Branding beyond prejudice: Navigating multicultural marketplaces for consumer well-being

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Branding beyond prejudice: Navigating multicultural marketplaces forconsumer well-being☆

Eva Kipnis a,⁎, Amanda J. Broderick b, Catherine Demangeot c, Natalie Ross Adkins d, Nakeisha S. Ferguson e,Geraldine Rosa Henderson f, Guillaume Johnson g, James M. Mandiberg h, Rene Dentiste Mueller i,Chris Pullig j, Abhijit Roy k, Miguel Angel Zúñiga l

a Coventry University, United Kingdomb University of Salford, United Kingdomc Strathclyde Business School, United Kingdomd Drake University, United Statese University of St. Thomas, United Statesf Rutgers Business School, United Statesg Université Paris-Dauphine, Franceh Columbia University, United Statesi College of Charleston, United Statesj Baylor University, United Statesk University of Scranton, United Statesl Morgan State University, United States

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 1 January 2012Received in revised form 1 May 2012Accepted 1 June 2012Available online 30 August 2012

Keywords:Multicultural marketplacesCulture-based brandingConsumer vulnerabilityConsumer well-beingPrejudice

Today's marketplaces are increasingly multicultural as more individuals negotiate complex cultural identities.Brands play a role in materializing individual identities—however, little is known about how culture-basedbrand appeals might affect consumers' identity dynamics, positively or negatively. The paper provides a frame-work and a model that examines the interaction between three different types of multicultural marketplaces(assimilation, separation, and mutual integration) and different voices that brands might use in their culturalappeals (Branding Ignorance, Branding Tolerance, and Branding Engagement). The model identifies how thesedifferent voices (strategies) might exacerbate consumer vulnerabilities in different types of marketplaces andprovides recommendations for how to use culture-based branding appeals in a benevolent manner.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and Motivation

“I can speak differentially as a psychologist, a man, a Catholic, amember of conservative Dutch family, but I can also speak as anAmerican…” (Hermans & Kempen, 1998, p. 1118).

Today's multicultural marketplace (MCMP) includes consumersfrom diverse cultural groups (groups that form and share commonbeliefs, values, attitudes and/or ways of life around a distinguishableaspect such as ethnicity, religion, nationality, residence in particular

geographic regions or disability, sexual orientation, etc.—Broderick,Demangeot, Adkins et al., 2011a). Some aspects of culture and identityare constructed and shared transnationally (Appadurai, 1996). Concur-rently, intensive inter-cultural exchange in MCMPs also brings to lightthe differences in the unique features of cultures (Bauman, 2000).Adding to this complexity, cultural identity dynamics in MCMPs extendbeyond demographic indicators such as race or ethnicity, with a largenumber of individuals negotiating self-identities between multiple cul-tural frames (Clark & Maas, 2009; Holliday, 2010).

Brands emerge as “cultural, ideological and sociological objects”(Schroeder, 2009, p. 124) used by marketplace actors (companies andconsumers) as referents for the establishment and performance ofidentities. Brands materialize ideas on global standards of living and,at the same time, depict meanings unique to different cultural groups(Strizhakova, Coutler, & Price, 2008; Yang, 2011). When lacking sensi-tivity to the complexity of cultural identity formation, these ideas andmeanings may have detrimental effects on consumer self-evaluationand well-being. More pointedly, perceived failure of a given brand to

Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 1186–1194

☆ The authors thank editors of this Special Issue, Connie Pechman and BrennanDavis, and three anonymous reviewers for their very insightful and helpful commentson the earlier version of this paper. The authors thank Baylor University for sponsoringand hosting the 3rd Biennial Transformative Consumer Research conference.⁎ Corresponding author at: Coventry Business School, Coventry University, Priory

Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 24 7688 7688.E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Kipnis).

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.011

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research


recognize or be sensitive to individuals' cultural identitiesmay create orintensify prejudicial and discriminatory cognitions towards particularpersons and/or exacerbate their vulnerability, that is, a sense of identitythreat from the actors (social institutions, other consumers) this brandrepresents (Broderick, Demangeot, Kipnis et al., 2011b). Threat percep-tions harm individual consumers and fuel societal tensions by generat-ing radical identity dynamics. These dynamics can range frommeasuresto change or conceal identity (such as skin whitening) to withdrawalfrom or revolt against actors perceived to pose a threat (Maalouf,2000). Conversely, careful alignment of brand identity withMCMPs' re-alities can create symbolic experiences of positive dynamics between(culturally) different groups.

In general, the need for frameworks that integrate managerial con-cepts of brand identity and image with the sociocultural processesshaping consumer identities is growing (Schroeder, 2009). One per-spective pertinent to address is that of consumer well-being and identi-ty dynamics in situations when portrayal of cultural similarities anddifferences in brand identity may (intentionally or unintentionally)not alignwith the socialmeanings of (cultural) similarity and differencein MCMP contexts.

This paper addresses this gap by developing a conceptual frameworkthat integrates literature on branding and on consumer cultural identityformation within MCMPs differing in sociopolitical and inter-culturaldynamics. The proposedmodel of Cultural Branding Voice—MarketplaceAlignment considers the effects on vulnerability and identity tensions ofdifferent voices that brands may adopt when using cultural appeals andprovides recommendations to maintain balance between benevolenceand effectiveness when developing brand identities in each type ofMCMP. By considering the impact of different cultural branding voiceson consumer well-being, the model makes an important contributionto the branding literature while identifying means of enhancing con-sumer well-being.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Brand identity and brand image: a dynamic relationship informingbrand management

Brand identity and brand image are two distinct yet interrelated di-mensions of brand building. Brand identity entails the strategic effortsof firms to assign a brand with unique characteristics in a bid to achievepositive perceptions by target consumers (Nandan, 2005). Brand imagerefers to the “brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller,1993 p.3) derived from decoding and interpreting the brand's position-ingmessages. Positivity of brand associations stems from functional andself-congruence. Functional congruence stems from perceptions of theextent to which a brand's performance attributes (e.g., taste, quality,durability) match expectations from an ideal product in a given catego-ry (Sirgy & Johar, 1999). Self-congruence encompasses the extent towhich perceived symbolic meanings associated with a brand's imagematch one's perception of self (Belk, 1988). When decoding the sym-bolic meanings of brands, a consumer assesses whether a given brand“is me”, “is what I want to be” or “is not me”. Consumers utilize thesemeanings to create or engage with imagined worlds or communities(Cayla & Arnould, 2008).

