Almost everyone in the world recognizes the Nike swoosh and the Coca-Cola wave, and if you’re across from the Pyramids in Egypt, you can still find a Pizza Hut and a KFC. But that’s not to say it’s easy bringing a brand into foreign markets. In his new book, The Global Brand, author Nigel Hollis, executive vice-president and chief global analyst at research firm Millward Brown, delves into the challenges companies face in taking their brands worldwide. Among the nuggets of wisdom Hollis shares with Marketing is that local knowledge is still critical, even in a world of increasing globalization.

Why write this book?
There are many companies who have a vision of how to go global that is perhaps pushing the “one size fits all” idea too far, and it seemed to be a good opportunity to draw on the material [Millward Brown] had, and to also get out there and interview some of the people behind the really successful global brands to find out what really is best practice.

Should every brand aspire to be the same everywhere, be positioned the same, communicate the same? The answer is no. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, nor is there a recipe for success. So much depends on the specific brand and the category and context that brand is in, and also which country and culture you’re trying to deal with. The person who best summed it up for me was Tony Palmer, the CEO at Kimberly-Clark, who said you have to win locally first, and then, once you establish a strong brand in multiple countries, that’s when you look for global efficiencies.

You write that going global doesn’t always make sense for a brand. Why?
The truth is there are very few brands developed with the idea of going global. It’s easy to underestimate the challenges. With a mass market brand like Apple, you’re talking to a similar, like-minded group of people in every market. They have a common language and a common understanding of what the technology is supposed to do and how it works. But when you move outside that type of category, and you’re into a much more diverse set of needs, desires and values, that can really present quite a few challenges.

For example, inside a Home Depot store in the U.S., there’s quite a lot of guys picking out the stuff they need to do a job themselves, but Home Depot wasn’t very successful when it launched in South America, because that is not the way people in Chile shop—it’s not so much of a do-it-yourself experience.

Another thing you write about is that the emphasis on individualism in the West doesn’t carry over to some of the other big markets.
The brand I’m thinking of is Jack Daniel’s. They face an interesting challenge, because they stand for individualism, so they can appeal to everyone from bikers to bankers, as they say. That doesn’t work so well in Asia, partly because of the cultural values. So they’re trying to figure out, without completely changing the brand and what it stands for, how they can interpret the values of the brand to be more approachable in a culture like China. China is very status-oriented in terms of the middle class, and if you’re going to pick a foreign brand, Johnnie Walker might be a safer bet to show off to your colleagues.

What advantages do Western brands have when they enter foreign markets?
The first time a brand launches in a country, it does have that [novelty] advantage, but that only works in a brand’s favour over a relatively short life cycle. Once that gloss disappears, you need to figure out pretty quickly what you’re really going to do to establish your brand as part of the local scene.

People in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, believe it or not, care far less about where brands come from or who owns them than people in China, India or Brazil, where they’re far more focused on buying local.

There’s an underlying expectation that, as disposable income rises in the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), our consumption and our needs will become more similar. I don’t believe there’s proof of that.

You have challenged the idea that, in the age of social media, companies need to give consumers more control of their brands.
It’s one of those things where we’re “reinventing” something that’s already true. The consumer has always owned your brand. It’s just that it’s become much more transparent in the world of social media. Who says social media is more powerful today than it was hundreds of years ago, when it was over the garden fence or at the dinner table?

A brand has to stand for something. If you’re at a party, you don’t want to get cornered by somebody who just wants to talk about their stamp collection. Equally, you don’t want to talk to someone who just stands there going, uh-huh, uh-huh. It’s a conversation. The successful brands lead what people think of them, as opposed to asking, “What should I say to you?”