Introduction
Any inquiry into the social costs and benefits of advertising leads ultimately to a consideration of the buyer-seller interface that is provided by the advertising media. There is increasing interest nowadays not only in the number of advertising messages produced but also in the qualitative differences between advertising messages. The lack of market information and of competition that would prevail in the absence of advertising would be costly to consumers: as some sellers offering bargains failed to attract buyers, others would find it possible to exploit a degree of monopoly power. The article “Cross-cultural advertising research” by Sh. Okazaki and B. Mueller discuss problems of cross-cultural advertising and research issues important for effective promotions and advertising campaigns.
Okazaki and Mueller pay special attention to the concept of “culture” and ”national culture” and its impact on advertising and commercial communications. ‘Culture’ seems to have become a concept that almost all business-oriented people (researchers as practitioners) have found useful and have opinions about. These opinions sometimes differ widely. Okazaki and Mueller have claimed that every concept which has gradually come to contain more and more, sooner or later will become cumbersome and even meaningless. Okazaki and Mueller include in their analysis Hofstede’s dimensions of culture. “Hofstede delineated four important dimensions that can be used to classify countries: power distance, societal desire for hierarchy or egalitarianism; individualism, society’s preference for a group or individual orientation; masculinity vs femininity, a sex-role dimension; and uncertainty avoidance, a culture’s tolerance of uncertainty” (p. 504). The research underlines that power help researchers to explain and understand inequalities between cultures, even taken as natural, in a culture. A long power distance in a culture means that such inequalities are clear and obvious.
The more stratified a society is, the greater are the feelings of inequality and the lesser are social interactions between people in different strata. Uncertainty avoidance relates to people’s need for structure. This concept is important for global businesses because it helps them to understand and evaluate the pros and cons of the marketing message and create a unified one for global promotional campaigns. This is a typical strategy for such global companies as P&G and McDonald’s. The higher such avoidance, the more there is a need in a culture for a structured life. In an uncertainty-avoiding organization, there are many rituals, for example, certain memos and reports, some parts of accounting, much of planning, a considerable part of control systems, and occasional reliance on experts. In American and Scandinavian cultures, the power distance is relatively short, even shorter in Scandinavia than in America. This concept is especially important for the wine and beer industry based on the unique perception of country of origin and unique tastes. In the latter case, subordinates expect (as in Scandinavia) to be consulted, but they accept autocratic behavior to some extent, as well as certain privileges and status symbols. There are no recognized social classes in America or in Scandinavia. However, Scandinavians fight harder than Americans to minimize all kinds of inequalities and there is even more equality among sexes in the former case (Barham & Conway 1998).
Main body
Okazaki and Mueller use Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) typology of cultural values based on “individual values that were recognized across cultures, in an attempt to develop a framework of cultural values on a societal level” (p. 505). This also goes for the concept of culture. The concept is more manageable and useful for researchers of business if it only contains factors behind our behavior, not behavior in itself. In this study, culture is defined as consisting of norms, values, and assumptions which people carry around as a result of social life. This concept is very important for advertising research because it helps to distinguish the main values and individual differences of nation-states. “Schwartz identified three basic social issues: the relationship between the individual and the group; assuring responsible social behavior; and the roles of humans in the natural and social world.
Cultural adaptations to resolve each of these three issues constitute the framework, which consists of seven national-cultural domains that serve to differentiate cultures” (p. 505). Behavioral consequences from culture and other expressions such as fine art, institutions, and buildings, are called cultural manifestations, but not culture in itself. However, even with this ‘limited’ definition of culture, there are still differences between understanding, managing, and influencing norms as compared to doing the same for values or assumptions. This concept is widely used by car automakers (Toyota and BMW, Nissan and Ford) to reach the target audience and create effective marketing campaigns (Barham & Conway 1998).
Okazaki and Mueller describe an innovative approach to marketing, Global Leadership, and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program (GLOBE), This approach is widely used by modern companies and help them to identify advertising peculiarities and motivational factors of target audiences. Success can be defined on many different dimensions and it may perhaps be thought impossible to reduce it to one dimension. The dimension used here is to look at success as what has been achieved within yourself (it could be called. ‘self-realization’) as against what has been achieved in terms of position in society in relation to others (this could partly be ascribed and not necessarily completely achieved) (Bartlett & and Ghoshal 1999).
