Today, the advent of new political structures, paradigm as well as evolution of media, advancement in technology has motivated every brand to step up its games. The single ability to be recognized as a global brand player often jacks up the intangible value of a brand. Today coca cola tops the list of most valuable brand in the world. At the last count its brand asset is worth 61 billion dollar. Aside from the financial benefit, being a global brand helps visibility, equity, association etc. If in doubt, ask Microsoft, Gucci, HP, Dell, Toyota etc. Global brands carry enormous weight of the market share in their niches and most times it helps brand extension. It is true though this has its own headache, disadvantage. Each global brand consistently influences customer decision in its favor just because it has become household name with reference to its niche. Global brand needs no introduction to most clients.

There is a great difference between a brand operating globally and a global brand. In my bid to help differentiate this in a clear way that will help my community, Kenneth Roberts’s definition comes to mind. He asserted that with adequate levels of capitalization, a brand can operate globally, but to become a global brand, a brand has to fashion a clear, consistent equity or identity with consumers. Across regions while adapting to local needs. If we accept this position, it means there is a wide gap between the two. One only needs cash, while the other requires more than huge cash flow. A global brand has to develop ‘equity potency’ that can enhance its acceptability and choice. To play the global brand league, brand has to be careful and avoid tarnishing its fiscal proprietary and ethical standards. As we know, technology is becoming merciless and non-partisan in reducing a giant to a dwarf in minutes through its instant network.

Global brands also have to know how to contend with local, home grown competitors which have entrenched themselves firmly in the minds and culture of the local market. A good advantage though is if the ‘foreign’ brand is first established like the case of MTN and GLO Telecoms in Nigeria. To play in the global league, each brand must acknowledge the necessity of investment on the brand itself. Not only should effort be made to fund other corporate assets like people, technology etc but a clear determination to fund the brand must be demonstrated.

In concluding this piece, I wholly agree with Roberts’s submission that global brand also call for strategic goals which are:

1. Protecting: protect brand’s core equity that drive market share

2. Fix negatives: Fix all negatives equity that may harm the brand

3. Attack: Attack competitor’s positive equity by neutralizing their advantages.

4. Leveraging: ensure you take full advantage of the competitors’ weakness.