Local–Global Cobrand Positioning and Consumer Evaluations in Emerging Markets

Abstract

Cobranding initiatives between a local and a global brand have become a prominent practice. This research contributes to the cobranding and global branding literatures by investigating the effects of positioning strategy of the cobranded product (global consumer culture positioning vs. local consumer culture positioning) on consumer evaluations in emerging markets. In five experiments, the authors show that using global consumer culture positioning for the cobranded product leads to heightened word-of-mouth intentions and more favorable product valuations. This effect holds for both local and global product categories. Building on signaling theory, the authors show that brand credibility mediates the effect of positioning strategy on word-of-mouth intentions. Further, when the local (vs. global) brand is the announcement source, using a global rather than a local consumer culture positioning leads to enhanced word-of-mouth intentions. Yet, for consumers with stronger ethnocentrism, when the global brand makes the announcement of a cobranded product positioned on local consumer culture, word-of-mouth intentions are higher. Altogether, the findings have nuanced implications for local branding, global branding, and young consumers in emerging markets.

In many emerging markets (EMs), local brands face increased competition from global brands (Sun et al. 2017). For many of these local brands, growth or even survival in their markets depends on crafting creative strategies and forming partnerships, including cobranding with global brands. In today's hypercompetitive marketplace, it is important for local brands to understand how to position a cobrand with a global counterpart, how to communicate the cobrand to their local consumers, and whether consumers react differently to the positioning and communication of the cobrand.

Cobranding involves the combination of two or more brands to create a new and unique product or service (Washburn, Till, and Priluck 2000). A cobranding between a local and a global brand can be considered a type of strategic alliance (Bello, Katsikeas, and Robson 2010). Given the paradoxical role of globalization in enhancing competition as well as facilitating cooperation between brands possessing different geographical availability, reach, and cultural connections, cobranding initiatives between a local and a global brand, termed local–global cobrands, have become increasingly prevalent (Wang et al. 2020). Examples include air conditioners jointly produced by the leading Turkish consumer durables brand Arçelik and South Korean electronics brand LG in Türkiye (Arçelik-LG 2024) and Marriott Bonvoy and Marriott Bonvoy Inspire credit cards launched by Marriott International, Mastercard, and Banorte in Mexico (Marriott International 2021). In these examples, global brands enter a cobranding alliance with strong local counterparts, presenting a dance of “equals” in the eyes of local EM consumers (Özsomer 2012b).

Even for strong local brands, cobranding may be useful by securing access to valuable and complementary resources provided by the global partner, such as patents, innovation, and technology (Blackett and Russell 1999). Cobranding can help local brands transition to higher levels of brand equity, consumer franchise, and loyalty by providing access to technology, innovation, know-how, and foreign investment (Abratt and Motlana 2002). Global brands also benefit from cobranding, raising their chances and speed of success in local markets where they may not have as high levels of equity and credibility as their local counterparts (Abratt and Motlana 2002; Fong, Lee, and Du 2014).

Local–global cobrands help the local (global) partner not only obtain global (local) related associations but also enable both brands to transfer these traits and associations to the cobranded product (Wang et al. 2020). Indeed, extant literature suggests that “global and local brands constitute distinct groups of marketplace entities associated with stereotypical properties which determine how consumers respond and relate to individual brands” (Davvetas and Halkias 2019, p. 693). Perceived brand globalness (PBG) or localness (PBL) triggers the categorization of products under the superordinate mental categories of global or local brands, which carry distinct stereotypical content. When a brand is associated with the local (global) mental category, it is charged with the stereotypical content of that class (Davvetas and Halkias 2019). Hence, we suggest that when a local brand forms a cobrand with a global brand, existing stereotypical perceptions about each category (local and global brands) can spill over to the cobranded product and shape how consumers evaluate the cobrand. Such transfer of stereotypical associations makes local–global cobrands a special form of cobranding, adding an additional layer of associations stemming from the local and global brand categories to those already addressed in the literature, such as brand fit (Simonin and Ruth 1998) and functional complementarity (Newmeyer, Venkatesh, and Chatterjee 2014) between partnering brands.

Local brands and their global counterparts need to decide how to position their cobrand and how to communicate the cobrand to their local consumers. With each brand group (local or global) having distinct stereotypical associations, the cobranded product can be positioned to capitalize on local, global, or a combination of local and global brand associations to promote desirable consumer evaluations. When consumers mentally categorize brands into local or global groups, they imbue them with a category-specific image (Davvetas and Halkias 2019; Halkias et al. 2017) that can be utilized in optimizing the cobrand positioning strategies. The literature on global branding suggests at least two alternatives in positioning the cobrand. The cobranded product could be positioned to represent the global consumer culture by linking the brand to universal concepts, ideas, and meanings, as well as identifiers and norms such as modernity, cosmopolitanism, and freedom of choice (De Meulenaer, Dens, and De Pelsmacker 2015; Özsomer 2019; Steenkamp 2019). Alternatively, the cobrand could be tied more closely to the local consumer culture by attaching the brand to local cultural meanings, norms, and identities, portraying the brand as consumed by local people in their national culture (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Ger 1999; Halkias et al. 2017; Steenkamp 2019).

Against this background, in this article we investigate whether global consumer culture positioning (GCCP) or local consumer culture positioning (LCCP) generates enhanced consumer evaluations for local–global cobrands. We test these effects in both global and local product categories. Building on signaling theory, we examine the role of brand credibility as the mechanism through which positioning strategy influences consumer evaluations. We further examine the moderating role of two theoretically relevant and managerially actionable factors: announcement source (the local or the global brand making the cobrand announcement) and consumer ethnocentrism (“the beliefs held by consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products”; Shimp and Sharma 1987, p. 280).

We investigate these effects in relatively advanced EMs (Mexico, Türkiye, and South Africa; FTSE Russell 2023) where recent research documents that both global and local positioning are important at comparable levels (Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021) in consumer evaluations, whereas earlier research demonstrated a clear preference for globalness and its associations (e.g., Batra et al. 2000; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). The parity of global and local brand positioning in EMs is not surprising, because EMs have become a key battleground for major global brands with ever more competitive local brands (Chattopadhyay, Batra, and Özsomer 2012) as a result of globalization. Paradoxically, globalization has helped fuel localization (Akaka and Alden 2010) such that the localness of brands is perceived as a signal of originality, local cultural connections, pride, prestige, and even local iconness (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008; Özsomer 2012b; Schmidt-Devlin, Özsomer, and Newmeyer 2022). More recently, localization tendencies and the emergence of strong local players have reduced the perceptual and high-end advantages global brands once enjoyed (Santos and Williamson 2015; Sichtmann, Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2019). Despite these changes, the distinction between consumer perceptions of and associations around global and local brands are still stronger in EMs (Davvetas et al. 2023), while they are rather blurred in mature markets (Batra et al. 2000; Strizhakova and Coulter 2015), making global and local players more clearly differentiated in EMs.

In advanced markets, some local brands (e.g., Apple, Coca-Cola, Mercedes, Red Bull, Toyota) are also perceived as global due to their worldwide availability and operations, necessitating consideration of the origin (domestic or foreign) of the global (Riefler 2012) and local brands. However, EMs have fewer or no homegrown global brands (Davvetas et al. 2023), making global–foreign and local–domestic the most prominent choices available to consumers in such markets. Collectively, these recent developments and insights suggest that effectively positioning a local–global cobrand in an EM is more complex and nuanced than before.

In EMs, we focus on the young adult cohort, who tend to combine global and local elements (i.e., “glocal”) in their cultural identity (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012) and prefer and use global brands as a passport to global citizenship (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008). Recent research in international marketing recommends involving young consumers (Baek et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2021) because the functional, social, and emotional benefits of globalness are even more critical for these younger urban adults (Baek et al. 2017; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). However, current antiglobalization tendencies (Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021) and the resurgence of national pride (Schmidt-Devlin, Özsomer, and Newmeyer 2022) have called into question the effectiveness of a global positioning strategy on young consumers in EMs.