Recent frameworks recognize the significance of consumers' inputinto a brand's meaning and conceptualize brand identity management“as a dynamic process to which brand managers and consumers…con-tribute” (da Silveira, Lages, & Simões, 2013 p.6). Hence, brand identitymanagement encompasses encounters between the two imaginationdomains: of firms' brand managers and of consumers.

2.2. Cultural identity theory and multicultural marketplaces

Cultural identity entails a person's attempt to self-identify and beidentified by others as a member of one or several cultural groups.

Individuals use personal cultural characteristics to delineate the mean-ings of “who am I” and “who am I not”, “what is us” and “what areothers” (Tajfel, 1974). The sense of self derived from identifying as amember of a cultural group(s) helps people identify what is acceptable/non-acceptable formembers of the group and judge the ideas and behav-iors of non-members (Frideres & Goldenberg, 1982).

To understand cultural identity formation, one needs to look beyonddemographic indicators. Individuals no longer rely solely on being “borninto” a nation, race and/or ethnicity for cultural identity construal (Craig& Douglas, 2006; Phinney & Ong, 2007). MCMPs create “an interactionalmeeting place” where “multivoiced [cultural] dialogues” take place(Hermans & Kempen, 1998, p. 1118). These dialogues allow individualsto (re)connect to and/or (re)create a multitude of cultural realitiesthrough global mediascapes, technoscapes, and consumptionscapes(Appadurai, 1996). In postmodern reality culture becomes a principal en-tity encapsulating human similarities and differences, including thosebased on generational and/or gender cohort, sexual orientation, physicalability/disability, body image, and psychological disorders (Lentin &Titley, 2011). Hence, this paper views cultural identity as a sense of selfderived from emotional bonds with ancestral (national, ethnic, racial)and/or affiliative (non-ancestral) cultural groups (Jiménez, 2010;Oberecker, Riefler, & Diamantopoulos, 2008). Individuals often developcomplex psychological motivations to select, retain, reject and partici-pate in (re)creation of a culture or cultures for self-identity construal.Importantly, living in a MCMP does not necessarily motivate individualsto develop multicultural identities (Berry, 1980).

2.3. Cultural identity threat, vulnerability and coping as drivers ofdifferential identity dynamics in MCMPs

Threat perceptions greatly influence cultural identity dynamics.Perceived identity threat entails the anxiety of being overpowered(excluded), misperceived or misrepresented (ridiculed) on the basisof (cultural) difference (Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999). Percep-tions of threat may evoke a state of vulnerability which leads individ-uals to develop coping strategies that alleviate the perceived threat(Baker, Gentry, & Rittenburg, 2005).

MCMP coping strategies encompass identity negotiations driven bythe need to maintain or improve self-esteem in relation to emotionallysignificant cultural group(s). Coping strategiesmay be 1) “additive”: ad-dition of certain “emotionally significant” groupswhilemaintaining sig-nificance of current in-group(s), driving an integration of competences,ideas and behaviors of all favorable groups as a compromise) or 2) “sub-tractive”: (exclusion of certain “emotionally significant” groups, drivingradical measures to oblige favorable groups by negating identificationwith unfavorable group(s) or to protect identity by either rejecting(avoiding) or overpowering (dominating) groups posing perceivedthreat (Kipnis, Broderick, & Demangeot, 2011; Leung, Bhagat, Buchan,Erez, & Gibson, 2005).

The emotional significance of groups can change over time, as in-dividuals compare sociocultural capital, power, and control held bygroups in their MCMPs experiences. Individuals assess 1) the valueof a given group(s) to one's self-identity and 2) conditions (i.e., signif-icance of identity reinforcement or change) required to maintain orachieve this enhanced perception. Whilst the former evaluation ariseson an individual level, the latter strongly relates to perceived dynam-ics between the individual and marketplace actors (in-groups, out-groups, media, social institutions, and brands).

Discrepancies between individual attitudes and the perceived atti-tudes of other society members affect intra- and inter-group conflictand life satisfaction. They drive (re)evaluations of selected copingstrategies. For instance, differences in acculturation strategies may in-crease family or peer tensions within immigrant groups (Waters,1994); high levels of prejudice towards immigrants affect the evalua-tion of and attitudes towards socially-acceptable ways in which im-migrants should adjust to living in a new society (Kosic, Mannetti, &

1187E. Kipnis et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 1186–1194


Lackland, 2005). Misrepresentation or exclusion of identity in mate-rial elements of culture (amusement parks, media, advertising) affectperceptions of social relations and distance and may lead to loweredself-evaluation or frustration with those perceived to generate mis-representations (Yang, 2011). Cultural identity in a MCMP is sociopo-litical in nature: identity tensions and vulnerability stem not fromcultural diversity per se but from perceived threat of prejudice anddiscrimination inflicted for developing or maintaining a particularidentity in a particular diversity context (Lentin & Titley, 2011). As so-ciocultural entities, brands must navigate the MCMP benevolently. Atleast they must avoid stimulating subtractive coping as a response tovulnerability exacerbated by culture-based brand appeals; at bestthey can provide transformational experiences that enhance identi-ties through additive coping for every individual and group in themarketplace.

