The New York Times wrote recently on the changing landscape of business as emerging economies become more dominant (“Developing Nations Setting Torrid Pace for Mergers”, 3 March 2010.) We’re seeing this is having a profound effect on brand management, but, interestingly, the effect is very different for consumer brands versus B2B brands.

Let’s start with consumer brands. In China, for example, Starbucks is enjoying a honeymoon period as a new brand in a market that is being exposed to these brands for the first time. But Starbucks has endured some painful lessons about the vagaries of local trademark law in Russia and China.

The general consensus at Siegel+Gale's office in China is that Starbucks is relying on its current position at its peril. “Globalness”, per se, is becoming less of a point of competitive advantage for consumer brands as consumer markets become more informed, and the trust put in the veneer of big brands is not as unquestioned as it once was. Don’t assume that being a global brand provides the ‘easy choice’ for consumers and will give you a sustainable business advantage. Pursuing globalness for global’s sake is a mistake.

This also brings up an interesting question about the real value of global consumer brands. They certainly provide value, but is this more about operational efficiencies than end-consumer benefits? Starbucks’ success in China will be based less on its attraction as a global brand and more on its ability to create a unique experience that is relevant in China--even if that means being significantly different in China.

In B2B there appears to be the opposite effect. As business in general becomes more global, businesses need to be known for their ability to help the customers address global business needs. One investment-banking client of ours based in London pointed out how international their client base is now, and how international their outlook is on the investment world. Our client’s location in London is about client management rather than market proximity: being ‘in London’ rather than ‘from London’ is what it is about, and Britishness is a fading asset in this case.

Successful global B2B brands will be able to piece together global solutions while making local resource available when needed. This may be as much about taking advantage of local talent rather than just covering a market. For example, Nokia located its global design capability in London to tap into the world-leading design community here rather than just to have a London full-service office.

In the coming weeks Siegel+Gale will be writing more on this subject. But for now, we’d welcome your views on what the future holds for global brands in B2C and B2B.