Our research contributes to the international marketing literature in a number of ways. In terms of local branding, our findings extend the prior work that has paid attention to positioning strategies involving a mixture of foreign and local appeals (Hu et al. 2023) or global and local elements (Schmidt-Devlin, Özsomer, and Newmeyer 2022) by providing empirical insights into optimal configuration of local–global cobrand positioning strategies to achieve favorable consumer evaluations in EMs. In addition, our findings complement existing research that has investigated the role of cobrand announcements in attaining positive business outcomes from a brand/firm perspective (Cao and Sorescu 2013) by focusing on performance metrics from a consumer perspective. In terms of global branding, our work contributes to the literature that has documented the negative (positive) influence of consumer ethnocentrism on ads designed from GCCP (LCCP) perspectives (Nijssen and Douglas 2011) by showing that ethnocentric consumers may evaluate the cobranded product more favorably if the cobrand is announced by the global brand employing LCCP. Our findings also contribute to the literature pertaining to young adult consumers in EMs (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012) by providing a nuanced understanding of the optimal configurational structure of a local–global cobrand positioning strategy to appeal to this segment. Our research has several important implications for how marketers can decide on optimal configuration and communication of positioning strategies for their cobranding initiatives in the complex landscape of EMs.

Theoretical Background

Global and Local Brands

The distinction between global and local brands has generated significant research interest. Global brands are described as brands that are widely available across international markets and enjoy high levels of recognition across the world (Dimofte, Johansson, and Bagozzi 2010; Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021), while local brands are developed for and tailored to the unique needs and desires of local markets (Ger 1999; Özsomer 2012b; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015). Given the relevance of a more subjective, demand side perspective in consumer brand evaluations (Liu et al. 2021; Özsomer and Altaras 2008), the concepts of PBG and PBL have been developed and utilized in the extant literature. PBG captures consumers’ perceptions about a brand's worldwide availability, acceptance, and desirability (Steenkamp 2019; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003), and PBL captures perceptions about a brand's uniqueness, originality, symbolic association with a given local culture, and pride of representing the local culture (Özsomer 2012b; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012).

Building on signaling theory (Erdem and Swait 1998, 2004) and the associative network memory models (Özsomer and Altaras 2008), existing research has generally conceptualized brand globalness and brand localness as distinct brand attributes that are considered and weighted in the brand evaluation process much like other attributes (Davvetas et al. 2023; Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008; Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). That is, PBG alone signals additional information for consumers and may function as a distinct brand attribute (e.g., belonging to a global segment of modern cosmopolitan consumers). According to signaling theory, the existence of imperfect and asymmetric information—where brands have more product or service-related knowledge than other stakeholders, particularly consumers—creates uncertainty about product features (Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela 2006). In such environments, brands may function as a signal of product quality (Erdem and Swait 1998; Rao and Ruekert 1994). Extant research indicates that global brands signal status and prestige (Özsomer 2012b; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Talay, Townsend, and Yeniyurt 2015), represent a global myth (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004), and provide a gateway to global citizenship (Strizhakova and Coulter 2019; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008). In contrast, local brands are associated with the local culture and are symbols of the local country (Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015), eliciting associations of uniqueness and originality (Özsomer 2012b; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015).

More recently, building on stereotype theory and brand stereotypes (Fiske et al. 2002), Davvetas and Halkias suggest that “consumers hold collective beliefs, in the form of stereotypes, about what global and local brands generally represent, and that these stereotypical beliefs can be activated by perceptions of individual brand globalness/localness, regardless of their relative importance in consumer's overall assessment as compared to other brand attributes” (2019, p. 677). Consistent with the notion of stereotyping, perceptions about global and local brand categories can spill over to how consumers see individual brands that belong to these categories as well as to cobrands developed by a local and a global brand. Thus, a local–global cobrand will inherit stereotypical beliefs from the local and global brands coming together. For example, the cobrand can inherit perceptions of uniqueness, symbolic association with the local culture, and pride of representing the local culture from the local brand and perceptions of worldwide availability, desirability, quality, and innovation from the global brand. By strategically forging their brand's categorization under the global or the local brand category, brand managers can shape the transfer of stereotypical content to their cobranded product.

GCCP and LCCP

The next step is to implement the cobrand's positioning strategy in a way that facilitates positive consumer evaluations. Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) define GCCP as a strategy that connects the brand with elements that are emblematic of global consumer culture. This strategy characterizes the brand “with global cultural meanings, reflects global cultural norms and identifiers (global village membership, passport to global citizenship), portrays the brand as consumed by people around the world in a setting that is deterritorialized, and/or depicts the brand as being consumed by people from any or all cultures” (Steenkamp 2019, p. 12). Alternatively, LCCP is a strategy that links the brand with a particular local consumer culture (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999). ¹ LCCP identifies the brand “with local cultural meanings, reflects local culture norms/identities, portrays the brand as consumed by local people in the national culture, and/or depicts the brand as locally produced for local people” (Steenkamp 2019, p. 12).

Importantly, GCCP and LCCP offer distinct benefits for a local brand that develops a positioning strategy for the local–global cobrand. In its communication, the local brand can emphasize the cultural meanings, norms, symbols, and identifiers associated with the global brand to signal GCCP for the cobrand. This combination could create a “best of both worlds” positioning for the cobranded product in which the stereotypical content inherited from being a local brand (e.g., perceptions of uniqueness, symbolic association with the local culture) is complemented with a strategic emphasis on worldwide availability, desirability, mass consumption, and globally shared meanings, thanks to GCCP (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Özsomer 2019). Especially in EMs, the “best of both worlds” associations of the local–global cobrand may appeal to glocally oriented young consumers, who tend to possess locally and globally grounded beliefs and behaviors (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012). This is similar to the glocal strategy used by global and local brands (Schmidt-Devlin, Özsomer, and Newmeyer 2022) or the coalescence effect (Hu et al. 2023). However, the stereotypical content from the local brand categorization is inherited (although it can be emphasized or de-emphasized), whereas GCCP is actively and strategically communicated.

In this case, the GCCP used by the local brand is expected to enhance consumers’ word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions. Engaging in WOM makes consumers evaluate the company more favorably and increases their loyalty (Garnefeld, Helm, and Eggert 2011; Garnefeld et al. 2013). The local brand's use of GCCP (vs. LCCP) may appeal to consumers with different attitudes toward globalization, thereby increasing the chances of the cobrand's visibility and accessibility by many consumers and enhancing their likelihood to engage in WOM behavior (Berger 2014). From a different perspective, research on schema incongruity suggests that deviations from established brand beliefs can sometimes positively influence consumer responses (Halkias and Kokkinaki 2014, 2017). Schema incongruity, in our case a local–global cobrand with GCCP, could attract attention and stimulate cognitive arousal as consumers attempt to resolve the discrepancies involved (Lee and Schumann 2004), generating more excitement in the form of WOM intentions and greater valuation regarding the cobrand. We, therefore, hypothesize:

H₁: GCCP (vs. LCCP) leads to more favorable consumer evaluations (i.e., WOM intentions, product valuations) of the cobranded product.

Brand Credibility

Markets with asymmetric and imperfect information necessitate firms to credibly signal traits regarding their products and/or services (Erdem, Swait, and Louviere 2002). Brand credibility is described as the degree to which a brand's product positioning-related information is considered believable (Özsomer and Altaras 2008).

Prior research in marketing points to brands’ having a consistent marketing mix and making high levels of brand investments as antecedents of brand credibility (Erdem and Swait 1998; Özsomer and Altaras 2008). Global brands are perceived as having high levels of consistency of their marketing mixes across markets, signaling standardization (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008) and quality (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2011) through their availability and consumption in many locations (Özsomer 2012a). From this perspective, global brands signal credibility (Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021; Özsomer and Altaras 2008).