3. Conceptual framework: navigating a brand in multiculturalmarketplaces to avoid culture-based brand identity misalignment

Brandmanagers and Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs) recognize theincreasing cultural complexity of today's marketplace. A world-widesurvey of 1734 CMOs reveals a consensus that a major challenge is rap-idly changing marketplace demographics combined with an explosionof media channels and social media, and the resulting transparency ofbrands and organizations (IBM, 2011). Yet despite general agreementthat cultural identities derived by consumers are diverse and complex,when attempting to address consumers, brands often face strong nega-tive response from one or more cultural group(s).

Brand culture literature attributes misalignment between brandimage perception and brand identity to the lack of synthesis betweentwo domains of imagined cultural communities: managerial conceptsof brand identity and sociocultural conceptions of inter-group dynamicsin MCMPs (Schroeder, 2009; Schroeder & Salzer-Mörling, 2006). Thismisalignmentmay result in brand identities that are ill-fittedwith indi-vidual and group identities in a given sociopolitical context. As de-scribed by Appadurai (1996), “one man's imagined community isanother man's political prison” (p. 32).

3.1. Types of sociopolitical contexts in MCMPs

The influence of perceived identity threat applies to both non-dominant (i.e., groups in a subordinate social or political position) anddominant populations (Verkuyten, 2005). By definition, the MCMP as-sumes sociopolitical governance of multiculture. Building on Berry'scategorization (2008), four types of sociopolitical conceptions of multi-cultural dynamics can exist:

1) Exclusion entails denial of rights by the dominant group to thenon-dominant group(s);

2) Assimilation expects all non-dominant groups to abandon ideasand behaviors of (their) culture and adopt culture of the dominantgroup in exchange for societal acceptance;

3) Separation views non-dominant groups as separate subgroups,does not expect them to mix with the larger society, nor activelyobstructs their freedoms to practice (their) culture;

4) Mutual integration views non-dominant groups as full activemembers of the larger society who adopt/adapt dominant culturewhile retaining (their) culture, and should also mix with and beaccepted by the larger society.

This categorization highlights that MCMPs differ in whether gov-ernance of multiculture is based on denial or acceptance of difference.The categories represent two polar conceptions of governance: thefirst two “anti-difference conceptions” view difference as a problemwhich should be minimized; the last two “pro-difference concep-tions” view difference as a beneficial resource for societal and person-al enrichment and reinvigoration (Lentin & Titley, 2011). Within the

anti-difference group, this paper focuses on assimilation only, sinceexclusion is less relevant to the marketing context.

Many societies navigate from one model of governance to another.For example, despite its historical Melting Pot rhetoric, the United Stateshas a pro-difference approach, having failed to assimilate new immi-grants. Most countriesmigrate from an ideal/philosophical assimilation-ist model to a more applicable/practical multicultural approach (Glazer,1997). However, in many countries, growing public hostility of domi-nant populations towards immigrants marks the twenty-first century(Fetzer, 2000).

A return of the assimilation rhetoric may indicate the vulnerability ofdominant populations (Brubaker, 2001). Concurrently, non-dominantgroups' reaction to discrimination may be: 1) to work towards integra-tion into the dominant community and markets (additive coping) or 2)to strengthen communities that serve discriminated populations (sub-tractive coping) (Mandiberg & Warner, 2012). While several variablesmay create identity threats and vulnerability, this paper focuses onthreats created by culture-based brand appeals.

3.2. How consumers process culture-based brand appeals

Prior research demonstrates differential effects for persuasive mes-sages across different cultural contexts (e.g., Han & Shavitt, 1994). Acommon explanation for these effects rests on the accessibility (the ac-tivation of relevant knowledge) and diagnosticity (usefulness of theactivated knowledge) of one's cultural identity. Accessible culturalidentity is more likely to act as a frame of reference in evaluation of per-suasive appeals (Aaker, 2000; Reed, 2002). Adapting the framework ofReed (2002) and Reed and Forehand (unpublished), three factorscould influence the extent to which cultural identity might bemade ac-cessible: 1) contextual and social situations that make one more awareof their cultural identity; 2) cues or primes in the appeal that prompt ac-cessibility of one's cultural identity; and 3) strength of association thatone has with one's cultural identity.

First, contextual or social situationmightmake one's cultural identi-ty more accessible through a self-referencing effect (Reed, 2002). Forexample, Deshpande and Stayman (1994) establish that the level ofan individual's distinctivenessmakes one's cultural identitymore acces-sible or salient. This study shows that someone living as aminority (His-panic minority in a select city of the US) is more likely to have theirHispanic status as accessible relative to an individual who lives withina community with majority status (Hispanic majority in a select cityof the US). Thus, structural context (e.g., communities of recent immi-grants) is likely to affect the accessibility and salience of one's culturalidentity. Additional variables that might cue cultural identity includecultural holidays and events (Penaloza & Gilly, 1999), shopping com-panions or actors in the marketplace (LeBoeuf & Shafir, 2003), and cul-tural symbols, words, and images occurring separately from the appeal(Aquino & Reed, 2002; Forehand & Desphande, 2001).

Second, explicit and implicit cues in the brand appeal are likely toincrease accessibility of one's cultural identity. This effect is well-established for a variety of cue types—cultural images (Forehand,Desphande & Reed, 2002), spokespersons or actors (Appiah, 2001),and language (Dimofte, Forehand, & Deshpande, 2004). However,this is where marketers often make egregious errors that lead to un-favorable reactions from both the targeted minority and majority cul-tural groups (Brumbaugh, 2002; Grier & Brumbaugh, 1999).

