Post on 21-Apr-2015
transcript
International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev
Standardization versus adaptation ofinternational marketing strategy: an integrative
assessment of the empirical research
Marios Theodosiou∗, Leonidas C. LeonidouDepartment of Public and Business Administration, University of Cyprus, Kallipoleos 75, P.O. Box
20537, CY-1678, Nicosia, Cyprus
Received 1 January 2002; received in revised form 1 April 2002; accepted 1 July 2002
Abstract
Despite 40 years of debate on international marketing strategy standardization vs adaptation,extant empirical research is too fragmented to yield clear insights. Based on an integrativeanalysis of 36 studies centering around strategy standardization/adaptation, its antecedents, andperformance outcomes, this stream of research was found to be characterized by non-signifi-cant, contradictory, and, to some extent, confusing findings attributable to inappropriate con-ceptualizations, inadequate research designs, and weak analytical techniques. The central con-clusion that stems from this analysis is that the decision whether to standardize or adapt themarketing strategy to achieve superior business performance will largely depend on the set ofcircumstances that a firm is confronted by within a particular foreign market at a specificperiod of time. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: International marketing strategy; Literature review; Strategy standardization/adaptation
1. Introduction
Recent decades have witnessed a dramatic globalization of the international busi-ness scene due to: increasing liberalization of trade policies; growing stability in
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+357-22892465; fax:+357-22892460.E-mail address: mariosth@ucy.ac.cy (M. Theodosiou).
0969-5931/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0969-5931(02)00094-X
142 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
monetary transactions; creation of regional economic integrations; uninterrupted flowof goods due to relatively peaceful world conditions; and revolutionary advances intransportation, communication, and information technologies (Czinkota & Ron-kainen, 2001; Keegan, 1999). All these factors have led to the rise of fierce compe-tition, with the participation of a wide array of firms of different size, industry, andnational origin (Craig & Douglas, 1996). As a result, issues relating to the designof sound international marketing strategies to compete effectively and efficiently inthis new business environment have been the focus of a sizeable stream of research.This has particularly concentrated on whether firms, irrespective of the foreign mar-ket entry mode chosen, should standardize or adapt their marketing strategy in over-seas markets.
Proponents of the standardization approach view the globalization trends in theworld as the driving force behind greater market similarity, more technological uni-formity, and higher convergence of consumer needs, tastes, and preferences (Levitt,1983; Ohmae, 1985). They also claim that standardization is further facilitated bythe growth of international communication channels, the emergence of global marketsegments, and the appearance of the Internet. They posit that such a strategy canoffer a number of benefits: (a) significant economies of scale in all value-addingactivities, particularly in research and development, production, and marketing; (b)the presentation of a consistent corporate/brand image across countries, especiallyin light of the increasing consumer mobility around the world; and (c) reduced mana-gerial complexity due to better coordination and control of international operations(Levitt, 1983; Douglas and Craig, 1986; Yip, Loewe, & Yoshino, 1988).
Advocates of the adaptation approach argue that, despite increasing globalizationtendencies, variations between countries in such dimensions as consumer needs, useconditions, purchasing power, commercial infrastructure, culture and traditions, lawsand regulations, and technological development are still too great, thus necessitatingthe adjustment of the firm’s marketing strategy to the idiosyncratic circumstances ofeach foreign market (Terpstra & Sarathy, 2000). In particular, they criticize strategystandardization as a new kind of marketing myopia, representing an oversimpl-ification of reality, and contradicting the marketing concept (Boddewyn, Soehl, &Picard, 1986; Wind, 1986; Douglas & Wind, 1987). They also stress the fact thatthe ultimate objective of the firm is not cost reduction through standardization, butlong-term profitability through higher sales accrued from a better exploitation of thedifferent consumer needs across countries (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1990; Rosen, 1990;Whitelock & Pimblett, 1997).
To overcome the above polarization, a third group of researchers offers a contin-gency perspective on the standardization/adaptation debate. In their view: (a) stan-dardization or adaptation should not be seen in isolation from each other, but as thetwo ends of the same continuum, where the degree of the firm’s marketing strategystandardization/adaptation can range between them; (b) the decision to standardizeor adapt the marketing strategy is situation specific, and this should be the outcomeof thorough analysis and assessment of the relevant contingency factors prevailingin a specific market at a specific time; and (c) the appropriateness of the selectedlevel of strategy standardization/adaptation should be evaluated on the basis of its
143M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
impact on company performance in international markets (Quelch & Hoff, 1986;Onkvisit & Shaw, 1987; Jain, 1989; Cavusgil & Zou, 1994). Hence, the challengefor the international firm is to determine which specific strategy elements are feasibleor desirable to standardize or adapt, under what conditions, and to what degree.
This fierce debate on the subject has attracted the attention of many researchers,who have contributed a plethora of empirical writings. Although challenging, thisstream of research is: (a) fragmented, consisting of numerous studies, each adoptingits own conceptual method, methodological design, and analytical technique; (b)repetitive, researching in many cases the same issues, without extending the workof other researchers in the field; (c) diverse, examining different aspects of marketingstrategy adaptation/standardization, as well as its antecedents and outcomes; and (d)inconsistent, yielding different, and sometimes contradicting, results as to which stra-tegic approach is more appropriate. Consequently, there is a need to consolidate thispiece of research and reach conclusions that would facilitate theory development.
The aim of this study is to satisfy this need, by providing an integrative analysisof extant empirical knowledge on international marketing adaptation versus stan-dardization. It aims to review, assimilate, and evaluate empirical research on thecontent and interactions of the components of a simplified model on internationalmarketing strategy standardization/ adaptation (Jain, 1989; Cavusgil & Zou, 1994)(see Fig. 1). Specifically, the emphasis is on: (a) antecedent factors, that is, contin-gency variables that affect the decision to standardize or adapt the firm’s marketing
Fig. 1. A conceptual model on international marketing strategy standardization/adaptation.
144 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
strategy in a specific foreign market; (b) strategy variables, that is, the specificelements of the marketing mix program, where the degree of standardization or adap-tation must be determined; and (c) performance outcomes, that is, the impact ofinternational marketing strategy standardization/adaptation on the company’s per-formance in overseas markets.
The remainder of the article is organized into six sections: first, the methodemployed to select the pertinent empirical studies is explained, and their methodolog-ical profile is presented; second, the antecedent forces of international marketingstrategy are identified and their significance is established; third, each strategy vari-able is analyzed and its degree of standardization/adaptation is determined; fourth,the nature of the international business performance measures used is explained, aswell as their link with strategy variables; fifth, certain conclusions are extracted fromthe findings of the study; and, finally, some guidelines for future research on thesubject are provided.
2. Profile of studies
The review covered all empirical studies on marketing strategyadaptation/standardization published since the inception of this body of research. Fora study to be included in the review, three major criteria had to be met: (a) to focuson the content and/or interactions of the various components of marketing strategystandardization/adaptation model; (b) to have an empirical nature, providing suf-ficient primary information on the subject presented in quantitative format; and (c)to investigate the international activities of manufacturing firms irrespective offoreign market entry mode (e.g., indirect exporting, direct exporting, or foreignproduction). Using a combination of manual and electronic literature search methods,36 studies were found to meet the above criteria1. These were published in 18 differ-ent outlets, primarily in the Journal of Global Marketing, the International MarketingReview, and the Journal of Marketing.
Table 1 summarizes the profile characteristics of the studies selected, while amore detailed analysis is presented in the following. The first attempt to empiricallyinvestigate the issue of marketing strategy standardization/adaptation was in the mid-1970s with the pioneering work of Sorenson and Wiechmann (1975). Since then,there has been an exponential growth of research on the subject, with about two-thirds of the studies conducted in the 1990s. To some extent, this reflects the increas-ing globalization of the international marketplace which has provided the impetusfor a more intense conceptual debate among researchers in the field. Notably, withthe exception of the work of Boddewyn and his colleagues, who conducted a longi-tudinal study of standardization/adaptation over a 30-year period (Boddewyn &
1 The electronic search was based mainly on the ABI/INFO database, as well as on various Internetresources, including Science Direct, Expanded Academic ASAP International, and MCB University Press.
145M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171T
able
1Pr
ofile
ofem
piri
cal
stud
ies
onin
tern
atio
nal
mar
ketin
gst
rate
gyst
anda
rdiz
atio
nvs
adap
tatio
na.
