Factors influencing the degree of international pricing ...



|Factors influencing the degree of international pricing strategy standardization of multinational corporations |

|Marios Theodosiou, Constantine S Katsikeas. Journal of International Marketing. Chicago: 2001. Vol. 9, Iss. 3; pg. 1, 18 pgs |

Abstract (Summary)

In response to certain important gaps identified in the global marketing literature, a study investigates the pricing strategies followed by manufacturing subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Specifically, it attempts to identify the factors that play an important role in determining the degree of international pricing strategy standardization. The findings suggest that the extent to which multinationals standardize their international pricing strategies depends on the level of similarity between home and host countries in terms of customer characteristics, legal environment, economic conditions, and stage of the product life cycle. The study highlights implications of the findings for business practitioners and discuss future research directions along with the limitations.

 »  Jump to indexing (document details)

|Full Text (6445  words) |

Copyright American Marketing Association 2001

|[Headnote] |

|ABSTRACT |

| |

|[Headnote] |

|In response to certain important gaps identified in the global marketing literature, the focus of this inquiry is an |

|investigation of the pricing strategies followed by manufacturing subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Specifically, the |

|authors attempt to identify the factors that play an important role in determining the degree of international pricing strategy |

|standardization. The findings suggest that the extent to which multinationals standardize their international pricing strategies|

|depends on the level of similarity between home and host countries in terms of customer characteristics, legal environment, |

|economic conditions, and stage of the product life cycle. The authors highlight implications of the findings for business |

|practitioners and discuss future research directions along with the limitations of the study. |

| |

Increasing liberalization, interdependence, and competition in world economies have accelerated the need for multinational corporations (MNCs) to develop effective global strategies in their endeavor to achieve sustainable competitive advantage in international markets (Samiee and Roth 1992). Marketing has played a significant role in the advancement of the field of international business; marketing strategy constitutes a critical component of a firm's global strategy (Zou and Cavusgil 1996). The development of optimal programs for global markets is of vital interest to business managers who view international operations as a means of boosting corporate growth, improving competitive position, strengthening financial performance, and ensuring company survival and long-term viability in a highly globalized marketplace.

In this context, the extent to which elements of the marketing program should be standardized across markets or adapted in order to accommodate different foreign market conditions, requirements, and preferences has received focal research attention at both the conceptual and the empirical level. The approach an MNC adopts has important implications because (1) it influences the MNC's ability to match its offerings effectively with the overseas market environments in which it operates, (2) it affects its long-term direction with respect to international operations, and (3) it determines the areas that should be prioritized in global resource allocation decisions (Jain 1989).

Notwithstanding the long-standing interest in and many articles published on the topic, a review of the pertinent literature illustrates that scant attention has been devoted to investigating drivers of international pricing strategy standardization (Samli and Jacobs 1994). The vast majority of studies have focused on promotion (e.g., Harris 1994; Harvey 1993), product (e.g., Hill and Still 1984; Walters and Toyne 1989), and to a lesser extent distribution (e.g., Rosenbloom, Larsen, and Mehta 1997) aspects of the international marketing program. However, understanding the elements that influence the extent of standardization of international pricing strategy is vital, because standardization can affect firms' revenue and profitability levels and determine a product's foreign market positioning (Czinkota and Ronkainen 1998). Furthermore, previous standardization studies have commonly been conducted at the headquarters level, and the perceptions and attitudes of subsidiary managers have largely been ignored. Nevertheless, subsidiaries play an important role in international marketing strategy formulation and implementation as a result of their closeness to the market and better understanding of local conditions.

In view of these limiting empirical considerations, the primary interests of this investigation focus on the pricing strategies MNCs follow. Because the key consideration in international business operations is whether the marketing strategy should be standardized or adapted, we consider international pricing strategy along the standardization-adaptation continuum (Cavusgil and Zou 1994). Specifically, this empirical inquiry aims to investigate the factors that play an important role in influencing the degree of international pricing strategy standardization from the standpoint of subsidiary managers. The study begins with an overview of the standardization versus adaptation debate. This is followed by an examination of the factors that are potentially associated with pricing standardization and the development of specific research hypotheses. Next, we specify the research method employed, and then present and discuss the results of the study. Finally, we highlight managerial implications of the findings and limitations of the study, along with directions for further research.

The degree to which international marketing programs must be standardized or customized has been a contentious issue for more than three decades now. A review of the pertinent literature identifies three schools of thought: the two extreme opposites of complete standardization versus complete adaptation and the "middle-of-the-road," or contingency perspective. These perspectives are examined next.