Local brands, in contrast, have intimate relationships with consumers (Davvetas and Halkias 2019), enjoy high awareness and familiarity levels (Özsomer 2012b), and usually more effectively address consumer needs in local markets (Sichtmann, Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2019). For local brands with a global outlook, using a GCCP strategy may provide an opportunity to signal credibility and further strengthen “doing well abroad” associations ascribed to strong local brands with international exposure (Özsomer 2012b, p. 76). Specifically, we suggest that when a local brand engaged in a cobranding initiative with a global brand uses GCCP (vs. LCCP), the cultural meanings, norms, and identifiers associated with global consumer culture will complement the existing local associations, enhancing the credibility of the cobrand. Thus, a local–global cobrand using GCCP signals credibility. Brand credibility increases brand consideration and choice (Erdem and Swait 2004), and we expect credibility perceptions of the cobranded product to be instrumental in boosting consumers’ engagement via WOM intentions. That is because consumers are motivated to self-enhance when they engage in WOM (De Angelis et al. 2012), and being associated with a credible brand can serve this purpose. Therefore, we develop the following hypothesis:

H₂: Brand credibility mediates the effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions for the cobranded product.

Cobrand Announcement Source and Consumer Ethnocentrism

So far, we have focused on the complementarity between global and local brands and the effect of a moderate incongruity in positioning strategy (a local–global cobrand positioned on GCCP) on consumer evaluations of a cobrand from a local brand perspective. While we conceptualize that a GCCP (vs. LCCP) strategy in communicating the local–global cobranded product increases consumers’ WOM intentions, the strength of this relationship may be contingent on the brand that announces the local–global cobranding initiative.

As previously mentioned, local brands may become symbols of their local cultures, be perceived as local icons (Özsomer 2012b), and build uniqueness by taking advantage of their cultural capital (Ger 1999). On top of these positive associations generally conferred on local brands, using elements belonging to global consumer culture in promoting the local–global cobranded product may enable the local brand to obtain associations of worldwide availability and acceptance (Diamantopoulos et al. 2019), attributes generally associated with global brands (Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021; Özsomer and Altaras 2008). Consistent with the “best of both worlds” association discussed in explaining H₁, these associations complement the uniqueness perception ascribed to local brands and thus enhance consumers’ intention to engage in WOM about the cobranded product. This complementarity view is also in line with the extant literature, which posits that consumers consider PBL more important when the brand has a foreign origin whereas they view PBG more favorably when the brand is domestic in nature (Sichtmann, Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2019). Accordingly, we suggest that a GCCP strategy used by the local brand should enhance consumers’ WOM intentions about the cobranded product.

In a similar vein, a global brand's use of LCCP can be more effective because emphasizing local cultural values and elements in promoting the cobrand complements associations that the global brand possesses. Alternatively, highlighting elements and values regarding the local culture of the respective market may lead to the creation of “one of us” association by evoking insider perceptions, and thus erode the “aspirational” feel of the global brand (Özsomer 2012b, p. 88). Hence, pursuing LCCP may prevent the global brand from becoming an effective announcement source of the local–global cobrand initiative. Since these two alternatives are equally plausible, this is an empirical question open for investigation. Given this uncertainty, we expect the complementarity effect to hold only when GCCP (vs. LCCP) is employed by the local brand as the announcement source of the cobrand.

However, when the local brand makes the announcement and pursues a LCCP strategy, we do not expect a strengthening of the positioning strategy–WOM intentions relationship. This is because LCCP does not provide complementary, desirable, and unique associations to the cobranded product, but rather reinforces existing local associations. When a local brand announces a cobrand with a global brand that is positioned with LCCP, such a positioning may not enable the cobranded product to achieve synergy or complementarity of associations obtained from the local brand's use of GCCP. Similarly, from a global brand's perspective, using GCCP may prevent the cobranded product from building associations specific to the local market and carry the risk of mispositioning (Keller and Moorthi 2003) or appeal solely to those with favorable attitudes toward global brand-related associations (e.g., global connectedness; Strizhakova and Coulter 2015). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H_3a: Cobrand announcement source moderates the impact of positioning strategy on WOM intentions for the cobranded product, such that the effect of GCCP (vs. LCCP) on WOM intentions is stronger when the announcement source is the local (vs. global) brand.

We also expect that the effect of positioning strategy and announcement source on WOM intentions will be contingent on consumer ethnocentrism. The surge of nationalism and protectionism in the global marketplace due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, the Russia–Ukraine war, and the disproportionate distribution of prosperity have led consumers to develop a critical viewpoint toward globalization (Gürhan-Canli, Sarıal-Abi, and Hayran 2018; Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021; Steenkamp 2019; Vogel 2020). Such consumer sentiments, in turn, support ethnocentric views (Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021).

Two key components of consumer ethnocentrism are bias toward ingroup and protection of the local economy (Balabanis and Siamagka 2022). Bias toward ingroup (one's own country) vis-à-vis outgroup (other countries) prompts consumers to prefer domestic products over foreign products (Balabanis and Siamagka 2022; Nijssen and Douglas 2011). Motivation to protect the local economy accompanies bias toward ingroup in consumer ethnocentrism (Balabanis and Siamagka 2022; Verlegh 2007; Zeugner-Roth, Žabkar, and Diamantopoulos 2015). Consumers with ethnocentric sentiments opt for products that have local ties as they think that buying foreign-made products may be detrimental to the local economy (Nijssen and Douglas 2011; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Ethnocentric consumers consider the preference for domestic products a moral obligation that exists regardless of the quality level of competing foreign products (Fischer and Zeugner-Roth 2017). Relatedly, ethnocentric consumers hold more favorable attitudes toward ads with LCCP and less favorable attitudes toward ads with GCCP (Nijssen and Douglas 2011).

Interestingly, research on young adult consumers with ethnocentric viewpoints in EMs reveals that they do not exhibit a strong preference for local brands over global brands. Instead, these glocally engaged consumers tend to evaluate products with local origins and those with global origins favorably (Kinra 2006; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012). Based on young adult consumers in two EMs, Russia and Brazil, Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price (2012) find that consumer ethnocentrism is a major characteristic of glocally engaged consumers. Those consumers evaluate both local and global brands as signals of quality and self-identity.

We suggest that the ethnocentrism level of young adult consumers will influence their response to LCCP or GCCP employed in cobranding and the announcement source because ethnocentrism will heighten their attentiveness to local and global characteristics of brands and any incongruity between them (e.g., a local–global cobrand positioned on GCCP). Specifically, compared with consumers with weaker ethnocentrism, those with stronger ethnocentrism will exhibit greater WOM intentions when LCCP (vs. GCCP) is employed for the local–global cobrand and the announcement source is the global (vs. local) brand. This is because ethnocentric consumers may perceive that the global brand shows respect to the local characteristics of their home country by de-emphasizing their usual global positioning to embrace a local cultural positioning. Such a positioning may help the global brand overcome the “outgroup” association. Thus, if the cobrand is positioned based on local consumer culture, a global brand announcing a cobrand with a local brand may enable consumers with stronger ethnocentric sentiments to perceive the brand as “one of us.” Hence, it may alleviate these consumers’ concerns about hurting the local economy by purchasing foreign-made products. However, for young consumers with weaker ethnocentrism, we do not expect to observe a similar interaction effect of positioning strategy and announcement source on WOM intentions, because they will not be attentive to local or global characteristics of brands. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H_3b: For consumers with stronger (vs. weaker) ethnocentrism, the use of LCCP (vs. GCCP) for the local–global cobrand announced by the global (vs. local) brand leads to higher WOM intentions.

Overview of Studies

We test the effect of cobrand positioning (LCCP vs. GCCP) on WOM intentions and product valuations in five experiments (see Table 1). We conduct these experiments in three EMs, Mexico, Türkiye, and South Africa. These countries are very similar in terms of their KOF Globalization index scores (in 2021: Mexico: 73, Türkiye and South Africa: 70 out of 100, higher than the world average globalization index score of 61; ranking: Mexico: 44; Türkiye: 54; South Africa: 56; KOF Swiss Economic Institute 2024). With higher than the world average globalization, these advanced EMs constitute a suitable and relevant setting to test our hypotheses because EM consumers still care about the global and local nature of brands and their positioning whereas the relevance of globalness and localness decreases in advanced markets (Davvetas et al. 2023; Mandler, Bartsch, and Han 2021). In these experiments, we focus on the glocally oriented young consumer cohort in EMs, who tend to combine global and local elements in their cultural identity (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012), to provide an ecologically valid setting to test the hypothesized relationships.