The third factor is the strength of association that an individual haswith their cultural identity (Reed, 2002; Reed & Forehand, 2011).When an individual's cultural identity is high in personal importance,this identity may be chronically accessible (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).A chronic cultural identity pertains both to individuals identifyingwith one (cultural) group and to those with multicultural identities.Multicultural individuals switch between cultural identity frames in re-sponse to cultural cues (Briley, Morris, & Simonson, 2005) and may bemore amenable to diverse cultural stimuli (Zhang & Khare, 2009).

1188 E. Kipnis et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 1186–1194


Prominence and novelty of an appeal's cultural aspects is likely amoderator of accessibility and evaluation. More prominent and novelcues generate greater attention and increased elaboration compared tocues that are less prominent or novel (Gardner, 1983). This effectoperates differently for the in-group when compared to the out-group.Specifically, less prominent or novel cues activate the in-group's culturalidentity more effectively (Brumbaugh, 2002). The in-group will be morelikely to notice the less prominent cue, due to a higher level of chronicaccessibility, and have the required cultural schema to process the cue'smeaning. The out-group majority may not recognize the cue due to apoorly developed schema related to the in-group culture (Oakenfull &Greenlee, 2005). As cultural cues increase in prominence, both groupsare likely to notice the cues and process their meaning. The in-group ismore likely to receive highly prominent in-group minority cues morepositively (Grier & Brumbaugh, 1999). However, the out-group majoritymay be confused and not understand the cultural cue due to their poorlydeveloped sub-cultural schema (Brumbaugh, 2002).

3.3. Effects of brand identity (mis)alignment on consumer vulnerabilityand sociocultural tensions in MCMPs

When cultural identities are accessible, they serve as an interpre-tive frame for evaluating culture-based brand appeals. The extent towhich the appeal and brand aligns or is congruent with the culturalidentity schema determines the nature of an individual's responseto the culture-based brand appeal. The notion that congruency is im-portant to evaluation is consistent with functional approaches to atti-tudes that posit objects are linked to personal identities (Shavitt,1989). In general, one likely views attitude objects (brand images)that are congruent with one's self-identity as more relevant or diag-nostic, resulting in more positive elaboration and affective responses.Research consistently confirms a congruency effect across contexts(Chattaraman, Rudd, & Lennon, 2009; Pullig, Netemeyer, & Biswas,2006;). Incongruence, however, is not restricted to a neutral attitudi-nal response to a brand appeal. Appeals that are misaligned (seen asincongruent) with accessible identity frames are likely to generatenegative affective reactions from consumers, including feelings ofvulnerability (Friestad & Wright, 1994).

In culture-based brand appeals, a special form of misalignment ismisrepresentation (i.e., discriminatory or prejudicial meanings ascribedto particular identities). Schroeder and Borgerson (2005) identify threetypes of misrepresentation: idealization (of depicted standards of beau-ty), exclusion (of certain identities), and exoticization (of certain identi-ty characteristics). Consumer reactions to brand identity misalignmentcan be magnified by the contrast of how (cultural) difference is por-trayed by the brand and the socio-political conceptions of difference ina given MCMP. In pro-difference MCMPs, stereotypical and/or con-descending portrayal of cultural difference of certain groups may leadconsumers identifyingwith the portrayed group to feel ridiculed and in-crease discriminatory cognitions of the co-residing out-groups. Equally,exclusion of certain identities may be seen as an ideological stancesupporting or promoting discrimination and prejudice. In anti-differenceMCMPs, highlighting of cultural differences in certain identities becomesproblematic, possibly even risky, since other stakeholders may interpretaccentuation of difference as a threat to the national unity and nationbuilding (Johnson & Grier, 2011). Conversely, greater alignment of ac-cessible identities with brand identity is likely to result in enhancedjudgments of appeal authenticity and brand legitimacy, the generalizedperception that a brand's actions are desirable or appropriate (Kates,2004).

3.4. Key disconnects between conceptions of cultural identity and brandidentity development

Understanding that diversity exists appears to be not enough to re-sponsibly navigate brand identities in a marketplace. Culture-based

brand appeals benevolent in one MCMP may exacerbate vulnerabilityand sociocultural tensions in another. Hence, the most important taskfor brand managers lies not in establishing the multicultural composi-tion of a marketplace but rather in correctly identifying and developingcampaigns alignedwith the dynamics of anMCMP. However, whilst ac-knowledging thatmulticultural demographic composition is a commoncharacteristic of many marketplaces, extant literature neither providesbrand managers with sufficient guidance on different MCMP contextsnor offers frameworks that allow forecasting of what types of culture-based appeals may generate alignment or misalignment in differentMCMP contexts.

First, literature neglects the differential effects of variances inMCMPcontexts on intra- and inter-group dynamics. Typically, most multicul-turalmarketing studies rely on national settings that follow the integra-tion conception of sociopolitical order (Martin, Lee, & Yang, 2004;Whittler & Spira, 2002). These studies implicitly assume that interna-tional generalization of findings is possible without reference to socio-political contexts.

Second, the psycho-sociological effects of culture-based brandingappeals for non-target consumer groups receive little attention inbranding literature. Yet increasedmedia reach suggests that both targetand non-target consumer groups encounter and decode culture-basedbranding appeals that are and are not intended for them, and negativedepiction of branding appeals targeting one group of consumers maylead to unfavorable effects on other groups (Aaker, Brumbaugh, &Grier, 2000).

Third, extant branding theory remains largely underpinned by twooutdated assumptions of cultural identity dynamics: 1) consumers' cul-tural identity negotiations being restrictively embedded within theboundaries of one's own ethnic and/or national communities (i.e., one'smembership in a particular community determines one's identity) and2) cultural values, norms, beliefs and practices within communitiesremaining constant “across time and spaces” (Arzubiaga, Artiles, King,& Harris-Murri, 2008 p.312). Consequently, brand management oftenremains restricted to the use of multiple demographic labels, omittingthe more complex identities that consumers may develop.