The arguments in favor of marketing program standardization emphasize two main aspects. The first involves the drivers of standardization, defined as the developments in the international business environment that make standardization a feasible, or even inescapable strategy. The second aspect refers to the potential advantages that may result for a company that pursues a strategy of international marketing program standardization, advantages that make standardization a desirable alternative.

Technological developments in the areas of communication and transportation, as well as increasing international travel by tourists and businesspeople, are considered driving forces behind the creation of a global village and thus a global marketplace (e.g., Elinder 1965). In a controversial article, Levitt (1983, p. 95) claims that in this new commercial reality, people around the world have the same needs and desires and that "almost everyone, everywhere, wants the things they have heard about, seen or experienced through the new technologies." Similarly, Ohmae (1985) refers to the emergence of the Tridians: the residents of Japan, the United States, and the European Union. These people have similar academic backgrounds, income levels, lifestyles, uses of leisure time, and aspirations; as a result, 600 million consumers in all parts of the Triad have strikingly similar needs and preferences. Other drivers of standardization discussed in the literature include the need of international firms to serve their multinational customers (Buzzell 1968; Douglas and Wind 1987), regional economic integration (e.g., North America and the European Union) (Walters and Toyne 1989), and the growth of international market segments with similar needs and preferences (Yavas, Verhage, and Green 1992).

Proponents of standardization also emphasize several important benefits associated with the pursuit of this strategy. The most significant advantage of standardization is its contribution to the achievement of economies of scale and cost savings in production, research and development, and marketing (e.g., Keegan 1969). By fully exploiting the potential for economies of scale in all value-adding activities through marketing program standardization, international firms will be in a position to gain a significant advantage over their competitors by selling high quality products at lower prices (Levitt 1983). Other advantages of standardization proposed in the literature include the potential for rapid introduction of new products in international markets (Samiee and Roth 1992; Walters and Toyne 1989), the presentation of a consistent image across markets (Harvey 1993), the ability for worldwide exploitation of new and innovative ideas (Buzzell 1968; Quelch and Hoff 1986), and better coordination and control of international operations (Douglas and Craig 1986).

The adaptation school of thought emerged essentially as a reaction to the arguments put forward in favor of standardization. First of all, many academics expressed their disagreement with Levitt's (1983) argument about a worldwide homogenization in needs and preferences, viewing it as overly simplistic, myopic, and contrary to the marketing concept (e.g., Boddewyn, Soehl, and Picard 1986; Douglas and Wind 1987). According to these authors, no hard evidence can be produced in support of Levitt's thesis (Douglas and Craig 1986; Onkvisit and Shaw 1990; Wind 1986). Cross-cultural empirical research has found significant differences in customer characteristics, preferences, and purchasing behavior among different countries (e.g., Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, and Du Preez 1995).

Second, critics of standardization have questioned the significance of economies of scale and the cost savings underlying this approach. On the one hand, technological developments in flexible manufacturing systems and computer-aided design and manufacturing facilitate production of customized products without major cost implications and reduction in the minimum efficient scale of production (Douglas and Wind 1987; Walters and Toyne 1989). On the other hand, it has been suggested that certain industries (e.g., packaged consumer goods) are less susceptible to manufacturing and research and development economies (Quelch and Hoff 1986). Moreover, several authors have claimed that even when cost savings can be made, their effect may not be significant if a large proportion of the total cost is determined by factors on which standardization has no impact (e.g., cost of raw materials and labor) (Douglas and Craig 1986).

Third, according to critics of standardization, there is no evidence to suggest that customers have become more price conscious or that they are willing to trade off specific product features for lower prices. It has been argued that low price positioning is a vulnerable strategy that may not lead to the achievement of sustainable competitive advantage (Douglas and Wind 1987; Wind 1986).

Fourth, the decision whether to standardize does not depend on managerial discretion alone. Certain external (e.g., environmental, market, industry) and internal (e.g., organizational structure and processes) factors may limit the degree of standardization that a firm is able to apply (Boddewyn, Soehl, and Picard 1986). Such factors are responsible for mandatory adaptations, defined as the adaptations a company is obliged to make, because of either legislation and allied governmental regulations or inescapable and uncontrollable marketplace realities (Hill and Still 1984).

Furthermore, some authors have indicated several important benefits that are likely to result from adapting international marketing programs to local market conditions. These include deeper penetration of foreign markets and thus increased market share and sales volume for the firm (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993); enhanced motivation and morale of local managers (Douglas and Wind 1987; Quelch and Hoff 1986); and augmentation of firms' capabilities in analyzing and understanding foreign markets, monitoring market developments overseas, and quickly responding to shifts in customer preferences (Craig and Douglas 1996).