Table 1.

Overview, Summary and Contribution of Studies.

Study	Type of Study	Dependent Variable	Product Category	Main Findings	Contributions
1	Online experiment (N = 163 respondents from a midsize private university in Europe)	WOM intentions	Jeans	GCCP (vs. LCCP) leads to greater WOM intentions (H1).	Demonstrating the favorable effect of GCCP (vs. LCCP) on WOM intentions.
2	Online experiment (N = 370 respondents recruited via Prolific from Mexico)	Product valuation	Coffee	GCCP (vs. LCCP) leads to more favorable product valuations of the cobranded product (H1) for both local and global product categories.	Replicating the findings of Study 1 using a different product category and dependent variable.
3	Online experiment (N = 70 respondents from a midsize private university in Europe), followed by a supplemental study (N = 748 respondents recruited via Prolific from South Africa)	WOM intentions	Smartphone in main study; chocolate in supplemental study	The local brand's use of GCCP (vs. LCCP) enhances brand credibility, which increases WOM intentions for the cobranded product (H2).	Discovering the mediating role of brand credibility that conveys the relationship between positioning strategy and WOM intentions. Ruling out alternative mechanisms through which the positioning strategy–WOM intentions relationship occurs.
4	Online experiment (N = 305 respondents from a midsize private university in Europe)	WOM intentions	Smartphone	Greater WOM intentions for the cobranded product are found if the local (vs. global) brand employs GCCP (vs. LCCP) (H3a).	Showing cobrand announcement source as a boundary condition.
5	Online experiment (N = 762 respondents recruited via Prolific from South Africa)	WOM intentions	Chocolate	Greater WOM intentions for the cobranded product are found among consumers with stronger (vs. weaker) ethnocentrism if the global (vs. local) brand employs LCCP (vs. GCCP) in making the announcement (H3b).	Showing consumer ethnocentrism as a boundary condition.

In Study 1, we show that if the local brand pursues GCCP (vs. LCCP), consumers exhibit stronger WOM intentions about the cobranded product. In Study 2, we replicate the findings of Study 1 by using a different product category (i.e., coffee) and outcome variable (i.e., product valuation). Further, we demonstrate that the favorable effect of pursuing GCCP (vs. LCCP) on consumer evaluations holds for both local and global product categories. In Study 3, we examine the mechanism through which the effect of GCCP (vs. LCCP) on WOM intentions takes place. We find that the effect is mediated by brand credibility and rule out brand coolness and authenticity as alternative mediators. In Studies 4 and 5, respectively, we demonstrate that cobrand announcement source and consumer ethnocentrism function as boundary conditions regulating the relationship between positioning strategy and WOM intentions. In line with the extant research showing that offline (vs. online) WOM communications are more closely associated with behavioral intentions (e.g., Baker, Donthu, and Kumar 2016), we use offline WOM intentions as our dependent variable in Studies 1, 3, 4, and 5.

Study 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to assess whether GCCP leads to stronger WOM intentions than LCCP (H₁). We used equally well-known brands (Levi's as the global brand and Mavi as the local jeans brand) as the constituents of the local–global cobrand (i.e., “Levi's-Mavi designs”). We particularly focused on cobranding formed by two brand partners that are comparatively equivalent in terms of brand strength and familiarity to more cleanly capture the role of GCCP and LCCP. It was also important to use a strong local brand to eliminate brand power as a potential confound. Mavi is the leading jean brand in Türkiye and has been used in previous research comparing strong local and global brands (e.g., Özsomer 2012b). Participants read the cobrand announcement made by the CEO of the local brand. They were randomly assigned to observe a social media post by the local brand about the cobrand featuring either LCCP or GCCP elements. Then, participants indicated their willingness to generate WOM about the cobrand.

Method and Procedure

One hundred seventy-six participants from a private university in Europe were recruited to complete the online experiment in exchange for a small payment. We filtered out 11 respondents who failed to correctly respond to the attention check question (“if you are reading this, please select ‘somewhat agree’”). Further, two participants who were not native speakers of the local language were excluded from the analysis. The final sample consisted of 163 responses (M_age = 21.35 years; 60.1% female, 39.9% male). Of those participants, 156 were students at all levels (undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate), and the remaining seven were university personnel. We used dummy coding to control for the background variability between students and nonstudents.

This experiment followed a single-factor (positioning strategy: LCCP vs. GCCP) between-participants design. First, participants read the cobrand announcement made by the CEO of Mavi (see Web Appendix A for the cobrand announcement). Then, they were randomly assigned to view either a LCCP or a GCCP social media post by Mavi. Positioning strategy was manipulated using both the message content and the image in the post. Following Bartikowski, Fastoso, and Gierl (2019), the message in the GCCP (LCCP) condition indicated that the cobranded product is widely available around the world (in Türkiye), and that it was designed according to the global (local) needs and preferences. The slogan “Levi's-Mavi goes global” was used in the GCCP condition, whereas “Levi's-Mavi goes local” was used in the LCCP condition. Similar to the manipulation used in the conjoint analysis of De Meulenaer, Dens, and De Pelsmacker (2015), we also used website suffixes (“.com” for GCCP, “.tr” for LCCP) as well as a globe containing flags of many countries or a Turkish flag in the same size as the globe in the GCCP and LCCP conditions, respectively, to strengthen the global (local) look and feel of the post (see Web Appendix A for the images).

On the next step, participants indicated their intention to engage in WOM on a four-item, seven-point Likert scale adapted from Moldovan, Goldenberg, and Chattopadhyay (2011) (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .894). Next, participants completed the positioning strategy manipulation check on a three-item scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .892 for GCCP and .801 for LCCP). Participants then indicated their involvement in fashion on a two-item, seven-point scale adapted from Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) (r = .877). The constructs and measures used in Study 1 are provided in Web Appendix A. Finally, respondents answered demographic questions.

Results and Discussion

The manipulation check worked as expected: The results showed that respondents evaluated the cobranded product as pursuing GCCP in the GCCP condition (M_GCCP = 5.393, SD = 1.250) and vice versa (M_LCCP = 3.577, SD = 1.398; F(1, 161) = 75.975, p < .001, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .321).

To examine the effect of positioning strategy on intention to engage in WOM, we conducted a one-way ANCOVA controlling for age, gender, participant profile, and involvement in fashion. Supporting H₁, the analysis revealed that participants in the GCCP condition indicated greater WOM intentions than those in the LCCP condition (M_GCCP = 3.936, SD = 1.367; M_LCCP = 3.527, SD = 1.635; F(1, 157) = 3.922, p = .049, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .024, see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Effect of Positioning Strategy on WOM Intentions (Study 1).

The findings of Study 1 provided support for H₁ by showing that, for a local brand, deploying GCCP (vs. LCCP) leads to heightened WOM intentions about the cobranded product. We showed this effect using real brand names as our stimuli. This has two possible consequences. On the one hand, considering that consumers tend to have strong attitudes and feelings associated with real brand names, finding a significant effect of GCCP (vs. LCCP) on WOM intentions using real brand names attests to the robustness and external validity regarding the effect of positioning strategy. On the other hand, using real brand names may cause concerns about consumers’ existing judgments about familiarity, awareness, and popularity of these real brands confounding the effect of positioning strategy (Davvetas, Diamantopoulos, and Liu 2020). Thus, we used fictitious brands as our stimuli in the following studies.