For managers to maintain the required balance between effective-ness and benevolence when navigating brands in MCMPs , a new par-adigm of multicultural marketing is needed, one that considers theimpact of MCMPs' sociopolitical and cultural dynamics on individualconsumers' identities and means of processing culture-based brandappeals.

4. From culture-based branding to cultural branding inmulticultural marketplaces: a conceptual model

As shown in Section 3, culture-based brand appeals can evokesymbolic threats and contribute to intergroup anxiety. The proposedBrand Cultural Voice—Marketplace Alignment Model (Fig. 1) presentsthree types of MCMP cultural dynamics, details voices that brandingmanagers can develop, and conceptualizes the responses of dominantand non-dominant groups to brands' culture-based “voices”.

Specifically, the model rows detail three types of cultural dynamics(assimilation, separation, mutual integration). This paper conceptual-izes that, under each of these marketplace conditions, the intensity ofvoluntary intergroup interactions, intergroup anxiety, and negativeintergroup cultural stereotypes may vary from high to low and impactsdifferentially on the groups' perceptions of inter-cultural relations andengagement, resulting in different consequences for perceived identitythreat and vulnerability. The model columns represent three types ofculture-based brand voices that brandmanagers can develop, using cul-tural cues to shape brand identity. Fig. 1 provides definitions of thevoices; Table 1 below provides illustrative examples.

Branding Ignorance is a brand identity that either incorporatescultural cues relevant only to the dominant cultural group (ignorescultural cues relevant to non-dominant groups) or portrays particular



identities in a derogatory manner. For example, the Lacoste fragrance“Joy of Pink” campaign (launched in 2010 in the UK and France) usesthree female models enjoying a shower of pink ribbons (http://www.lacoste-parfums.co.uk; http://www.lacoste-parfums.fr). While acti-vating strivings for physical attractiveness, depicting models withfair skin can lower self-evaluations of consumers with darker skin:literature documents Asian consumers' conceptions of transnationalbeauty constructed through “white” imagination leads to consump-tion of skin whitening creams harmful to their health (Saraswati,2010).

Branding Tolerance is a brand identity that incorporates differentialcultural cues to appeal to a specific target segment within an MCMPidentified at a demographic level (such as ethnicity or race). Branding

Tolerance encompasses corporate acknowledgment of cultural diversitywhich results in the development of different advertisements as part ofone campaign to appeal tomultiple (dominant andnon-dominant) con-sumer segments, using models, language and cultural meaningsrelevant to different ethnic, racial or other cultural groups. Examplesinclude USA campaigns developed specifically for Hispanics (usingHispanic models and language) by leading brands such as Dove, Nestleand Coca Cola and Nivea's 2006 UK “Beauty Is” campaign featuringeither White or African models in its several versions.

The Branding Engagement identity incorporates multiple culturalcues (models of different/mixed ethnicities, multiple languages etc.)within one advertisement, thereby acknowledging mutual integrationofmultiple cultural groups. Branding Engagementmessages encompass

Fig. 1. Brand cultural voice—marketplace alignment model.



culture-based appeals to mono and multicultural individuals of differ-ent cultural backgrounds simultaneously. For instance, Nivea's “FeelCloser” campaign features models of several ethnicities and skin colorsin one copy and a strapline “A million moments of closeness”. Similarexamples exist in other MCMPs. Campaigns of several brands in SouthAfrica attempt to reach out tomultiple cultural groups in a single adver-tisement by using models of differing cultural backgrounds (IBM, AirIndia) to represent a certain universal symbolism of cultural and socialharmony in post-apartheid South Africa (Johnson, Elliott, & Grier,2010).

Finally, the nine model cells identify the vulnerability and identitydynamics implications of brands' cultural “voices”, when they align/misalign with the sociopolitical and sociocultural context. The discus-sion focuses on the effects of misalignment between brand voice andMCMP context. Such misalignment happens when cultural cues acti-vate a cultural identity that some consumer groups perceive asnon-accessible and/or non-authentic (Higgins, 1996) or less relevantfor identity performance (Shavitt, 1989). Incongruence with the cul-tural identity schemas results in negative cognitive and affective con-notations and evaluations of brand voice meanings and can generateperceptions of the brand posing a symbolic identity threat in domi-nant and/or non-dominant groups alike. These perceptions may ag-gravate consumer vulnerability and perceptions of discrimination ormisperception, potentially increasing intercultural tensions.

Fig. 1 indicates that, in Assimilation contexts, Branding Ignorancemay lead to high vulnerability of non-dominant consumers and resultin their greater alienation from the marketplace. Branding Tolerance,whilst reducing vulnerability of non-dominant consumers, may lead toan increase in vulnerability of consumers in dominant groups, potentiallycontributing to higher levels of social prejudice toward and tensionswithnon-dominant groups. Branding Engagement may similarly lead to in-creased vulnerability and inter-cultural anxiety within dominant con-sumer groups. Therefore, cultural cueing in brand voices is generally ahighly risky strategy in Assimilation MCMPs. To achieve benevolence,managers should take great care when developing brand appeals andselect one of the following alternatives: 1) minimize use of culturalcues that uniquely relate to one particular group or 2) if using cultural

cues relevant to non-dominant groups, aim to develop less prominentor novel cultural cues (such as Domino Pizza's “Jess” advertisement)that only the target non-dominant groups will notice, due to chronicaccessibility of the identity schema (Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2005).

