The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-8809.htm

Brand globalness
Perceived brand globalness in emerging
in emerging markets and markets
the moderating role of
291
consumer ethnocentrism
Received March 2010
Aneela Akram Revised March 2010
IAE (CERGAM), University Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille, Accepted July 2010
Aix-en-Provence and Marseille, France
Dwight Merunka
IAE (CERGAM), University Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille,
Aix-en-Provence and Marseille, France and
EUROMED Management, Marseille, France, and
Muhammad Shakaib Akram
IAE (CERGAM), University Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille,
Aix-en-Provence and Marseille, France

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to study the impact of perceived brand globalness (PBG) on
consumers’ purchase intention (PI) and the mediating role of perceived brand quality (PBQ) and
perceived brand prestige (PBP) in this relation, among consumers in emergent markets. The paper also
investigate the moderating role of consumer ethnocentrism (CE) on the relation between PBG and both
PBQ and PBP.
Design/methodology/approach – A web-based survey was conducted in an emerging market
(Pakistan) using both global and local brands. The model was tested using structural equation
modeling.
Findings – PBG positively impacts both PBQ and PBP while PBQ appears to be a stronger mediator
than PBP. The moderating role of CE between PBG and PBQ and between PBG and PBP has been
demonstrated; the weaker the CE the stronger the relationships.
Research limitations/implications – A convenience sample was used and caution must be taken
when generalizing findings from this study. Managers of global brands must meet consumers’
expectations in terms of the quality of their brands and may highlight the prestige associated to them.
Low ethnocentric consumers favor global brands, rendering this segment attractive for the managers
of global brands.
Originality/value – The paper extends previous work on the role of brand globalness by focusing
on an emergent market where the choice problem between local and global brands is acute and by
demonstrating the moderating role of CE.
Keywords Pakistan, Emerging markets, Consumer behaviour, Ethnocentrism, Global brands
Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Emerging
1. Introduction Markets
Vol. 6 No. 4, 2011
A global brand is the one that standardizes aspects of its brand communication pp. 291-303
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
program like name, logo, image, packaging, positioning and consumers in multiple 1746-8809
countries consider it to be global (Akaka and Alden, 2010). The economic and political DOI 10.1108/17468801111170329
IJOEM dominance of Western nations, however, gives certain meaning to the term “global”
6,4 which means “Western/foreign” in people’s minds, either consciously or unconsciously
(Özsomer and Altaras, 2008). Local brands, in turn, are those which are produced
locally and are available in a specific region. These brands may play on the potential
identification between the brand and consumers by positioning themselves as sons of
the soil who understand local consumers (Cayla and Eckhardt, 2007).
292 In emerging markets, the consumers are increasingly faced with a choice between
local and nonlocal (or foreign) brands and their choice making is worth researching
(Batra et al., 2000). A majority of these foreign brands available to consumers in
emergent markets are global brands present in many countries around the globe,
emergent or developed. However, consumers are not necessarily brand experts and
may well ignore if a foreign brand is global or not. Therefore, what may influence
consumer judgments about brand is perceived brand globalness (PBG) which we
define as the perception that consumers hold of the brand being global, i.e. being
available everywhere on the globe with standardized products and communications.
The current research focuses on the psychological mechanisms that explain how PBG
affects consumer judgments and consumer behavior. The study investigates the
mechanisms through which brand globalness might impact consumers’ purchase
intention (PI) for the brand and explores the role of consumer ethnocentrism (CE) in the
process. CE describes the tendency of people to reject the purchase of foreign products
as they may consider it to be unpatriotic. It has been studied both in developed
