The impact of image-based brand–country fit on global branding

Pascal Bruno1
Doctoral Student, University of Cologne

Kristina Klein2
Doctoral Student, University of Cologne

Henrik Sattler3
Professor of Marketing and Management, University of Hamburg

Franziska Völckner4
Professor of Marketing and Management, University of Cologne

The authors thank Young & Rubicam for providing access to the Brand Asset Valuator data
used in this study.

1
University of Cologne, Department of Marketing and Brand Management, Albertus-Magnus-Platz 1, 50923
Köln, Germany, phone: +49 (0)221-470-1220, fax: +49 (0)221-470-5648
e-mail: bruno@wiso.uni-koeln.de
2
University of Cologne, Department of Marketing and Brand Management, Albertus-Magnus-Platz 1, D-
50923 Cologne, Germany, Phone: + 49 (221) 470-2036, Fax: +49 (221) 470-5648,
e-mail: k.klein@wiso.uni-koeln.de
3
University of Hamburg, Institute of Marketing and Media; Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146 Hamburg, Germany,
phone: +49 40 42838-6401, fax: +49 40 42838-3650, e-mail: henriksattler@googlemail.com
4
University of Cologne, Department of Marketing and Brand Management, Albertus-Magnus-Platz 1, 50923
Köln, Germany, phone: +49 (0)221-470-7886, fax: +49 (0)221-470-5648
e-mail: voelckner@wiso.uni-koeln.de
 The impact of image-based brand–country fit on global branding

Abstract
This research introduces a new diagnostic metric to evaluate global branding strategies:
image-based “brand–country fit.” The metric measures the extent to which consumers
perceive a brand image as consistent with a country image. The authors conceptualize and
empirically analyze the brand–country fit for more than 1000 brands and three countries using
Young & Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator database and additional consumer survey data.
Furthermore, they examine the impact of the proposed new metric on brand performance and
find a significantly positive association between both constructs. This research thus provides
managers with a new metric that helps them identify appropriate geographic markets for their
brands and offers key information about whether a global branding strategy is appropriate or
if a brand’s positioning needs to be adapted to new target markets using a regional or local
branding strategy.

Keywords: Global brand positioning; Competition between global, regional, and local
brands; Global brand management and performance; Brand–country fit
1. Introduction
The globalization of markets is an indisputably powerful trend (Alden, Steenkamp, &
Batra, 2003; Holt, Quelch, & Taylor, 2004) that has prompted many multinational
corporations to shift their brand portfolios in favor of global brands (e.g., Schuiling &
Kapferer, 2004). A global branding strategy is characterized by a standardized and often
uniform positioning and marketing strategy across all countries (Aaker & Joachimsthaler,
1999). In contrast, local and regional brands adapt their positioning and marketing activities to
specific national (or smaller) markets (Douglas, Craig, & Nijssen, 2001; Özsomer & Simonin,
2004; Schuiling & Kapferer, 2004).
A particular challenge for global branding strategies is whether the standardized
positioning fits well with consumers’ expectations in each country in which the global brand
appears. International marketing theory generally proposes that companies should enter new
markets that appear similar to their home countries (e.g., Stöttinger & Schlegelmilch, 2000),
because they will enjoy the benefits of minimal perceptions of psychological distance in terms
of cultural distance (Banerjee, 2008; Evanschitzky & von Wangenheim, 2006). This concept
also transfers to the context of international branding strategies: The more similar the brand
and its values are to the country and the country’s values, the more readily consumers will
accept it, and the more likely the international branding strategy is to succeed.
This research introduces and empirically tests a new diagnostic metric to evaluate global
branding strategies, which we refer to as image-based “brand–country fit,” to measure the
extent to which consumers perceive consistency between the brand and the country image.
Perceived similarity or fit between two entities is a crucial concept in branding literature (e.g.,
Aaker & Keller, 1990; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Simonin & Ruth,
1998; Völckner & Sattler, 2006). For example, in the context of brand extensions (i.e., using
an existing brand to introduce a new product in a new category), empirical studies show that
consumers assess the fit of the brand with the new category, taking into account their own
images of both the brand and the category (Batra, Lehmann, & Singh, 1993; Park, Milberg, &
Lawson, 1991). Image-based fit drives brand (extension) success (Batra, Lenk, & Wedel,
2009); because the internationalization of a brand involves extending it into new geographic
markets (i.e., “geographic brand extension”), we posit that the image-based fit between the
brand and a new geographic market similarly affect the brand’s performance in that market.
We contribute to international branding literature by introducing our new diagnostic
metric, image-based “brand–country fit”. Specifically, we conceptualize and empirically
analyze the fit between a brand’s and a country’s image for more than 1000 brands and three
countries (a Germanic (Germany), a Romanic (France), and an Asian (China) country) using
Young & Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) database, along with additional consumer
survey data. Furthermore, we examine the impact of the proposed new metric on brand
performance, which we assess using recently suggested survey-based measures based on the
five “brand asset pillars” of the BAV (e.g., Lehmann, Keller, & Farley, 2008). Such an
analysis of the image-based fit between existing brands and potential countries for entry can
help managers identify appropriate geographic markets for their brands and offer key
information about whether a global branding strategy is appropriate or if the brand’s
positioning should adapt to new target markets using regional or local branding strategies.
Our empirical analyses show that image-based brand–country fit is significantly and
positively associated with brand performance. This result holds even when we control for the
perceived country of origin of the brand. We thus provide managers with a new diagnostic
metric to help them predict the international target markets they should enter and make better
decisions about appropriate international brand positioning strategies (i.e., standardization
versus adaptation). Building a global, standardized brand can be promising if the brand’s
image fits reasonably well with various country images, but in low brand–country fit