Study 2

In Study 2, we had three main objectives. First, we aimed to replicate the findings of Study 1 using fictitious brands in a different product category (coffee) and employing a different measure of consumer evaluation (product valuation). Second, we extend the findings by testing whether this effect persists regardless of the localness or globalness of the product category. To this end, we manipulated participants’ perceptions of coffee as either a local or a global product. Third, in line with our theorizing, we wanted to test these effects among glocally oriented young consumers from a different EM. Thus, we recruited nonstudent participants from Mexico between ages 18 and 25. Participants were randomly assigned to receive information about how and why coffee is considered either a local or a global product. Then, similar to Study 1, they were randomly assigned to observe a social media post by the local coffee brand about the cobrand featuring either LCCP or GCCP. Last, participants answered questions about their valuation of the cobranded product.

Method and Procedure

Three hundred ninety-seven participants from Mexico who indicated that they were fluent in English and between ages 18 and 25 were recruited via Prolific. They completed the study online in exchange for a small payment. To ensure data quality, we used both a simple attention check question in which participants were asked to choose “strongly disagree” as the answer to a decoy question and a Winograd schema test question (Levesque, Davis, and Morgenstern 2012) intended to eliminate bots and participants with insufficient English proficiency. Twenty-seven respondents failed the attention check question, while none failed the Winograd schema test question. After omitting the data from 27 respondents, the final sample comprised 370 respondents (M_age = 22.87 years; 57.6% female, 39.2% male, 3.2% nonbinary).

Study 2 followed a 2 (positioning strategy: LCCP vs. GCCP) × 2 (product category: local vs. global) between-participants design. Participants were randomly assigned to receive information about a new coffee cobrand, where the coffee as a product is framed as either a local or a global product (see Web Appendix B for the exact stimuli). Participants in the local product category condition read: “Mazen and Zelan are both brands specialized in a drink that is loved and consumed locally, which is coffee. In Mexico, 89 million cups of coffee are consumed every day.” Participants in the global product category condition read: “Mazen and Zelan are both brands specialized in a drink that is loved and consumed globally, which is coffee. Every day, 2.25 billion cups of coffee are consumed around the world.”

On the subsequent page, participants were shown a social media post by the local brand about the cobrand featuring either LCCP or GCCP elements. In the LCCP (GCCP) condition, the message text read: “Many people in Mexico [all around the world] are now having the Mazen-Zelan coffee. We proudly produce for the local tastes and preferences in Mexico [the global tastes and preferences]! Visit www.mazen-zelan.com.mx local website [www.mazen-zelan.com global website] to explore the entire Mazen-Zelan coffee selection.” Further, the post featured an image of a Mexican flag in the LCCP condition and a globe with flags of many countries in the GCCP condition (see Web Appendix B for the images).

Then, based on the social media post they were shown, participants indicated their valuation of the Mazen-Zelan coffee. We used a three-item, nine-point Likert scale adapted from Newman and Dhar (2014) (1 = “not at all,” and 9 = “very likely”). Three questions (“How likely would you be to purchase the Mazen-Zelan coffee?”; “How much would you be willing to pay for the Mazen-Zelan coffee relative to an average coffee?”; “Would you be willing to pay a premium price for the Mazen-Zelan coffee?”) were combined as the measure of product evaluation (α = .77). Next, participants answered the same three positioning strategy manipulation check questions that we used in Study 1 (α = .89 for GCCP and .88 for LCCP). They also responded to the product category manipulation check question (“To what extent do you think that coffee is a local [global] product (produced and consumed locally [globally])?”) on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “very much”). Then, participants indicated their involvement with coffee as a product category on a two-item, seven-point scale adapted from Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) (α = .97). Last, respondents answered demographic questions. The constructs and measures of Study 2 are provided in Web Appendix B.

Results and Discussion

First, we examined the effectiveness of our positioning strategy manipulation. The results verified that respondents in the GCCP condition evaluated the cobranded product as pursuing GCCP and vice versa (M_GCCP = 5.18, SD = 1.3, M_LCCP = 4.16, SD = 1.61; F(1, 366) = 44.67, p < .001, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .11). Neither the effect of product category nor the interaction of positioning strategy and product category had a significant effect (F(1, 366) = 1.67, p > .1, and F(1, 366) = 1.77, p > .1, respectively). Then, we tested the effectiveness of the product category manipulation. A comparison of product category globalness (localness) to the scale midpoint (4) indicates that participants in the global product category condition evaluated coffee as a global product (M_Global = 6.04, SD = 1.39; t(183) = 19.86, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.46) and vice versa (M_Local = 4.46, SD = 1.74; t(185) = 3.57, p < .001, Cohen's d = .26). Thus, depending on the condition assigned, participants perceived coffee as a global (local) product.

We performed a 2 (positioning strategy: LCCP vs. GCCP) × 2 (product category: local product vs. global product) ANOVA with the cobranded coffee valuation as the dependent variable. ² We found a marginally significant main effect of positioning strategy (M_GCCP = 4.98, SD = 1.62; M_LCCP = 4.64, SD = 1.67; F(1, 366) = 3.76, p = .05, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .01; see Figure 2). There was no significant main effect of product category (M_Global = 4.76, SD = 1.65; M_Local = 4.86, SD = 1.66; F(1, 366) = .29, p > .5, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  < .01) or product category and positioning strategy interaction (F(1, 366) = .01, p > .9, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  < .01) on cobranded coffee valuation. These findings indicate that for both global and local products, GCCP (vs. LCCP) leads to higher product valuation.

Figure 2.

Effect of Positioning Strategy and Product Category on Product Valuation (Study 2).

In Study 2, we replicated the findings of Study 1 using fictitious brands in a different product category (coffee). Importantly, we showed that the positive effect of GCCP (vs. LCCP) on consumer evaluations (i.e., product valuations) holds for both local and global product categories. Moreover, attesting to the external validity of our findings, these results were obtained with data collected from participants aged 18 to 25 from a different EM, Mexico. In Study 3, we examined the mechanism through which positioning strategy influences consumer evaluations.

Study 3

In Studies 1 and 2, we established that the use of GCCP (vs. LCCP) leads to enhanced consumer evaluations of the cobranded products using both real and fictitious brands in different product categories. In Study 3, we examined the causal mechanism underlying this effect and replicated the findings in a different product category (i.e., smartphone). Thus, our main goal was to test whether brand credibility mediates the effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions (H₂).

Method and Procedure

Eighty-three undergraduate students from a European university participated in the online experiment in exchange for course credit. Responses from 13 participants were omitted due to the failed attention check question (“if you are reading this, please select ‘somewhat agree’”). Thus, the final sample comprised 70 participants (M_age = 21.33 years; 67.1% female, 32.9% male).

A single-factor (positioning strategy: LCCP vs. GCCP), between-participants design was employed in Study 3. Participants read the background information about two fictitious smartphone brands (Umbriel as the local brand and Oberon as the global brand). The only difference between the brands was their availability: While the global brand was described as available in more than 100 countries, the local brand was described as available only in the participants’ country of residence. Participants read the announcement from the local brand's CEO about the cobranded smartphone (see Web Appendix C for the background information and the cobrand announcement). They observed the image of the cobranded product designed by the local brand involving a collage of people using the cobranded smartphone. We manipulated the positioning strategy via message content and visual images. Specifically, the text used in the GCCP (LCCP) condition emphasized the wide availability of the cobranded product around the world (in the local market). In addition, an image of a globe (Turkish flag) on top of the collage was used to strengthen the global (local) association in the respective experimental conditions (see Web Appendix C for the images).

Subsequently, participants indicated their WOM intentions on a four-item, seven-point scale adapted from Moldovan, Goldenberg, and Chattopadhyay (2011) (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .830). Next, we measured brand credibility on a four-item, seven-point scale adapted from Erdem and Swait (1998) (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .883). We provide the constructs and measures used in Study 3 in Web Appendix C. Finally, to control for in our analysis, we asked participants about their age, gender, and mobile phone use intensity (“Please indicate the daily average time you spend using your mobile phone”; 1 = “less than two hours,” 2 = “2–4 hours,” 3 = “5–7 hours,” and 4 = “more than 7 hours”).