and developing countries (Batra et al., 2000; Douglas and Nijssen, 2003;
Luque-Martinez et al., 2000; Netemeyer et al., 1991; Papadopoulos et al., 1990). Shimp
and Sharma (1987) advocate that the concept of CE can improve our understanding of
how consumers and corporate buyers compare domestic and foreign-made products,
how and why their judgments can be subject to various forms of bias and error. It is,
therefore, a relevant concept when studying the impact of PBG on consumer behavior.
The success of global brands has been described and analyzed over the past decades
(Aaker and Joachimsthale, 1999; Kapferer, 1992; Keller, 1997). The commendable
success of some global brands such as, Coca-Cola, Sony, McDonalds, Mercedes,
Microsoft, Chanel or Levi’s has encouraged many firms to develop their own global
brands (Craig and Douglas, 2000). In the last few years, a number of companies have
even engaged in reducing brand portfolios with preference given to global brands
( Johansson and Ronkainen, 2004). Unilever reduced the number of brands from 1,600 to
400 leading brands enabling it to concentrate resources on leading global brands.
Colgate-Palmolive has invested much to make Colgate Total a global brand name and
Frito-Lay followed the same strategy with its Lay’s brand (Özsomer and Altaras, 2008).
It appears that global brands (such as Mercedes, Sony or Apple) are generally associated
with prestige and quality.
Global brands have been studied from the consumers’ perspective (Batra and Alden,
2002; Batra et al., 2000; Holt et al., 2004; Özsomer and Altaras, 2008). This not only
helps resolve the globalization vs localization conundrum (Kreutzer, 1988; Onkvisit
and Shaw, 1989; Samiee and Roth, 1992) but also helps with formulating appropriate
strategies to overcome resistance to foreign goods, if any (Singh and Upadhyay, 2006).
The early study of Batra et al. (2000) demonstrates the impact of brand non-localness
on attitude toward the brand within a developing country (India). They introduced the
potential moderating effect of CE arguing that brand non-localness should favor
attitude toward the brand especially when consumers are not very attached to local Brand globalness
values and are not very ethnocentric. On the contrary, the ethnocentric consumer in emerging
should not form a positive attitude toward the brand due to the fact that it is foreign.
They found a direct impact of brand nonlocal origin of brand attitudes but failed to markets
demonstrate the moderating role of CE in that relation. Steenkamp et al. (2003)
proposed a more complex model in which brand globalness affects PI for the brand
through three separate paths: brand globalness directly impacts PI (as in Batra et al., 293
2000) and indirectly through two separate mediators, perceived brand quality (PBQ)
and perceived brand prestige (PBP). They found that the effect of PBG on PI is
mediated by PBQ and PBP but found no direct effect of BPG on PI. They also tested a
moderating effect of CE but they limited this moderating effect to the direct
relationship between BPG and PI. They found some evidence of this moderating effect
although the global effect of PBG on PI was insignificant in both countries investigated
(the USA and Korea). Our goal is to replicate and extend these findings within an
emerging country where brand globalness might be important for prestige and
self-image. We posit that the relationship between BPG and PI is fully mediated by
PBQ and PBP and, therefore, do not hypothesize any direct relationship between BPG
and PI already found to be insignificant in Steenkamp et al. (2003). Also, we posit that
the moderating role of CE will be exercised both on the relation from PBG to quality
and on the relation from PBG to prestige. This moderating role has not been tested
before and seems logical since the perceptions of quality and prestige finally determine
the PI of the brand. Retesting this potential role of CE is also essential since
contradictory results appear in the literature with no moderating effect in Batra et al.
(2000) and a slight moderation in Steenkamp et al. (2003).
The paper is structured as follows: we define the key constructs used here (global
and local brands, PBG and CE). We then develop a series of hypotheses followed by the
theoretical model. Afterwards, we test the hypotheses empirically using structural
equation modeling. We finally conclude with implications, limitations and future
research avenues.