Stud
yde
mog
raph
ics
Met
hodo
logi
cal
aspe
cts
Tot
alFi
eldw
ork
time
Com
pany
coun
try
ofor
igin
Com
pany
type
1970
s19
80s
1990
sN
.A
mer
ica
Eur
ope
Oth
erE
xpor
ting
MN
Cs
(n�
36)
(n�
1)(n
�13
)(n
�22
)(n
�26
)(n
�12
)(n
�14
)(n
�14
)(n
�22
)
Indu
stri
alco
vera
ge1–
3in
dust
ries
2–
–2
21
1–
24–
7in
dust
ries
91
62
64
44
58
indu
stri
esor
mor
e8
–3
57
12
35
Not
avai
labl
e17
–4
1311
67
710
Uni
tof
anal
ysis
Cor
pora
te19
17
1112
57
118
Bus
ines
sun
it3
–1
22
22
–3
Exp
ort
vent
ure
2–
–2
2–
–2
–Pr
oduc
t/bra
nd6
–2
46
22
15
Fore
ign
subs
idia
ry8
13
46
54
–8
Sam
plin
gde
sign
Prob
abili
ty10
–3
74
15
82
Non
prob
abili
ty7
–3
47
1–
25
Not
avai
labl
e19
17
1115
109
415
Res
pons
era
teB
elow
25%
15–
87
11–
410
525
%or
abov
e16
–3
1310
99
313
Not
avai
labl
e5
11
35
31
14
Sam
ple
size
Bel
ow10
023
18
1416
78
716
100
orab
ove
13–
58
105
67
6N
onre
spon
sebi
asT
este
d21
–8
1314
48
912
Non
test
ed15
15
912
86
510
Dat
aco
llect
ion
Mai
l30
–12
1822
812
1119
Pers
onal
71
15
44
33
4(c
onti
nued
onne
xtpa
ge)
146 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171T
able
1(c
onti
nued
)
Stud
yde
mog
raph
ics
Met
hodo
logi
cal
aspe
cts
Tot
alFi
eldw
ork
time
Com
pany
coun
try
ofor
igin
Com
pany
type
1970
s19
80s
1990
sN
.A
mer
ica
Eur
ope
Oth
erE
xpor
ting
MN
Cs
(n�
36)
(n�
1)(n
�13
)(n
�22
)(n
�26
)(n
�12
)(n
�14
)(n
�14
)(n
�22
)
Key
info
rman
tC
EO
/Pre
side
nt7
–3
43
44
25
Inte
rnat
iona
lop
erat
ions
offic
er10
–5
58
13
37
Exp
ort
offic
er8
–2
64
22
8–
Mar
ketin
gm
anag
er3
1–
22
31
12
Subs
idia
rym
anag
er5
–1
44
33
–5
Not
avai
labl
e6
–3
36
11
33
Ant
eced
ent
vari
able
s1–
310
–3
78
34
19
4–6
3–
21
31
1–
37–
126
12
36
21
24
Mor
eth
an12
6–
24
33
32
4St
rate
gym
easu
res
1–3
12–
66
93
55
74–
63
–1
23
11
12
7–12
121
47
105
34
8M
ore
than
129
–2
74
35
36
Per
form
ance
mea
sure
s1
5–
14
3–
24
12–
36
–4
24
12
33
4–5
4–
13
31
22
26
orm
ore
3–
–3
11
13
–St
atis
tica
lan
alys
isD
escr
iptiv
e24
17
1618
107
618
Uni
-/bi
vari
ate
15–
78
136
42
13M
ultiv
aria
te20
–4
1614
77
911
a.Fo
rso
me
met
hodo
logi
cal
aspe
cts
and
dem
ogra
phic
elem
ents
,en
trie
sdo
not
add
upto
36(i
.e.,
the
tota
lnu
mbe
rof
stud
ies
revi
ewed
)fo
ra
num
ber
ofre
ason
s:(a
)st
udy
sam
ples
incl
udin
gco
mpa
nies
from
diff
eren
tco
untr
ies
ofor
igin
,(b
)st
udie
sw
ithm
ultip
leen
trie
son
such
met
hodo
logi
cal
aspe
cts
like
unit
ofan
alys
is,
data
colle
ctio
n,ke
yin
form
ant,
mea
sure
men
tsc
ales
,an
dst
atis
tical
anal
ysis
,an
d(c
)st
udie
sno
tin
vest
igat
ing
all
thre
eca
tego
ries
ofre
leva
ntva
riab
les
(i.e
.,an
tece
dent
mea
sure
s,st
rate
gyite
ms,
and
perf
orm
ance
mea
sure
s).
147M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
Hansen, 1977; Picard, Boddewyn, & Soehl, 1988; Boddewyn & Grosse, 1995), allother studies were of a one-shot nature.
Most of the studies focused on the international activities of firms located in theUnited States, while European firms, as well as firms from other countries, attractedless research attention. Although the location of the supplying firms was primarilyin developed countries (probably due to their dominant role in world manufacturedexports, as opposed to the agricultural orientation of less-developed economies), inthe majority of cases their international marketing strategy covered a variety of mar-kets, irrespective of stage of economic development. Approximately two-thirds of thestudies examined the strategies pursued by the foreign subsidiaries of multinationalcorporations (MNCs), while the remainder examined the standardization/adaptationof exporting firms. To some extent, this reflects the tendency by independent foreignsubsidiaries to seek to develop their own national products in the markets they oper-ate (Terpstra & Sarathy, 2000).
Seventeen studies did not report the nature of the industry investigated, while,with a few exceptions, the remaining studies covered multiple industries. In somecases, researchers intentionally selected firms from a variety of industrial sectors, inorder to explore the effect of product factors on the decision to standardize or adaptthe marketing strategy. Slightly more than half of the studies concentrated theiranalysis at the company level, this being more evident in exporting research2. Thefact that a large proportion of the studies focused on multinational firms resulted inthe use of lower levels of analysis, namely foreign subsidiaries, products/brands, andbusiness units. Two exporting studies (i.e., Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Shiram & Manu,1995) also narrowed the level of their analysis to the firm’s ventures with specificexport markets.
Nineteen studies (particularly those researching multinational firms) gave no infor-mation on the specific sampling designs used, while, of the remainder, most firmsemployed probability-sampling methods. Sample sizes were relatively small, with23 studies reporting a figure of less than 100 cases. This can be partly attributed tothe fact that most of these studies focused on large multinational corporations which,compared to exporting firms, are more difficult to contact due to their small popu-lation. The average response rate of the studies under review was 28.5%, which iscomparable to that of other studies conducted in international marketing. Comparedto export studies, research among multinational firms exhibited higher rates of surveyresponse. Although a satisfactory number of studies (21 out of 36) checked for nonre-sponse bias, it is surprising that many other studies did not carry out such controls,casting doubt on the robustness of the data obtained.
In the majority of cases, data collection was based on mail survey methods, prob-ably due to the difficulties in physically reaching firms of a geographically dispersedsample. This was particularly true in the case of cross-cultural studies, where respon-
2 This unit of analysis has been criticized as being inappropriate for this type of research becausesignificant variations often exist in the marketing strategy that a firm pursues in different foreign marketsand with respect to different products/product lines (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994).
148 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
dents were located in many different locations. Personal interviews were reported inonly six studies, focusing mainly on a small sample of firms. Only one study (i.e.,De Luz, 1993) used a combination of a mail survey and personal interviews. In themajority of cases, data were collected from the individual responsible for inter-national marketing activities, namely the international operations manager and theexport officer. In some studies, the CEO/president, subsidiary manager, or marketingexecutive also provided the information requested. None of the studies checked forkey informant bias, by collecting data from more than one individual in the companyand subsequently assessing the relative equivalence of their responses.
The role of antecedent factors in international marketing standardization/adaptationwas explored by 25 studies3. The number of factors examined varied significantlyamong these studies, ranging from one to 22, with most focusing on up to three.Altogether, 50 factors have been identified, which were subsequently reduced to 22,based on their substantive conceptual meaning. These can be broadly categorizedinto seven groups, namely environmental (4), market (4), customer (3), competition(2), product/industry (3), organizational (4), and managerial (2). Given the greatdiversity of these factors, a variety of ways was used for their measurement. Forinstance, for environmental factors, market characteristics, and customer issues, five-point or seven-point interval scales were employed, measuring the degree of differ-ence between home and host markets (see, for example, Ozsomer, Bodur & Cavusgil,(1991), Johnson & Arunthanes, 1995; and Theodosiou & Katsikeas, 2001).
Twenty-one studies reported empirical data on the actual degree of internationalmarketing strategy standardization/adaptation, while another 15 used the level ofstandardization/adaptation identified for subsequent analysis without clearly statingit (e.g., Albaum & Tse, 2001; Johnson & Arunthanes, 1995). Altogether, 35 differentmarketing strategy items were examined, with the majority of the studies exploringseven items or more. These fall under one of the four generic categories of themarketing mix, namely product (11), price (8), promotion (11), and distribution (5).Multiple-point scales were mainly employed to measure the degree of similarity ofeach marketing strategy element in the domestic market versus the overseas market(Johnson & Arunthanes, 1995; Leonidou, 1996) or its degree ofstandardization/adaptation (e.g., Shoham, 1999; Theodosiou & Katsikeas, 2001). Insome cases, dichotomous scales, indicating whether the firm followed a standardiz-ation or adaptation approach, were also used (e.g., Hill & Still, 1984; Chhabra, 1996).
The effect of marketing strategy standardization/adaptation on company perform-ance was investigated in 18 studies, with most of them operationalizing performanceusing three measures or less4. However, only ten of these studies were designed with
3 Of these studies, only 15 provided evidence of a direct link between antecedent factors and inter-national marketing standardization/adaptation (e.g., Seifert & Ford, 1989; Leonidou, 1996).
4 Numerous different measures of performance were employed by researchers in the field, and acompromise solution was, therefore, adopted by grouping the various performance measures into eightcategories: sales-related, growth-in-sales related, profit-related, growth-in-profit related, market share-related, goal achievement/satisfaction, satisfaction with change in performance, and composite scales ofperformance.
