Reflection paper

How Global Brands Compete

When a brand is marketed around the world, that fact alone gives itan aura of excellence-and a set of obligations.To maximize the value of global reach, companies must manage both.

68 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

by Douglas B. Holt, John A. Quelch, and Earl LTaylor

I T'S TIME TO RETHINK GLOBAL BRANDING. More than

two decades ago, Harvard Business School professor Theodore Levitt provocatively declared in a 1983 HBR

article, "The Globalization of Markets" that a global market for uniform products and services had emerged. He argued that corporations should exploit the "econom- ics of simplicity" and grow by selling standardized prod- ucts all over the world. Although Levitt did not explicitly discuss branding, managers interpreted his ideas to mean that transnational companies should standardize prod- ucts, packaging, and communication to achieve a least- common denominator positioning tbat would be effec- tive across cultures. From that commonsense standpoint, global branding was only about saving costs and ensuring consistent customer communication. The idea proved popular in the 1980s, wben several countries opened up to foreign competition and American and Japanese cor- porations tried to penetrate those markets with global brands and marketing programs.

While tbe world economy continued to integrate, ex- periments with global branding soon slowed. Consumers

in most countries bad trouble relating to the generic prod- ucts and communications tbat resulted from companies' least-common-denominator thinking. Executives there- fore rushed to fashion hybrid strategies. They strove for global scale on backstage activities such as technology, production, and organization but made sure product fea- tures, communications, distribution, and selling tech- niques were customized to local consumer tastes. Such "gloca!" strategies have ruled marketing ever since.

Global branding has lost more luster recently because transnational companies bave been under virtual siege. The evidence is on the streets and in stores all around us. Brands like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and Nike bave become lightning rods for antiglobalization protests. Who can forget tbe images of angry demonstrators smashing the windows of a McDonald's outlet in Davos, Switzerland, or stomping Coke cans in Seattle? Political parties and non- governmental organizations (NGOs) bave drawn bull's- eyes on transnational companies because they're the most visible and vulnerable symbols of globalization's side ef- fects, such as exploitative wages, pollution, and cultural

SEPTEMBER 2004 69

How Global Brands Compete

imperialism. The opposition to U.S. for- eign policy that arose after the super- power went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq has further shaken companies, be- cause in 2002, according to global brand consultancy Interbrand, 62 of the world's 100 most valuable global brands were American. Naturally, the instinctive re- action of most transnational companies has been to try to fly below the radar.

But global brands can't escape notice - they've never been more salient in the minds of consumers. In fact, most transnational corporations don't realize tbat people view them differently than tbey do other firms. Because of tbeir pervasiveness, global brands are seen as powerful institutions - capable of doing great good and causing considerable harm. Wben we conducted a research proj- ect involving 3,300 consumers in 41 countries, we found tbat most people choose one global brand over another because of differences in the brands' global qualities. Rather than ignore the global characteristics of their brands, firms must learn to manage those characteris- tics. That's critical, because future growtb for most com- panies will likely come from foreign markets. In 2002, developed countries in North America, Europe, and East Asia accounted for 15% of the world's population of 6.3 bil- lion. By 2030, according to the World Bank, the planet's population will rise to 9 billion, with 90% of people living in developing countries.

Symbols in the Global Culture To grasp how consumers perceive global brands, compa- nies should tbink about the issue in cultural terms. The forces that Levitt described didn't produce a homoge- neous world market; tbey produced a global culture. Cul- ture is created and preserved mainly by communication. In modern societies, communication takes many forms: newspaper and magazine articles, television and radio broadcasts, Internet content, books, films, music, art, and, of course, advertising and marketing communications. For decades, communication bad circulated mostly within the borders of countries, helping to build strong national cultures. Toward the end of the twentieth century, much of popular culture became global. As nations integrated into tbe world economy, cross-border tourism and labor mobility rose; TV channels, movies, and music became universally available to consumers; and, more recently, Internet growtb has exploded. Those factors force people

Like celebrities and politicians, global brands have become a lingua franca

to see themselves in relation to otber cultures as well as their own. For instance, consumers everywhere have to make sense of tbe world vis-a-vis Hollywood and Bolly- wood films, CNN and al-Jazeera news reports, hip-hop and Sufi music.