2. Key constructs
Global brands are available to consumers under the same name in multiple countries
and these generally have similar and centrally coordinated marketing strategies. They
have an extensive geographic reach, are perceived by consumers as global and have a
uniform positioning and image worldwide (Craig and Douglas, 2000; Yip, 1994). Such
brands are built on powerful narratives with universal appeal, e.g. for Levi’s, the myth
of independence; for Nokia, of connection (Cayla and Eckhardt, 2007). Like
entertainment stars, sports celebrities and politicians, global brands have become a
lingua franca for consumers all over the world (Holt et al., 2004). Consumers tend to
prefer global brands because of high perceived quality and higher prestige and
fundamentally because of brand globalness which is defined as the degree to which the
brand is perceived as having multimarket reach and thus is believed to be globally
available, desirable and demanded (Steenkamp et al., 2003). In turn, local brands are
developed for a specific national market and these are almost without exception sold
only domestically or within a limited geographical area (such as West Africa)
(Batra et al., 2000; Craig and Douglas, 2000). Local brands enjoy a high awareness level
IJOEM as well as trust and consumers relate them to their lives because these are deeply
6,4 culturally embedded in the domestic market.
CE refers to the beliefs regarding the appropriateness of purchasing foreign-made
products and implies that buying imports is wrong because it is unpatriotic and
detrimental to the domestic economy and employment (Supphellen and Gronhaug,
2003). The credit for inspiring research into the phenomenon of CE goes to Shimp and
294 Sharma (1987) who developed and psychometrically validated a scale named the
consumer ethnocentric tendencies scale (CETSCALE). They found that highly
ethnocentric consumers are inclined toward biased judgments because these
consumers stress the positive aspects of domestic products ignoring the virtues of
foreign-made products.
From a managerial perspective, ethnocentrism refers to consumers’ preference for
domestic products and prejudice against imports (Yelkur et al., 2006). Across cultures,
researchers have shown that ethnocentrism is a global phenomenon, but there are
differences in the degree of ethnocentrism expressed by consumers, depending on the
country under study. People from developed and more modern nations tend to be less
ethnocentric than their counterparts in developing and emerging nations
(Lindquist et al., 2001; Sharma et al., 1994). In developing countries, however, low
ethnocentric consumers have strong positive stereotypes of foreign products from
developed countries (Supphellen and Gronhaug, 2003); for example, Hungarians and
Russian consumers generally evaluate Western products more positively than national
products (Ettenson, 1993; Papadopoulos et al., 1990). We study the role of ethnocentrism
within an emerging country (Pakistan) and its potential moderating effect on the
relationships between brand globalness and both quality and prestige judgments.