149M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
the strategy-performance link at the center of their investigation, whereas in theremaining studies this association received peripheral treatment. Performance wasmainly assessed using subjective rather than objective measures, and these wereessentially centered on sales, profit, and market share. Moreover, international busi-ness performance was assessed on an absolute and/or growth basis. Despite severalclaims in the literature that performance is a multidimensional construct, only a fewstudies used composite measures, mainly comprising financial, market, and strategicdimensions (e.g., Kotabe & Omura, 1989; Kotabe, 1990; Kotabe & Okoroafo, 1990;Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Hewett & Bearden, 2001).
Descriptive statistics (percentage frequencies and mean scores) were the principalmethod used in analyzing the degree of international marketing strategystandardization/ adaptation, as well as the individual items comprising antecedentfactors and business performance. However, in investigating the effect of antecedentfactors on the decision to standardize or adapt the international marketing strategy, aswell as the impact of this strategy on business performance, bivariate and multivariatestatistical tools, such as correlation analysis, regression analysis, and analysis ofvariance, were commonly employed. Only in more recently conducted research onthe subject more advanced analytical tools, like path analysis and structural equationmodeling, were used (e.g., Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Shoham, 1999).
3. Antecedent factors
Antecedent factors refer to all those background forces that influence the firm’sdecision to standardize or adapt its international marketing strategy. Although attimes a large number of such factors was proposed to have an influential role onaspects of marketing strategy (see, for example, Buzzell, 1968; Papavassiliou & Sta-thakopoulos, 1997; Rau & Preble, 1987; Jain, 1989), only a small subset of themhas been empirically examined. Several attempts have also been made to developbroad classificatory schemes for these factors (Jain, 1989; Ozsomer, Bodur & Cavus-gil, 1991; Cavusgil, Zou, & Naidu, 1993; Johnson & Arunthanes, 1995), which forthe purposes of this review were consolidated into environmental, market, customer,competition, product/industry, organizational, and managerial. Table 2 presents theseantecedent factors, as well as their impact (significant/nonsignificant) on eachelement of international marketing strategy, while a more detailed analysis ispresented in the following5.
Environmental factors consist of a broad spectrum of economic, sociocultural,political-legal, and physical forces which have an influence, either direct or indirect,on international business operations. In fact, these factors can severely restrict thefirm’s ability to develop and implement a standardized strategy, even in cases whenthis choice is deemed desirable (Douglas & Wind, 1987). Of these, political-legal
5 The data on Table 2 should be treated with caution, since most of the associations between antecedentfactors and international marketing strategy have been examined in only a few empirical studies.
150 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
Tab
le2a
Profi
leof
empi
rica
lst
udie
son
inte
rnat
iona
lm
arke
ting
stra
tegy
stan
dard
izat
ion
vsad
apta
tiona
Inte
rnat
iona
lM
arke
ting
Stra
tegy
Ant
eced
ent
fact
ors
Ove
rall
Pro
duct
Posi
t-D
esig
n/Fe
atur
es/
Bra
ndin
g/Pa
ck-
Lab
elin
gW
arra
nty
Mod
els
Pri
cing
Met
hod
Stra
tegy
Who
le-
Ret
ail
stra
tegy
ioni
ngst
yle
char
acte
r-br
and
agin
gin
line
sale
pric
e
istic
sim
age
pric
e
Env
iron
men
tal
fact
ors
––
––
NN
N–
S–
–N
––
N
Eco
nom
ic–
––
–S
SSSN
S–
–S
––
––
Soci
ocul
tura
l–
N–
––
S–
––
––
––
––
Polit
ical
-leg
alS
SN–
––
–N
N–
–SN
––
––
Phys
ical
–N
––
––
––
––
S–
––
–
Mar
ket
char
acte
rist
ics
––
––
NN
N–
S–
–N
––
N
Mar
ketin
gin
fras
truc
ture
–SN
––
––
––
––
N–
––
–
Adv
ertis
ing
med
iaN
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
avai
labi
lity
Dis
trib
utio
nin
fras
truc
ture
S–
––
––
––
––
N–
––
–
Size
NN
––
NSN
NN
–S
N–
N–
–
Cus
tom
eris
sues
––
––
SS
S–
S–
–S
––
S
Cha
ract
eris
tics/
beha
vior
SS–
––
––
––
––
S–
––
–
Tas
tes/
pref
eren
ces
SN
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Usa
gepa
ttern
sN
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
(con
tinu
edon
next
page
)
151M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
Tab
le2a
(con
tinu
ed)
Inte
rnat
iona
lM
arke
ting
Stra
tegy
Ant
eced
ent
fact
ors
Ove
rall
Pro
duct
Posi
t-D
esig
n/Fe
atur
es/
Bra
ndin
g/Pa
ck-
Lab
elin
gW
arra
nty
Mod
els
Pri
cing
Met
hod
Stra
tegy
Who
le-
Ret
ail
stra
tegy
ioni
ngst
yle
char
acte
r-br
and
agin
gin
line
sale
pric
e
istic
sim
age
pric
e
Com
peti
tion
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Stru
ctur
e/na
ture
SN
––
NN
N–
N–
NN
––
S
Inte
nsity
–SN
––
––
SS
––
––
––
–
Pro
duct
/Ind
ustr
y–
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Prod
uct
type
SSSS
––
NN
SSSN
–N
––
N–
–
Tec
hnol
ogy
orie
ntat
ion
ofS
S–
––
–S
S–
––
––
––
indu
stry
Stag
eof
PLC
SN
––
SS
S–
S–
SS
––
S
Org
aniz
atio
nal
fact
ors
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Nat
iona
lity
ofpa
rent
SNS
SN–
––
––
––
N–
––
–
com
pany
Nat
ure
ofow
ners
hip
S–
––
NN
N–
N–
–N
––
N
Inte
rnat
iona
lex
peri
ence
–S
––
––
SS
––
––
––
–
Mar
ket
shar
epo
sitio
nSN
N–
–N
NN
–N
–N
N–
–S
Man
ager
ial
fact
ors
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Cen
tral
izat
ion
inde
cisi
onS
–SN
N–
SN
–N
––
––
NN
mak
ing
Cor
pora
teor
ient
atio
n–
––
–N
NN
–N
––
N–
–N
a.
N:
Non
-sig
nific
ant
asso
ciat
ion
at90
%co
nfide
nce
inte
rval
S:Si
gnifi
cant
asso
ciat
ion
at90
%co
nfide
nce
inte
rval
.
152 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
Tab
le2b
Profi
leof
empi
rica
lst
udie
son
inte
rnat
iona
lm
arke
ting
stra
tegy
stan
dard
izat
ion
vsad
apta
tiona
Inte
rnat
iona
lM
arke
ting
Stra
tegy
Ant
eced
ent
fact
ors
Profi
tD
is-
Pro
-A
dver
-B
asic
Cre
ativ
eM
edia
Sale
sSa
les-
Sale
s-Pu
blic
ity/
Dis
tri-
Cha
nnel
sT
ype
ofR
ole
of
mar
gins
coun
tsm
otio
ntis
ing
mes
s-ex
pres
-al
lo-
prom
o-fo
rce
forc
epu
blic
buti
onof
dist
ri-
mid
dle-
mid
dle-
(tra
de)
(ove
rall)
age/
sion
catio
ntio
nm
anag
e-ro
lere
latio
nsbu
tion
men
men
them
em
ent
Env
iron
men
tal
fact
ors
–N
–S
NN
NS
NN
N–
NS
S
Eco
nom
ic–
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Soci
ocul
tura
l–
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Polit
ical
-leg
al–
–SN
–S
–N
––
––
N–
––
Phys
ical
––
N–
––
––
––
–N
––
–
Mar
ket
char
acte
rist
ics
–N
–S
NN
NS
NN
N–
NS
S
Mar
ketin
gin
fras
truc
ture
––
N–
––
––
––
–N
––
–
Adv
ertis
ing
med
iaav
aila
bilit
y–
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Dis
trib
utio
nin
fras
truc
ture
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Size
N–
–S
SS
SS
SN
––
NN
S
Cus
tom
eris
sues
–S
–S
SS
NN
SS
N–
SS
S
Cha
ract
eris
tics/
beha
vior
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Tas
tes/
pref
eren
ces
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Usa
gepa
ttern
s–
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
(con
tinu
edon
next
page
)
153M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
Tab
le2b
(con
tinu
ed)
Inte
rnat
iona
lM
arke
ting
Stra
tegy
Ant
eced
ent
fact
ors
Profi
tD
is-
Pro
-A
dver
-B
asic
Cre
ativ
eM
edia
Sale
sSa
les-
Sale
s-Pu
blic
ity/
Dis
tri-
Cha
nnel
sT
ype
ofR
ole
of
mar
gins
coun
tsm
otio
ntis
ing
mes
s-ex
pres
-al
lo-
prom
o-fo
rce
forc
epu
blic
buti
onof
dist
ri-
mid
dle-
mid
dle-
(tra
de)
(ove
rall)
age/
sion
catio
ntio
nm
anag
e-ro
lere
latio
nsbu
tion
men
men
them
em
ent
Com
peti
tion
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Stru
ctur
e/na
ture
–N
NN
NN
NN
NS
NN
NN
S
Inte
nsity
––
––
S–
S–
––
––
––
–
Pro
duct
/Ind
ustr
y–
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Prod
uct
type
N–
––
SSN
SN
S–
–N
NN
Tec
hnol
ogy
orie
ntat
ion
ofin
dust
ry–
––
–S
–S
––
––
––
––
Stag
eof
PLC
–S
–S
SSN
N–
SS
N–
SS
S
Org
aniz
atio
nal
fact
ors
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Nat
iona
lity
ofpa
rent
com
pany
––
N–
SS
N–
––
–N
––
–
Nat
ure
ofow
ners
hip
–N
–N
NN
NS
NN
N–
NN
N
Inte
rnat
iona
lex
peri
ence
––
––
S–
S–
––
––
––
–
Mar
ket
shar
epo
sitio
n–
NS
NN
NN
NN
SN
NN
NS
Man
ager
ial
fact
ors
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–
Cen
tral
izat
ion
inde
cisi
onm
akin
g–
N–
SSN
SNN
NN
NN
––
–N
N
Cor
pora
teor
ient
atio
n–
N–
SSS
SS
NN
SS
–S
NN
a.
