without separating
these sub-branches, the two clusters would have been
identified as a single cluster of (moderately) low
ratings across all dimensions.
6
Because statistical testing of cluster differences
along dimensions used to derive the clusters is meaningless (Lattin et al., 2003), we do not report the
p-values or significance levels for the pseudo-t statistics. The pseudo-t’s are used here for interpretive
purposes only; no statistical inferences about population parameters are made. As a rule of thumb,
however, we pay attention to pseudo-t’s of greater
than 2.0 and treat these as sizeable differences.
7
Multinational firm performance is broadly defined
here as organizational effectiveness at the corporation
level that translates into superior market and financial
performance. It is acknowledged that distinctions may
be made across multiple dimensions of firm performance (e.g., market share, profitability, growth).
When disaggregated, performance may also vary
considerably across country subsidiaries. However,
we focus here on a general corporation-level performance construct and leave the finer distinctions to
future research.
8
The term ‘subsidiary’ is broadly used here to refer
to any unit of a multinational corporation that is
located in a country outside its home base. For the
present purpose, no distinction is made across
different legal/equity holding statuses per se of various
subsidiaries, except when these statuses affect the
substantive characteristics of the subsidiary network, in
which case the configuration of subsidiary characteristics should capture the differences.
References
Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1986) ‘Tap your subsidiaries for
global reach’, Harvard Business Review 64(6): 87–94.
Birkinshaw, J. (1996) ‘How multinational subsidiary mandates
are gained and lost’, Journal of International Business Studies
27(3): 467–496.
Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. (1998) ‘Multinational subsidiary
evolution: capability and charter change in foreign-owned
subsidiary companies’, Academy of Management Review 23(4):
773–795.
Birkinshaw, J.M. and Morrison, A.J. (1995) ‘Configurations
of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational
corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 26(4):
729–753.
Boddewyn, J.J., Soehl, R. and Picard, J. (1986) ‘Standardization
in international marketing: is Ted Levitt in fact right?’ Business
Horizons 29(6): 69–75.
Buzzell, R.D. (1968) ‘Can you standardize multinational marketing?’ Harvard Business Review 46(6): 102–113.
Child, J. (1972) ‘Organizational structure, environment
and performance: the role of strategic choice’, Sociology
6(1): 1–22.
Corey, E.R. (1998) ‘Writing cases and teaching notes’, Harvard
Business School Note No. 9-399-077, Harvard Business School
Publishing: Boston, MA.
Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2000) ‘Configural advantage in
global markets’, Journal of International Marketing 8(1): 6–25.
D’Cruz, J.R. (1986) ‘Strategic Management of Subsidiaries’, in H.
Etemad and L.S. Dulude (eds.) Managing the Multinational
Subsidiary, Croom Helm: London, pp: 75–80.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited:
institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48(2):
147–160.
Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H. and Huber, G.P. (1993) ‘Fit, equifinality,
and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational
theories’, Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1196–1250.
Douglas, S.P. and Wind, Y. (1987) ‘The myth of globalization’,
Columbia Journal of World Business 22(4): 47–58.
Drazin, R. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1985) ‘Alternative forms of fit in
contingency theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly 30(4):
514–539.
Elinder, E. (1961) ‘How international can European advertising
be?’ The International Advertiser (December): 12–16.
Fatt, A.C. (1964) ‘A multinational approach to international
advertising’, The International Advertiser (September): 17–20.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1990) ‘The multinational
corporation as an interorganizational network’, Academy of
Management Review 15(4): 603–625.
Goodman, J.B. and Moreton, P. (1995) ‘AXA: the global
insurance company’, Harvard Business School Case No. 9793-094 (rev. 15 November 1995), Harvard Business School
Publishing: Boston, MA.
Gresov, C. (1989) ‘Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies’, Administrative Science Quarterly 34(3): 431–453.
Gresov, C. and Drazin, R. (1997) ‘Equifinality: functional
equivalence in organization design’, Academy of Management
Review 22(2): 403–428.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991) ‘Knowledge flows and
the structure of control within multinational corporations’,
Academy of Management Review 16(4): 768–792.
Hagen, J.M. (1999) ‘Ben & Jerry’s – Japan’, Richard Ivey School
of Business Case No. 9A99A037, Ivey Management Services:
London, Ontario, Canada.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998)
Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn, Prentice-Hall: Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
522
Hambrick, D.C. (1984) ‘Taxonomic approaches to studying
strategy: some conceptual and methodological issues’, Journal
of Management 10(1): 27–41.