The rise of a global culture doesn't mean tbat consum- ers share the same tastes or values. Rather, people in dif- ferent nations, often with conflicting viewpoints, partic- ipate in a shared conversation, drawing upon shared symbols. One of the key symbols in tbat conversation is the global brand. Like entertainment stars, sports celebri- ties, and politicians, global brands bave become a lingua franca for consumers all over the world. People may love or hate transnational companies, but they can't ignore them. Many consumers are awed by the political power of companies that have sales greater than tbe GDPs of small nations and that have a powerful impact on people's lives as well as the welfare of communities, nations, and the planet itself Not surprisingly, consumers ascribe certain characteristics to global brands and use those attributes as criteria while making purchase decisions.

Dimensions of Global Brands In 2002, we carried out a two-stage research project in partnership with the market research company Research internationaVUSA to find out how consumers in different countries value global brands. First, we conducted a qual- itative study in 41 countries to identify the key character- istics that people associate with global brands. Then we surveyed 1,800 people in 12 nations to measure the rela- tive importance of those dimensions when consumers buy products. A detailed analysis (see the sidebar "The Global Brands Study") revealed that consumers al! over the world associate global brands with three characteris- tics and evaluate them on those dimensions while making purchase decisions. We found that one factor-American values-didn't matter much to consumers, although many companies bave assumed it is critical.

Douglas B. Holt ([email protected]) is the L'Or^al Professor of Marketing at the Said Business School of Oxford Univer- sity in England and the author of How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding (Harvard Business School Press, 2004). John A. Quelch ([email protected]) is the Lincoln Filene Professor at Harvard Business School in Boston. Earl L Taylor ([email protected]) is the chief marketing officer of the Marketing Science Institute in Cambridge, Massachu- setts, and was until recently a senior vice president of Cambridge based Research InternationalAJSA.

70 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

How Global Brands Compete

Quality Signal. Consumers watch the fierce battles that transnational companies wage over quality and are im- pressed by the victors. A focus-group participant in Rus- sia told us: "The more people who buy [a] brand...the better quality it is." A Spanish consumer agreed: "I like [global] brands because they usually offer more quality and better guarantees than other products." That percep- tion often serves as a rationale for global brands to cbarge premiums. Global brands "are expensive, but the price is reasonable when you think of the quality," pointed out a Thai participant. Consumers also believe tbat transnational companies compete by •

trying to develop new products and break- tbrough technologies faster than rivals. Global brands "are very dynamic, always upgrading themselves," said an Indian. An Australian added tbat global brands "are more exciting because tbey come up witb new products all the time, whereas you know what you'll get with local ones."

That's a significant shift. Until recently, people's perceptions about quality for value and technological prowess were tied to the nations from whicb products originated. "Made in tbe USA" was once important; so were Japanese quality and Italian design in some industries. Increasingly, however, a company's global stature indicates whether it excels on quality. We included measures for country-of-origin associations in our study as a basis for comparison and found that, while they are still important, they are only one-third as strong as the perceptions driven by a brand's"globalness"

Global Myth. Consumers look to global brands as symbols of cultural ideals. They use brands to create an imagined global identity that tbey share witb like-minded people. Transnational companies therefore compete not only to offer tbe highest value products but also to deliver cultural myths with global appeal.

"Global brands make us feel like citizens of tbe world, and...they somebow give us an identity," an Argentinean consumer ob- served. A New Zealander echoed: "Global brands make you feel part of something bigger and give you a sense of belonging." A Costa Rican best expressed the aspira- tions that consumers associate with global brands: "Local brands show what we are; giobal brands show what we want to be." That isn't exactly new. In the post-World War II era, companies like Disney, McDon- ald's, Levi Strauss, and Jack Daniel's spun

American myths for the rest of the world. But today's global mytbs have less to do with the American way of life. Further, no longer are myths created only by lifestyle and luxury brands; myths are now spun by virtually all global brands, in industries as diverse as information technology and oil.