N:
Non
-sig
nific
ant
asso
ciat
ion
at90
%co
nfide
nce
inte
rval
S:Si
gnifi
cant
asso
ciat
ion
at90
%co
nfide
nce
inte
rval
.
154 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
and economic factors received most research attention, whereas sociocultural andphysical aspects were largely ignored. Although it has been repeatedly asserted inthe literature that environmental differences are very important in determining boththe feasibility and the appropriateness of international marketing strategy, only 18out of the total 43 reported associations were significant6. This was particularly truefor both product (e.g., branding) and pricing in general. The large number of nonsig-nificant relationships reported (25 out of 43) partly contradicts the traditional notionthat environment is the driving force behind marketing strategy differentiation.
Market characteristics refer to those factors that determine the level of sophisti-cation and development of a particular foreign market, including its marketing infra-structure, advertising media availability, distribution structure, and market size.While the latter determines demand potentials in a foreign market, the other marketcharacteristics influence the firm’s ability to strengthen and serve demand. Of those,market size had consistently exhibited the greatest influence on marketing strategy—the larger the market the more the adaptation required—particularly affecting itspromotional aspects. This is because the higher sales derived from large markets aremore likely to cover the added costs of adaptation (Chhabra, 1996). Moreover,although one would expect greater standardization due to similarities in the avail-ability, performance, and cost of the marketing, advertising, and distribution infra-structure between the home and host markets (Jain, 1989), this was only partiallyvalidated in the studies under review.
Customer issues focus on the characteristics/behavior, tastes/preferences, andusage patterns of customers in overseas markets. In fact, the firm’s success or failureabroad largely depends on its ability to satisfy the needs of its target customers betterthan the competition. Despite its importance, this group of antecedent factors wassurprisingly the least examined by researchers in the field. Nonetheless, empiricalfindings strongly indicate that customer issues have a rather significant effect onmarketing strategy standardization/ adaptation, this being true for almost all strategicelements. Specifically, it has been revealed that the more the similarity in customerprofiles across countries, the greater the standardization of the marketing strategy,and vice versa. These results are uniformly consistent with conceptual claims in thefield (e.g., Jain, 1989), although the scarcity of empirical evidence, particularly withrespect to the finer dimensions of this construct, limits their credibility.
Competition-related factors include the structure (i.e., monopolistic vsoligopolistic), nature (i.e., price vs nonprice), and intensity (i.e., mild vs fierce) ofcompetition in foreign target markets. In the majority of cases, the structure/natureof competition did not have a serious impact on the decision to standardize or adaptthe various marketing strategy elements7. This is in contrast to the view that thefirm’s international marketing strategy should take into consideration the number,
6 The basic premise is that the greater the environmental similarity between a firm’s home and hostcountry, the greater the likelihood of marketing strategy standardization being successful, and vice versa(Jain, 1989).
7 Although different, most of the empirical studies have combined competition structure and nature ofcompetition into a single item, which was inevitably adopted in our analysis.
155M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
origin, and approach of its major competitors in each market, as well as its position(leader, challenger, follower) vis-a-vis each competitor (Buzzell, 1968; Jain, 1989;Rosen, 1990). Competition intensity, the other factor in this group, was significantlyand positively associated with both product and promotion adaptation, suggestingthat competitive pressures may necessitate strategy customization to the specificrequirements of the foreign market to gain an advantage over rivals (Cavusgil, Zou &Naidu, 1993).
Product and industry factors refer to the type of the product (i.e., consumer orindustrial), the technology orientation of the industry (i.e., technology-intensive or“old-line” ), and the stage of product life cycle (i.e., early or mature). Despite claimsthat, as opposed to consumer products, industrial goods require a more standardizedapproach, due to the fact that purchasing decisions are based on “ rational” ratherthan “emotional” criteria, these were only partially confirmed by empirical research(e.g., Akaah, 1991; Ozsomer, Bodur & Cavusgil, 1991; Cavusgil, Zou & Naidu,1993)8. Technology orientation was repeatedly found to have a serious impact onstandardizing marketing strategy, especially on product, due to the need to allocatethe vast research and development costs over long production runs (Cavusgil & Zou,1994; Cavusgil, Zou & Naidu, 1993; Grosse & Zinn, 1995). Product life-cycle wasalso found to significantly affect almost all dimensions of marketing strategy and,in fact, it has been confirmed that a standardized marketing strategy works best inmarkets where the product is in the same stage of its life cycle (Cavusgil, Zou &Naidu, 1993; Grosse & Zinn, 1990; Johnson & Arunthanes, 1995; Chhabra, 1996).
Organizational factors focus on internal company characteristics and consist offour items: (a) the nationality of the parent company, where results show thatalthough certain product and advertising aspects are influenced by the origin of theparent office, other marketing strategy parameters were not influenced; (b) the natureof company ownership, where results were non-significant, with the exception ofOzsomer et al.’s (1991) study which reported that the extent of standardization ofthe overall marketing strategy was higher in wholly-owned subsidiaries than in jointventures; (c) the firm’s international experience, where one study found a positiveassociation with product and promotion adaptation (Cavusgil, Zou & Naidu, 1993);and (d) the foreign market share position, where no effect was revealed whatsoeveron marketing strategy adaptation (Akaah, 1991; Shoham, 1999).
The final set of antecedent factors refer to managerial attitude toward internationaloperations, and include the degree of centralization of decision-making (i.e., cen-tralized vs decentralized) and corporate orientation (i.e., the extent of management’swillingness to accommodate foreign perspectives)9. With regard to the former, thebasic assumption that a marketing strategy standardization is more likely to be fol-
8 These findings are somewhat surprising, given the fact that product nature is generally consideredto be the single most important factor in determining the appropriateness of marketing strategy standardiz-ation.
9 Building on Perlmutter’s (1969) classification, some scholars suggested that firms adopting an ethno-centric or regiocentric/geocentric orientation are more likely to pursue a strategy of standardization,whereas polycentric firms are more likely to adopt marketing program adaptation.
156 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
lowed when decision-making is centrally controlled at headquarters, was examined intwo studies, yielding antithetical results: while Ozsomer, Bodur and Cavusgil (1991)supported this association, Quester and Conduit (1996) found no significant relation-ship with most of the marketing strategy elements examined. As far as corporateorientation is concerned, a study conducted by Akaah (1991) revealed that this factorsignificantly affected the extent of standardization of promotion-related elements, buthad no effect on product, pricing, and distribution strategy standardization. Moreover,Kanso, (1992) found that cultural-oriented managers adapt advertising to a greaterextent than do nonculturally-sensitive executives.
4. International marketing strategy
Marketing strategy is the central construct in the standardization/adaptation debateand has traditionally been defined as the statement of how the company is going toachieve its marketing objectives (Kotler & Armstrong, 2001). This is particularlyexpressed in terms of product, price, distribution, and promotion aspects, which areblended for the purpose of achieving a specific marketing objective. Although theappropriateness of marketing strategy standardization or adaptation should be evalu-ated within the context of the relevant antecedent factors, it is still important toknow what the actual managerial practices are with respect to the specific level ofstandardization/adaptation realized10. Table 3 presents the findings of 21 studies thathave empirically measured the actual degree of marketing strategystandardization/adaptation, while a more detailed analysis is provided in the follow-ing11.
Of the elements of the marketing mix, product-related issues exhibited the moststandardization, probably due to: (a) the greater incentive to reap the benefits fromeconomies of scale in research and development and production; (b) the desire forrapid diffusion of new products in the market, especially in light of the fact thatproduct life-cycles are increasingly becoming shorter; and (c) the need to achievebetter coordination through the application of more uniform internal production con-trols and quality standards (Ohmae, 1985; Douglas & Craig, 1986; Walters & Toyne,1989). Of these, product attributes, namely quality, design, and features, were the
10 Ideally, it would be more appropriate to compare and contrast intended strategies (i.e., strategiesreflecting the manager’s initial vision, stemming from formal, analytic, and planned procedures) againstrealized strategies (i.e., strategies actually being implemented in practice) (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985).However, with the exception of Johnson and Arunthanes’ (1995) study which distinguished between idealand actual levels of product adaptation, all other studies focused on realized strategies.
11 As many different scales were used to measure standardization/adaptation, the results of each studywere converted into a 100-point scale, where 1 represents complete standardization and 100 denotes fulladaptation. In the case of dichotomous scales, the two dummy variables were converted into 1% and100%, while for interval scales the mid-point was set at 50% and the two ends of the scale were convertedinto 1% and 100% respectively. For instance, a mean score of 4.5 on a five-point scale was convertedinto 88%. Although the limitations associated with such a conversion are fully recognized, it was deemednecessary to facilitate comparison and consolidation of the available empirical findings.