Hambrick, D.C. and Schecter, S.M. (1983) ‘Turnaround strategies for mature industrial-product business units’, Academy of
Management Journal 26(2): 231–248.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1985) ‘Do you really have a
global strategy?’ Harvard Business Review 63(4): 139–148.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977) ‘The population ecology
of organizations’, American Journal of Sociology 82(5):
929–964.
Henzler, H. and Rall, W. (1986) ‘Facing up to the globalization
challenge’, McKinsey Quarterly 86(1): 52–68.
Hewett, K. and Bearden, W.O. (2001) ‘Dependence, trust, and
relational behavior on the part of foreign subsidiary marketing
operations: implications for managing global marketing
operations’, Journal of Marketing 65(4): 51–66.
Hout, T., Porter, M.E. and Rudden, E. (1982) ‘How global
companies win out’, Harvard Business Review 60(5): 98–105.
Hovell, P.J. and Walters, P.G.P. (1972) ‘International marketing
presentations: some options’, European Journal of Marketing
6(2): 69–79.
Hulbert, J.M., Brandt, W.K. and Richers, R. (1980) ‘Marketing
planning in the multinational subsidiary: practices and
problems’, Journal of Marketing 44(3): 7–15.
Jain, S.C. (1989) ‘Standardization of international marketing
strategy: some research hypotheses’, Journal of Marketing
53(1): 70–79.
Jain, S.C. (2001) Marketing Planning and Strategy, 6th edn.
Thomson-Southwestern Publishing: Cincinnati, OH.
Jarillo, J.C. and Martinez, J.I. (1990) ‘Different roles for
subsidiaries: the case of multinational corporations in Spain’,
Strategic Management Journal 11(7): 501–512.
Jauch, L.R., Osborn, R.N. and Martin, T.N. (1980) ‘Structured
content analysis of cases: a complementary method for
organizational research’, Academy of Management Review
5(4): 517–525.
Kashani, K. and Kassarjian, J.B.M. (1998) ‘Sony Europa (A)’, IMD
Case No. IMD-5-0488, Lausanne, Switzerland: International
Institute for Management Development.
Keegan, W.J. (1969) ‘Multinational product planning: strategic
alternatives’, Journal of Marketing 33(1): 58–62.
Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton:
New York.
Kerin, R.A. and Peterson, R.A. (2004) Strategic Marketing
Problems: Cases and Comments, 10th edn, Pearson PrenticeHall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp: 324–340.
Ketchen, D.J., Combs, J.G., Russell, C.J., Shook, C., Dean, M.A.,
Runge, J., Lohrke, F.T., Naumann, S.E., Haptonstahl, D.E.,
Baker, R., Beckstein, B.A., Handler, C., Honig, H. and
Lamoureux, S. (1997) ‘Organizational configurations and
performance: a meta-analysis’, Academy of Management
Journal 40(1): 223–240.
Ketchen, D.J. and Shook, C.L. (1996) ‘The application of cluster
analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and
critique’, Strategic Management Journal 17(6): 441–458.
Ketchen, D.J., Thomas, J.B. and Snow, C.C. (1993) ‘Organizational configurations and performance: a comparison of
theoretical approaches’, Academy of Management Journal
36(6): 1278–1313.
Kotler, P. (1986) ‘Global standardization: courting danger’,
Journal of Consumer Marketing 3(2): 13–15.
Laidler, N. (1996) ‘Mary Kay Cosmetics: Asian Market
Entry’, Harvard Business School Case No. 9-594-023 (rev.
26 July 1996), Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston,
MA.
Laidler, N. (1998) ‘Gallo Rice’, Harvard Business School Case No.
9-593-018 (rev. January 6, 1998), Harvard Business School
Publishing: Boston, MA.
Lambin, J. (2004) ‘Godiva Europe’, in R.A. Kerin and R.A.
Peterson (eds.) Strategic Marketing Problems: Cases and
Journal of International Business Studies
Comments, 10th edn, Pearson Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, pp: 324–340.
Larsson, R. (1993) ‘Case survey methodology: quantitative
analysis of patterns across case studies’, Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1515–1546.
Lattin, J.M., Carroll, J.D. and Green, P.E. (2003) Analyzing
Multivariate Data, Thomson Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA.
