Region-specific Products by Global Brands
For my assignment this week, I have examined the (sometimes somewhat confusing) international amalgamation that is Pret a Manger — a fast food chain that originated in London, has a French name, and serves ‘international’ foods such as Korean quinoa hot rice pot, chipotle baguettes, and hoisin salad duck wraps. Pret’s strategy of global rootlessness and local rootedness through provoking both exoticness and familiarity have prompted me to look at the various ways other global chains have similarly tried to localise through the introduction of new products. Starbucks, for example, have introduced green tea latte, red bean frappuccinos, hojicha tea latte in Japan and China, while KFC has rolled out shrimp donut, fried chicken porridge, and spicy, fried, chili lime chicken called ‘Wing Zeed’ in Thailand and Singapore. Although many of such products have been fads that come and go, a few them have become staples within local culture. In Singapore and Hong Kong for example, instead of getting traditional mooncakes made with yolks from salted duck eggs, lotus seed or red bean paste, and a baked pastry crust, many are now accustomed to buy chocolate or ice cream versions from Starbucks or Haagen Dazs not only due to novelty but also health considerations (for those of you not familiar, traditional mooncakes are basically tasty moulded blobs of cholesterol) (http://www.haagendazs.com.sg/en/SG_Home/Promotions/Mooncake.aspx; http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/case-study-haagen-dazs-in-china/1/184779.html). Considering how embedded these ‘new’ and ‘foreign’ products can become in these settings, I can’t help but wonder, when does a product stop being culturally borrowed and become culturally authentic? Tea, now a recognised cornerstone of British culture, came originally from China in the 17th century after all, partly if not largely driven by forces that are just as commercial and capitalist as the global brands of today. Culture, as Watson avers, is ‘constantly changing as people and groups themselves change’ (1997:8) and as Pieterse observes, ‘intercultural mingling itself is a deeply creative process not only in the present phase of accelerated globalization but stretching far back in time’ (2009:56). Would it not be unnatural and artificial then to pick a fixed moment in the constant and fluid alchemy that is culture and mark that snapshot as the paradigm for authenticity?
As the theme next week is authenticity, I will wait until then to discuss this further. In the meantime, however, I draw your attention to an article that gives a good overview of the various strategies that Starbucks have adopted in various regions to localise, or in the case of China, to not localise, in order to appeal to locals:
http://realbusiness.co.uk/article/27492-how-starbucks-adapts-to-local-tastes-when-going-abroad
Also related is the following that shows the products that Starbucks and McDonalds serve in various regions but are not available in their place of origin, the U.S.. Enjoy!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/starbucks-menu-in-other-countries#.mjAW6lErrg
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/mcdonalds-items-you-cant-get-in-the-us#.ebjvPybxxq
Reference:
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. “Three Paradigms.” In Globalization and Culture. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.
Watson, James L. “Transnationalism, Localization, and Fast Foods in East Asia.” Introduction to Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997.
Contributed by JamieWong on 10/02/2015