Recent standardization literature has followed a more fruitful research avenue by supporting the contingency perspective of international marketing (e.g., Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993). According to this perspective, the difference between standardization and adaptation is in degree rather than in kind, and the two perspectives are viewed as occurring along a continuum on a bipolar scale (Onkvisit and Shaw 1987). Therefore, the challenge facing international marketing managers is to decide which marketing-mix elements they should standardize or adapt, under what conditions, and to what degree (Buzzell 1968; Jain 1989).

The critical issue in designing international marketing strategies in the framework of contingency theory is to identify contextual factors that determine the appropriate degree of marketing program standardization and determine which individual marketing-mix elements are influenced by each factor and to what extent. In response to this challenge, academic researchers have examined the factors that play an important role in the determination of marketing program standardization, and several classificatory schemes have been proposed (e.g., Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993; Jain 1989; Johnson and Aruthanes 1995).

A review of the extant literature suggests that these factors can be organized into four broad categories: (1) macroenvironmental factors, including economic, legal, cultural, physical, and demographic elements (Douglas and Wind 1987; Jain 1989); (2) microenvironmental factors, such as customer characteristics, attitudes, and behavior (Jain 1989); the structure and nature of competition (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993; Ozsomer, Bodur, and Cavusgil 1991); and the availability, cost, and competencies of marketing intermediaries (Harvey 1993; Wind and Douglas 1986); (3) firm-specific factors, including the degree of centralization in decision making (Quelch and Hoff 1986; Ozsomer, Bodur, and Cavusgil 1991), the relationship between headquarters and local subsidiaries (Jain 1989), corporate orientation (Perlmutter 1969), the firm's experience in international operations (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993; Craig and Douglas 1996), and the subsidiary's ownership structure (Rau and Preble 1987); and (4) product and/or industry factors, such as the nature of product (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993), stage of product life cycle (PLC) (Baalbaki and Malhotra 1995; Rau and Preble 1987), cultural specificity of the product (Cavusgil and Zou 1994; Quelch and Hoff 1986), product uniqueness (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993), conditions and patterns of product use (Hill and Still 1984), product familiarity of foreign customers (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993), and industry technology orientation (Quelch and Hoff 1986; Samiee and Roth 1992).

In investigating the factors influencing the degree of international pricing strategy standardization, we attempted to include the largest possible number of relevant contingency variables. However, that the present study represents the first systematic endeavor to examine this issue using a descriptive, hypothetico-deductive research approach was a serious obstacle to this end. Although a large number of potentially important variables have been proposed by various authors at the conceptual level (as discussed in the previous section), only a limited number of these have been empirically tested. We therefore deemed it appropriate, from a methodological point of view, to limit our effort to the examination of contingency variables whose relevance had been established in previous standardization studies and that could be linked specifically to the degree of international pricing strategy standardization pursued by MNCs.

Accordingly, a review of the limited empirical evidence, combined with relevant conceptual work, revealed five factors that are potentially important in influencing the extent to which MNCs standardize their international pricing strategy: economic environment, legal environment, distribution infrastructure, customer characteristics and behavior, and stage of PLC. The relevance of each factor is considered next. The economic conditions prevailing in a host country can influence pricing decisions in several ways, because they determine demand potential for a particular product and have a significant impact on a firm's cost structure. On the demand side, the overall level of economic and industrial development of a country determines customers' priorities in terms of the products they consider essential, in addition to the prices they are able and willing to pay for certain products (Jain 1989). For example, a product considered essential in a developed country may be viewed as less necessary or even as a luxury item in a less developed country (Hill and Still 1984). Moreover, demand for a product at different price levels is a function of the purchasing power of targeted customers, which is determined by the level of economic development of the country (Jain 1989). On the cost side, the economic environment of the host country determines the cost of raw materials, labor, energy, and other resources a firm needs to purchase or hire in order to carry out its everyday operations (Douglas and Wind 1987; Samli and Jacobs 1994). The level of such costs has a direct impact on the overall cost structure of local subsidiaries. Thus, the pricing policy pursued by an international firm in a particular foreign market should reflect these factors. We therefore advance the following:

H1: The greater the similarity in the economic environment between an MNC's home and host countries, the higher is the degree of pricing standardization.