Ignoring the fact that self-realization and societal position are not clearly each other’s exact opposites, it could be said that some, cultures, like the Scandinavian, nurture a cult of competence, appreciate knowledgeable experts, and look at success from a more intrinsic point of view (for example, ‘feeling complete’ in a ‘living environment). Other cultures, such as the Chinese, overwhelmingly stress position and recognition by others as a sign of success. Most cultures are in between these two extremes. The Arab and the Japanese cultures tend towards the ‘position’ pole (success for an Arab is to be loved and respected, to have a good family position and to be well connected, more than to be admired as a separate individual; success for a Japanese is to belong, to be accepted in a group – and to have a good education is just a means to achieve this) and that the American culture tends towards the ‘self-actualization’ pole (success for an American is recognition, particularly in business, but more importantly, people in America are valued by how they perform and in terms of what they contribute, especially if they do it creatively and constructively) (Bartlett & and Ghoshal 1999).
High- and low-contextual cultures are concepts introduced by Hall (1977 cited Hall & Hennessey 2004). If a culture is low-contextual, information can be directly understood by a foreigner without knowing the context or without specific knowledge of the culture in question. If a culture is high-contextual, it is necessary to know more about the culture itself before a foreigner can understand the real meaning of a message (Davis, 1989). America and Scandinavia are low-contextual cultures; Arabia, China, and Japan are high-contextual cultures. One reason is all the slang and insider jargon that goes on in the latter culture. The statement that how something is said is more important than what is said is more valid for the Japanese culture than for the other two, and Arabs have more rituals, symbols, and rules in business than the Chinese (Brislin, 1993).
A group must have been together for a while for its members to develop a mutual social understanding. The same goes for an organization of, for instance, a business firm. Yet the culture may become more or less pervasive; and more or less strong as was pointed out. It is still possible for a group of people to develop several slightly different subcultures within itself even though the group has existed for a long time, for the simple reason that members have only associated in smaller units within the whole group (Dowling et al 1999). Unless people in a group (for example, a company) associate and develop common social mechanisms of integration, they will tend to develop idiosyncratic explanations for what is going on and come up with their own. understanding of their situation (Davis, 1989). In recent years, the computer industry relies on cross-cultural values and priorities, a unique perception of products and innovations. For such giant companies as IBM and Apple basic for the development of values is that people tend to stick to what they see as well known to them, which in turn means an environment that becomes increasingly taken for granted and a more habitual way of life.
People develop a preference for what they have grown accustomed to in a certain social situation; increasingly more of their ‘knowledge’ disappears into sub-consciousness. People are generally not aware of the constant reinforcement of their culture and the fact that what they take to be ‘their own thing’ or ‘natural’ is often culturally conditioned. People’s eyes are not opened until they meet unusual situations or other cultures. Before people know their own culture, it may needlessly tie them up and hamper them. One essential cultural manifestation is that network that exists in all organizations. This network constitutes the primary means of communication in the organization (Dowling et al 1999). These cultural concepts and interpretations have a great impact on the branding and perception of the company (Gregory 2002). Most of what goes on of importance to the business take place in the cultural network, not as formal events in the hierarchy (Davis, 1989).
Following Bartlett & Ghoshal (1998) even in the context of a very controlled meeting, there is a lot of informal communication going on -bonding rituals, glances, innuendoes, and so on. The real process of gathering support, presenting opinions, and of making decisions, happens before the meeting — or after. The network is important not only because it ties people together; the meaning and importance of information are also interpreted there. Top managers and business leaders must recognize this fact and use it (Gesteland, 1999). Using the cultural network can sometimes be the only way to get something done. Business leaders, wherever they are in the hierarchy and in the network, may also be conclusive actors in various stages of a business. However, business leaders can never let go of their cultural responsibility. The most important ability of business leaders may be to clarify ‘what we believe’. Those business leaders who realize this could be called ‘cultural business leaders’ (Gesteland, 1999).
Looked at from the international perspective of today people are influenced by other cultures almost no matter what they do. It is becoming harder for people to isolate themselves, and strictly domestic business is becoming more and more impossible. However, even business managers in organizations directly involved in international business, for example, in multinational corporations, are becoming more proactive by looking at cultures in countries where they operate, as well as their own corporate culture, as very powerful factors and instruments. This may be because they have faced mergers and joint ventures with companies from another cultural background because they have tried to expand into countries with a different way of life, diversified into product lines requiring diversified strategies, experienced rapid growth or retrenchment, seen serious conflicts between various groups, or simply been inspired by that intensive public discussion and by the variety of writings going on in cultural issues (Davis, 1989).
Cultural learning is a means for managers and other leaders to become more global and cosmopolitan in their outlook and behavior, as well as more effective and profitable in their practices. Diversity can be a strength and frequently accompanies change (Hoecklin, 1998). Too much diversity and too large differences may, however, divide the organization. It is a challenge facing every multinational to develop and manage its international network such that it not only accommodates its diverse operations in some kind of common denominator but also allows local differences and needs to function. Such a denominator could be culture seen as ‘only’ norms, values, and assumptions, at the same time as variations in cultural manifestations and expressions are allowed (Hoecklin, 1998). Every multinational corporation with many operating units spread over the world consists of a panoply of values from home, host country, industry, market, technology, and professional dominance, just to mention a few sources of variation. There is, therefore, room for only a few general aspects of the subject, including who the cultural business leader is and his or her task plus characteristics and ways of functioning in different types of culture (Ouchi, 1981).