Social Responsibility. People recognize that global companies wield extraordinary influence, both positive and negative, on society's well-being. They expect firms to address social problems linked to what tbey sell and

The Global Brands Study

To understand how consumers perceive global brands, we first drew on

qualitative research that Research International/USA conducted two years

ago. Rl held focus-group sessions with 1,500 urban consumers between 20

and 35 years old in 41 countries, and in some countries, the firm con-

ducted sessions with social activists. The research helped us identify four

dimensions that consumers may associate with global brands, namely

quality signal, global myth, social responsibility, and American values.

In February and March 2003, we conducted a quantitative survey to

calculate the extent to which the four dimensions influence consumers'

purchase preferences. We developed multiple measures for each of the

dimensions and pretested them in the United States and the UK. Rl

administered the survey in those countries and ten others (Brazil, China,

Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey).

We selected those 12 countries because they varied in terms of economic

development, region, religious heritage, and political history. In each

country, the participants were consumers between i8 and 75 years old,

chosen at random.

To test the influence of the global dimensions on purchase behavior, we

asked the respondents to choose among three competing global brands in

six product categories. We chose i6 from the top loo brands (97 were cor-

porate brands) in the 2002 Interbrand Global Brand Scorecard. We made

two exceptions. First, in the case of athletic wear, we chose Reebok, which

is the third-largest brand in mostapparei markets even though it is not

among the t o p i o o brands. Second, in soft drinks, we found that the most

powerful third brand after Coke and Pepsi was typically a local brand, so

we included the most powerful local brand in each country survey. We

ended up with Nokia, Motorola, and Samsung in cell phones; Mercedes-

Benz, Ford, and Toyota In automobiles; BR Shell, and Exxon Mobil in

gasoline; Dannon, Nestle, and Kraft in the packaged goods category;

and Nike, Reebok, and Adidas in athletic wear.

We asked respondents to reveai brand preferences by asking them

to divide n points among the three brands in each category. We then

derived weights for each of the global dimensions by modeling the extent

to which each factor explained brand preferences. We also examined how

those importance weights varied by country, category, and segment. We

found that quality signal, global myth, and social responsibility are highly

significant, while American values is not. The three significant dimensions

explained more than 60% of the variance in brand preferences. We can

thereforesayconclusively that a brand's global dimensions have a signifi-

cant impact on its value in the consumer's eyes.

SEPTEMBER 2004

How Global Brands Compete

how they conduct business. In fact, consumers vote with their checkbooks if they feel that transnational compa- nies aren't acting as stewards of public health, worker rights, and the environment. As infamous cases have filled the airwaves-Nestle's infant-formula sales in Africa since the 1980s, Union Carbide's Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984, the Exxon Valdez spil! in 1989, the outcry over Shell's plan to sink its Brent Spar oil rig and the protests at its Nigerian facilities in 1995-people have become convinced that global brands have a special duty to tackle social issues. A German told us: "I still haven't forgiven Shell for what they Idid] with that oil rig" An Australian argued: "Mc- Donald's pays back locally, but it is their duty. They are making so much money, they should be giving back."

The playing field isn't level; consumers don't demand that local companies tackle global warming, but they expect multinational giants like BP and Shell to do so. Similarly, people may turn a blind eye when local com- panies take advantage of employees, but they won't stand for transnational players like Nike and Polo adopting similar practices. Such expectations are as pronounced in developing countries like China and India as they are in developed countries in Europe.

What we didn't find was anti-American sentiment that colored judgments about U.S.-based global brands. Since American companies dominate the international market, critics have charged that they run roughshod over indige- nous cultures in other countries. Champions of free trade have countered that people in other nations want to par- take of the great American dream, and global brands like Coke, McDonald's, and Nike provide access to it. That de- bate has cast a long shadow over American firms, and they have become rather circumspect about revealing tbeir origins, culture, and values while doing business over- seas. Many have tried to position themselves as more global than (ugly) American.

However, we found that it simply didn't matter to con- sumers whether the global brands they bought were American. To be sure, many people said they cared. A Erench panelist called American brands "imperialistic threats that undermine Erench culture." A German told us that Americans "want to impose their way on every- body." But the rhetoric belied the reality. When we mea- sured the extent to which consumers' purchase decisions were infiuenced by products' American roots, we discov- ered that the impact was negligible.