157M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171T
able
3aC
onve
rted
empi
rica
lre
sults
onth
ede
gree
ofin
tern
atio
nal
mar
ketin
gst
rate
gyad
apta
tion
(per
cent
ages
)a
Em
piri
cal
stud
ies
Mar
keti
ngst
rate
gySo
rens
onH
illSe
ifer
tan
dG
ross
ean
dA
kaah
Ozs
omer
etC
avus
gil,
Shoh
amB
odde
wyn
and
Gro
sse
elem
ent
and
and
Still
Ford
Zin
n(1
991)
al.
(199
1)Z
ouan
dan
d(1
995)
b
Wie
chm
ann
(198
4)(1
989)
(199
0)N
aidu
Alb
aum
(197
5)(1
993)
(199
4)
Pro
duct
1645
1731
2955
3136
5651
56G
ener
alpr
oduc
t–
––
36–
–29
––
––
Posi
tioni
ng–
––
––
5534
––
––
Des
ign/
styl
e–
–6
––
––
46–
––
Qua
lity
––
9–
––
–28
––
–Fe
atur
es/c
hara
cter
.17
3315
–28
51–
––
––
Bra
nd/b
rand
ing
731
525
2352
––
6251
48Pa
ckag
ing
2347
37–
3355
31–
5848
57L
abel
ing
–69
––
––
31–
6248
60Se
rvic
es–
–22
––
61–
3352
5461
War
rant
y–
–22
–32
––
–46
5252
Item
s/m
odel
sin
––
––
––
––
––
–pr
oduc
tlin
eP
rice
37–
–60
5267
–50
––
74G
ener
alpr
ice
––
–60
––
–50
––
74Pr
icin
g–
––
–50
––
––
––
met
hod/
stra
tegy
Ret
ail
pric
e37
––
–52
67–
––
––
Who
lesa
le/tr
ade
pric
e–
––
––
––
––
––
Profi
tm
argi
nsto
––
––
––
––
––
–tr
ade
cust
omer
sPr
ofit
mar
gins
to–
––
––
––
––
––
end–
user
sD
isco
unts
––
––
53–
––
––
Sale
s/cr
edit
term
s–
––
––
––
––
––
(con
tinu
edon
next
page
)
158 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171T
able
3a(c
onti
nued
)
Em
piri
cal
stud
ies
Mar
keti
ngst
rate
gySo
rens
onH
illSe
ifer
tG
ross
eA
kaah
Ozs
omer
etC
avus
gil,
Shoh
amB
odde
wyn
and
Gro
sse
elem
ent
and
and
Still
and
Ford
and
Zin
n(1
991)
al.
(199
1)Z
ouan
dan
d(1
995)
b
Wie
chm
ann
(198
4)(1
989)
(199
0)N
aidu
Alb
aum
(197
5)(1
993)
(199
4)
Pro
mot
ion
32–
–45
5160
3037
4854
66G
ener
alpr
omot
ion
––
––
––
30–
––
–A
dver
tisin
g(o
vera
ll)–
––
4550
––
3748
5357
Cre
ativ
e/ex
ecut
ion
36–
––
52–
––
––
–st
yle
Mes
sage
/them
e22
––
–45
56–
––
––
Med
iaal
loca
tion
52–
––
6256
––
––
–Sa
les
prom
otio
n39
––
–58
63–
––
5167
Sale
sfor
ce22
––
–45
––
––
––
stru
ctur
e/m
anag
emen
tSa
lesf
orce
role
20–
––
4565
––
––
–Pu
blic
ity/p
ublic
––
––
53–
––
––
–re
latio
nsPe
rson
alse
lling
––
––
––
––
–57
73A
dver
tisin
g/pr
omot
ion
––
––
––
––
––
–bu
dget
Dis
trib
utio
n28
––
–57
74–
47–
–74
Gen
eral
dist
ribu
tion
––
––
––
–47
––
–C
hann
els
of–
––
–53
––
––
––
dist
ribu
tion
Phys
ical
dist
ribu
tion
––
––
––
––
––
74T
ype
of38
––
–60
74–
––
––
mid
dlem
en/r
etai
lou
tlets
Rol
eof
mid
dlem
en17
––
–57
––
––
––
aPe
rcen
tage
sha
vebe
enro
unde
dto
the
near
est
inte
gral
;b
The
first
,se
cond
and
thir
dco
lum
nsre
port
the
resu
ltsof
the
1973
,19
83,
and
1993
stud
ies
resp
ectiv
ely;
159M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171T
able
3bC
onve
rted
empi
rica
lre
sults
onth
ede
gree
ofin
tern
atio
nal
mar
ketin
gst
rate
gyad
apta
tion
(per
cent
ages
)
Em
piri
cal
stud
ies
Mar
keti
ngst
rate
gyC
hhab
raL
eoni
dou
Que
ster
Shoh
amZ
ouan
dY
ipZ
ouet
al.
Mitc
hell
etSh
oham
The
odos
iou
Tot
alel
emen
t(1
996)
(199
6)an
d(1
996)
Lau
ghlin
(199
7)(1
997)
al.
(199
8)(1
999)
and
Con
duit
(199
6)c
Kat
sike
as(1
996)
(200
1)
Pro
duct
3441
2848
4047
2193
2940
-40
Gen
eral
prod
uct
–43
––
4152
––
–40
–40
Posi
tioni
ng–
–41
–39
41–
––
––
42D
esig
n/st
yle
–35
2155
––
––
––
–33
Qua
lity
–35
–37
––
––
––
–27
Feat
ures
/cha
ract
er.
19–
––
––
––
26–
–27
Bra
nd/b
rand
ing
735
23–
––
16–
18–
–29
Pack
agin
g49
4028
––
–26
–29
––
40L
abel
ing
3058
––
––
––
––
–51
Serv
ices
––
–40
––
–93
41–
–51
War
rant
y–
–29
––
––
–33
––
38It
ems/
mod
els
in66
––
58–
––
––
––
62pr
oduc
tlin
eP
rice
64–
5963
4149
–67
5763
4356
Gen
eral
pric
e–
––
6241
49–
67–
63–
58Pr
icin
g46
––
––
––
–51
––
49m
etho
d/st
rate
gyR
etai
lpr
ice
––
61–
––
––
56–
4152
Who
lesa
le/tr
ade
pric
e–
–54
––
––
––
–42
48Pr
ofit
mar
gins
to81
––
––
––
––
–44
63tr
ade
cust
omer
sPr
ofit
mar
gins
to–
––
––
––
––
–41
41en
d–us
ers
Dis
coun
ts–
–63
––
––
–65
––
60Sa
les/
cred
itte
rms
––
–63
––
––
––
4554
(con
tinu
edon
next
page
)
160 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171T
able
3b(c
onti
nued
)
Em
piri
cal
stud
ies
Mar
keti
ngst
rate
gyC
hhab
raL
eoni
dou
Que
ster
Shoh
amZ
ouan
dY
ipZ
ouet
al.
Mitc
hell
etSh
oham
The
odos
iou
Tot
alel
emen
t(1
996)
(199
6)an
d(1
996)
Lau
ghlin
(199
7)(1
997)
al.
(199
8)(1
999)
and
Con
duit
(199
6)c
Kat
sike
as(1
996)
(200
1)
Pro
duct
3441
2848
4047
2193
2940
-40
Pro
mot
ion
64–
5670
6167
6852
5369
–55
Gen
eral
prom
otio
n–
––
–61
6777
68–
69–
62A
dver
tisin
g(o
vera
ll)–
––
––
–66
––
––
51C
reat
ive/
exec
utio
n72
–57
––
––
–56
––
55st
yle
Mes
sage
/them
e52
–47
––
––
–46
––
45M
edia
allo
catio
n76
–66
––
––
–56
––
61Sa
les
prom
otio
n80
–57
––
––
–59
––
59Sa
lesf
orce
60–
5769
––
–67
52–
–53
stru
ctur
e/m
anag
emen
tSa
lesf
orce
role
44–
52–
––
––
49–
–46
Publ
icity
/pub
lic–
––
––
––
–48
––
51re
latio
nsPe
rson
alse
lling
––
––
––
62–
––
–64
Adv
ertis
ing/
prom
otio
n–
––
70–
––
2258
––
50bu
dget
Dis
trib
utio
n45
–60
6841
4958
7567
65–
58G
ener
aldi
stri
butio
n–
––
––
–58
75–
65–
61C
hann
els
of43
––
6841
49–
–58
––
52di
stri
butio
nPh
ysic
aldi
stri
butio
n–
––
––
––
––
––
74T
ype
of41
–59
––
––
–67
––
57m
iddl
emen
/ret
ail
outle
tsR
ole
ofm
iddl
emen
50–
60–
––
––
77–
–52
cT
hefir
stco
lum
nre
port
sth
ere
sults
for
Japa
nese
firm
san
dth
ese
cond
for
Eur
opea
nfir
ms.
161M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
least adapted. The same was also true of branding decisions, which were partlyadjusted, probably as a result of undesirable meanings, pronunciation difficulties, orbrand similarity in foreign markets. Packaging was slightly more adapted, concentrat-ing mainly on material, design, and size, while information and language require-ments were responsible for some labeling adaptation. Differences in product useconditions, competitors’ practices, and service facilities across countries also led tomoderate adjustments in the provision of after-sales service and warranties. Finally,product line changes in overseas markets seem to be common, resulting mainly fromdifferences between home and foreign environments, the development of new pro-ducts for specific overseas markets, or financial limitations in supporting specificproducts abroad due to high entry costs.