Results and Discussion

We performed a one-way (positioning strategy: LCCP vs. GCCP) ANCOVA using WOM intentions as the dependent variable, and age, gender, and mobile phone use intensity as the control variables. Consistent with the findings of the previous studies, we found that participants in the GCCP condition indicated greater WOM intentions compared with those in the LCCP condition (M_GCCP = 4.189, SD = .971; M_LCCP = 3.591, SD = 1.157; F(1, 65) = 4.047, p = .048, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .059).

To test the mediating role of brand credibility in conveying the causal link between positioning strategy and WOM intentions (H₂), we performed a mediation analysis using 5,000 bootstrap samples (Hayes 2017; PROCESS SPSS macro, Model 4). The results revealed a significant indirect effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions via the full mediation of brand credibility (b = .29, 95% CI = [.03, .62]; see Figure 3). That is, GCCP augments brand credibility (a = .58, p = .031), which, in turn, enhances WOM intentions about the cobranded product (b = .50, p < .001), thereby supporting H₂.

Figure 3.

Mediating Role of Brand Credibility (Study 3).

A small sample size and lack of alternative mechanisms that could explain the effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions appear to be two important limitations of Study 3. To address these shortcomings, we conducted an additional study to explore whether the effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions can be explained by alternative mechanisms, namely brand coolness and authenticity, in addition to brand credibility. We recruited 748 nonstudent participants who live in South Africa and are between ages 18 and 25 via Prolific (M_age = 22.86 years; 69.3% female, 29.9% male, .8% nonbinary). The study followed a similar procedure to Study 3. In this study, we used chocolate as the product category and measured coolness (Warren and Campbell 2014) and authenticity (Warren et al. 2019), as well as brand credibility (for scales and reliability coefficients, see Web Appendix C). A parallel mediation analysis using 5,000 bootstrap samples (Hayes 2017, PROCESS SPSS macro, Model 4) showed that the indirect effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions via brand credibility still prevailed (b = .05, 95% CI = [.00, .11]). Indirect effects through coolness and authenticity did not reach significance (coolness: b = .01, 95% CI = [−.08, .10]; authenticity: b = .00, 95% CI = [−.02, .03]). Building on the findings of Study 3, this attests to the central mediating role of credibility in conveying the effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions.

Study 4

In Study 4, we aimed to investigate how the source of the cobranding announcement (i.e., local or global brand) influences the effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions (H_3a). Thus, we manipulated both the positioning strategy and the cobrand announcement source. Depending on the condition, participants read the announcement about the local–global cobrand made by either the local brand's or the global brand's CEO. Participants then responded to questions regarding their WOM intentions. Except for the manipulation of announcement source, the procedure and materials deployed in this study were the same as in Study 3.

Method and Procedure

Three hundred twenty-four undergraduate students from a European university participated online in Study 4 in exchange for course credit. After removal of 19 responses due to the failed attention check question (“if you are reading this, please select somewhat agree”), the final sample comprised 305 respondents (M_age = 21.81 years; 57.4% female, 41.0% male, 1.6% nonbinary).

The experiment followed a 2 (positioning strategy: LCCP vs. GCCP) × 2 (cobrand announcement source: local brand vs. global brand) between-participants design. After reading the background information about the fictitious brands, participants read the announcement of the global (local) brand's CEO regarding the cobranded smartphone depending on their assigned condition (see Web Appendix D for the background information and the cobrand announcements). Subsequently, participants proceeded to the page where they observed an image for the cobranded product consisting of a collage of people using the cobranded smartphone. As in Study 1, the image shown to the participants in the GCCP (LCCP) condition featured a message underscoring the wide availability of the cobranded smartphone around the world (in the local market) and an image of the globe (Turkish flag) on top of the collage (see Web Appendix D for the images).

To ensure that our positioning strategy and announcement source manipulations worked as intended, we pretested our stimuli (n = 215; M_age = 21.43 years; 62.3% female, 37.2% male, .5% nonbinary). For the positioning strategy manipulation, the results revealed a significant main effect of positioning strategy only (M_GCCP = 5.028, SD = 1.182; M_LCCP = 3.302, SD = 1.200; F(1, 211) = 112.989, p < .001, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .349). For the announcement source manipulation, we found significant main effects of announcement source (M_Global = 5.206, SD = 1.532; M_Local = 3.386, SD = 1.600; F(1, 211) = 73.065, p < .001, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .257) and positioning strategy (M_GCCP = 4.506, SD = 1.743; M_LCCP = 4.075, SD = 1.857; F(1, 211) = 3.952, p = .048, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .018). Consistent with the extant literature, we conducted an analysis to compare effect sizes (Bellezza, Paharia, and Keinan 2017; Perdue and Summers 1986). The results revealed that the effect size of announcement source (ω² = .249) is approximately 24 times greater than that of positioning strategy (ω² = .010), thereby showing a more profound main effect of announcement source as intended (Bellezza, Paharia, and Keinan 2017).

Participants evaluated their WOM intentions on a four item, seven-point scale adapted from Moldovan, Goldenberg, and Chattopadhyay (2011) (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .861). The constructs and measures used in Study 4 are provided in Web Appendix D. Finally, respondents specified their age, gender, and mobile phone use intensity (“Please indicate the daily average time you spend using your mobile phone”; 1 = “less than two hours,” 2 = “2–4 hours,” 3 = “5–7 hours,” and 4 = “more than 7 hours”).

Results and Discussion

We performed a 2 (positioning strategy: LCCP vs. GCCP) × 2 (cobrand announcement source: local brand vs. global brand) ANCOVA using WOM as the dependent variable and age, gender, and mobile phone use intensity as the control variables. We did not find a significant main effect of positioning strategy (M_GCCP = 3.762, SD = 1.265; M_LCCP = 3.555, SD = 1.222; F(1, 298) = 1.843, p = .176, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .006) or announcement source (M_Global = 3.638, SD = 1.206; M_Local = 3.665, SD = 1.285; F(1, 298) = .061, p = .805, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .000) on WOM intentions. Importantly, the results revealed a significant interaction effect (F(1, 298) = 4.551, p = .034, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .015; see Figure 4). We found a significant effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions when the announcement source was the local brand (M_GCCP = 3.943, SD = 1.228; M_LCCP = 3.431, SD = 1.293, F(1, 298) = 6.080, p = .014, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .020). However, the effect was not significant when the announcement source was the global brand (M_GCCP = 3.587, SD = 1.285, M_LCCP = 3.684, SD = 1.136, F(1, 298) = .297, p = .586, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .001).

Figure 4.

Effect of Positioning Strategy and Cobrand Announcement Source on WOM Intentions (Study 4).

Findings of Study 4 provided support for H_3a. We showed that the effect of positioning strategy on WOM intentions is contingent on the cobrand announcement source. Specifically, GCCP, rather than LCCP, is a more suitable positioning strategy in enhancing WOM intentions provided that the cobrand's announcement source is the local brand. This finding is consistent with our complementarity view where the local brand's use of GCCP may enable the brand to signal associations ascribed to both local and global brands. In contrast, we did not observe such complementarity effect when the global brand is the announcement source. This can be attributed to the “one of us” associations conferred on the global brand when it uses LCCP to communicate about the cobranded product.

Study 5

In Study 5, our main goal was to examine whether and how consumer ethnocentrism regulates the strength of the interaction between positioning strategy and announcement source of the cobrand in their impact on WOM intentions (H_3b). Our auxiliary goal in this study was to test our hypothesis using a representative sample of glocally oriented young consumers from a different EM, so we recruited nonstudent participants from South Africa between ages 18 and 25. Last, we aimed to test our hypothesized effect using a different product category, chocolate.

Participants received background information regarding local and global brands; then they were randomly assigned to the condition where they read the cobrand announcement made by the CEO of the local (global) brand. Participants observed a social media post by the local (global) brand about the cobrand featuring either LCCP or GCCP elements. Finally, they responded to questions about WOM intentions and consumer ethnocentrism.