Empirical research has shown that differences in government laws and regulations across markets are among the major obstacles to standardization (Baalbaki and Malhotra 1995; Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993). A common law found in many countries that directly influences pricing is retail price maintenance, which requires firms to sell certain products at specified prices. The purpose of such laws is either to protect customers from unfair exploitation or to ensure that certain sensitive products (e.g., pharmaceuticals) are easily accessible to almost everybody in the population. Governments may also impose price controls on certain products to protect local producers from international competition that is deemed unfair. Furthermore, pricing is influenced indirectly by laws and regulations that necessitate product modifications in compliance with different technical specifications; health and safety standards; environmental protection acts; electric, weight, and measurement systems; and the like that may prevail in foreign markets (Buzzell 1968; Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993; Douglas and Wind 1987). To make the required modifications, firms incur extra costs, which forces them either to charge higher prices or to compress their profit margins. We therefore expect the following:

H2: The greater the similarity in government laws and regulations between an MNC's home and host countries, the higher is the degree of pricing standardization.

International firms often must rely on existing distribution channels to distribute their products in foreign markets. Therefore, the number, type, competencies, costs, and margins of the intermediaries involved in the process of transferring the product from the point of production to the end user have a significant effect on a firm's cost structure-particularly if the distribution cost constitutes a significant proportion of the total cost. This, in turn, may influence price levels, profit margins, and allied international pricing policy elements (Buzzell 1968). For example, if the distribution channel used in a particular foreign market involves a greater number of intermediaries or channel members are less competent and efficient than those in the domestic market, a significantly higher cost will be added to the product by the time it reaches the end user. The additional cost incurred is likely to result in higher final selling prices and/or reduced profit margins for the firm. Under such circumstances, a firm may also decide to modify other elements of its international pricing policy, including sales and credit terms and discounts offered. It is therefore possible to hypothesize the following:

H3: The greater the similarity in the distribution infrastructure between an MNC's home and host countries, the higher is the degree of pricing standardization.

The extent to which an MNC will achieve its objectives in a particular foreign market will depend largely on its ability to satisfy the needs and preferences of target customers. Therefore, a careful examination of overseas customer characteristics and purchasing behavior is essential in selecting an appropriate pricing strategy for a specific foreign market. Price level is among the most important criteria used by customers in evaluating competing products (Levitt 1983). However, not all customers are price sensitive; other criteria (e.g., product quality and performance) may be equally or even more important to certain customers (Douglas and Wind 1987). Therefore, in developing its pricing policy, an MNC must be aware of foreign customers' preferences, perceptions, and purchasing behaviors with respect to various price levels. A standardized pricing policy is more appropriate if domestic and foreign customers place an equal emphasis on and have similar perceptions of price. This is more likely to happen when a company is targeting similar customer segments in domestic and foreign markets (Jain 1989). Therefore, we suggest the following:

H4: The greater the similarity in customer characteristics and purchasing behavior between an MNC's home and host countries, the higher is the degree of pricing standardization. The stage of PLC is a fundamental variable affecting business strategy (Anderson and Zeithaml 1984). The life cycle of a product consists of four major stages--introduction, growth, maturity, and decline--and marketing strategy programs differentiate across the various stages. Several empirical studies demonstrate the important role PLC plays in determining the degree of international marketing strategy standardization (Baalbaki and Malhotra 1995; Johnson and Aruthanes 1995). Because of possible differences in economic and market development levels among countries, some products may be at different stages of their life cycles in different countries (Buzzell 1968). As a result, MNCs may need to modify their pricing programs to take account of particular local market conditions (Rau and Preble 1987). The significance of such an approach diminishes in circumstances in which there is no difference in a product's life cycle stage between the domestic and international markets (Sorenson and Wiechmann 1975). We therefore hypothesize the following:

H5: The greater the degree of similarity in the stage of PLC between an MNC's home and host countries, the higher is the degree of pricing standardization.

We gathered data for this study from a mail survey of manufacturing subsidiaries of MNCs operating in the United Kingdom. We developed the sampling frame for this study using the Financial Analysis Made Easy electronic database of U.K. firms. We identified 706 manufacturing subsidiaries of MNCs, which originated mostly from the United States, Germany, and Japan. We then contacted each of these firms by telephone to ensure that the correct address of each company was available, discover whether there was a product or product line that both the parent firm and its U.K. subsidiary produced and marketed in their home markets, identify the person in each company who was the most qualified to provide the required information (i.e., the key informant), and encourage respondent participation in the survey.

Upon completion of the telephone contacts, we excluded 201 firms for a variety of reasons, including an absence of common products in the portfolios of the parent firm and its U.K. manufacturing subsidiary, a company policy of not taking part in external research studies, a change in the firm's status as a result of a merger or acquisition, or the unavailability of correct contact details. In 505 of the 706 (72%) firms, we identified individuals who met the knowledgeability criterion for key informants and were willing to participate and whose companies had a product or product line that the parent firm also manufactured and marketed in its own domestic market. All these firms were targeted in this research.

