|
|
| |
In 1974, Japan’s Sanrio Company turned loose upon the world a demure cat by the name of Hello Kitty. Since that time, the feline’s popularity has grown by leaps and bounds, gracing the covers of notebooks and stationery pads, as well as accessories. In 2002, Kitty was ranked the third most recognizable Asian brand. At one point, she earned the distinction of being voted the third most popular figure in Taiwan. Today, recognized in more than 40 countries in Asia, Europe, and North America, Kitty is one of the world’s most successful commercial images.
Kitty’s creators purposely avoided developing a story line for her life, and instead let her beholders attempt to discern her personality. With her oversized moon-shaped face, button nose, six whiskers and dot-like eyes, Kitty was simply allowed to be kawaii, or cute. Still, even though the feline’s character is less than fully developed, she seems to offer reassurance to young girls around the world that friends and families are important. Her cuddly cuteness has been interpreted by some as an antidote to the postmodern world, where nothing can be known with certainty. Globally, the cat seems to convey a fuzzy warmness to those who are open to the experience.
But do Asian brands like Hello Kitty have global personalities? The Netherlands’ Marieke de Mooij, author of Global Marketing and Advertising, dismisses the idea. Drawing a distinction between collectivist cultures like in China and Japan, where group behavior is the norm, and individualistic ones like in the US, where people tend to “do their own thing,” de Mooij argues that people do not relate to brands as persons in collectivist cultures. She views Kitty’s popularity—at least in Asia—in terms of a need for social conformance there rather than as a response to an appealing brand personality.
De Mooij says the concept of the brand is a purely Western phenomenon. Because brands tend to be positioned with unique personalities with abstract personality traits, she holds, they make less sense in collectivist cultures where consumers are more interested in concrete product features. She further argues that it is only in individualistic (and masculine) cultures where people care whether brands are friendly.
|
|
| |
“[The] Japanese,” she says, “like all collectivists, don't have a similar need to develop friendships like we do.” She adds, “As a result I assume they will not, when asked to describe a brand, describe it in terms of friendship in the first place. But they do link prestige or trustworthiness to some products or company brands.”
De Mooij cites the work of several cross-cultural psychologists, including David Matsumoto, author of The Handbook of Culture and Psychology, as support for her ideas. However, Professor Matsumoto says in contrast, “The thought that there is a fundamentally different personality organization first of all is not supported by cross-cultural data on personality, and secondly does not jive with current brand identity activities in Japan. Certainly, there are differences in ideologies, but I would not make such claims. In fact, many Japanese companies make strong ties with the individuality of Japanese consumers.”
Professor Kalman Applbaum of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee would also seem to disagree with de Mooij’s thesis. In The Marketing Era, Applbaum looks at the consequences of marketers holding folk or commonsense theories when they set out to do business in other parts of the world. Says Applbaum, “The theory that there is such a thing as ‘individualistic’ or ‘masculine’ cultures is problematic. Anthropology—the field that most systematically studies culture—has for many decades now rejected as crude and probably ethnocentric any approach that would describe cultures as having personality traits in this way. A good social scientist quickly recognizes the disutility of basing scientific research on such commonsense categories. In practice such theories, like all folk theories and stereotypes, prove to be self-endorsing.”
LiAnne Yu, strategic director with the branding consultancy Cheskin, would seem to be another dissenter. Says Yu, who has conducted research for her company in Asia, “The dichotomy of individualistic versus collectivist can be misleading and used in the wrong way when generalizing. While there is more emphasis on collectivist values in Asian cultures, this is highly contextual and does not apply wholesale across all of a person’s everyday experiences.
|
| |
|
“Work ethics are highly collectivist in Japan,” she continues. “Individuals are not meant to stand out or challenge the hierarchy. However, in terms of the private sphere, Japanese highly value ideals around freedom, self-expression, and uniqueness—things they have difficulty expressing in work and educational structures. Thus, brand meanings are highly significant for Japanese consumers in specific contexts.” She adds, “Even Japanese businessmen will decorate their cellphones with cute mascots and stickers. For them, the cellphone represents connectivity and the ability to express themselves freely. It is not just about the functional aspects of communication.”
Yes, there is a Hello Kitty cellphone, even though Kitty does not have a mouth. Actually, much has been made of this apparent physiological weakness. Kitty’s creator, designer Yuko Shimizu, once said her inspiration for the cat came from the cats in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass. But compared to Alice’s Cheshire Cat, which had a habit of disappearing into a floating grin, Hello Kitty’s silence is much more Zen-like.
If Kitty could talk, perhaps she could clear up any misunderstanding about her personality. But then, maybe not. The Japanese scholar of Zen Buddhism, Daisetz T. Suzuki, used to tell the story of another Japanese cat that was questioned about her silence. When the cat was asked why she refused to speak, she gave no answer. “It was not that she was unwilling to answer,” observed Suzuki, “but in truth she did not know how to answer. So we note that one who knows speaks not a word, while one who speaks knows not.”
[27-Mar-2006]
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Randall Frost, a freelance writer based in Pleasanton, California, is the author of The Globalization of Trade. His work has appeared in Worth, The New England Financial Journal, CBSHealthWatch and a variety of educational publications.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
Jul 31, 2006
|
Building Appeal -- Randall Frost
|
|
|
Part art, part science, the field of branding architecture has never been more relevant to firms around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
Mar 13, 2006
|
Standards: Who Needs Them? -- Edwin Colyer
|
|
|
By setting standards, organizations like ISO, EFQM, and Eco-label create a mark of distinction for brands to promote. But rules differ greatly between the groups on who gets to use the mark and how.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Copyright © 2001-2013 brandchannel. All rights reserved.
|
|
commenting closed
bookmark
print
suggest topic
recommend
email
| Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | FAQ