3. Model and hypotheses

The desirability of global brands among local consumers is generally high because
foreignness is associated with higher perceived quality, higher status and higher
prestige (Batra and Alden, 2002; Batra et al., 2000). The consumers in emerging
countries influenced by the Western culture through media, modern forms of
distribution, visits of tourists and immigrants have become familiar with global brands
and generally prefer them to local ones.
Perceived quality is consumers’ subjective evaluation of the overall excellence of the
product (Zeithaml, 1988) and the credibility of global brands makes consumers associate
high quality with these brands. In emerging and developing countries consumers
perceive global brands to be of a higher quality than local ones (Batra et al., 2000;
Bhardwaj et al., 2010). Consumers may well develop a belief that the global brand is of
high quality since high quality justifies the fact that global brands are globally accepted
(Kapferer, 1997; Keller, 1997). Generally global brands charge a premium price which
also signals higher quality (Kumar et al., 2009) and advertising messages are often
promoting higher quality. For example, ads for Pentene and Ariel show brand quality
testimonials from experts in different countries. The hypothesis regarding PBQ follows:
H1. PBG positively impacts consumers’ perception of brand quality.
Studies on developing countries show that the consumption of products from Western
countries acts as a symbol of status and prestige (Bhat and Reddy, 1998). Consumers in
developing countries associate American products with high quality and prestige
(Bhardwaj et al., 2010) and many global brands are seen as being of Western origin. Brand globalness
Though there are exceptions, in general, the higher prestige of the global brands may in emerging
be due to the scarcity and higher price compared to the local brands (Batra and Alden,
2002; Batra et al., 2000; Bearden and Etzel, 1982). Empirical results have demonstrated markets
the impact of brand globalness on perception of brand prestige (Steenkamp et al., 2003).
We replicate these relationships. It follows:
H2. PBG positively impacts consumers’ perception of brand prestige.
295
Consumers in emerging countries show higher levels of brand loyalty toward foreign
brands as they think these offer high quality. This also decreases their PIs toward local
brands (Bhardwaj et al., 2010). The quality perceptions play a vital role in determining
consumer preferences for these brands because global is synonymous of quality for
consumers (Milberg and Sinn, 2008). Steenkamp et al. (2003) also referred to the same
idea and empirically demonstrated both in a developed and an emergent market
(the USA and Korea) that the perceived quality of global brands is the primary driver
of their purchase likelihood. We wish to replicate these relations and hypothesize:
H3. Out of the two paths through which PBG impacts consumers’ PI, the path
through PBQ is the strongest.
Research related to PBG suggests that attitudes toward global brands are also
influenced by individual consumer differences such as CE (Akaka and Alden, 2010).
Ethnocentrism is related to product judgments and PI (Netemeyer et al., 1991; Shimp and
Sharma, 1987) and impact the choice of local and nonlocal brands (Batra et al., 2000).
CE appears to be a strong determinant of general attitudes toward foreign products
relative to domestic products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987; Wall and Heslop, 1986). For
example, in a study of New Zealanders’ general attitudes toward foreign and domestic
food products, CE explained a significant proportion of consumers’ purchasing behavior
(Juric and Worsley, 1998). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H4a. Consumers’ ethnocentrism moderates the relationship between PBG and PBQ;
the stronger the consumer’s ethnocentrism, the weaker the relationship.
H4b. Consumers’ ethnocentrism moderates the relationship between PBG and PBP;
the stronger the consumer’s ethnocentrism, the weaker the relationship.
The conceptual model representing all hypothesized relationships between the
constructs is given in Figure 1.
In this model, PBG influences PI but this relation is fully mediated by PBQ and PBP.
Consumers’ ethnocentrism is the moderating variable.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Sample
As the purpose of the study was to replicate and extend previous findings in an
emergent country, we selected Pakistan which has been categorized as belonging to the
“Next Eleven”, the 11 countries with high economic potential for the 21st century
(Wilson and Stupnytska, 2007). A web-based survey, using a convenience sample
drawn from a population of Pakistani consumers of global and local brands, was
conducted in May 2008. An Internet snowball procedure was used. The respondents
IJOEM Consumer
6,4 Ethnocentrism

H4a H4b
Perceived Brand
H1, H3 Quality
296
Perceived Brand Consumers’
Globalness Purchase Intention
H2
Figure 1. Perceived Brand
Theoretical Model Prestige

were sent a link to the survey questionnaire and were asked to answer the survey and
send the questionnaire to their contacts as well. This elicited 130 participants (each
participant responded for four brands, generating 130 £ 4 ¼ 520 observations). About
17 respondents (with 68 invalid questionnaires) containing atypical cases, repeated or
incomplete responses were eliminated, finally obtaining 113 valid questionnaires and
452 usable observations. Among study participants, 58 percent were male; 59 percent
were 29 years old or less and 41 percent were 30-39 years old.

4.2 Product selection

Products were selected keeping in view that these should be accessible and affordable
to all social classes and also used by all ages and education levels. Six product
categories (with brands) were selected including: soft drinks (Coca Cola, Amrat Cola);
Milk (Nestlé, Haleeb); Tea (Yellow Label, Supreme); Drinking water (Nestlé, Sufi);
Cooking oil (Dalda, Habib); Shampoo (Dove, Bio Amla). To avoid respondents fatigue
and bias, the product categories were rotated across questionnaires. Two categories
each with four brands were rotated in each questionnaire. Only the brand labels were
used, excluding any image. Each product category’s brands were also rotated in each
questionnaire making each respondent answer questions for four brands from two
categories. The bias due to non-independence of observations is small when sample
size is large (Batra and Alden, 2002; Hunter and Schmidt, 1989).

4.3 Instruments
All the scales used in this study have been derived from scales previously used in the
literature and are presented in the Appendix. All items used for this study were
measured on a seven-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
PBG was measured using an adopted version of Batra et al. (2000); PBP through the
scale of Han and Terpstra (1988); PBQ through the scale of Keller and Aaker (1992);
consumers’ PI by the scale of Dodds et al. (1991). CE was measured using the four-items
from CETSCALE of Shimp and Sharma (1987) having the highest loadings.