We developed the questionnaire used in this research in several steps. We initially reviewed the relevant literature and simultaneously conducted exploratory interviews with executives in subsidiaries of MNCs to identify items for operationalizing the constructs under investigation. We designed a preliminary questionnaire, which we then asked several academic researchers in the field of international marketing to evaluate; they served as expert judges to appraise the face validity of the items selected. Finally, we extensively pretested and refined the revised questionnaire in personal interviews with managers in subsidiaries of MNCs, which thus assured content validity.

Cavusgil and Zou (1994) argue that any study on international marketing strategy standardization conducted at the overall company level is likely to result in confounded and thus unreliable findings. This is because international firms often employ different marketing strategies across countries and product-markets. Therefore, in addressing this problem in the study of pricing strategy standardization of MNCs, we adopt the product or product line as the unit of analysis. Specifically, we ask respondents to answer the questions of the research instrument with reference to a particular product or product line their company (i.e., the subsidiary) is manufacturing and marketing in the United Kingdom but that is also manufactured and marketed by the parent firm in its home market.

The extent of international pricing strategy standardization was measured on the basis of five items (see Table 1). Respondents were asked to compare the pricing policy followed by the subsidiary with that pursued by the parent company in its home market. A seven-point rating scale, anchored by "very different" (1) and "very similar" (7), was used to capture individual responses. Regarding the factors that potentially influence pricing strategy standardization, a set of items was used to measure the degree of similarity in economic and legal environments, customer characteristics and behavior, and distribution infrastructure between the U.K. market and that in which the parent firm was based (see Table 2). Again, responses were captured on a seven-point scale ranging from "very different" (1) to "very similar" (7). Following Kotabe and Omura (1989) and Johnson and Aruthanes (1995), a single item was employed to assess the extent to which the focal product or product line is in the same life cycle stage in both the United Kingdom and the parent firm's home market. A seven-point scale, anchored by "strongly disagree" (1) and "strongly agree" (7), was used to measure participant responses.

The guidelines of the total design method (Dillman 1978) were followed to enhance respondent participation in this mail survey. A copy of the questionnaire, together with a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope and a cover letter, was personally mailed to the key informant in each target firm who had been identified during the telephone contacts.

Reminder/thank-you postcards to all managers and two additional follow-up mailings, followed by two further reminders, produced 129 usable responses. Therefore, a satisfactory response rate of 26% was achieved.

|Table 1. |

| |

|Table 2. |

| |

To assess possible nonresponse bias, we followed Armstrong and Overton's (1977) formal extrapolation procedure, which is based on the contention that, as contrasted with early respondents, late respondents are more likely to be similar to nonrespondents. Using a t-test under the assumptions of both equal and unequal group variances, we found no significant between-group mean differences between the early and late respondent groups with regard to any of the variables examined in the study. We therefore conclude that nonresponse bias is not likely to be a problem in this research.

Scatter diagrams and bivariate correlation analyses pertaining to (1) the international pricing strategy standardization indicators and (2) the external elements that potentially influence the degree of pricing standardization indicated that certain items were highly correlated. Principal components analysis was thus employed in each set of items to explore the presence of an underlying structure in the data.

Table 1 exhibits the results of principal components analysis for the international pricing strategy standardization items. When we used an eigenvalue of one or greater as the factor selection criterion along with the screen test, a single-factor solution emerged that explained nearly 70% of the total variance. Table 2 shows the principal components analysis results with respect to the environmental elements that potentially influence the degree of pricing standardization. A four-factor solution emerged that accounted for approximately 67% of the total variance. The solution featured strong individual loadings on each factor, enabling straightforward interpretation. The four factors have been labeled legal environment, customer characteristics, economic conditions, and distribution infrastructure. Factor scores were then computed for all five factors that emerged for use in subsequent analysis.

Multiple regression analysis was used to estimate the relationships of economic conditions, legal environment, distribution infrastructure, customer characteristics, and stage of PLC (independent variables) with subsidiary performance (dependent variable), thus testing H1-H5. As shown in Table 3, both the goodness-of-fit and explanatory power of the estimated regression model were acceptable. The analysis revealed four significant, positive relationships in the equation, pertaining to customer characteristics, legal environment, economic conditions, and PLC stage. These results suggest that the degree of international pricing strategy standardization of MNCs is influenced by the level of similarity between home and host countries in terms of customer characteristics, legal environment, economic conditions, and PLC stage. No relationship was established between similarity in distribution infrastructure and pricing standardization. Therefore, it can be concluded that H1, H2, H4, and H5 are validated and H3 is rejected.