Compared to product aspects, price-related elements were much more adapted,as a result of differences in such factors as marketing objectives, cost structures,inflation rates, competitive policies, and government controls. Pricing adjustmentscentered on five major areas: (a) pricing methods/strategies, adopting a skimmingor penetration strategy, depending on variations in market size, consumer sensitivityto prices, and competitors’ actions or reactions across markets; (b) wholesaleprices/margins, resulting from differences in the role of wholesalers in the distri-bution trade of a foreign country, as well as the mark-ups charged; (c) retailprices/margins, being the result of variations in the size, type, and services providedby retail outlets abroad, which largely determine the retail margins charged; (d) enduser prices/margins, usually affected by demand variations caused by differences incustomer numbers, purchasing power, and economic conditions; and (e)sales/payment terms, being the result of variations in the company’s entry mode,degree of involvement, and response to competitors in overseas markets. On average,price adaptation was relatively moderate in almost all the above areas, indicatingthe lack of flexibility of international firms to achieve the desired level of pricediscrimination across countries as a result of excessive pressures by their competitors(Samiee & Roth, 1992).
The third element of the marketing strategy, distribution, was the most adapted,this being attributable to both foreign market—(e.g., differences in disposableincomes, purchasing habits, and distribution infrastructure) and company-related(e.g., variations in the level of involvement, product line, and sales volume) reasons.Several studies stressed the existence of significant differences (in terms of number,size, type, and services) in both wholesale and retail trade between home and hostmarkets (Akaah, 1991; Ozsomer et al., 1991; Quester & Conduit, 1996; Michell,Lynch, & Alabdali, 1998). Adjustments were also reported with respect to the differ-ent roles middlemen have to play in domestic vs foreign markets, caused by vari-ations in bargaining power, financial strength, and marketing know-how. Of signifi-cance is the fact that physical distribution exhibited the greatest degree of adaptation,as a result of differences in: (a) the special documentation and ordering proceduresrequired in international product shipments; (b) the availability of transportationfacilities to carry goods to and within foreign markets; (c) the number, type, andtechnology of the warehouses abroad; and (d) the level of inventories needed to bemaintained in overseas markets, usually determined by territorial size, infrastructural
162 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
facilities, and purchasing/consumption habits. Notably, designing a physical distri-bution system for international markets requires continuous adjustments becausemarket, competitive and transportation conditions are constantly changing.
The final, and perhaps the most widely investigated, element of the marketingstrategy is promotion, which also exhibited slightly above-average levels of adap-tation in foreign markets. With regard to advertising, language differences, mediaavailability, government regulations, economic differences, and competitors’ actionshave often been cited as reasons for advertising adaptation. In fact, these factors areresponsible for adjustments in the advertising message, its execution style, and mediamix. They also have a great impact on the allocation of the advertising and pro-motional budget. Sales promotions were subject to moderate adaptations, oftenattributable to variations in legal restrictions, cultural characteristics, competitivepractices, and retailers’ capabilities in foreign markets. Moderate adjustments werealso observed in the case of publicity/public relations, caused mainly by variationsin the degree of company involvement, the nature and importance of publics, andavailability of public relations agencies abroad. Finally, personal selling has alsoundergone mild adaptations in international markets, particularly as regards therecruitment, training, motivation, and control of the salesforce and the way the sellingtask is performed.
5. Performance outcome
The ultimate relevance of the marketing strategy standardization or adaptationdepends on its performance outcomes, that is, the economic or behavioral payoffsderived from its implementation (Jain, 1989). Despite its critical importance, therelationship between marketing strategy standardization or adaptation and businessperformance received scant empirical attention (Kotabe & Omura, 1989; Shoham &Albaum, 1994). In fact, this relationship was the primary focus of a few studies only(e.g., Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Shoham, 1999), while the remainder examined thisaspect as a side issue (e.g., Christensen, da Rocha & Gertner, 1987; Koh, 1991)12.With a single exception (i.e., Roth, 1995), all studies attempted to establish a directlink between marketing strategy standardization/adaptation and business perform-ance, without investigating the role of numerous antecedent factors that determinethe circumstances under which each strategy becomes appropriate to achievesuperior performance.
Given these limitations, Table 4 shows whether the relationship between the stan-dardization or adaptation of a particular strategy element and a specific performancecategory was significant and negative (–), non-significant (0), or significant and posi-tive (+). Sales-related measures of performance were among the most commonly
12 Four studies, namely those by Kirpalani and Macintosh (1980); Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1985),Christensen et al., (1987), and Szymanski, Bharadwaj & Varadarajano, (1993), were not incorporated inTable 4, because they have tackled tangentially the effect of marketing strategy standardization/adaptationon business performance.
163M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171T
able
4In
tern
atio
nal
mar
ketin
gst
rate
gyst
anda
rdiz
atio
n/ad
apta
tion
effe
cton
fore
ign
busi
ness
perf
orm
ance
a.
Per
form
ance
mea
sure
sM
arke
ting
prog
ram
Sale
s-re
late
dG
row
thin
Profi
t-re
late
dG
row
thin
Mar
ket
shar
e-G
oal
Satis
fact
ion
Com
posi
teel
emen
tspe
rfor
man
cesa
les-
rela
ted
perf
orm
ance
profi
t-re
late
dre
late
dac
hiev
emen
tw
ithch
ange
scal
esof
perf
orm
ance
perf
orm
ance
perf
orm
ance
/sat
isfa
ctio
nin
perf
orm
ance
perf
orm
ance
–0
+–
0+
–0
+–
0+
–0
+–
0+
–0
+–
0+
Mar
keti
ngS
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
1–
––
––
–st
rate
gy(o
vera
ll)A
–1
1–
1–
––
––
––
––
––
–1
––
––
––
Glo
bal
stan
dard
izat
ion
S–
––
–1
––
1–
––
––
––
––
1–
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Pro
duct
S–
––
––
1–
––
––
12
–1
––
–1
––
1–
A–
2–
–1
11
31
––
––
1–
––
––
––
2–
1C
ore
prod
uct
S–
–1
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Prod
uct
desi
gn/s
tyle
S–
1–
–1
––
1–
1–
––
––
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
11
––
––
–1
––
––
––
––
––
Posi
tioni
ngS
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
A–
––
––
––
1–
––
––
1–
––
––
––
––
–Pr
oduc
tqu
ality
S–
1–
–1
––
1–
–1
––
––
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Bra
ndim
age
S–
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
1–
––
––
––
––
Prod
uct
peri
pher
als
S1
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Prod
uct
lines
S–
1–
–1
–1
––
–1
––
––
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Item
sin
prod
uct
lines
S–
–1
–1
––
–1
––
1–
––
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–(c
onti
nued
onne
xtpa
ge)
164 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
Tab
le4
(con
tinu
ed)
Per
form
ance
mea
sure
sM
arke
ting
prog
ram
Sale
s-re
late
dG
row
thin
Profi
t-re
late
dG
row
thin
Mar
ket
shar
e-G
oal
Satis
fact
ion
Com
posi
teel
emen
tspe
rfor
man
cesa
les-
rela
ted
perf
orm
ance
profi
t-re
late
dre
late
dac
hiev
emen
tw
ithch
ange
scal
esof
perf
orm
ance
perf
orm
ance
perf
orm
ance
/sat
isfa
ctio
nin
perf
orm
ance
perf
orm
ance
–0
+–
0+
–0
+–
0+
–0
+–
0+
–0
+–
0+
Serv
ices
S1
1–
–1
––
1–
–1
––
––
––
––
––
––
–A
–1
––
––
11
––
––
–1
––
––
––
––
––
Pro
mot
ion
S–
1–
––
––
––
––
––
––
1–
–1
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–1
––
Adv
ertis
ing
S–
––
––
––
––
––
––
11
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Adv
ertis
ing
mes
sage
/S
1–
–1
––
1–
–1
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
cont
ents
A–
––
––
–1
1–
––
––
1–
––
––
––
––
–Sa
lesf
orce
man
agem
ent
S1
––
–1
–1
––
1–
––
––
––
––
––
––
–A
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
–Pr
omot
ion
budg
etS
––
1–
1–
––
1–
–1
––
––
––
––
––
––
A–
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
––
Pri
cing
S–
11
–1
–1
–1
––
––
––
1–
––
1–
––
A–
––
––
––
11
––
––
1–
––
––
––
–1
–D
istr
ibut
ion
S–
1–
–1
––
1–
–1
––
––
––
1–
1–
––
–A
––
––
––
–1
––
––
–1
––
––
––
––
––
a.S:
Stan
dard
izat
ion
A:
Ada
ptat
ion
+:Si
gnifi
cant
posi
tive
rela
tions
hip
at90
%co
nfide
nce
inte
rval
�:
Sign
ifica
ntne
gativ
ere
latio
nshi
pat
90%
confi
denc
ein
terv
al0:
Non
-sig
nific
ant
rela
tions
hip
at90
%co
nfide
nce
inte
rval
.