5. Data analysis
The data obtained were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988) to evaluate internal consistency and validity of the underlying
constructs. A confirmatory factor analysis, using AMOS with maximum likelihood (ML)
estimation method, was conducted to ensure the validity and unidimensionality of the Brand globalness
underlying constructs. All items loaded on the appropriate factors and all loadings were in emerging
significant at p , 0.01. Results for the proposed model revealed an adequate fit
(x 2 ¼ 322.508, df ¼ 98, GFI ¼ 0.913, AGFI ¼ 0.879, TLI ¼ 0.959, CFI ¼ 0.965 and markets
RMSEA ¼ 0.071). Jöreskog’s rho was selected to test the reliability of internal
consistency of the scale as it is less sensitive to the number of items. Jöreskog’s rho for
PBG was 0.939, 0.898 for PBQ, 0.967 for PBP and 0.936 for consumers’ PI. All these 297
values signify high level of reliability of the scale. The average variance extracted (AVE)
was greater than 0.5 for each construct, thus assessing convergent validity. Moreover,
the AVE for each dimension was greater than the shared variance (Fornell and Larcker,
1981) which shows the discriminant validity of the scale.
A confirmatory factor analysis was also carried out for CE. The fit indexes of
one-dimensional CFA model for CE indicated overall adequate fit to the data, as
evident by x 2 ¼ 5.611, df ¼ 2, GFI ¼ 0.994, AGFI ¼ 0.970, TLI ¼ 0.982, CFI ¼ 0.994,
and RMSEA ¼ 0.063. All the factors’ loadings were above 0.56 and significant
( p , 0.01). Jöreskog’s rho (0.806) indicated reliability of the construct and the AVE was
0.51 indicating convergent validity.

5.1 Test of hypotheses

Combining Likert-scales into summated ratings or average summated scores is a well
established procedure. The new transformed composite variable is comparable in
scaling to the original scale (Hair et al., 2007). This approach typically leads to precise
structural estimates provided the measures are unidimensional (Bandalos, 2002) as is
the case in this study. To validate the hypotheses and estimate the structural relations
between the constructs the items were averaged for each scale to obtain composite
scale. The mean and standard deviation of each construct have been reported in Table I
which shows that the consumers consider the global brands to be higher in quality
(mean value ¼ 5.16) than prestige (mean value ¼ 3.22).
To test H1, the positive relationship between PBG and PBQ and H2, positive
relationship between PBG and PBP, we used path analysis. Given the sample size
(n ¼ 452) and degrees of freedom (1), we found a significant chi-square ( x 2 ¼ 4.595) and
fit indexes indicated overall adequate fit to the data, as evident by GFI ¼ 0.995,
TLI ¼ 0.950, CFI ¼ 0.984 and RMSEA ¼ 0.089. The value of the standardized
regression estimate (0.418) from PBG to PBQ is significant ( p , 0.001). This supports
H1, showing that from the perspective of the consumers, global brands imply high
quality. This finding is in-line with previous research, consumers from developing
countries prefer brands that they perceive as originating from a nonlocal country,
especially from Western countries, more than they do local brands and that preference is
linked to perceived quality (Alden and Steenkamp, 1999; Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004).

