Cultural globalization is not americanization

Cultural Globalization is not Americanization There exist debates on whether cultural globalization is not Americanization. To some extent the statement is true and somehow false. Individuals in the society have yearned to have products that are produced locally for purposes of identifying themselves with their products. This has been the main reason why companies have decided to glocalise in order to remain competitive in the global market. The examples of companies that have gone local are such as the Coca-Cola and Unilever Companies. On the other hand, cultural globalization can be viewed as Americanization. This is because; the Americans have influenced the world to act and think like them. For instance, the fashion and eating habits of various countries have a great influence from the Americans. Globalization has both positive and negative impacts depending on how it has been incorporated in the society. This paper is going to focus its discussion on the subjects of globalization, glocalization and Americanization, depicting from Philippe Legrain’s statement that: “ And just as a big city can support a wider spread of restaurants than a small town, so a global market for cultural products allows a wider range of artists to thrive. For sure, if all the new customers are ignorant, a wider market may drive down the quality of cultural products” from Cultural globalization is not Americanization.” In the existing global-local debate, “ Americanization” has always been used interchangeably with the term “ globalization” (Attitudes to globalization 58). This argument has ignored the larger issue on globalization and most probably where the debate tends to concentrate. The invasion of Iraq by America heightened American brands corporate sensitivity in a manner that commercialized on United States Brand muscles. Similarly, the conflict between the two countries threw into liberating the gulf between America’s view of its global values and the actual opinion about the values globally. Whilst the Americans value democracy, frankness, equality, speed of action and equity, the Japanese on the other hand, translates these values as rushed, rude and impractical. Gone are the days when a French or American brand could be launched in the market arena with much enthusiasm suggesting sophistication and freedom. Consumer markets that are mature are beginning to resurface focusing on products with local flavors across various dimensions. Despite the conflict between America and Iraq, American brands trust is not as low as was thought previously. For instance, the consumers in the United States trust most multinationals given the culture of Americans that favors large business ventures and capitalism. Nevertheless, the trust among consumers is in the organization. In addition, countries illustrate extremely low levels of trust cutting across the board, which makes the need for brands to confine themselves within the hands of a trusted partner. This role may be vital when it is globally revealed that, in comparison to the government, brands are more trusted. To be precise, it is only the youths ranging between the ages of 16 to 24 who invest most of their trust in Americanization of the society. Furthermore, their inclination to trust brands is more compared to other consumers. For instance, Sony having its origin in Japan and Nokia from Swedish are performing better than McDonalds or Microsoft. Based on the above arguments, I am going to analyze the following statement “ And just as a big city can support a wider spread of restaurants than a small town, so a global market for cultural products allows a wider range of artists to thrive. For sure, if all the new customers are ignorant, a wider market may drive down the quality of cultural products” from Cultural globalization is not Americanization by Philippe Legrain. Even though cultural diversity is vital, it is essential for individuals to identify with their own culture. Most of the world brands are going local for purposes of attracting more consumers. As a result, most of the global brands have been unable to assume the call of being authentic and local. Good examples of companies that have decided to respond to the authentic and local call are such as Unilever and Coca-Cola. For instance, the Unilever Company identified that the only path to its growth is through having potential local brands such as Robijn in Netherlands. Were it not for this local brand, Unilever Company could have been shortsighted for purposes of achieving global efficiency. The reflective action of the above statement is for companies to glocalise. This ideally means adding local flavor to the offering made globally for purposes of making consumers to feel they are consuming their own products. On the other hand, the Coca-Cola Company is glocalising itself. As claimed by the Company CEO, their next step as a company to going global is through going local. Even though people tend to argue that cultural globalization is not Americanization to some extent it is not true. Critiques argue that, globalization is American culture imposition on the entire globe. The perfect example of the American culture is the wide spread of the Coca-Cola and Pepsi products and also the hamburgers. Even Thomas Friedman the globalization champion accepts the facts that globalization in some aspects is Americanization. For instance, with its world largest economy, United States has been able to persuade the rest of the world to act and think like them. Take an example of fashion. The American casual style of putting on jeans, sport shoes and T-shirts has become acceptable and common in most countries. In the music industry, their dressing style has influenced the dressing culture of many individuals in the world. The most significant influence is on its technology innovation. For instance, it innovated the internet and it is controlling it subsequently. In conclusion, the stage of globalization is at the conquest of the Americans in distinct ways that an individual can imagine. Americans seems to have hijacked globalization. On the other hand, the world tends to yearn for the American lifestyle. On the contrary, demonizing or diminishing globalization as Americanization is quite misleading. This is because; globalization has the capacity of altering the society much more than the foods or movies that are consumed by the society. Therefore, the outcomes of globalization can either be devastatingly negative, powerfully positive or just in between. Work cited Attitudes to globalization. Brand Strategy, 2004. Web. 16. May. 2012.