In Separation contexts, Branding Ignorance appeals may also lead toincreased consumer vulnerability within consumer groups. BrandingTolerance appears a better suited branding voice than Branding Engage-ment, since in this context groups accept diversitywithin themarketplacealthough voluntary mutual interactions and engagements are few. How-ever, when developing separate culture-based brand appeals formultipletarget segments, one should avoid appeals that the consumers of a partic-ular segment may interpret as illegitimate and, consequently, ridiculingor discriminatory when compared with the appeals aimed at othersegments. The recent case of Nivea's campaign illustrates this situationvividly. Launched in the USA under the umbrella term “Look Like YouGive a Damn”, the campaign includes two versions. Each features a man(a White model in one ad and an African American model in the otherad) replacing an un-groomed head with a more groomed version. Thecopy with the White model features a strapline “Sin City isn't an excuseto look like hell”, while the copy with the African American model fea-tures a strapline “Re-civilize Yourself”. The difference between the twostraplines provoked a consumer outcry resulting in Nivea withdrawingall advertising and issuing a public apology (Nudd, 2011).

When developing culture-based brand appeals for several targetsegments, managers should consider: 1) carefully testing how bothtarget and non-target consumer groups would interpret culturalcues andmeanings of all adverts; 2) avoiding the use of brand appealsthat may come across as illegitimate, that is, creating undesirable orinappropriate meanings/actions within the system of social and cul-tural norms, values and beliefs (Kates, 2004).

Finally, in Mutual Integration contexts, Branding Ignorance appealsare a highly risky strategy, since the likelihood of greater proportionsof consumers in these MCMPs developing/maintaining multiculturalidentities (whether throughmixed-ethnic/raced upbringing or affiliativerelations) is high. Therefore, Branding Ignorance appeals are more likelynot to achieve identity accessibility and congruence with consumeridentity schemas and lead to greater feelings of vulnerability. While

Fig. 1 (continued).



Branding Tolerance appeals in Mutual Integration MCMPs will reducevulnerability of such consumers if they view the appeals relevant to var-ious cultural groups, greater alignment and effectiveness can occur withthe use of Branding Engagement appeals. The Branding Engagementvoice would signal brands' appreciation of consumers' cultural identitycomplexity and their achieved inter-cultural engagement.

5. Conclusion

“This presents a unique opportunity to address the new consumer,not as a segment of a market, a minority, a majority, or other dividingclassification, but as a human being….that forms a diverse [multicul-tural world]” (Ken Muench, draftFCB, Chicago, quoted in Aceves,2011).

Marketplaces are increasinglymulticultural and challenging. Under-standing how to create effective and benevolent cultural appeals is animportant issue for both brand managers and consumers. The overallframework proposed in this paper indicates that cultural identity acces-sibility may vary by context and situation. Cultural identity may bechronically accessible for some groups and individuals; for others,branding appeals prompt the activation. Once activated, one's culturalidentity acts as a frame to evaluate any culture-based brand appeal.The extent to which activated cultural identity, the appeal, and thebrand are aligned or congruent influences the well-being or vulnerabil-ity of different cultural groups. The success and cultural benevolence ofbrand voices depends on the MCMP context and the Cultural Branding

Voice – Marketplace Alignment Model offers recommendations on thestrategies brand managers may use to minimize risks of aggravatingthe vulnerability of certain cultural groups.

The model proposes a broader range of diagnostics of sociopoliticalinfluences on development of consumer voices and the social effectsof differing types of cultural cues on dominant and non-dominantpopulations. If perceived as a symbolic threat to cultural identities,branding appeals can aggravate vulnerability of target and non-targetgroups and lead to consumer revolt against the brand. The conceptual-ization aims to assist managers in the development of cultural cues thatavoid producing a misalignment (and therefore a perceived identitythreat) for any cultural group and consequently do not aggravate cul-tural tensions in MCMPs.

Out of necessity, the current paradigm of multicultural marketing isevolving. This paper aims to further progress towards a more benevo-lent approach, where brands speak with a true and honest voice to allconsumers. The paper's key contribution is the consideration of how abrand's cultural voice suits the characteristics and inter-groupdynamicsof a givenMCMP.Within theMCMP, brandmanagersmust consider thedynamics between and among multicultural groups and identity ten-sionswhich individualswithin the dominant and non-dominant groupsmay experience. Managers must also integrate this consideration withan understanding of how individuals process brand messages within agiven group context. Due to the accessibility of information, brandsare facing a forced transparency. As a further complication, individualsin some MCMPs are more multicultural themselves—retaining aspects

Table 1Examples of branding ignorance, tolerance and engagement “voices”.

Brand Marketplace Description of the campaign

Branding ignoranceLacoste France, UK “Joy of Pink” campaign (2010) features ad with three white models surrounded by falling pink ribbons.

While one of the models featured is Alexa Chung whose father is three-quarters Chinese, her appearanceresembles the idealized representation of “white beauty”, even though of mixed-race origin.

EU enlargement Several European “EU enlargement” ad, shot in style of “Kill Bill” by Tarantino, features a White model confronting Chinese,African and Asian models that appear to be threatening. The White model then multiplies and the othermodels first lower their weapons and then disappear surrounded by multiple images of the White modelwhich then turns into the EU symbol (circle of yellow stars)

Nike USA “Black and Tan” shoes launched by Nike in 2012 uses phrase “Black and Tan” which has strongly negativeconnotations in Ireland since it recalls a British paramilitary unit involved in violence against civilians in1920s. Nike coincided release of shoes with St. Patrick's Day.

Fair and Handsome India “Fair and Handsome” is an Indian brand of face whitening cream for men. The ad features a man who isunlucky with finding a relationship. His skin tone is markedly darker than that of his friends and girls heis trying to attract. After using the cream, the man is portrayed as having much lighter skin, and the girlsin the street address him as “Hi, handsome”.

