Kanika Datta: Nothing 'Asian' about it

SWOT

Asia Inc was very much in focus at the recently concluded AdAsia 2005 in Singapore. It was another matter that, compared to the magnificent show at Jaipur last year, the Singapore event ended up being dubbed SadAsia and even BadAsia, which did little to enhance the brand equity of this important annual affair.

Perhaps much of the reason for this poor showing had to do with the generally low standard of the presentations and quality of debate and discussion. Or perhaps it was the fact that China, one of the world's most significant and fastest-growing consumer markets, went unrepresented at the conference (maybe because Taiwan was represented there""though India and Pakistan collaborated happily). But at the end of three days, there were no real insights to be gained.

Indeed, it appeared as though few of the participants had answers to the central theme of this meet, which was "Winning in Asia", the discussion focusing both on what it means to win in Asia and what it takes for Asian corporations and brands to win globally.

A major reason for this deficiency was the misplaced implication that there is an "Asian" way of doing things. In presentation after presentation, it soon became clear (though this was never articulated) that there isn't really some exotic "Asian" secret to global dominance. Like everywhere else, winning is all about knowing your customer well and good execution, benchmarked against competition. Good strategy, like money and talent, is a global phenomenon.

So why was the question being asked so frequently by the very people who face precisely these issues everyday? This is partly because global corporations often confuse the issue with the need to be local""or "glocal"""by responding to specific local cultural cues. Of course, every communications professional understands the importance of "glocalising"; equally, too, they understand that consumers everywhere want good value, perceived or otherwise.

Thus, for example, Coca Cola may have to Indianise its advertising to resonate with Indian consumers, but its basic value proposition of refreshment and fun does not change from country to country. Mattel may have had to reduce prices of its dolls in India, but it did so to align with consumer value perceptions; but the proposition of its famous Barbie Doll remains the same in India and Indiana.

If the truly inspirational Tony Fernandes's successful budget airline Air Asia is winning in Asia, it is because he spotted a gap in the market and understood well how to differentiate his product from the giant incumbent Singapore Airlines""just as scores of US airlines did in the aftermath of deregulation.

If Asian brands like Toyota are now set to overtake the Detroit giants, it is not because of a unique secret. The famed "Toyota way" is an ultra-efficient supply chain model that holds the key to assembling automobiles in a cost-effective and customer-focused manner. It was all about great strategy that exploited a major weakness in global competitors. Likewise, the Sony Walkman from Japan answered a global customer need for personalised music. The iPod from the US has merely extended that proposition by brilliantly leveraging new technology to offer customised music. Any hidden cultural secrets here?

Perhaps this issue of a unique "Asian way" arises because so many non-Japanese Asian brands are now making their presence felt in the global arena""Samsung being one prominent example that was highlighted at the conference. What did Samsung do to make it to global reckoning? Focus on mainly on design and innovation. Can that be called a specifically Asian response?

The need to think globally may be an important lesson for Asian companies and brands as they push the frontiers of global markets. More so now, as they begin to gain grudging consumer acceptance worldwide. As Dr Paul Temporal, an expert on Asian brands and author of a well-received book called Branding in Asia, pointed out, in the late 20th century, there were few well-known international Asian brands principally because Asian corporations tended to suffer from the "OEM mentality".

As a result, there was a general misconception of what branding was all about. Asian corporations considered branding an "intangible", so there was a general unwillingness to invest in brand-building. This, in turn, tended to enhance poor perceptions about quality and technology or what Temporal called "country of origin" problems.

Contrast this with the situation today. The impact of global competition combined with Asia's skilled, low-cost workforce has taught Asia Inc the importance of innovation and the value of brand vectors to build brands. If there is a gap right now, said Temporal, it is principally that Asian brands have not yet learnt to build an emotional connect with consumers. This, in time, will happen, too.

So to answer the Big Question everyone asked: Can Asia rule the world? Who knows. But thinking in truly global terms might be a good start.

The views here are personal