Method and Procedure

Eight hundred four Prolific workers residing in South Africa who are fluent in English and between ages 18 and 25 completed the study in exchange for a small payment. After we removed 42 responses due to the failed attention check question (“If you are reading this, please select ‘somewhat agree’”), the final sample consisted of 762 respondents (M_age = 22.91 years; 69.0% female, 30.4% male, .5% nonbinary).

Study 5 followed a 2 (positioning strategy: LCCP vs. GCCP) × 2 (cobrand announcement source: local brand vs. global brand) × 2 (consumer ethnocentrism: weaker vs. stronger) factorial design. Depending on their assigned condition, participants read the cobrand announcement made by the CEO of the local (“Mzante”) or global (“Glozen”) brand regarding their new cobranding initiative (see Web Appendix E for the stimuli). On the next page, they observed social media content involving either LCCP or GCCP elements posted by the local (global) brand. Specifically, the text in the LCCP (GCCP) condition read: “Many people in South Africa [all around the world] now enjoy the Glozen-Mzante chocolate bars. We proudly produce for the local [global] tastes and preferences of consumers all around South Africa [the world]! Visit www.glozen-mzante.com.za [www.glozen-mzante.com] to learn more about the rich selection of Glozen-Mzante chocolates.” The social media post featured a collage of photos with a South African flag (vs. flags of the world) on top (see Web Appendix E for the images).

Participants indicated their WOM intentions for the Glozen-Mzante chocolate bars on a four-item, seven-point Likert scale adapted from Moldovan, Goldenberg, and Chattopadhyay (2011) (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .90). Subsequently, participants reported their general consumer ethnocentrism levels on a four-item, seven-point Likert scale adapted from Mandler, Bartsch, and Zeugner-Roth (2023) (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .94). Participants also responded to the same three manipulation check questions that we used in Study 1 to test the effectiveness of positioning strategy manipulation (α = .81 for GCCP and .86 for LCCP). In addition, they answered three manipulation check questions for announcement source adapted from Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”; α = .78 for global and α = .82 for local). Then, participants indicated their involvement in chocolate as a product category on a two-item, seven-point scale adapted from Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees (2015) (r = .93). Finally, they responded to demographic questions. The constructs and measures used in Study 5 are provided in Web Appendix E.

Results and Discussion

Our manipulation check results confirmed that respondents in the GCCP condition evaluated the cobranded product as pursuing GCCP (M_GCCP = 5.822, SD = 1.024) and vice versa (M_LCCP = 2.979 SD = 1.297, F(1, 253) = 383.640, p < .001, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .603). Neither the effect of announcement source nor the interaction between positioning strategy and announcement source appeared to be significant (F(1, 253) = .149, p > .1, and F(1, 253) = 2.581, p > .1, respectively). Furthermore, in the global brand condition, we observed that participants evaluated the cobranded product announced by the global brand as global (M_Global = 5.439, SD = 1.610) and vice versa (M_Local = 3.278, SD = 1.857; F(1, 253) = 98.489, p < .001). While we did not find a significant effect of positioning strategy (F(1, 253) = .006, p > .1), a marginally significant interaction between positioning strategy and announcement source existed (F(1, 253) = 3.569, p = .06). Effect size comparison demonstrated that the effect size of the announcement source (ω² = .273) is almost 38 times greater than that of the interaction (ω² = .007), thus showing a stronger main effect (Bellezza, Paharia, and Keinan 2017).

We performed a moderated moderation analysis with WOM intentions as the dependent variable, positioning strategy (LCCP vs. GCCP) as the independent variable, announcement source (local brand vs. global brand) as the moderator, and consumer ethnocentrism as the moderating moderator using 5,000 bootstrap samples (Hayes 2017; PROCESS SPSS macro, Model 3). We also incorporated age, gender, income, and involvement in chocolate as covariates. Providing support for H_3b, the results indicated a marginally significant three-way interaction between positioning strategy, announcement source, and consumer ethnocentrism (b = −.27, SE = .14, F(1, 750) = 3.65, p = .056, 95% CI = [−.54, .00]).

To observe how this interaction unfolds among consumers with stronger (vs. weaker) ethnocentrism, we ran a spotlight analysis. Accordingly, one standard deviation above (below) the mean was operationalized as stronger (weaker) levels of consumer ethnocentrism. For consumers with stronger ethnocentrism, we did not find a significant main effect of positioning strategy (M_GCCP = 4.644, SD = 1.286; M_LCCP = 4.773, SD = 1.123; F(1, 128) = .511, p > .1, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .004) or announcement source (M_Global = 4.736, SD = 1.146; M_Local = 4.675, SD = 1.277; F(1, 128) = .167, p = .683, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .001) on WOM intentions. Importantly, in line with H_3b, we found a marginally significant interaction between positioning strategy and announcement source on WOM intentions (F(1, 128) = 3.842, p = .052, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .029). In line with our expectations, pairwise comparisons demonstrated that for consumers with stronger ethnocentrism, the use of LCCP (M = 5.004) resulted in greater WOM intentions than the use of GCCP (M = 4.490) when the announcement source was the global brand (F(1, 128) = 3.707, p = .056, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .028; see Figure 5). When the announcement source was the local brand, we did not find a significant difference between the effectiveness of LCCP and GCCP in generating WOM intentions, although directionally the mean for GCCP was higher than that of LCCP (M_GCCP = 4.791; M_LCCP = 4.549; F(1, 128) = .780, p = .379, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .006).

Figure 5.

Effect of Positioning Strategy and Cobrand Announcement Source on WOM Intentions at Weaker and Stronger Consumer Ethnocentrism Levels (Study 5).

Among consumers with weaker ethnocentrism, there was no significant main effect of positioning strategy (M_GCCP = 4.686, SD = 1.647; M_LCCP = 4.335, SD = 1.583; F(1, 113) = 1.832, p > .1, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .016) and announcement source (M_Global = 4.562, SD = 1.542; M_Local = 4.467, SD = 1.706; F(1, 113) = .002, p > .1, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .000) on WOM intentions. Furthermore, we observed no significant interaction effect (F(1, 113) = 1.326, p > .1, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$  = .012).

The findings of Study 5 underlined the important role of consumer ethnocentrism as a boundary condition, thus providing support for H_3b. Specifically, we found that the use of LCCP strategy when the global brand is the announcement source enhances WOM intentions of consumers with stronger ethnocentrism. Further, attesting to the external validity of our findings, we found this effect with nonstudent participants from South Africa.

Discussion and Implications

Traditionally, local brand managers have been advised to emphasize local elements to “outlocalize” their global counterparts (Ger 1999, p. 65) and establish local iconness perceptions (Özsomer 2012b) to compete with global brands in EMs. Global brand managers, in contrast, have been advised to underline signs and symbols pertaining to the global nature of their brands to attract consumers from EMs (Davvetas et al. 2023; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). However, the increasingly competitive nature of EMs as well as the rising tide of nationalistic and ethnocentric sentiments among consumers (Steenkamp 2021) may challenge these long-held views regarding local and global brands. The current research suggests strategic alliances via local–global cobrands as a viable alternative whereby local and global brands may achieve favorable business outcomes in today's dynamic EM landscape. To this end, our research investigates optimal positioning strategies to communicate such cobranding initiatives and their impact on consumer evaluations. Our findings reveal important theoretical and managerial implications for local brands, global brands, and young consumers in EMs.

Implications for Local Brands in EMs

The current research represents an initial attempt to provide empirical evidence that the local brand's use of GCCP is a more effective strategy to enhance WOM intentions and product valuations for the local–global cobrand. While this finding is consistent with prior work that demonstrates the usefulness of a hybridization strategy for local brands in EMs (e.g., Özsomer 2012b; Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube 2012), it extends such “best of both worlds” association to the local–global cobrand positioning strategy setting. This way, our work addresses the research call of Donthu et al. (2021) regarding how marketers can strike a balance between incorporating elements pertaining to global and local consumer cultures in their positioning in international markets and the ensuing consumer reactions. From a practical standpoint, local brand managers can devise a GCCP strategy for the local–global cobrand initiative to attain positive consumer evaluations. They can benefit from emphasizing both global and local associations that belong to the partnering brands and that complement each other in communicating the cobranding initiative to be transferred to the cobranded product, thereby achieving the “best of both worlds” perceptions.