That finding is all the more remarkable considering that when we conducted our survey, anti-American senti- ment in many nations was rising because of the Iraq war. Most of the consumers were like the South African who candidly said,"I hate the country, but I love their products." A Filipino confessed: "I used to go on anti-American ral- lies when I was a student, but I never thought about the [American] brand of clothes or shoes I wore!""We aren't concerned with how America governs itself," an Indian

said. "What we look for is quality in their products." Since people's concerns with U.S. foreign policy have little im- pact on brand preferences, American companies should manage brands just as rivals from other countries do.

The relative importance of the three dimensions was consistent across the 12 countries we studied, indicating that the calculus used by consumers to evaluate global brands varies little worldwide. Taken collectively, though, the global dimensions were more powerful in some coun- tries than in others (see the exhibit"Why Consumers Pick Giobal Brands"). They have the smallest impact on U.S. consumers, for example. Because of the dominance of

Why Consumers Pick Global Brands

The three dimensions of global brands-quality

signal, global myth, and social responsibility-

together explain roughly 64% of the variation

in brand preferences worldwide. The percentages

shown in the chart are the averages of survey

responses from 12 countries.

quality signal

global m/th

social responsibility Average percentage of brand preference that is explained by each dimension

American brands in foreign markets, a competitive na- tional market, and a certain ethnocentrism, Americans are relatively uninterested in brands' global presence. The drivers also bave less impact on consumers in Brazil and India. That may be because of vestiges of anticolonial cultures, the strength of local manufacturers, and growing nationalism in those countries. At the spectrum's other end, the dimensions influence consumers in Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt the most. In those predominantly Mus- lim nations, we could survey only people who worked in the organized economy and belonged to the top 50% of the population in socioeconomic terms. Such people may value giobal brands particularly highly because they rep- resent a way of life that they cherish - a way of life that may be under threat from religious fundamentalism.

72 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

H o w G l o b a l B r a n d s C o m p e t e

Global Consumer Segments Although we didn't find much variation across countries, when we looked for differences within them, we found that in each country, consumers held a variety of views about global brands. When we grouped together con- sumers who evaluate global brands in the same way, re- gardless of home country, we found four major segments. (See the exhibit "Dreamers, Doubters, and Other Global Consumers.")

Global Citizens. Fifty-five percent of respondents, on average, rely on the global success of a company as a sig- nal of quality and innovation. At the same time, they are concerned whether companies behave responsibly on is- sues like consumer health, the environment, and worker rights. According to our study, the United States and the UK have relatively few global citizens, and Brazil, China, and Indonesia have relatively high numbers of them.

Global Dreamers. The second-largest segment, at 23%, consisted of consumers who are less discerning about, but more ardent in their admiration of, transnational companies. Tbey see global brands as quality products and readily buy into the myths they author. They aren't nearly as concerned with those companies' social respon- sibilities as are the global citizens.

Antiglobals. Thirteen percent of consumers are skepti- cal that transnational companies deliver higher quality goods. They dislike brands that preach American values and don't trust global companies to behave responsibly. Their brand preferences indicate that they try to avoid doing business with transnational firms. The antiglobals' numbers are relatively high in the UK and China and rel- atively low in Egypt and South Africa.

Global Agnostics. Such consumers don't base purchase decisions on a brand's global attributes. Instead, they eval- uate a global product by the same criteria they use to judge local brands and don't regard its global nature as meriting special consideration. While global agnostics typically number around 8% ofthe population, there's a higher percentage of them in the United States and South Africa and a relatively low percentage in japan, Indonesia, China, and Turkey.

New Opportunities, New Responsibilities Global brands usually compete with other global brands. In most countries, Toyota battles Ford and Volkswagen. Nokia faces off against Motorola and Samsung. Sony takes on Nintendo and Microsoft. To succeed, trans- national companies must manage brands with both hands. They must strive for superiority on basics like the brand's price, performance, features, and imagery; at the same time, they must learn to manage brands' global characteristics, wbich often separate winners from losers.

Think globalness. Smart companies manage their brands as global symbols because that's what consumers perceive them to be. However, people all over the world are either astonished or disturbed by giant transnational corporations. Firms must leam to participate in that po- larized conversation about global brands and influence it. A major obstacle is the instability of global culture.