1
situations, international brand adaptation or repositioning strategies in the specific countries
offer stronger brand performance.

2. The brand–country fit concept

We define brand image as perceptions of the brand, as reflected by the brand associations
held in consumer memory (Keller, 1993). Likewise, consumers attach certain ideas and
images to countries, according to their experiences and knowledge about the country. The
resulting country associations, held in the consumer’s memory, constitute the country image.
We thus define country image as “the total of all descriptive, inferential, and informational
beliefs [that a consumer] has about a particular country” (Martin & Eroglu, 1993, p. 193).
This definition implies that consumers also associate certain values with a country, such that
residents of one country should share a common idea about the values epitomized by their
culture and country (e.g., Derr & Laurent, 1989; Hofstede 1980, 1991; Schwartz 1997, 1999;
Steenkamp, 2001).
With these construct definitions, it is not surprising that existing brand image and country
image measurement scales overlap. In her seminal work, Aaker (1997) identifies brand traits,
such as “down-to-earth” or “original,” that also describe cultural values (so-called
instrumental values, Rokeach, 1973) and specific attributes, such as “hard-working,” which
often appears in country image measurement scales (e.g., Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop, &
Mourali, 2005).
In line with this reasoning, the BAV is based on the premise that both brand image and
country image (as perceived by residents of that country) are multi-attribute constructs that
can be measured through customer assessments of a set of k image items. We can characterize
each brand and each country by computing overall item scores across respondents for all k
image items.1 For brand b (country c), ξbk (ξck) is the vector of overall item scores for the k
image items that identifies the brand’s (country’s) location in a k-dimensional image space.
We then can conceptualize image-based brand–country fit as the measure of distance from
each brand to each country location in the k-dimensional image space. Specifically, we
employ the Euclidean distance (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009), which in this case is
the root of the sum of the squared distances between the item score for the brand and the item
score of the country across all k image items. The image-based brand–country fit measure
increases as distance decreases.
We do not ask customers directly about their (dis)similarity judgments of specific brand–
country pairs on a set of image items. Rather, our image-based brand–country fit metric is an
indirect, multi-attribute measure (e.g., Sirgy et al., 1997). This multi-attribute approach offers
insights into the underlying reasons for high (versus low) image-based fit between brand b
and country c.