Nobody can deny that a business has to be fiscally sound, but this does not happen by itself. Nothing takes place in a company unless somebody acts, and acting is more purposeful if it is directed by ‘shared and common values and a distinct corporate culture’ (Hoecklin, 1998). Moreover, there is research showing that companies whose only articulated goals are financial do not do nearly as well financially as companies that have broader sets of values. Perhaps business leadership has traditionally been pursued by a person who sat at the top of the hierarchy and made decisions as problems arose, and business leaders may ‘in the old days’ have acted as detached, cold, analytic, centrally placed, and strategic planners (Usunier & Lee 2005). The cultural business leader’s reality of today could hardly be different. Such a person should rather be a lover of purposefulness, and a preacher of visions and common values. He or she should have the ability to involve others in an intellectually stimulating and emotionally engaging operation and development of business. Symbols can be highly individualized but also well spread and anchored in an organization (Schneider & Barsoux 1997).
For instance, a unique symbol of McDonald’s is based on cross-cultural values and perceptions appealing to mass consumers. This does not mean that rituals must be a waste of time or that they have no meaning. They have a supportive role (people feel they do their job) as well as a cohesive role (observers, including participants, feel at home) to play. What may be surprising is that much more of the operations of a business than is normally understood could be characterized as rituals. Insightful managers spend a lot of time fine-tuning the rituals (Hoecklin, 1998). By looking at rituals as cultural manifestations, companies like BMW and Toyota can consciously make the cultural values of the company coherent and accessible to every employee. A language contains much symbolism, as people know. Even if a language is more or less taken for granted, the language being used in a company consciously or unconsciously influences almost everything (Usunier & Lee 2005).
The way in which a business leader looks at culture will influence his or her leading style. If he or she looks at his or her company as culture, He or She will see culture in the attitudes and values of the colleagues, in how problems are approached and solved, in how the company acts towards customers, suppliers and competitors and in how the members of the company in practically all matters are operating now and in the future (Hoecklin, 1998). To manage people as people means to act through the humble as well as subtle cues and signals of the culture. Leaders do not have to be appointed as top managers to be of interest to the project presented in this study. A cultural business leader may be a formal as well as an informal leader, functioning in hierarchies as well as in networks, playing transactional as well as transforming roles. Another name for such leaders is leading actors or key players of the culture (Barham & Conway 1998).
Conclusion
In sum, good strategic planning and an appropriate vision will ensure an institution’s future. This is so at the national level as well as at the corporate level. Whichever way culture is understood, values are its core. It is, therefore, important for a cultural leader to know and understand the values ruling his or her organization. What brings values to life, however, is the awareness of everyone in the organization of their existence, but also that people share them and understand that they are important. Cultural business leaders (the leading actors of the culture) participate in this sharing and they take the responsibility for this sharing to take place. A number of factors other than money affect the motivation of employees to perform for the organization. Some of these factors relate directly to individual needs such as needs for achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, personal growth, and so on. Other factors relate to a group or organizational needs such as peer relations, supervision, status, job security, and so on. How the specific needs package looks will, of course, very much depend on which national culture a person belongs to.
Bibliography
Barham K., Conway C. 1998. Developing business and people internationally: A mentoring approach. Ashridge Research.
Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. 1999. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. 2nd edition, London: Ramsden House.
Brislin, R. 1993, Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Davis, S.M. 1989. Future Perfect. In Evans, P., Doz, Y. and Laurent, A. (eds) Human Resource Management in International Firms. London: Macmillan.
Dowling, P. J., Welch, D. E. and Schuler, R.S. 1999. International Human Resource Management, 3d edn, South West Publishing.
Gregory J.R 2002, Branding Across Borders, McGraw Hill.
Gesteland, R. 1999, Cross-Cultural Business and Behavior 2nd edn. Copenhagen Copenhagen Business School Press.
Hall, Jeannet J & Hennessey D.H, 2004, Global Marketing Strategies, 6th Edition, Houghton Mifflin.
Hoecklin, L. 1998, Managing Cultural Differences, Addison Wesley.
Okazaki, Sh., Mueller, B. 2007, Cross-cultural advertising research: where we have been and where we need to go. International Marketing Review. 24 (5), pp. 499-518.
Ouchi, W. G. 1981, Theory Z, How American Business can meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley.
Schneider, S. C,&Barsoux, J-L 1997, Managing Across cultures, Prentice Hall.
Usunier, Jean-Claude & Lee J. 2005, Marketing Across Cultures, FT Prentice.