165M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
employed, indicating, however, a non-significant association with marketing strategyin the majority of cases examined. Analytically, most studies investigated the linkbetween standardization of the design/style, quality, service, and mix of the com-pany’s product on its international sales (both static and dynamic) without findingany significance. Moreover, a positive association with foreign sales performancewas established in the case of standardizing the core product (Zou, Andrus, & Norv-ell, 1997) and the length of the product line (Shoham, 1996), while a negative associ-ation was found with respect to product peripherals (Zou, Andrus & Norvell, 1997).In the case of promotional aspects, standardizing both the advertising content and thesalesforce management was responsible for deteriorating sales performance (Shoham,1996). In contrast, standardizing the promotional budget was conducive to highersales performance within a short time span (Shoham, 1996). Of the two studiesinvestigating the link between pricing strategy standardization and sales performance,only one revealed significant results (Zou, Andrus & Norvell, 1997), while stan-dardizing distribution had no association whatsoever with this measure of perform-ance.
The effect of strategic marketing factors on profit-related measures was examinedrelatively more extensively, revealing mixed results: 16 associations were non-sig-nificant, 14 associations were significant and negative, and six associations weresignificant and positive. As in the previous case, most studies concentrated mainlyon product strategy standardization/adaptation. Specifically, the effect ofstandardization/adaptation of product design/style on profit performance was exam-ined in two studies: Shoham (1996) who found no association with profit, but anegative relationship with growth in profits, and Frazer and Hite (1990) who reportedno association between strategy and performance in English speaking and Asianmarkets, but a negative one in European and Latin American markets. Standardizingproduct quality did not have a significant effect on either static or growth measuresof profit performance (Shoham, 1996), and the same was true with respect to adaptingproduct positioning (Albaum & Tse, 2001). Although standardizing the number ofproduct lines sold in foreign markets seems to have a negative or no impact on profitperformance, the standardization of the number of items contained in each productline had a significant positive effect (Shoham, 1996). The impact of standardizingpostsales service on profit performance was examined in one study revealing non-significant results (Shoham, 1996), while of the two studies investigating the effect ofservice adaptation on profit performance, only one found significant negative results(Kaynak & Kuan, 1993). The association of promotional aspects with profit perform-ance was less frequently examined, with standardization of the advertising contentleading to poor profit performance (Shoham, 1996), while standardizing the pro-motion budget had a positive impact. With regard to pricing, results were relativelyconsistent: pricing standardization was negatively associated with profit performance(Shoham, 1996), although the latter was positively linked with pricing adaptation(Koh, 1991). Finally, both standardization and adaptation of distribution strategy hadno serious effect on profit performance (Shoham, 1996; Albaum & Tse, 2001).
Compared to sales- and profit-related measures, the impact of marketing strategystandardization/adaptation on market share-related performance was less frequently
166 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
examined. However, the majority of studies focusing on this association revealed nosignificant results. Only two studies examining the adaptation of brand image (Roth,1995) and the standardization of advertising (Shiram & Manu, 1995) reported apositive association with market share performance. More subjective measures ofperformance, such as satisfaction with changes in performance, were rarely usedand these concentrated mainly on the generic aspects of marketing strategy. Whilestandardizing product and distribution strategy had no impact on this measure ofperformance, promotion adaptation demonstrated a negative, and pricing standardiz-ation a positive effect (Shoham, 1999). Composite scales of perfomance, incorporat-ing various financial, market, and strategic measures, were also employed, indicatingmixed results with regard to product strategy: of the three studies examining productstandardization, two found a negative (Kotabe & Omura, 1989; Kotabe & Okoroafo,1990) and the other a positive (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994) association with performance.Another study examining product standardization revealed no particular effect oncomposite performance (Kotabe, 1990). Finally, one study found a negative relation-ship between promotion adaptation and composite performance, but no link at allbetween pricing adaptation and this measure of performance (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994).
6. Summary and conclusions
Despite decades of fierce debate around the marketing strategy standardizationversus adaptation issue, the present review reveals that empirical research on thistopic is still at an early stage of development. Although compared to earlier studies,which were largely exploratory in nature, significant progress has been made in thelast decade by using more robust methods of investigation, there is a long way togo before a concrete theory on the subject can be built. Our review has amply demon-strated that research on the subject is characterized by the adoption of inappropriateconceptualizations, inadequate research designs, and weak analytical techniques, thatwere largely responsible for the generation of non-significant, contradictory, and, tosome extent, confusing findings. Hence, the underlying question concerning whichstrategic option, standardization or adaptation, is the most suitable for the inter-national firm remains an essentially unresolved and inconclusive issue.
Although at times many antecedent factors were put forward as affecting market-ing strategy standardization/adaptation, only a few of these exhibited a systematicallysignificant impact. Moreover, there was a tendency among researchers to investigateonly a few of these background parameters, and in relation to certain aspects of themarketing strategy, thus providing only a partial understanding of their interactions.Furthermore, most studies used unidimensional conceptualizations of the antecedentfactors, and examined their influence on the degree of standardization/adaptationindependently from each other. Most importantly, only a few studies attempted tocheck the concurrent effect of these factors in the selection of the best strategicalternative (either standardization or adaptation), that would lead to superior foreignbusiness performance.
With regard to the degree of standardization/adaptation of the marketing strategy,
167M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
some general inferences can be made: (a) of the elements of the marketing mix, thestandardization/adaptation of product- and promotion-related issues attracted mostresearch attention, as opposed to pricing and distribution, which were less investi-gated; (b) most studies examined a few components of the marketing mix only, thusignoring potential interrelationships in standardizing/adapting them; (c) the degreeof standardization/adaptation was in most cases examined at a very generic level,failing to investigate the finer dimensions of each component separately; (d) product-related elements tended to be more standardized compared to other marketing mixparameters, while distribution has undergone the greatest adaptation; and (e) on aver-age, the degree of marketing strategy adaptation was moderate, denoting a “middle-of-the-road” attempt to reap the benefits of both standardization and adaptation.
Empirical evidence on the association between international marketing strategystandardization/adaptation and foreign business performance was very scarce, withmost research emphasis placed on the product and promotion, rather than on pricingand distribution. The fact that the great majority of the associations examined yieldednon-significant results suggests, prima facie, that the firm’s performance in foreignmarkets is indifferent to the particular strategic alternative pursued. However, a morethorough analysis implies that what leads to superior performance is not the adoptionof marketing strategy standardization or adaptation, but the achievement of an appro-priate “coalignment” or “fi t” between international marketing strategy and the contextin which this strategy is implemented, whether this is environmental, organizational,or managerial (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994). Hence, international marketing strategy(whether standardized or adapted) will lead to superior performance only to the extentthat it properly matches the unique set of circumstances that the firm is confrontedby within a particular overseas market.
7. Future research directions
Certain directions for future research on the subject can be extracted from theabove findings. First, contrary to a commonly expressed belief that standardizationvs adaptation is one of the most highly researched issues in international marketing,our analysis indicated that there is still a pressing need for more empirical researchon the topic. In addition, the fact that the vast majority of studies in the field wereconducted in isolation, ignoring the findings and conclusions of preceding studies,has been responsible for the great heterogeneity in the research findings. This wasespecially evident in the influence of various antecedent factors on the degree ofstandardization/adaptation of specific marketing strategy elements, as well as therelationship between various marketing strategy elements and particular measures ofperformance. Therefore, there is a need for greater reliance on past studies, and thisreview provides a platform for designing such an integrative approach to the subject.
Second, extant research suffers from the lack of validated measures of the variousconstructs used, which is an important prerequisite for study replication. This isparticularly the case because, whereas the relevant constructs (i.e., antecedent factors,marketing strategy, and business performance) are multidimensional in nature, most
168 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
researchers have used single-item measures. Moreover, with a few notable exceptions(e.g., Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Shoham, 1999), no serious attempts have been madeto assess the validity and reliability of these measures. Future research should, there-fore, give considerable attention to the consistent conceptualization and measurementof the relevant constructs, as well as to the validation of the resulting measurementscales through appropriate analytical methods. These validated scales should thenform the basis for more empirical research, replicated under different time, spatial,and industry contexts.
Third, the fact that the majority of the studies reviewed were conducted at thecorporate level imposes serious limitations to this type of research. This approachwould be appropriate in the case of study samples consisting of manufacturers of asingle product/product line, operating in a single overseas market. For the vastmajority of researchers, however, who target large exporting and/or multinationalcorporations with diversified product portfolios and operations in many overseasmarkets, firm level investigations would inevitably lead to confounded and inaccuratemeasures (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Zou & Stan, 1998). Thus, researchers should focustheir investigation on the “product-market venture” level, defined as the marketingof a single product/product line in a specific overseas market.
Finally, the failure of previous studies to adequately address the thorny issue ofmarketing strategy standardization/adaptation effects on company performance canbe largely attributed to the inappropriate conceptualization of the underlying relation-ship between these two constructs, and to the adoption of inappropriate analyticaltools13. The key success factor for international firms is to manage to achieve the bestpossible “co-alignment” or “fi t” between their marketing strategy and the particularcontextual factors they are confronting in each foreign market targeted. Although, acouple of studies attempted to incorporate the basic principles of “contingencytheory” or “concept of fit” in the investigation of the standardization versus adap-tation issue with encouraging results (Cavusgil & Zou, 1994; Roth, 1995), more in-depth work needs to be done in this area. In particular, greater emphasis should beplaced on the establishment of an appropriate link between the theory and the hypo-thetical relationships being investigated, on the one hand, and the statistical testingof these hypotheses, on the other (Venkatraman, 1989).