Dreamers, Doubters, and Other Global Consumers Most consumers worldwide fall into one of four segments

in terms of how they relate to global brands. Global citizens

care about firms'behavior on the environment and other

issues; global dreamers readily accept brands' myths;

antiglobals try to avoid buying transnationals' products;

and global agnostics don't regard brands'global nature

as meriting special consideration. The relative sizes of

the segments are quite consistent worldwide.

Global Global Global citizens dreamers Antiglobals agnostics

2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %

Percentage of respondents who fit into each consumer segment

SEPTEMBER 2004 73

How Global Brands Compete

Consumer understandings of global brands are framed by the mass media and the rhizome-like discussions that spread over the Internet. Companies must monitor those perceptions constantly.

It's important for executives to break their habit of think- ing about global branding in least-common-denominator or glocal terms because that ignores the transnational company's most distinctive characteristic; its status as a global symbol. Branding must cater to people's percep- tions of transnationals as behemoths with extraordinary capacities and power.

For example, in the late 1990s, Samsung launched a global advertising campaign that showed tbe South Ko- rean giant routinely pulling off great feats of engineer- ing, design, and aesthetics. Samsung convinced consum- ers that it competed mano a mano witb technology leaders like Nokia and Sony across the world. As a result, Samsung was able to change the perception that it was a down market brand, and it became known as a global provider of leading-edge technologies.

Manage the dark side. Just because companies are globally successful doesn't mean that consumers have only positive perceptions about them. Transnational com- panies often have a "dark side" that they must manage. In the early 1990s, IBM discovered that while consumers be- lieved the company was quality focused, they also thought it was arrogant and bureaucratic. The firm addressed the problem with its "Solutions for a Small Planet" advertis- ing campaign. The ads showed nonbusinesspeople in non- business settings: Frenchmen strolling along the Seine, Italian nuns gossiping on their way out of church. All were gushing about IBM's new technologies, as if those prod- ucts were fixtures in their lives. The scenes were jarring (what's IBM doing there?) and evocative. The campaign smoothed over the feeling that IBM was arrogant and bu- reaucratic even as it asserted the company's ability to de- liver customer-driven solutions tbe world over. By the late 1990S, it had helped shape the perception that IBM is kinder and gentler, although still a very Big Blue.

Build credible myths. Global success often allows companies to deliver value to consumers by authoring identity-affirming myths. Firms must create appropriate myths, though. For instance, the idea of a technological Utopia in which personal empowerment would reign supreme took hold in the late 1990s. Major technology firms competed fiercely to own that ideal and become the company that people would join with to feel empow- ered. Microsoft was particularly effective with an adver- tising campaign built around the tagline "Where do you want to go today?" The American version unfolded stories about common people, such as a sushi restaurant owner and a rancher, using technology to unleash personal pas- sions. Tbe dialogue was philosophical, not technological: "Anybody who says that one person can't make a differ- ence is wrong. Try to push, don't give up, don't give up, don't give up. Where do you want to go today?" Microsoft wasn't selling just technology; it was selling the dream of personal empowerment. The campaign worked because the world's dominant software company had earned the credibility to author such a dream.

When companies author less-than-credible myths, it can hurt brands. For instance, when concerns about global warming surged in the 1990s, consumers worried about whether they'd be able to continue with their oil-fueled lifestyles. The dream of a sustainable world where fuels wouldn't pollute became particularly attractive. BP tried to tap into this dream. In the company's "Beyond Petro- leum" campaign, evocative stories and images invited consumers to share in an imagined have your-cake-and- eat-it-too future ofclean fuel. The idea was appealing, but BP, as a major petroleum producer but minor alternative- energy player, was not a credible author. The media and activists roundly ridiculed the company for greenwash- ing itself. Eventually, BP had to rethink the campaign.