In this case, the firm that announces a local–global cobrand becomes an important strategic consideration that may influence the cobrand's success. Indeed, investors judge to what extent an announcement is important depending on the prominence of the announcement source (i.e., person making the announcement) (Bhagwat et al. 2020). Relatedly, cobranded products that are formed via partnerships between brands may be considered incremental innovations (Cao and Sorescu 2013). From this perspective, consumers’ reactions to such announcements are as important as those of investors. As our findings suggest, we urge managers that the local brand's CEO should serve as the announcement source of a local–global cobrand that is positioned via a GCCP strategy. This is because the use of GCCP by the local firm enables consumers to view the cobranded product obtaining the combination of local and global attributes (i.e., complementarity effect). Yet, it does not have a similar positive influence if LCCP is employed by the global brand because the stereotypical positive associations of the global brand (e.g., leadership, technology, innovation) are diluted, leading the global brand to be perceived more as “one of us” and, therefore, not transferring the complementary associations typically ascribed to global brands to the cobranded product.

Implications for Global Brands in EMs

Establishing a strategic alliance with a local brand by means of a cobrand is also useful for the global brand for various reasons. Entering EMs via local–global cobrands appears to be a widespread practice for many global brands (Wang et al. 2020). Such alliances have become even more important for global brands to succeed in EMs with the current trends of deglobalization where nationalistic tendencies and government-backed campaigns urging customers to buy local products have gained prominence, fueling consumer ethnocentrism (Balabanis and Siamagka 2022; Siamagka and Balabanis 2015). This research suggests that the cobrand may increase WOM intentions of consumers with stronger ethnocentrism if it pursues a LCCP strategy and the global brand makes the announcement. Focusing on positioning and communicating the cobrand, this novel finding complements and extends the international marketing literature that documents local–foreign cobranding as a viable form of branding strategy in a market involving high consumer animosity (Fong, Lee, and Du 2014). Thus, we recommend that global brand managers consider local–global cobrands not only as a market entry approach but also as an important strategy to circumvent negative evaluations of ethnocentric consumers, especially when such segments are sizable. Accordingly, positioning the cobrand to such markets via a LCCP strategy may allow the global brand to achieve an “insider” status and make the cobranded product appealing to consumers with stronger ethnocentrism in EMs.

Young Consumers in EMs

Extant research in consumer culture indicates that consumers interpret global meanings and practices based on their own sociocultural frames (Kjeldgaard and Askegaard 2006). The fusion of such global meanings and identifiers in a local culture is characterized as glocalization (Thompson and Arsel 2004). The term suggests that the “global always become[s] localized, and the local, globalized” (Kjeldgaard and Askegaard 2006, p. 234). Importantly, the complex interplay between global and local leads to the development of glocal identities of consumers (Steenkamp and De Jong 2010). Our findings suggest that, due to its nature of combining global and local elements simultaneously, a local–global cobrand positioning is especially relevant for young consumers in EMs who tend to have patriotic sentiments about local brands, yet are open to global brands at the same time (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008, 2012). Building on and extending the literature pertaining to young consumer cohorts in EMs, this research offers a configurational perspective regarding local–global cobrand positioning. It provides fine-grained insights into the “glocalized strategies in appealing to young consumers of the global world” (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008, p. 78). Managers can adopt this configurational perspective given that positioning strategies emphasizing local–global combinations (e.g., local brand's use of GCCP in communicating the cobrand) lead to favorable consumer evaluations toward the cobrand. Such strategies also enable the global brand to be assessed favorably by consumers with stronger ethnocentrism in EMs as they may perceive that the global brand genuinely embraces the local culture as the cobrand announcement source.

Limitations and Future Research

The current research provides nuanced insights into local–global cobrand positioning and announcement from a consumer perspective, but it is not without limitations. We aimed to examine the relationship between positioning strategy of a cobrand and consumer evaluations among young adult consumers in EMs. Thus, the studies were conducted with participants from three advanced EMs. Extant research in international marketing has found important differences among consumers from emerging and advanced markets in their perceptions of global and local brands (e.g., Batra et al. 2000; Davvetas et al. 2023; Özsomer 2012b; Sharma 2011). Thus, future research may test this relationship using samples from advanced markets as well as less globalized EMs to shed light on possible differences in consumer evaluations.

Second, in this study, we test our hypotheses in a series of experiments using various product categories. Although we deploy a product category that has been considered local in the extant literature, namely food (Özsomer 2012b), future research should test our findings using a purely local category, such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and yogurt, to shed further light on whether these effects are subject to change depending on the localness level of the product category.

Further, cobrand evaluations are expected to be conditioned on various consumer-related factors such as cosmopolitanism of the target audience. In addition, consumers’ level of global (local) consumer identity could also influence model pathways. By focusing on university students and the young adult cohort (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008, 2012) in three advanced EMs, our research design aimed to limit the level of heterogeneity in these consumer characteristics. Yet, scholars interested in local–global cobranding could focus on the generalizability of findings to other consumer segments.

Five experiments we conducted to test our hypotheses not only enabled us to establish causality (Suzuki and Kanno 2022) but also helped us achieve external validity through the use of both fictitious and real brands and four different product categories (i.e., jeans, smartphones, coffee, chocolate) as stimuli (Van Heerde et al. 2021). Further, by manipulating the perception of the same product as either local or global, we established that the effect of GCCP (vs. LCCP) on favorable consumer evaluations holds for both local and global product categories. Future research could enhance the ecological validity of our findings through a field study, as it is “considered the ‘gold standard’ for achieving realistic settings because they are set in the real world” (Van Heerde et al. 2021, p. 7).

In addition, both the real and fictitious brands we used in our experiments are comparatively equivalent in terms of brand strength as well as familiarity. Therefore, more studies are needed to shed light on the impact of positioning strategies on consumer evaluations for the local–global cobrand formed by two brands with varying levels of strength and familiarity. In addition, given that the cobrands used in these experiments involve highly integrated cobrands (i.e., a single product jointly created by the partnering brands; see Newmeyer, Venkatesh, and Chatterjee 2014), future research may examine whether and how the effects observed in this article change for cobrands with low levels of integration. Furthermore, in our experiments, we use the brands that operate in the same product categories with one another. However, our findings may be contingent on cobrands introduced in the product/service category of one of the alliance partners. Thus, we urge researchers to investigate optimal positioning strategies of local–global cobrands with one dominant partner due to product category.

Finally, we build on recent literature that conceptualizes global and local brands as distinct groups of marketplace entities associated with stereotypical properties (Davvetas and Halkias 2019). As our studies focused on EM consumers, for whom global brands are associated with foreign and local brands with domestic, the origins of the global and local brands were not particularly relevant. However, future research can bring in the additional layer of whether and how the brand origin of the global/local brand (e.g., global/local domestic brand, global/local foreign brand, their interaction) plays a role in influencing consumer evaluations of cobrands.

In this research, we investigate how local–global cobrands can design an effective positioning and communication strategy to generate favorable consumer evaluations among young adult consumers in EMs. We hope our research not only provides actionable insights for marketing practitioners but also encourages international marketing researchers to further explore this important, yet understudied topic.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jig-10.1177_1069031X241268613 - Supplemental material for Local–Global Cobrand Positioning and Consumer Evaluations in Emerging Markets

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jig-10.1177_1069031X241268613 for Local–Global Cobrand Positioning and Consumer Evaluations in Emerging Markets by Onur Osmanoglu, Ayşegül Özsomer and Gunes Biliciler in Journal of International Marketing