IT BRANDS: LOCAL OR GLOBAL?

The IPKat chanced upon this in IP-Director.com, from "Global IT brands - does one size fit all?" by Bob McDowall:

"There has been an increase, at least to date, of globalisation of markets along with those who note that only a handful of truly global brands exist today, despite the increased globalisation of markets. In the IT sector the following would certainly qualify: Microsoft (with a recent survey valuing its brand at $65 billion), IBM ($53.8 billion), Intel ($33.5 billion) and Nokia ($24 billion). They have recognisable, consistent names. Their corporate sales are globally balanced but they have no dominant market; positioning and ingredients of the brand are the same across the world; they address the same customer needs, or the same target segment, in every market. They have similarity in so-called execution (pricing, packaging, advertising) across cultures. Other organisations such as Apple, Oracle, CA, Sun and SAP, to name but a few which would regard themselves as global companies, would not fit all these criteria.

Should becoming a global brand be an objective in itself for a corporation? For IT companies, particularly those providing hardware or software for exactly the same purposes, use and with very little specification adaptation, it is probably easier to establish a global brand. However, global branding is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Companies do not need to create one-size-fits-all global brands just because the world appears to be shrinking".

Perhaps they don't, but do consumers care so much about IT brands? Surely what they want is helplines that help, spare parts that are easily identified and supplied, plus the peace of mind that comes with knowing that you've bought something that works when you want it to. Global branding can provide a lot of comfort for anyone buying IT products in an unfamiliar jurisdiction.

Nokia: originally a local brand, but IT applications made it global

Global versus local branding here
Why branding should be banned here