Construct Mean SD

PBG 4.37 2.063

PBQ 5.16 1.240
PBP 3.22 1.222 Table I.
Consumers’ PI 4.96 1.607 Mean and standard
Consumers’ ethnocentrism 1.45 0.498 deviation of constructs
IJOEM PBG is positively associated with PBP (standardized regression estimate ¼ 0.303,
6,4 significant at p , 0.001) in support of H2. Consumers believe that brand globalness is
linked to prestige and may enhance their self-image by adding a touch of modernity to
their personalities (Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004). Recent empirical studies have
demonstrated that prestige is the second factor driving global brand preference
(Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004; Steenkamp et al., 2003).
298 To test H3 concerning PBQ to be the stronger mediator impacting consumers’ PI,
we have followed the four steps approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, the
independent variable PBG significantly impacts the mediators PBQ and PBP (H1 and H2).
Second, we tested the direct impact of PBG on PI in the absence of mediators and found a
significant ( p , 0.001) impact of PBG on PI (standardized regression estimate ¼ 0.246).
Third, we observed the impact of mediators PBQ and PBP on the dependent variable PI
and found it to be significant ( p , 0.001) for both mediators (standardized regression
estimates 0.442 and 0.159, respectively). Finally, we tested the full model and found that
the relationship between PBG and PI became insignificant upon the addition of the
mediators PBQ and PBP as is obvious from Table II.
The total indirect effect from PBG to consumers’ PI is 0.186, with 92 percent through
PBQ and 8 percent through PBP showing that the PBQ is the stronger mediator.
Further Sobel test statistic (z ¼ 6.533, p , 0.000) confirmed the mediation effect of
PBQ on the relationship. This supports H3.

5.2 Moderating effect of CE

To examine the moderating effect of CE the sample was divided into two groups of
high and low ethnocentric consumers on the basis of median-split samples. The model
estimated simultaneously on the two groups had a good fit as evident by x 2 ¼ 4.578,
df ¼ 2, GFI ¼ 0.995, AGFI ¼ 0.950, TLI ¼ 0.941, CFI ¼ 0.990 and RMSEA ¼ 0.054.
To examine the significance of the relationships in both the groups, the unstandardized
regressions estimates were analyzed (Table III). There is a significant difference
between the regression estimates of the two groups of high and low ethnocentric
consumers in support of H4a and H4b.
Prior research showed that ethnocentricity can help predict buying intentions for
domestic or foreign products (Singh and Upadhyay, 2006) and is helpful in predicting
consumers’ judgments of the quality of foreign products. Ethnocentric consumers have
an inclination of purchasing domestic products even if the quality is lower than that of
imports (Wall and Heslop, 1986; Yelkur et al., 2006). Moreover, highly ethnocentric

From To Std. reg. estimate SE C.R. p-value

Direct effects
PBG PBQ 0.418 0.038 11 , 0.001
PBG PBP 0.303 0.043 7.047 , 0.001
PBG PI 0.055 0.042 1.31 Not Sig
PBQ PI 0.406 0.050 8.12 , 0.001
PBP PI 0.060 0.050 1.2 Not Sig
Indirect effects
Table II. PBG PI 0.186 0.024 7.750 , 0.001
Standardized estimates Total effects
for the overall model PBG PI 0.246 0.038 6.474 , 0.001
consumers believe in the low quality of foreign products (Netemeyer et al., 1991) and Brand globalness
would not like to know about foreign brands on the attribute level (Supphellen and in emerging
Gronhaug, 2003). The results of the current study demonstrate that contrary to the
high ethnocentric consumers, low ethnocentric consumers associate high quality and markets
prestige with the global brands which determines their PI.

6. Conclusion and implications 299

This study contributes by exploring consumers’ PI for global brands in an emerging
market. Many companies are reducing their brands giving preference to the global
ones as they believe that globalness of brands motivates consumers to purchase them.
This study demonstrated a significant relationship between PBG and consumers’
PI but through the mediation of quality and prestige. PBQ strongly mediates the
relationship between brand’s globalness and the consumers’ PI.
We have also tested the moderating role of CE both on the relation from PBG to PBQ
and to PBP. The results show that high ethnocentric consumers are less inclined to
purchase foreign goods because their inference of quality and prestige associated to PBG
is relatively weak. Results therefore suggest that domestic industries may have their
place alongside their more sophisticated and powerful global competitors by
understanding the complex idea of CE which can be used as a marketing tool to
impact consumers’ PI.
Building global brands is one of the key challenges for the managers in the 21st
century (Craig and Douglas, 2000). The managers of global brands should focus on
brand-specific features like superior quality and prestigious image to improve their
brand status. For the better management of the global brands the managers should
consider the consumer side too. They may develop strategies to successfully compete
against local brands by convincing the consumers that the global brands symbolize
enhanced self-concept (Özsomer and Altaras, 2008) with brand associations such as
modernity, cosmopolitan, social approval, status, self-esteem and a better standard of
life. In turn, managers of local brands should highlight a sense of belongingness
associated with these brands to attract or maintain consumers. They may promote
their cultural values and norms which will create a bond between consumers and local
brands. To improve their presence the domestic brands can emphasize cultural aspects
that global brands may not have (Ger, 1999). The managers of local brands should
employ aggressive marketing strategies to improve consumers’ perception of these
brands in terms of quality and emotional appeal. In this regard the endorsements of
brands by home country celebrities through media can create positive consumer
attitudes toward the brand. The key role of research and development should be