Branding toleranceDove (Unilever) USA Campaign launched in 2007 as part of “ViveMejor”, “a major digital, print, TV and retail Hispanic

marketing program”. The Dove print advert features a Hispanic girl model, Dove logo and a strapline“Campana por la autoestima”.

Nestle USA Part of the “Construye El Mejor Nido” (“Create the Best Nest”) program. The advert features a new drinkbrand named ‘Aguas Frescas’ (under the Nestle logo) with three bottles with different flavors: “Jamaica”,“Horchata” and “Tamarindo”.

Coca-Cola USA The campaign is a Hispanic adaptation of ‘Open Your Dreams campaign’, as a continuation of the Coca-ColaHispanic programs, to “ensure that we continue to strengthen our longstanding consumer relationshipsand build new ones," (Katie Bayne, chief marketing officer, Coca-Cola North America). The advert featuresa Hispanic male model enjoying a break, drinking Coca-Cola.

Nivea UK “Beauty Is” campaign, launched in 2007 (using mobile marketing) features series of visuals under anumbrella strapline “Beauty Is…”, followed by different definitions of beauty (e.g., “Beauty Is Caring”,“Beauty Is a Good Feeling” etc). Each advert features either White, African or Asian models.

Branding engagementAir India South Africa Advert copy features a mixed-ethnic family (White male model and Asian female model holding a

mixed-ethnic baby model) and Air India logoDove Several markets “Campaign For Real Beauty” features series of ads, each ad features models of several races/ethnicities

e.g., White, African etc)Nivea UK “Feel Closer” campaign launched in 2011, features models of several ethnicities sharing a moment of

closeness and a strapline “A million moments of closeness”.Dominos Pizza USA The video-ad features Jess (who is gay) and a new “pizza tracker” service by Domino Pizza (consumers

can review and rate pizzas made by Jess). The advert does not focus on Jess's sexuality.

NB: Sources and references available on request.



of their own unique experience while integrating aspects of others'. As-sumptions of cultural identity require updating, to better understandtoday's consumer and theMCMP in general. The newparadigm formul-ticulturalmarketingwill integrate anunderstanding of sociopolitical as-pects of the MCMP with an understanding of the complexity of thecultural identity process. To achieve benevolence in today's MCMP,brands and organizations will have to live honesty and transparency.

References

Aaker, J. L. (2000). Accessibility or diagnosticity? Disentangling the influence of cultureon persuasion processes and attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 340–357.

Aaker, J. L., Brumbaugh, A. M., & Grier, S. A. (2000). Nontarget markets and viewerdistinctiveness: The impact of target marketing on advertising. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 9(3), 127.

Aceves, J. (2011). It's not just about language, it's about understanding. Retrieved on16 September 2011 at http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=152652

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. MinneapolisMinnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Appiah, O. (2001). Ethnic identification on adolescent's evaluations of advertisements.Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 7–22.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.

Arzubiaga, A. E., Artiles, A. J., King, K. A., & Harris-Murri, N. (2008). Beyond research oncultural minorities: Challenges and implications of research as situated culturalpractice. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 309–327.

Baker, S. M., Gentry, J. W., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2005). Building understanding of thedomain of consumer vulnerability. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(2), 128–139.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquidmodernity. Cambridge: Polity Press in associationwith BalckwellPublishers Ltd.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,15(2), 139–168.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Accul-turation: Theory models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Berry, J. W. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 32(4), 328–336.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identityand self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1),83–93.

Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2005). Cultural chameleons: Biculturals,conformity motives, and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4),351–362.

Broderick, A. J., Demangeot, C., Adkins, N. R., Henderson, G. R., Johnson, G., Kipnis, E.,et al. (2011a). Consumer empowerment in multicultural marketplaces: Navigatingmulticultural identities to reduce consumer vulnerability. Journal of Research forConsumers, 19, 1–13.

Broderick, A. J., Demangeot, C., Kipnis, E., Zuñiga, M., Roy, A., Pullig, C., et al. (2011b). Noharm done? Culture-based branding and its impact on consumer vulnerability: Aresearch agenda. Social Business, 1(3), 263–280.

Brubaker, R. (2001). The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigrationand its sequels in France, Germany and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies,24(4), 531–548.

Brumbaugh, A. M. (2002). Cultural knowledge and persuasion. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 29, 258–269.

Cayla, J., & Arnould, E. J. (2008). A cultural approach to branding in the global market-place. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 86–112.

Chattaraman, V., Rudd, N. A., & Lennon, S. J. (2009). Identity salience and shifts in productpreferences of Hispanic consumers: Cultural relevance of product attributes as amoderator. Journal of Business Research, 62(8), 826.

Clark, W. A. V., & Maas, R. (2009). The Geography of a Mixed-Race Society. Growth andChange, 40(4), 565–593.

Craig, S. C., & Douglas, S. P. (2006). Beyond national culture: Implications ofcultural dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing Review,23(3), 322–342.

da Silveira, C., Lages, C., & Simões, C. (2013). Reconceptualizing brand identity in a dy-namic environment. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 28–36.

Deshpande, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1994). A tale of two cities: Distinctiveness theory andadvertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 57–64.

Dimofte, C. V., Forehand, M. R., & Deshpande, R. (2004). Ad schema incongruity aselicitor of ethnic self-awareness and differential advertising response. Journal ofAdvertising, 32(4), 7–17.

Fetzer, J. S. (2000). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States, France, andGermany. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Forehand, M., & Desphande, R. (2001). What we see makes us who we are: Primingethnic self-awareness and advertising respondents. Journal of Marketing Research,38(3), 336–348.

Forehand, M., Desphande, R. E., & Reed, A., II (2002). Identity salience and the influenceof differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1086–1099.

Frideres, J., & Goldenberg, S. (1982). Ethnic identity : Myth and reality in WesternCanada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 6(2), 137–151.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people copewith persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.