Acknowledgements
The constructive comments of the Guest Editor and the reviewers of the Journalon earlier versions of this article are greatly appreciated.
13 These studies were based on the incorrect assumption that there is a direct impact of internationalmarketing strategy on business performance. They were, therefore, trying to provide an answer to thefollowing question: Do firms that pursue a strategy of standardization perform better than firms pursuinga strategy of adaptation (or vice versa)? However, this is the wrong question to ask since, given theparticular context in which the firm is operating (as this is defined by the relevant antecedent factors),both marketing strategy standardization and adaptation can lead to superior firm performance.
169M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
References
Akaah, I. P. (1991). Strategy standardization in international marketing: an empirical investigation of itsdegree of use and correlates. Journal of Global Marketing, 4(2), 39–62.
Albaum, G., & Tse, D. K. (2001). Adaptation of international marketing strategy components, competitiveadvantage, and firm performance: a study of Hong Kong exporters. Journal of International Marketing,9(4), 59–81.
Boddewyn, J. J., & Grosse, R. (1995). American marketing in the European Union. European Journalof Marketing, 29(12), 23–42.
Boddewyn, J. J., & Hansen, D. M. (1977). American marketing in the European Common Market, 1963-1973. European Journal of Marketing, 11(7), 548–563.
Boddewyn, J. J., Soehl, R., & Picard, J. (1986). Standardization in international marketing: is Ted Levittin fact right? Business Horizons, 29, 69–75.
Buzzell, R. D. (1968). Can you standardize multinational marketing? Harvard Business Review, 46,102–113.
Cavusgil, T. S., & Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: an investigation of theempirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1–21.
Cavusgil, T. S., Zou, S., & Naidu, G. M. (1993). Product and promotion adaptation in export ventures:an empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(3), 479–506.
Chhabra, S. S. (1996). Marketing adaptations by American multinational corporations in South America.Journal of Global Marketing, 9(4), 57–74.
Christensen, C. H., da Rocha, A., & Gertner, R. K. (1987). An empirical investigation of the factorsinfluencing success of Brazilian firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(3), 61–78.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1985). The impact of export strategy on export sales performance.Journal of International Business Studies, 16(1), 37–55.
Craig, S. C., & Douglas, S. P. (1996). Developing strategies for global markets: an evolutionary perspec-tive. Columbia Journal of World Business, 31, 70–81.
Czinkota, M. R., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2001). International marketing. USA: The Dryden Press.Douglas, S. P., & Craig, S. C. (1986). Global marketing myopia. Journal of Marketing Management,
2(2), 155–169.Douglas, S. P., & Wind, Y. (1987). The myth of globalization. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22,
19–29.De Luz, M. (1993). Relationship between export strategy variables and export performance for Brazil-
based manufacturers. Journal of Global Marketing, 7(1), 87–109.Fraser, C., & Hite, R. E. (1990). Impact of international marketing strategies on performance in diverse
global markets. Journal of Business Research, 20, 249–262.Grosse, R., & Zinn, W. (1990). Standardization in international marketing: The Latin American case.
Journal of Global Marketing, 4(1), 53–78.Hewett, K., & Bearden, W. O. (2001). Dependence, trust and relational behavior on the part of foreign
subsidiary marketing operations: implications for Managing global marketing operation. Journal ofMarketing, 65, 51–60.
Hill, J. S., & Still, R. R. (1984). Adapting products to LDC tastes. Harvard Business Review, 62, 92–101.Jain, S. C. (1989). Standardization of international marketing strategy: some research hypotheses. Journal
of Marketing, 53, 70–79.Johnson, J. L., & Arunthanes, W. (1995). Ideal and actual product adaptation in US exporting firms:
market related determinants and impact on performance. International Marketing Review, 12(3),31–46.
Kanso, A. (1992). International advertising strategies: global commitment to local vision. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 32(1), 10–14.
Kaynak, E., & Kuan, W. K. -Y. (1993). Environment, strategy, structure, and performance in the contextof export activity: an empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturing firms. Journal of Business Research,27, 33–49.
Keegan, W. J. (1999). Global Marketing Management. USA: Prentice Hall.
170 M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
Kirpalani, V. H., & Macintosh, N. B. (1980). International marketing effectiveness of technology orientedsmall firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(3), 81–90.
Koh, A. C. (1991). Relationship among organizational characteristics, marketing strategy and export per-formance. International Marketing Review, 8(3), 46–60.
Kotabe, M. (1990). Corporate product policy and innovative behavior of European and Japanese multina-tionals: an empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 54, 19–33.
Kotabe, M., & Omura, G. S. (1989). Sourcing strategies of European and Japanese multinationals: acomparison. Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 113–129.
Kotabe, M., & Okoroafo, S. C. (1990). A comparative study of European and Japanese multinationalfirms marketing strategies and performance in the United States. Management International Review,30(4), 353–370.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2001). Principles of Marketing. U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall.Leonidou, L. C. (1996). Product standardization or adaptation: the Japanese approach. Journal of Market-
ing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 2(4), 53–71.Levitt, T. (1983). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61, 92–102.Michell, P., Lynch, J., & Alabdali, O. (1998). New perspective on marketing mix program standardization.
International Business Review, 7, 617–634.Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management
Journal, 6(3), 257–272.Ohmae, K. (1985). Triad power: the coming shape of global competition. New York: The Free Press.Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. J. (1987). Standardized international advertising: a review and critical evaluation
of the theoretical and empirical evidence. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22, 43–55.Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. J. (1990). Global advertising: revolution or myopia? Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 2(3), 97–111.Ozsomer, A., Bodur, M., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1991). Marketing standardization by multinationals in an
emerging market. European Journal of Marketing, 25(12), 50–64.Papavassiliou, N., & Stathakopoulos, V. (1997). Standardization versus adaptation of international adver-
tising strategies: towards a framework. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 504–527.Perlmutter, H. V. (1969). The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of
World Business, 4, 9–18.Picard, J., Boddewyn, J. J., & Soehl, R. (1988). US marketing policies in the European Community: a
longitudinal study, 1973-1983. Journal of Global Marketing, 1(4), 5–23.Quelch, J. A., & Hoff, E. J. (1986). Customizing global marketing. Harvard Business Review, 64, 59–68.Quester, P. G., & Conduit, J. (1996). Standardization, centralization and marketing in multinational com-
panies. International Business Review, 5(4), 395–421.Rau, P. A., & Preble, J. F. (1987). Standardization of marketing strategy by multinationals. International
Marketing Review, 4, 18–28.Rosen, B. N. (1990). Global products: when do they make strategic sense? Advances in International
Marketing, 4, 57–71.Roth, M. S. (1995). Effects of global market conditions on brand image customization and brand perform-
ance. Journal of Advertising, 14(4), 55–75.Samiee, S., & Roth, K. (1992). The influence of global marketing standardization on performance. Journal
of Marketing, 56, 1–17.Seifert, B., & Ford, J. (1989). Are exporting firms modifying their product, pricing and promotion policies?
International Marketing Review, 6(6), 53–68.Shiram, V., & Manu, F. A. (1995). Country-of-destination and export marketing strategy: a study of US
exporters. Journal of Global Marketing, 8(3/4), 171–190.Shoham, A. (1996). Marketing-mix standardization: determinants of export performance. Journal of Glo-
bal Marketing, 10(2), 53–73.Shoham, A. (1999). Bounded rationality, planning, standardization of international strategy, and export
performance: a structural model examination. Journal of International Marketing, 7(2), 24–50.Shoham, A., & Albaum, G. (1994). The effect of transfer of marketing methods on export performance:
an empirical examination. International Business Review, 3(3), 219–241.
171M. Theodosiou, L.C. Leonidou / International Business Review 12 (2003) 141–171
Sorenson, R. Z., & Wiechmann, U. E. (1975). How multinationals view marketing standardization. Harv-ard Business Review, 53(38-56), 166–167.
Szymanski, D. M., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1993). Standardization versus adaptation ofinternational marketing strategy: an empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 1–14.
Terpstra, V., & Sarathy, R. (2000). International marketing. The Dryden Press.Theodosiou, M., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2001). Factors influencing the degree of international pricing strategy
standardization of multinational corporations. Journal of International Marketing, 9(3), 1–18.Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: towards verbal and statistical correspon-
dence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423–444.Walters, P. G. P., & Toyne, B. (1989). Product modification and standardization in international markets:
strategic options and facilitating policies. Columbia Journal of World Business, 14, 37–44.Whitelock, J. M., & Pimblett, C. (1997). The standardization debate in international marketing. Journal
of Global Marketing, 10(3), 45–66.Wind, Y. (1986). The myth of globalization. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3(2), 23–26.Yip, G. S. (1997). Patterns and Determinants of Global Marketing. Journal of Marketing Management,
13, 153–164.Yip, G. S., Loewe, P. M., & Yoshino, M. Y. (1988). How to take your company to the global market.
Columbia Journal of World Business, 23(Winter), 37–48.Zou, S., & Laughlin, J. L. (1996). Dimensions of global strategy and their utilization by European and
Japanese MNCs: an exploratory srudy. Advances in International Marketing, 7, 199–210.Zou, S., Andrus, D. M., & Norvell, D. W. (1997). Standardization of international marketing strategy by
firms from a developing country. International Marketing Review, 14(2), 107–123.Zou, S., & Stan, S. (1998). The determinants of export performance: a review of the empirical literature
between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review, 15(5), 333–356.