Estimate SE p-value

Low ethnocentric
PBG ! PBQ 0.306 0.035 , 0.001
PBG ! PBP 0.226 0.036 , 0.001 Table III.
High ethnocentric Unstandardized
PBG ! PBQ 0.180 0.038 , 0.001 structural estimates
PBG ! PBP 0.120 0.039 , 0.01 for CE
IJOEM acknowledged in creating and maintaining positive brand image and reputation of the
6,4 local brands to compete with global brands.
The study has considered a limited number of brands all belonging to fast moving
consumer goods (FMCG) categories. Future studies should test the proposed model with
other local and global brands in other categories in order to generalize the findings. The
data were collected through the internet and this may have introduced a self selection
300 bias, especially within an emerging market. However, this could also have favored the
fact that study participants were exposed to both global and local brands, which is a
condition for having both in their evoked set. In any case, sampling is an issue that
should be addressed in future research. Another future avenue can be exploring other
moderating factors than CE such as culture, animosity or consumers’ demographics,
which may well have a significant effect on consumers’ perceptions of global brands.
Consumers from different cultures exhibit different levels of ethnocentric tendencies
which call for cross-cultural studies involving other emerging and developing countries.

References
Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthale, E. (1999), “The lure of global branding”, Harvard Business
Review, November/December, pp. 137-44.
Akaka, M.A. and Alden, D.L. (2010), “Global brand positioning and perceptions: international
advertising and global consumer culture”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 37-56.
Alden, D.L. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1999), “Brand positioning through advertising in Asia,
North America and Europe: the role of global consumer culture”, Journal of marketing,
Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Bandalos, D.L. (2002), “The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate
bias in structural equation modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 78.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2002), “How perceived brand globalness creates brand value”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.E. and Ramach, S. (2000), “Effects of brand
local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 83-95.
Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), “Reference group influence on product and brand purchase
decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 183-94.
Bhardwaj, V., Kumar, A. and Kim, Y. (2010), “Brand analyses of US global and local brands in
India: the case of Levi’s”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, p. 80.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S. (1998), “Symbolic and functional positioning of brands”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Cayla, J. and Eckhardt, G.M. (2007), “Asian brands without borders: regional opportunities and
challenges”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 444-56.
Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2000), “Configural advantage in global markets”, Journal of Brand globalness
International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 6-26.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand and store information
in emerging
on buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, pp. 307-19. markets
Douglas, S.P. and Nijssen, E.J. (2003), “On the use of ‘borrowed’ scales in cross-national research:
a cautionary note”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 621-42.
Ettenson, R. (1993), “Brand name and country of origin effects in the emerging market economies 301
of Russia, Poland and Hungary”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 14-36.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Ger, G. (1999), “Localizing in the global village: local firms competing in global markets”,
California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 64-83.
Hair, J.F., Money, A., Samouel, P. and Page, M. (2007), Research Methods for Business, Wiley,
Chichester.
Han, C. and Terpstra, V. (1988), “Country-of-origin effects for uni-national and bi-national
products”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 235-55.
Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A. and Taylor, E.L. (2004), “How global brands compete”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 82 No. 9, pp. 68-75.
Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1989), Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Johansson, J. and Ronkainen, I. (2004), “The brand challenge – are global brands the right choice
for your company?”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 54-5.
Juric, B. and Worsley, A. (1998), “Consumers’ attitudes towards imported food products”, Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 431-41.
Kapferer, J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating
Brand Equity, Kogan Page, London.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating
Brand Equity, Kogan Page, Dover, NH.
Keller, K.L. (1997), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D. (1992), “The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Kreutzer, R.T. (1988), “Marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 19-30.
Kumar, A., Lee, H. and Kim, Y. (2009), “Indian consumers’ purchase intention toward a United
States versus local brand”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 521-7.
Lindquist, J.D., Vida, I., Plank, R.E. and Fairhurst, A. (2001), “The modified CETSCALE: validity
tests in the Czech Republic”, Hungary and Poland. International Business Review, Vol. 10
No. 5, pp. 505-16.
Luque-Martinez, T., Ibanez-Zapata, J. and Barrio-Garcia, S.D. (2000), “Consumer ethnocentrism
measurement – an assessment of the reliability and validity of the CETSCALE in Spain”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 11/12, pp. 1353-74.
Milberg, S.J. and Sinn, F. (2008), “Vulnerability of global brands to negative feedback effects”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 684-90.
Netemeyer, R., Durvasula, S. and Lichtenstein, L. (1991), “A cross-national assessment of the
reliability and validity of the CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28,
pp. 320-7.
IJOEM Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J.J. (1989), “The international dimension of branding: strategic
considerations and decisions”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 22-34.
6,4
Özsomer, A. and Altaras, S. (2008), “Global brand purchase likelihood: a critical synthesis and
an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 1-28.
Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A. and Beracs, J. (1990), “National stereotypes and product
302 evaluations in a socialist country”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 32-47.
Samiee, S. and Roth, K. (1992), “The influence of global marketing standardization on
performance”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 1-17.
Schuiling, I. and Kapferer, J.N. (2004), “Executive insights: real differences between local and
international brands: strategic implications for international marketers”, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 97-112.
Sharma, S., Shimp, T.A. and Shin, J. (1994), “Consumer ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents and
moderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the
CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 280-9.
Singh, S.K. and Upadhyay, Y. (2006), “Preference for domestic goods: a study of consumer
ethnocentrism”, Vision-The Journal of Business Perspective, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 59-68.
Steenkamp, J.E., Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2003), “How perceived brand globalness creates brand
value”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Supphellen, M. and Gronhaug, K. (2003), “Building foreign brand personalities in Russia the
moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 22, pp. 203-26.
Wall, M. and Heslop, L.A. (1986), “Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus imported
products”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 27-36.
Wilson, D. and Stupnytska, A. (2007), “The N-11: More than an Acronym”, Goldman Sachs
Economic Research Paper No. 153.
Yelkur, R., Chakrabarty, S. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (2006), “Ethnocentrism and buying
intentions: does economic development matter?”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Yip, G.S. (1994), Total Global Strategy: Managing for World Wide Competitive Advantage,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.

Appendix. Survey instrument

PBG (Steenkamp et al., 2003):
.
To me this is a global brand/to me this is a local brand.
.
I don’t think consumers overseas buy this brand/I do think consumers overseas buy this
brand.
.
This brand is sold only in Pakistan/This brand is sold all over the world.

PBQ (Keller and Aaker, 1992):

.
This brand is very low on overall quality/this brand is very high on overall quality.
.
This is a brand of inferior quality/this is a brand of superior quality.
PBP (Han and Terpstra, 1988): Brand globalness
.
This is a very prestigious brand/this is not a very prestigious brand. in emerging
Consumers’ PI (Dodds et al., 1991): markets
.
I would not buy it (assuming it was available)/I would certainly buy it (assuming it was
available).
.
I am not at all likely to buy it (if available)/I am very likely to buy it (if available). 303
CE (Shimp and Sharma, 1987):
.
Purchasing foreign made products is un-Pakistani.
.
Pakistani should not buy foreign products because this hurts Pakistani business and
causes unemployment.
.
A real Pakistani should always buy Pakistani-made products.
.
It is not right to purchase foreign products.

Corresponding author
Aneela Akram can be contacted at: aneela.akram@live.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints