Maybe your brand doesn’t need to look global
There is a particular kind of brand that appears whenever a business decides it is ready to go international.
The edges get sanded down.
The visual identity becomes cleaner. The language gets more neutral. The advertising gets a little more polished, a little less peculiar. Anything that might require explanation is quietly removed.
The brand starts looking like it could be from London, New York, Paris, Dubai or Singapore.
Congratulations. It now looks like nowhere.
This is one of the stranger habits of global marketing: we often mistake familiarity for international appeal.
The assumption is that consumers everywhere want brands that feel familiar. So brands try to remove the things that make them culturally specific in the first place.
But familiarity is not the same thing as relevance.
And relevance is not the same thing as interest.
Sometimes the reason people in another country care about your brand is precisely because you are not like them.
The world doesn’t need another international brand
There are already plenty of them.
Walk through an airport and you can experience the same retail environments, the same coffee shops, the same luxury signals and roughly the same visual language from one continent to another.
Globalisation has made it remarkably easy to distribute a brand.
It has also made it remarkably easy to make one forgettable.
This is the uncomfortable bit for marketers: distribution has become global faster than culture has become universal.
People can buy the same products in more places than ever. They can watch the same shows, listen to the same music and follow the same creators.
Yet people have not stopped belonging to places.
They still have accents. Rituals. Foods. Inside jokes. Beauty standards. Status symbols. Family structures. Religious traditions. Class codes. Regional rivalries. Historical baggage. Things they consider beautiful. Things they consider ridiculous.
Culture did not disappear because the internet arrived.
It became more visible.
And that should change how we think about international brands.
Specificity is not the enemy of scale
There is a persistent idea that a brand has to become more universal as it becomes bigger.
I’m not convinced.
A better way to think about it is that scale and specificity are not opposites.
In fact, specificity can be what makes scale possible.
Think about music.
Nobody becomes globally famous because their music sounds like “global music”. The music that travels often sounds unmistakably like somebody and somewhere. Cue Amapiano.
The same thing happens in fashion.
The interesting designer is rarely the one who has perfectly reproduced the prevailing international aesthetic. It is the one who has found something particular and made it legible to people who did not grow up with it. Maxhosa is a good example.
Food works the same way.
You don’t travel to another country because you want its version of something you could have had at home.
You travel because it has something you cannot get at home.
That is the whole proposition.
Difference is the product.
And yet brands routinely spend enormous amounts of energy trying to make their difference less noticeable.
The localisation trap
There is another problem on the other side.
Once marketers realise that culture matters, they can become obsessed with “localisation”.
Suddenly everything needs a local flavour.
A local celebrity.
A local phrase.
A local print.
A local dish.
A local creator.
A local campaign adaptation.
This can produce something almost as awkward as the globally generic brand: the brand that has discovered culture five minutes ago.
Culture is not a garnish.
You cannot sprinkle a few recognisable symbols over a global brand and call it culturally relevant.
People know when they are being observed versus understood.
This is particularly obvious in fashion and beauty.
A brand can expand its shade range, cast a more diverse campaign and use the right cultural references while still having no real understanding of the people it is trying to serve.
Representation answers the question:
“Can I see myself here?”
Cultural understanding asks something harder:
“Do you actually understand my world?”
The second question is where things get interesting.
South Africa has a problem with this (and an advantage)
South African businesses are particularly vulnerable to the global-branding inferiority complex.
We have spent a lot of time looking outward.
London.
New York.
Paris.
Amsterdam.
Sometimes it feels as though a brand becomes more legitimate the further its reference points are from home.
You can see it in brand identities, hospitality concepts, fashion, advertising and even the language businesses use to describe themselves.
There is an understandable reason for this.
South African businesses operate in a market that is relatively small by global standards, while many of the cultural signals associated with “premium” or “international” have historically (dare I say colonial) come from somewhere else.
But there is a danger in constantly looking outward for the definition of quality.
We start confusing foreignness with sophistication.
And that is expensive.
Because South Africa has an absurd amount of cultural material to work with.
Not “African-inspired” patterns slapped onto packaging.
Actual complexity.
Multiple languages. Multiple histories. Township and suburban culture. Luxury and survival. Global aspiration and deep local identity. Amapiano, gqom, house, hip-hop. Braai culture. Streetwear. High fashion. Rugby. Football. Beauty rituals. Religious life. Politics. Hybridity. The particular humour of a country that has had to make sense of itself repeatedly.
The interesting question isn’t whether South African culture can produce global brands.
We already know that we are a melting pot of culture.
The question is why more South African brands feel the need to disguise where they came from before asking the world to pay attention.
But “African” is not a strategy
There is a second trap waiting here.
Once a business decides that local identity is valuable, it can swing too far in the other direction.
Suddenly everything becomes African.
African luxury.
African beauty.
African design.
African hospitality.
African innovation.
The problem is that “African” is so broad that it can become almost meaningless.
Africa is not a market in the same way Europe is not a culture.
Nairobi is not Cape Town. Lagos is not Addis Ababa. Accra is not Casablanca.
Even within South Africa, Soweto is not Stellenbosch, Durban is not Sandton, and a 22-year-old in Gqeberha is not a representative of some mythical “African consumer”.
If cultural specificity is the argument, then specificity has to mean something.
The smaller the lens, the more interesting the picture can become.
A particular neighbourhood can be more culturally revealing than a continent.
A particular ritual can tell you more than a demographic.
A particular community can give a brand a stronger identity than an entire country’s flag.
This is where marketers need to get more comfortable with precision.
The brands worth exporting are rarely trying to export themselves
There is an important distinction between exporting a brand and exporting a cultural point of view.
The first says:
“Here is our product. Please buy it in another country.”
The second says:
“Here is our way of seeing something. You may not have seen it this way before.”
The second is much more powerful.
Because people don’t necessarily want more products from other countries.
They want access to things they couldn’t have imagined themselves.
A fashion brand can export a silhouette.
A beauty brand can export a new definition of beauty.
An FMCG brand can export a taste, ritual or occasion.
A restaurant can export a way of eating.
A hotel can export a way of experiencing place.
The product remains commercial.
But the thing that creates fascination is cultural.
That is the part competitors cannot easily copy.
Culture is not a marketing channel
This is probably the most important distinction.
Brands talk about culture as though it is somewhere they can go.
They say things like “we need to get closer to culture”, “we need to tap into culture”, “we need to be culturally relevant”.
It makes culture sound like a media placement.
But brands don’t sit outside culture looking in.
They are already inside it.
Every product participates in a set of behaviours.
Every price says something.
Every store says something.
Every casting decision says something.
Every design choice says something.
Every brand has a relationship with class, taste, status, convenience, aspiration, identity or belonging whether its marketing department has written a strategy about it or not.
The question isn’t whether your brand participates in culture.
The question is whether you understand the culture you are participating in.
That is a much less comfortable question.
And probably a much more useful one.
Stop trying to be understood by everyone
There is another uncomfortable implication.
Cultural specificity means some people will not immediately understand you.
Good.
Not every brand needs to be instantly legible to everyone.
A little friction can be useful.
A phrase that needs explaining. A reference that makes someone curious. A product that feels unfamiliar. An aesthetic that doesn’t look like everything else on the shelf.
These things can create attention.
Of course, there is a line.
Being culturally specific is not an excuse for being obscure, exclusionary or badly designed. The job is still to communicate.
But communication does not require cultural flattening.
You can explain something without removing what makes it interesting.
That is the difference between translation and dilution.
The global brand of the future might look less global
For decades, international expansion encouraged brands to converge.
Similar stores.
Similar campaigns.
Similar packaging.
Similar language.
Similar aspirations.
The internet has made that convergence easier.
But it has also created the conditions for something else: a world where highly specific cultural ideas can travel almost instantly.
That changes the opportunity.
The next great global brand does not necessarily need to pretend it belongs everywhere.
It might need to become more unmistakably itself.
More specific about its people.
More specific about its place.
More specific about its references.
More specific about the thing it believes that nobody else believes quite the same way.
Because the world does not need another brand that looks international.
It needs brands that give people somewhere interesting to go.
And perhaps that is the real power of cultural specificity.
You don’t become global by removing where you come from.
You become global when where you come from becomes interesting to everyone else.
Leave a Reply