Levitt, T. (1983) ‘The globalization of markets’, Harvard Business
Review 61(3): 92–102.
McKelvey, B. (1975) ‘Guidelines for the empirical classification
of organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 20(4):
509–525.
Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S. and Hinings, C.R. (1993) ‘Configurational
approaches to organizational analysis’, Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1175–1195.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978) Organizational Strategy,
Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill: New York.
Miller, D. (1981) ‘Toward a new contingency approach: the
search for organizational gestalts’, Journal of Management
Studies 18(1): 1–26.
Miller, D. (1986) ‘Configurations of strategy and structure:
towards a synthesis’, Strategic Management Journal 7(3):
233–249.
Miller, D. (1987) ‘The genesis of configuration’, Academy of
Management Review 12(4): 686–701.
Miller, D. (1996) ‘Configurations revisited’, Strategic Management Journal 17(7): 505–512.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1977) ‘Strategy making in context:
ten empirical archetypes’, Journal of Management Studies
14(3): 251–280.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1978) ‘Archetypes of strategy
formulation’, Management Science 24(9): 921–933.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1980) ‘Archetypes of organizational
transition’, Administrative Science Quarterly 25(2): 268–299.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984) Organizations: A Quantum
View, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Miller, D. and Mintzberg, H. (1983) ‘The Case for Configuration’, in G. Morgan (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social
Research, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, pp: 57–73.
Milligan, G.W. and Cooper, M.C. (1985) ‘An examination of
procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data
set’, Psychometrika 50(2): 159–179.
Noble, C.H. and Mokwa, M.P. (1999) ‘Implementing marketing
strategies: developing and testing a managerial theory’,
Journal of Marketing 63(4): 57–73.
Nohria, N. and Ghoshal, S. (1997) The Differentiated Network:
Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation,
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Ohmae, K. (1989) ‘Managing in a borderless world’, Harvard
Business Review 67(3): 152–161.
Olusoga, S.A. (1993) ‘Market concentration versus market
diversification and internationalization: implications for MNE
performance’, International Marketing Review 10(2): 40–59.
Özsomer, A. and Prussia, G.E. (2000) ‘Competing perspectives
in international marketing strategy: contingency and process
models’, Journal of International Marketing 8(1): 27–50.
Porter, M.E. (1986) ‘Changing patterns of international competition’, California Management Review 28(2): 9–40.
Punj, G. and Stewart, D.W. (1983) ‘Cluster analysis in marketing
research: review and suggestions for application’, Journal of
Marketing Research 20(2): 134–148.
Quelch, J.A. and Hoff, E.J. (1986) ‘Customizing global marketing’, Harvard Business Review 64(3): 59–68.
Roberts, M.J. (2001) ‘Developing a Teaching Case (Abridged)’,
Harvard Business School Note No. 9-901-055, Harvard
Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.
Roostal, I. (1963) ‘Standardization of advertising for Western
Europe’, Journal of Marketing 27(4): 15–20.
Roth, K. (1992) ‘International configuration and coordination
archetypes for medium-sized firms in global industries’, Journal
of International Business Studies 23(3): 533–549.
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
523
Roth, K. and Morrison, A.J. (1992) ‘Implementing global
strategy: characteristics of global subsidiary mandates’, Journal
of International Business Studies 23(4): 715–735.
Roth, K., Schweiger, D.M. and Morrison, A.J. (1991) ‘Global
strategy implementation at the business unit level: operational
capabilities and administrative mechanisms’, Journal of International Business Studies 22(3): 369–402.
Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2001) ‘Subsidiary-specific
advantages in multinational enterprises’, Strategic Management Journal 22(3): 237–250.
Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.M. and Teece, D.J. (1994) Fundamental Issues in Strategy, Harvard Business School Press:
Boston, MA.
Rutenberg, D.P. (1982) Multinational Management, Little, Brown
& Company: Boston, MA.
Samiee, S. and Roth, K. (1992) ‘The influence of global
marketing standardization on performance’, Journal of Marketing 56(2): 1–17.
Sarle, W.S. (1983) SAS Technical Report A-108: The Cubic
Clustering Criterion, SAS Institute: Cary, NC.
Sheth, J.N. (1986) ‘Global markets or global competition?’
Journal of Consumer Marketing 3(2): 9–11.