Gardner, M. P. (1983). Advertising effects on attributes recalled and criteria used forbrand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 310–318.

Glazer, N. (1997).Weare allmulticulturalists now. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press.Grier, S. A., & Brumbaugh, A. M. (1999). Noticing cultural differences: Ad meanings

created by target and non-target markets. Journal of Advertising, 28(1), 79–93.Han, S. -p., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic

and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(4), 326–350.Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems

of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53(10),1111–1120.

Higgins, E. T. (1996). The “self-digest”: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory func-tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1062–1083.

Holliday, A. (2010). Complexity in cultural identity. Language and Intercultural Commu-nication, 10(2), 165–177.

IBM (2011). Global CMO Study 2011. Retrieved on November 9, 2011 at https://public.dhe.ibm.com/partnerworld/pub/pdf/gbe03436usen.pdf

Jiménez, T. R. (2010). Affiliative ethnic identity: A more elastic link between ethnicancestry and culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(10), 1756–1775.

Johnson, G. D., Elliott, R. M., & Grier, S. A. (2010). Conceptualizing multiculturaladvertising effects in the “new” South Africa. Journal of Global Marketing, 23(3), 189.

Johnson, G. D., & Grier, S. A. (2011). Targeting without alienating: multicultural adver-tising and the subtleties of targeted advertising. International Journal of Advertising,30(2), 233–258.

Kates, S. M. (2004). The dynamics of brand legitimacy: An interpretive study in the gaymen's community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 455–464.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brandequity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

Kipnis, E., Broderick, A. J., Demangeot, C. (2011). Consumer multiculturation: brandknowledge consequences of multi-cultural identification. Unpublished WorkingPaper. Coventry University, UK.

Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Lackland, S. D. (2005). The role of majority attitudes towardsout-group in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants. Interna-tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 273–288.

LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the suscepti-bility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 77–92.

Lentin, A., & Titley, G. (2011). The crises of multiculturalism: Racism in a neoliberal age.London–New York: Zed Books.

Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and inter-national business: Recent advances and their implications for future Research.Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357–378.

Maalouf, A. (2000). In the name of identity: Violence and the need to belong. New York:Arcade Publishing.

Mandiberg, J. M., & Warner, R. (2012). Business development and marketing withincommunities of social service clients. Journal of Business Research, 65(12),1736–1742.

Martin, B. A. S., Lee, Kwai-Choi C., & Yang, F. (2004). The influence of ad model ethnicityand self-referencing on attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 27–37.

Nandan, S. (2005). An exploration of the brand identity-brand image linkage: A com-munications perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 12(4), 264–278.

Nudd, T. (August 18). Nivea apologizes for wanting to ‘re-civilize’ black man. Draftfcbad ran once, won't run again. Retrieved on September 13, 2011 at http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/nivea-apologizes-wanting-re-civilize-black-man-134226

Oakenfull, G., & Greenlee, T. (May). Queer eye for a gay guy: Using market-specificsymbols in advertising to attract gay consumers without alienating the main-stream. Psychology and Marketing, 22(5), 421–439.

Oberecker, E. M., Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). The consumer affinity con-struct: Conceptualization, qualitative investigation, and research agenda. Journalof International Marketing, 16(3), 23–56.

Penaloza, L., & Gilly, M. C. (1999). Marketer acculturation: The changer and the changed.Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 84–104.

Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization andmeasurement of ethnic identity:Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271–281.

Pullig, C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Biswas, A. (2006). Attitude basis, certainty, and challengealignment: A case of negative brand publicity. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 34(4), 528–542.

Reed, A., II (2002). Social Identity as a useful perspective for self-concept-basedconsumer research. Psychology and Marketing, 19(3), 235–266.

Reed, II A., Forehand, M. Social identity in marketing research: An integrative frame-work, unpublished working paper. Retrieved on November 20, 2011 at http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu.

Saraswati, A. L. (2010). Cosmopolitan whiteness: The effects and affects of skin-whiteningadvertisements in a transnationalwomen'smagazine in Indonesia.Meridians: Feminism,Race, Transnationalism, 10(2), 15–41.

Schroeder, J. E. (2009). The cultural codes of branding. Marketing Theory, 9(1), 123–126.Schroeder, J. E., & Borgerson, J. L. (2005). An ethics representation for international

marketing communication. International Marketing Review, 22(5), 578–600.Schroeder, J. E., & Salzer-Mörling, M. (Eds.). (2006). Brand culture. Abingdon: Routledge.Shavitt, S. (1989). Operationalizing functional theories of attitude. In A. R. Pratkanis, &

S. J. Breckler (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 311–337). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sirgy, J.M., & Johar, J. S. (1999). Toward an integratedmodel of self-congruity and functionalcongruity. Paper presented at the European Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, UT.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221–2237.



Strizhakova, Y., Coutler, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). Branded products as a passport toglobal citizenship: Perspectives from developed and developing countries. Journalof International Marketing, 16(4), 57–85.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information,13(2), 65–93.

Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minorityand majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 88(1), 121–138.

Waters, M. C. (1994). Ethnic and racial identities of second generation black immi-grants in New York City. International Migration Review, 28(4), 795–820.

Whittler, T. E., & Spira, J. (2002). Model's race: A peripheral cue in advertisingmessages? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 291–301.

Yang, L. (2011). Ethnic tourism and cultural representation. Annals of Tourism Research,38(2), 561–585.

Zhang, Y., & Khare, A. (2009). The impact of accessible identities on the evaluation ofglobal versus local products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 524–537.


Branding beyond prejudice: Navigating multicultural marketplaces for consumer well-being

Documents

Transcript of Branding beyond prejudice: Navigating multicultural marketplaces for consumer well-being