Despite the substantial amount of research attention devoted to the subject of marketing program standardization in international markets, little empirical work has been undertaken examining the issue of standardization within the context of MNCs' pricing strategy. To contribute toward filling this void in the global marketing literature, the focus of the present study is the nature of pricing strategies followed by MNC manufacturing subsidiaries and the identification of the factors that drive the extent of international pricing strategy standardization.

The study found that the majority of the participant MNC subsidiaries adopt a relatively high degree of pricing strategy standardization. This is signified by the mean scores, standard deviations, and one-sample t-test results for the items used to measure the pricing standardization construct (see the Appendix). This evidence may be attributed to the fact that the vast majority of the sample firms originate in the United States, Germany, Japan, or another developed nation. These countries have considerable resemblance to the United Kingdom in their levels of economic, industrial, and market development, and this similarity is conducive to the pursuit of international pricing standardization. However, previous research shows that a high level of pricing standardization is uncommon among MNCs that operate in less developed host market contexts compared with their home market bases (e.g., Ozsomer, Bodur, and Cavusgil 1991). Notably, our findings appear to suggest that the opposite is true for MNCs domiciled in a developed country and operating in another developed country.

Regarding the determinants of pricing standardization, the results indicate that the extent to which MNCs standardize their international pricing strategies depends on certain environmental and market conditions-the degree of similarity between a firm's home and host markets in terms of economic conditions, legal environment, customer characteristics, and stage of PLC. These findings are consistent with earlier research efforts that have examined determinants of standardization, but within the framework of an overall marketing strategy (e.g., Douglas and Wind 1987; Jain 1989; Johnson and Aruthanes 1995; Samiee and Roth 1992; Samli and Jacobs 1994).

However, the level of similarity in the distribution infrastructure between home and host countries was found, contrary to expectations, not to play an important role in the determination of the degree of international pricing standardization. One possible explanation for this result is that distribution costs represent a minor component of the product's total cost and, in turn, have no significant effect on the international pricing strategies of the participant MNCs. Nevertheless, this is an issue that warrants further empirical investigation.

Managerial decision making regarding standardization or customization of pricing strategies in international markets should be based on a thorough analysis and assessment of the degree of similarity (or difference) between the firm's home and host markets. In this regard, four factors-customer characteristics and behavior, economic and legal conditions, and stage of PLC-must be taken into account; our study suggests that these elements are significant correlates of standardized pricing programs. Furthermore, because the standardization versus adaptation decision is situation specific, a separate analysis and assessment of the environmental and market conditions that prevail in each targeted foreign market should be performed. Then, appropriate pricing strategies must be developed with respect to each market. At the same time, however, special attention should be paid to the coordination of business operations across different foreign markets and the exploitation of potential scale economies and synergies with the ultimate objective of enhancing the overall company efficiency and effectiveness.

The results of the present study substantiate the conclusion drawn in previous empirical research (Cavusgil and Zou 1994) that success in international markets is within the reach of management. Despite the existence of a large and complex set of factors that influence international business activities, managers may be able to enhance the performance of their firms by formulating and implementing marketing programs that match the environmental and market conditions of each foreign market targeted (see Venkatraman and Prescott 1990). It should be remembered that because pricing affects the revenue side of the profitability equation, the ultimate long-term objective of managers in setting international pricing policy centers on revenue maximization. This objective can be achieved through either premium pricing when market conditions are favorable (i.e., demand is strong and competition is weak) or competitive pricing when they are hostile (i.e., demand is weak and competition is intense). Sometimes, however, firms may be forced to adopt uniform pricing across markets as a defensive measure against the gray-market imports of unauthorized intermediaries that are completely out of their control (Cavusgil 1996).

|Table 3. |

| |

Certain limitations evident in the explication of this study should be taken into account. First, the empirical inquiry focused on a specific international market framework (i.e., the United Kingdom), which suggests that the results may suffer from limited external validity. Therefore, readers should exercise caution in attempting to generalize from this investigation, especially if making inferences to other significantly different economic settings such as former Eastern Bloc or newly industrialized regions. Testing the external validity of the present evidence requires an examination of the issues addressed in this study within other international business contexts.

Second, the study employed a cross-sectional research design that prevents us from making cause/effect inferences. Future research efforts may consider the use of a longitudinal methodology that, though costly and time consuming, can help track dynamic phenomena such as the relationships of extent of international pricing strategy standardization with its determinants.