Solberg, C.A. (2000) ‘Standardization or adaptation of the
international marketing mix: the role of the local subsidiary/representative’, Journal of International Marketing 8(1):
78–98.
Sorenson, R.Z. and Wiechmann, U.E. (1975) ‘How multinationals view marketing standardization’, Harvard Business
Review 53(3): 38–167.
Szymanski, D.M., Bharadwaj, S.G. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1993)
‘Standardization versus adaptation of international marketing
strategy: an empirical investigation’, Journal of Marketing
57(4): 1–17.
Theodosiou, M. and Leonidou, L.C. (2003) ‘Standardization
versus adaptation of international marketing strategy: an
integrative assessment of the empirical research’, International
Business Review 12(2): 141–171.
Vorhies, D.W. and Morgan, N.A. (2003) ‘A configuration theory
assessment of marketing organization fit with business
strategy and its relationship with marketing performance’,
Journal of Marketing 67(1): 100–115.
Walker, O.C. and Ruekert, R.W. (1987) ‘Marketing’s role in the
implementation of business strategies: a critical review and
conceptual framework’, Journal of Marketing 51(3): 15–33.
White, R.E. and Poynter, T.A. (1984) ‘Strategies for foreignowned subsidiaries in Canada’, Business Quarterly 49(2):
59–69.
Wiechmann, U.E. and Pringle, L.G. (1979) ‘Problems that
plague multinational marketers’, Harvard Business Review
57(4): 118–124.
Wind, Y. (1986) ‘The myth of globalization’, Journal of Consumer
Marketing 3(2): 23–26.
Woo, C.Y.Y. and Cooper, A.C. (1981) ‘Strategies of effective
low share businesses’, Strategic Management Journal 2(3):
301–318.
Yip, G.S. (1989) ‘Global strategyy in a world of nations?’ Sloan
Management Review 31(1): 29–41.
Zou, S. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2002) ‘The GMS: a broad
conceptualization of global marketing strategy and its effect
on firm performance’, Journal of Marketing 66(4): 40–56.
Zou, S., Andrus, D.M. and Norvell, D.W. (1997) ‘Standardization of marketing strategy by firms from a developing
country’, International Marketing Review 14(2): 107–123.
About the authors
Lewis Lim is a doctoral candidate in Marketing at the
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, and
Senior Tutor of Marketing and International Business
at the Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Techno-
logical University, Singapore. His research focuses on
strategy configurations and capability-building practices that explain firm performance variations.
Frank Acito (PhD, SUNY Buffalo) is Professor of
Marketing and Associate Dean for Academic Programs at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana
University. His research focuses on the assessment
and implementation of marketing research tools
and techniques and on marketing strategy. His
research has appeared in the Journal of Marketing
Research, the Journal of Consumer Research, the
Journal of Marketing, and other publications.
Alexander Rusetski is a doctoral candidate in
Marketing at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana
University and a Lecturer of Marketing at the School
of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto.
His research focuses on managerial decision-making, brand management, and marketing strategy,
including international marketing strategy.
Appendix A: Case qualification checklist
Is this case concerned with the marketing
strategy of a company operating in an international environment?
Does the case feature at least one identifiable
business unit/level for which a single, distinct set
of international marketing strategy is formulated
and executed?
Is this case more about the featured business
unit’s overall international marketing strategy
than about its marketing strategy for specific
country markets?
Is the case devoted more to describing the
featured business unit’s international marketing
strategy than to analyzing a particular marketing
event or decision?
Does the case describe, in a comprehensive and
detailed manner, the various aspects of the featured
company’s international marketing strategy?
Standardization–adaptation dimensions
Concentration–dispersion dimensions
Integration–independence dimensions
Does the case writer describe the details of the
case vividly enough to enable quantification of
the featured company’s international marketing
strategy?
Has the strategy described in the case been
actually implemented for a reasonable period of
time (as opposed to being in the planning stage
or being a transition strategy)?
Journal of International Business Studies
International marketing strategy archetypes
Lewis KS Lim et al
524
Evaluation
This case is definitely suitable for our project;
very few items cannot be coded.
This case may be suitable, although a handful of
items cannot be coded; second opinion to be sought.
This case is definitely not suitable; drop it from
the sample.
Appendix B: International marketing strategy case coding scheme
Accepted by G. Tomas M. Hult, Departmental Editor, 11 February 2005. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.
Journal of International Business Studies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.