3. Method
3.1. Data
We use Young & Rubicam’s BAV, which monitors 41 brand image attributes (e.g.,
trustworthy, down to earth, traditional). The BAV image attributes are not category specific
but rather measure universal brand characteristics (Mizik & Jacobson, 2008). Furthermore,
the BAV data cover image assessments with respect to not only brands but also countries,
such that respondents from a specific country indicate whether they perceive a brand as
“authentic,” “traditional,” “fun,” and so on, as well as whether they perceive their country as
“authentic,” “traditional,” “fun,” and so on, on binary (yes/no) scales (Mizik & Jacobson,

1
The survey scale for the image items is binary (yes/no). The overall score for image item k for brand b (country
c) is the percentage of respondents who indicate “yes” in response to that item with respect to brand b (country
c).
2
2008). The image items are identical for brands and countries. In addition, Young & Rubicam
monitors five “brand asset pillars” to assess a brand’s performance in the market (Table 1; for
applications in other fields, see Lehmann, Keller, & Farley, 2008; Mizik & Jacobson, 2008):
differentiation (i.e., perceived distinctiveness of the brand), relevance (i.e., personal relevance
and importance of the brand), esteem (i.e., level of regard consumers hold for the brand),
knowledge (i.e., overall familiarity), and energy (i.e., brand dynamism).

Brand Asset Pillar Underlying Metric Survey Scale BAV Data

1. Unique Yes/no % responding “yes”
Differentiation
2. Distinctive Yes/no % responding “yes”
Relevance 1. Relevant to me 1-7 scale Average score
1. Personal regard 1-7 scale Average score
2. Leader Yes/no % responding “yes”
Esteem
3. High quality Yes/no % responding “yes”
4. Reliable Yes/no % responding “yes”
Knowledge 2. Familiarity with the brand 1-7 scale Average score
1. Innovative Yes/no % responding “yes”
Energy
2. Dynamic Yes/no % responding “yes”
Table 1: Young & Rubicam’s brand asset pillars
Source: Adapted from Mizik & Jacobson, 2008.
For our study, we use illustrative data and findings about brand and country image to
demonstrate how image-based brand–country fit can offer strategic guidance for international
target market selection and insights into the degree of potential for a brand’s global
positioning. First, we compute the fit between brands and countries. Second, we examine the
impact of the proposed fit metric on brand performance, which we assess with the five brand
asset pillars (e.g., Lehmann, Keller, & Farley, 2008). We analyze data about more than 1000
brands and three countries, a Germanic (Germany), a Romanic (France), and an Asian (China)
country. The analyses for the non-German countries are still in progress; therefore, we focus
in this extended abstract on the results for the German data set, which includes Young &
Rubicam’s 41 country image items for Germany, 41 brand image items, and five brand asset
pillars for 408 food and beverage brands.
Brands can be more or less strongly associated with a specific country of origin (e.g.,
Johansson, Douglas, & Nonaka, 1985; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999), and the perceived
country of origin of a brand might influence customers’ perceptions of its fit with a specific
country. For example, German brands may fit particularly well with Germany or French
brands with France (Häubl & Elrod, 1999). We therefore complement our BAV data with
consumer survey data regarding perceived countries of origin. Specifically, we aim to show
that the proposed image-based brand–country fit metric influences brand performance, even
when we control for perceptions about the brand’s country of origin. With the help of a
professional online market research firm, we collected country-of-origin data through a Web-
based survey of 600 respondents (305 male, 295 female), selected according to a quota
sampling procedure to represent German consumers in terms of age, gender, and region. The
respondents were randomly assigned to one of 14 questionnaire versions; we also randomized
the order of the brands in all questionnaire versions. Each questionnaire version covered 32 of
the 408 brands. We measured the perceived country of origin on two seven-point scales, on
which participants indicated their agreement or disagreement with the following statements
(1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree): “I clearly associate this brand with Germany” and “I
associate typical German characteristics such as down-to-earthness, tradition, and reliability

3
with the brand.” The Cronbach’s alpha is .947, and the exploratory factor analysis reveals that
97.503% of total variance can be explained. Therefore, we average the two items to build a
mean index, which measures how strongly each of the 408 brands in the German BAV data
set is associated with Germany as the perceived country of origin.

3.2. Analysis
We proceed through the following steps to derive the fit metric for each brand–country
pair:
(1) Compute for each brand b and image item k an overall item score xbk across respondents.
Because Young & Rubicam’s survey scale for the image items is binary (yes/no), the
overall item score xbk is the percentage of respondents who answered “yes” to item k with
respect to brand b. The respondent-level data thus are accumulated to the brand level,
which is our unit of interest.
(2) Compute for each country c and image item k an overall item score xck across
respondents. This overall item score is the percentage of respondents who answered “yes”
to item k with respect to country c.
(3) Derive the measure of distance between each brand and each country; image-based
brand–country fit increases as distance decreases. For the Euclidean distance,2 the fit of
brand b with country c is the root of the sum of the squared distances between the item
score for the brand and the item score for the country across all k image items:
K where:
d(xb, xc) = ∑ (x bk − x ck ) 2 d(xb, xc) = distance from brand b to country c.
xbk, xck = overall item score for image item k for brand b and (1)
k =1
country c, (k = 1, 2, …, 41).