Third, because of the descriptive nature of the present study, combined with the limited amount of available empirical evidence, a relatively limited number of potential independent variables have been examined. Further research should investigate the significance and relative importance of other contingency factors. For example, more emphasis should be placed on investigating the influence of various firm characteristics and product- and/or industry-specific factors on the degree of international pricing strategy standardization. Given the absence of pertinent empirical evidence, there is a need for more exploratory research to gain insights into the interrelationships among these variables and how they affect international pricing programs.

Fourth, the present study looked only into the content aspect of standardization with reference to pricing. Another relevant aspect could be process standardization, which involves the use of uniform structures and processes for the design, implementation, and control of marketing programs in overseas markets (Jain 1989). Future research efforts could add to the body of existing knowledge by exploring the extent of standardization of the process MNCs follow in formulating their pricing strategies across different foreign markets.

Finally, a natural extension of the present study would be to consider performance outcomes of international pricing standardization. The pursuit of a particular international pricing strategy makes sense from a managerial perspective only to the extent to which it has a positive effect on the performance of the firm. Conceptual and empirical studies focusing on the drivers and performance consequences of international marketing pricing standardization would have important implications for both theory development and the advancement of management practice in the field.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors received a Best Paper Award for this article at the 2000 American Marketing Association International Conference, Marketing Strategy for Global Organizations, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The authors thank the anonymous JIM and conference reviewers for their constructive comments and helpful suggestions.

|Appendix. |

| |

|[Reference]  »  View reference page with links |

|REFERENCES |

| |

| |

|Anderson, Carl R. and Carl P. Zeithaml (1984), "Stage of Product Life Cycle, Business Strategy, and Business Performance," |

|Academy of Management Journal, 27 (1), 5-24. |

|Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton (1977), "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," Journal of Marketing Research, |

|16 (August), 396-400. |

|Baalbaki, Imad B. and Naresh K. Malhotra (1995), "Standardization Versus Customization in International Marketing: An |

|Investigation Using Bridging Conjoint Analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (3), 182-94. |

| |

| |

|Boddewyn, Jean J., Robin Soehl, and Jacques Picard (1986), "Standardization in International Marketing: Is Ted Levitt in Fact |

|Right?" Business Horizons, 29 (November/December), 69-75. |

|Buzzell, Robert D. (1968), "Can You Standardize Multinational Marketing?" Harvard Business Review, 46 (November/December), |

|102-13. |

|Cavusgil, Tamer S. (1996), "Pricing for Global Markets," Columbia Journal of World Business, 31 (Winter), 67-78. |

|and Shaoming Zou (1994), "Marketing Strategy-Performance Relationship: An Investigation of the Empirical Link in Export Market |

|Ventures," Journal of Marketing, 58 (January), 1-21. |

|and G.M. Naidu (1993), "Product and Promotional Adaptation in Export Ventures: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of |

|International Business Studies, 24 (3), 479-506. |

| |

| |

|Craig, C. Samuel and Susan P. Douglas (1996), "Developing Strategies for Global Markets: An Evolutionary Perspective," Columbia |

|Journal of World Business, 31 (Spring), 70-81. |

|Czinkota, Michael R. and Ikko A. Ronkainen (1998), International Marketing. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press. |

|Diamantopoulos, A., B.B. Schlegelmilch, and J.P. Du Preez (1995), "Lessons for Pan-European Marketing? The Role of Consumer |

|Preferences in Fine Tuning the Product-Market Fit," International Marketing Review, 12 (2), 38-52. |

|Dillman, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. |

|Douglas, Susan P. and Samuel C. Craig (1986), "Global Marketing Myopia," Journal of Marketing Management, 2 (2), 155-69. |

|and Yoram Wind (1987), "The Myth of Globalization," Columbia Journal of World Business, 22 (Winter), 19-29. |

|Elinder, Erik (1965), "How International Can European Advertising Be?" Journal of Marketing, 29 (April), 7-11. |

| |

| |

|Harris, Greg (1994), "International Advertising Standardization: What Do Multinationals Actually Standardize?" Journal of |

|International Marketing, 2 (4), 13-30. |

|Harvey, Michael G. (1993), "Point of View: A Model to Determine Standardization of the Advertising Process in International |

|Marketing," Journal of Advertising Research, 33 (4), 57-64. |

|Hill, John S. and Richard R. Still (1984), "Adapting Products to LDC Tastes," Harvard Business Review, 62 (March/April), 92-101.|

|Jain, Subhash C. (1989), "Standardization of International Marketing Strategy: Some Research Hypotheses," Journal of Marketing, |