Treat antiglobals as customers. Most transnational companies are unsure how to treat the people who dislike them. As NGOs have become adept at staging media- friendly protests, corporations have been working hard

74 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

How Global Brands Compete

One person in ten wouldn't buy global brands if given a choice.That's an extraordinary number. Companies must_earn thelmst of that segment

to get off the activists' hit lists. They assign the problem to government- or community-relations directors, who court the favor of NGOs in backroom dialogues. However, these "civil society" organizations are only the tip of tbe ice- berg. Naomi Klein's No Logo has been translated into 29 languages. Adbusters magazine sells at Whole Foods Mar- ket's checkout counters. Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, which put many multinational fast-food brands on trial, sat atop best-seller lists for many months.

Our study showed that one person in ten worldwide wouldn't buy global brands if given a choice. That's an ex- traordinary number. The antiglobals represent more po- tential sales than do markets the size of Germany or the United Kingdom, according to our calculations. Few busi- nesses are in a position to ignore such a large group of po- tential consumers. Companies must earn the trust of that segment by focusing on them as disgruntled consumers. Of course, that is unlikely to happen until firms are will- ing to make investments in the kinds of social activities that will convince even the skeptics.

Turn social responsibility into entrepreneurship. While most companies have launched corporate social responsibility initiatives, the impact of such activities is questionable. Most efforts appear to be a new form of public relations. Even when companies are proactive, ini- tiatives are often limited to those tbat are "sustainable"- a euphemism used to describe moneymaking activities that happen to benefit society. For instance, a company scouting for supply chain efficiencies may reduce its need for packaging materials, helping both the environment and the company's bottom line. Another common ap- proach is to repackage philanthropic efforts using the new language of social responsibility to target socially responsible investors. The problem is that consumers, al- ready skeptical of transnationals' motives, regard those approaches as opportunistic. The litmus test for social re- sponsibility initiatives is simple: Will consumers perceive the actions to be motivated primarily by self-interest-or by an interest in the welfare of people and the planet?

Consider an initiative that Procter & Gamble recently tested in Latin America's poorest communities. Over a bil- lion people in the world use unsafe water every day, lead- ing to more than 2 million deaths a year from diarrhea. P&G identified safe drinking water as a critical social

problem that fell within its scope of expertise. It leveraged its knowledge of household sanitation to develop a water purification system that would be effective in poor countries. P&G found that people would buy the prod- uct if it was easy to use and inexpensive and if they could see that the purified water was clean. Scaling down a tech- nology used in water purification facili- ties, the company's engineers developed

a satchel of particulate matter that consumers could stir into buckets. Tbe particles would attract contaminants and dirt, and people could filter out the pollutants witb a cloth. P&G's tests in Guatemala have demonstrated tbat tbe system can reduce the frequency of diarrhea episodes by around 25%. If the company markets the product glob- ally, the social impact could be extraordinary.

Wbat's impressive is that P&G deployed its vast tech- nological capabilities to tackle a problem that govern- ments and NGOs have struggled with for decades. To be credible, global companies' social responsibility efforts must demonstrate that the firms have harnessed their ample resources to benefit society. Studies show tbat peo- ple trust powerful individuals who are seen to have sac- rificed their interests for the good ofthe whole. The same logic applies to global companies. Some may argue that corporations have no business expending resources on activities that lack a profit motive because a firm's only priority is to deliver returns to shareholders. That's short- sighted; if consumers believe that global companies must sboulder greater social responsibility, executives really don't have much of a choice, do they?

• « •

A word of caution may be in order. Our view of global branding should not be interpreted as a call to rid trans- national brands of their national heritage, for two rea- sons. First, while globalness has become a stronger qual- ity signal tban nation of origin, consumers still prefer brands that hail from countries that are considered to have particular expertise: Switzerland in chocolates, Italy in clothing, France in cosmetics, Germany in cars, Japan in electronics, for example. More important, consumers ex- pect global brands to tell their myths from the particular places tbat are associated with the brand. For Nestle to spin a credible myth about food, the myth must be set in the Swiss mountains, because that is where people imag- ine the brand hails from. Likewise, if L'Or^al is to author a myth about beauty, it must do so from a particularly French viewpoint. Transnational companies would there- fore do well to manage their national identities as well as their globalness. ^

Reprint R0409D To order, see page 139-

2004 75

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009

Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for

the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material

in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may

not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any

other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on

learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning

management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content

available through such means. For rates and permission, contact [email protected].