To assess the impact of the proposed fit metric on brand performance, we regress the
€
brand asset pillars on image-based brand–country fit, or the Euclidean distance, controlling
for the perceived country of origin of the brands. Because the five brand asset pillars use
different scales (e.g., seven-point versus percentage of respondents, see Table 1), we z-
standardize the ten measures and compute an overall brand asset index as a measure of brand
performance, which is the equally weighted sum of the z-standardized items (Mizik &
Jacobson, 2005, 2008). Our regression equation for the German BAV data therefore becomes:
BrandAssetIndexb = Constant + β1 BrandCountryFitb + β2 Country-of-Originb + εb. (2)

4. Model estimation results

4.1. Fit measurement
Applying Equation 1 to the German BAV data produces the fit values for each of the 408
brands (Fitmin = .444; Fitmax = .747; Fitmean = .590; SD = .060). Among the brands with the
highest fit values (i.e., lowest distance measures) are several German brands, such as Dr.
Oetker (FitDr.Oetker = .457), Schwartau (FitSchwartau = .468), and Deutschländer (FitDeutschländer =
.471). However, there are also non-German brands that achieve high perceived fit with
Germany, such as the French brand Bonne Maman (FitBonneMaman = .444). This result provides
the first indication that our fit measure is not driven solely by country-of-origin effects.
Among the brands with the lowest fit values (i.e., greatest distance measure), we identify
Bacardi (FitBacardi = .707), Dom Perignon (FitDom Perignon = .742), and Punica (FitPunica = .747).

2
In contrast with correlational measures, which represent patterns, distance measures best indicate the concept
of proximity (Hair et al., 2009). We applied additional distance measures to the data (e.g., city-block distance)
and find very similar results, so we focus on the Euclidean distance measure.
4
4.2. Brand performance regression analysis
Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis for the German data. As expected, we
find a highly significant and substantial effect of image-based brand–country fit on brand
performance. Because brand–country fit decreases as the Euclidean distance increases, the
effect also is in the expected direction. The smaller the distance between the country image
and the brand image (i.e., the higher the fit of the brand image with the country image), the
stronger is the brand’s performance (according to its asset index) in that country.
The effect of the brand–country fit metric also is highly significant, regardless of whether
we control for the extent to which each brand is associated with Germany. Not surprisingly,
the regression coefficient of the fit metric decreases from -40.747 (SD = 4.950) to -31.365
(SD = 4.627), when we include the country-of-origin measure in the regression analysis.
However, we still find a substantial impact of the image-based brand–country fit on brand
performance when we control for the extent to which each brand is associated with Germany.

Standard Standardized
Coefficient t-Value
Deviation Coefficient
Constant 10.846 3.037 3.571 ***
Image-based brand–country
- 31.365 4.627 - .291 - 6.779 ***
fit (Euclidean distance)
Country of origin
2.023 .221 .393 9.151 ***
(association with Germany)
***Significant at p < .01.
Notes: R² = .290; Adjusted R² = .286; variance inflation factor = 1.052.
Table 2: Results of regression analysis on brand performance
To test the robustness of our results, we also conducted a factor analysis on the 41 image
items, thereby condensing similar image items into their underlying factors. The Euclidean
distance, based on factor scores, results in a comparable fit ranking and a similarly significant
and substantial effect of the brand–country fit metric on brand performance.

5. Discussion and implications

We introduce, with our image-based brand–country fit measure, a new diagnostic of
global branding strategies. We analyze the brand–country fit for more than 1000 brands and
three countries and find that the proposed new metric is significantly and positively associated
with brand performance, even if we control for the perceived country of origin of the brand.
Image-based brand–country fit can help managers improve their decisions regarding the
appropriate international positioning strategy for their brand. Building a global, standardized
brand offers a promising strategy if the brand’s image fits reasonably well with the respective
country images, whereas in low brand–country fit situations, international brand adaptation or
repositioning strategies in the specific countries appear more appropriate. For example, a
brand such as Bonne Maman fits well with both France and Germany, whereas a brand like
Dr. Oetker indicates a very high image-based brand–country fit score for Germany and
probably needs to be adapted to appeal to consumers in other countries.