|53 (January), 70-79. |

|Johnson, Jean L. and Wiboon Aruthanes (1995), "Ideal and Actual Product Adaptation in US Exporting Firms: Market Related |

|Determinants and Impact on Performance," International Marketing Review, 12 (3), 31-46. |

|Keegan, Warren J. (1969), "Multinational Product Planning: Strategic Alternatives," Journal of Marketing, 33 (January), 58-62. |

|Kotabe, Masaaki and Glenn S. Omura (1989), "Sourcing Strategies |

|of European and Japanese Multinationals: A Comparison," journal of International Business Studies, 20 (Spring), 113-29. |

| |

| |

|Levitt, Theodore (1983), "The Globalization of Markets," Harvard Business Review, 61 (May/June), 92-102. |

|Ohmae, Kenichi (1985), Triad Power: The Coming Shape of Global Competition. New York: The Free Press. |

|Onkvisit, Sak and John J. Shaw (1987), "Standardized International Advertising: A Review and Critical Evaluation of the |

|Theoretical and Empirical Evidence," Columbia Journal of World Business, 22 (Fall), 43-55. |

|- and - (1990), "Global Advertising: Revolution or Myopia?" Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 2 (3), 97-111. Ozsomer,|

|Aysegul, Muzzafer Bodur, and S. Tamer Cavusgil (1991), |

|"Marketing Standardization by Multinationals in an Emerging Market," European Journal of Marketing, 25 (12), 50-64. |

| |

| |

|Perlmutter, Howard V. (1969), "The Tortuous Evolution of the Multinational Corporation," Columbia Journal of World Business, 4 |

|(January/February), 9-18. |

|Quelch, John A. and Edward J. Hoff (1986), "Customizing Global Marketing," Harvard Business Review, 64 (May/June), 59-68. Rau, |

|Pradeep A. and John F. Preble (1987), "Standardization of |

|Marketing Strategy by the Multinationals," International Marketing Review, 4 (Autumn), 18-28. |

|Rosenbloom, Bert, Trina Larsen, and Rajiv Mehta (1997), "Global Marketing Channels and the Standardization Controversy," Journal|

|of Global Marketing, 11 (1), 49-64. |

|Samiee, Saeed and Kendall Roth (1992), "The Influence of Global Marketing Standardization on Performance," Journal of Marketing,|

|56 (April), 1-17. |

| |

| |

|Samli, Coskun A. and Laurence Jacobs (1994), "Pricing Practices of American Multinational Firms: Standardization vs. |

|Localization Dichotomy," Journal of Global Marketing, 8 (2), 51-73. |

|Sorenson, Ralph Z. and Ulrich E. Wiechmann (1975), "How Multinationals View Marketing Standardization," Harvard Business Review,|

|53 (May/June), 38-56, 166-67. |

|Venkatraman, N. and John E. Prescott (1990), "Environment-Strategy Coalignment: An Empirical Test of Its Performance |

|Implications," Strategic Management Journal, 11 (January), 1-23. |

|Walters, Peter G.P. and Brian Toyne (1989), "Product Modification and Standardization in International Markets: Strategic |

|Options and Facilitating Policies," Columbia Journal of World Business, 14 (Winter), 37-44. |

|Wind, Yoram (1986), "The Myth of Globalization," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (2), 23-26. |

| |

| |

|and Susan P. Douglas (1986), "The Myth of Globalization," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (Spring), 23-26. |

|Yavas, Ugur (1997), "Patterns and Determinants of Global Marketing," Journal of Marketing Management, 13 (2), 153-64. Bronislaw |

|J. Verhage, and Robert T. Green (1992), "Global Consumer Segmentation Versus Local Market Orientation: Empirical Findings," |

|Management International Review, 32 (3), 265-72. |

|Zou, Shaoming and S. Tamer Cavusgil (1996), "Global Strategy: A Review and an Integrated Conceptual Framework," European Journal|

|of Marketing, 30 (1), 52-69 |

| |

|[Author Affiliation] |

|Marios Theodosiou and Constantine S. Katsikeas |

| |

|[Author Affiliation] |

|(c) Journal of International Marketing Vol. 9, No. 3, 2001, pp. 1-18 ISSN 1069-031X |

| |

|[Author Affiliation] |

|THE AUTHORS |

| |

|[Author Affiliation] |

|Marios Theodosiou is Lecturer in Marketing, School of Economics Fy Management, University of Cyprus. |

| |

|[Author Affiliation] |

|Constantine S. Katsikeas is Sir Julian Hodge Chair in Marketing Fr International Business, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff |

|University. |

| |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download