Research Outputs

The cultural influence of global brands has never been more important. In psychological terms, global brands are perceived as creating an identity, and a sense of achievement for consumers, symbolizing the aspired values of global consumer culture (GCC). Through the process of meaning transfer consumers internalize these values and ideals to their self-concept (McCracken 1986). On one hand, global brands carry the espoused values of the global culture, which refl ects mostly the core values of Western societies, including freedom of choice, free market, and individual rights (Gupta and Govindarajan 2004); on the other hand, consumers actively create and add new meanings to global brands through a process of meaning co-creation. Global brands are defi ned as brands that have widespread global aware-ness, availability, acceptance and demand, often found under the same name with consistent positioning, personality, look and feel in major markets enabled by centrally coordinated marketing strategies and pro-grams (Özsomer and Altaras 2008). Global brands with their consistent positioning benefi t from a unique perceived image worldwide. Consumers equate consumption of global brands with modernity, consumerism, progress, success, effi ciency and a promise of abundance (Holton 2000). Consumers' preferences for global brands are positively associated with the extent to which they believe these brands are available around the world rather than being available only in the local markets (Steenkamp, Batra and Alden 2003). Such a global positioning increases in its strategic appeal as consumers around the world develop similar needs and tastes constituting global consumer segments, such as the affl uent and teenagers (Hassan and Katsanis 1994; Özsomer and Simonin 2004; Ter Hofstede, Wedel and Steenkamp 2002). Multinational corporations (MNCs) are positioned to benefi t sig-nifi cantly from developing and leveraging global brands. In fact, many of the strategic actions of MNCs are fueling the growth of global brands. Focusing their marketing eff orts on fewer global brands enables MNCs to concentrate resources on a portfolio of leading brands with strong growth potential that best meets the needs, aspirations and values of M2841 -OKAZAKI 9781848448582 PRINT.indd 42 M2841 -OKAZAKI 9781848448582 PRINT.indd 42 28/11/2011 15:24 28/11/2011 15:24 Adoption of global consumer culture 43 people around the world. For example, since its Path to Growth strategy was launched in 2000, Unilever has reduced the number of brands from 1600 to 400 leading brands and under 250 tail brands (www.unilever.com). Around the same time, P&G has also pruned its brand portfolio in favor of global brands (Pitcher, 1999), while in 2003 Heinz declared its intention to focus on a smaller number of "power brands" and selling many of its local brands. Similarly, Colgate Palmolive has invested a lot in making Colgate Total a global brand name. These and many other companies are betting their futures on global brands and consumers around the world from advanced to emerging economies are responding favorably. For example, 23 of P&G's and 13 of Unilever's brands have more than a billion dollar in net annual sales.

We use the legal framework of captive audience to examine the FTC’s 2012 privacy guidelines as applied to mobile marketing. We define captive audiences as audiences without functional opt-out mechanisms to avoid situations of coercive communication. By analyzing the current mobile marketing ecosystem, we show that the FTC’s privacy guidelines inspired by the Canadian “privacy by design” paradigm fall short of protecting consumers against invasive mobile marketing in at least three respects: (a) the guidelines ignore how, in the context of data monopolies, the combination of location and personal history data threatens autonomy of choice; (b) the guidelines focus exclusively on user control over data sharing, while ignoring control over communicative interaction; (c) the reliance on market mechanisms to produce improved privacy policies may actually increase opt-out costs for consumers. We conclude by discussing two concrete proposals for improvement: a “home mode” for mobile privacy and target-specific privacy contract negotiation.

Research Outputs

Browse

Filters

Advanced Search

Filter by

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results