5
REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A., and E. Joachimsthaler (1999). The lure of global branding. Harvard Business
Review, 77(6), 137-144.
Aaker, D. A., and K. L. Keller (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of
Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347-356.
Alden, D. L, Steenkamp, J.-B. E. B. M., and R. Batra (2003). How perceived brand globalness
creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53-65.
Banerjee, Saikat (2008). Strategic brand-culture fit: A conceptual framework for brand
management. Journal of Brand Management, 15 (5), 312-321.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D. R., and D. Singh (1993). The brand personality component of brand
goodwill: Some antecedents and consequences. In D. A. Aaker and A. Biel (Ed.), Brand
Equity and Advertising (pp. 83-96). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Batra R., Lenk, P., and M. Wedel (2009). Strategic planning of brand extensions using fit and
atypicality measures, MSI Working Paper Series, No. 09-003.
Derr, C. B. and A. Laurent (1989). The internal and external career: A theoretical and cross-
cultural perspective. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, and B. S. Lawrence (Ed.), Handbook of
Career Theory (pp. 454-471). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Douglas, S. P., Craig, C. S., and E. J. Nijssen (2001). Executive insights: Integrating branding
strategy across markets: Building international brand architecture. Journal of
International Marketing, 9(2), 97-114.
Evanschitzky, H., and F. von Wangenheim (2006). Customer value based entry decision in
international markets: The concept of international added customer equity. Journal of
Relationship Marketing, 5(1), 79-91.
Gupta, S., and J. Pirsch (2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related
marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314-326.
Gwinner, K. P., and J. Eaton (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The
role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47-57.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and R. E. Anderson (2009). Multivariate data analysis,
7th Ed. Macmillan, New York.
Häubl, G., and T. Elrod (1999). The impact of congruity between brand name and country of
production on consumers' product quality judgements. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 16(3), 199-215.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., and E. L. Taylor (2004). How global brands compete. Harvard
Business Review, 82(9), 68-75.
Johansson, J. K., Douglas, S., and I. Nonaka (1985). Assessing the impact of country of origin
on product evaluations: A new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing
Research, 22(4), 388-396.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L., and M. Mourali (2005). The influence of country
image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing
Review, 22(1), 96-115.
Lehmann, D., Keller, K., and J. Farley (2008). The structure of survey-based brand metrics.
Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 29-56.

6
Martin, I., and S. Eroglu, (1993). Measuring a multi-dimensional construct: Country image.
Journal of Business Research, 28(3), 191-210.
Mizik, N., and R. Jacobson (2005). How brand attributes drive financial performance. MSI
Working Paper Series, Issue 3, 21-39.
Mizik, N., and R. Jacobson (2008). The financial value impact of perceptual brand attributes.
Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 15-32.
Özsomer, A., and B. L. Simonin (2004). Marketing program standardization: A cross-country
exploration. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(4), 397-419.
Park, C., Milberg, S., and R. Lawson (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of
product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research,
18(2), 185-193.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. The Free Press, New York.
Schuiling, I., and J.-N. Kapferer (2004). Executive insights: Real differences between local
and international brands: Strategic implications for international marketers. Journal of
International Marketing, 12(4), 97-112.
Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values and culture. In D. Munro, J. F. Shumaker, and S. C. Carr
(Ed.). Motivation and culture (pp. 69-84). Routledge, New York.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). Cultural value differences: Some implications for work. Applied
Psychology: International Review, 48, 23-47.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J.-O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C.B., Johar,
J.S., and H. Berkman (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of
measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3),
229-241.
Simonin, B. L., and J. A. Ruth (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps?
Assessing the spillover effects of band alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of
Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. B. M. (2001). The role of national culture in international marketing
research. International Marketing Review, 18(1), 30-44.
Stöttinger, B., and B. Schlegelmilch (2000). Psychic distance: A concept past its due date?
International Marketing Review, 17(2/3), 169-173.
Verlegh, P., and J.-B. E. B. M. Steenkamp (1999). A review and meta-analysis of country-of-
origin research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 521-546.
Völckner, F., and H. Sattler (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing,
70(2), 18-34.