When war and conflict reshape global headlines, brand identity is also reconfigured. An important implication drawn from my research is the complex role brand positioning plays during conflict, particularly whether a brand is anchored in local culture or positioned globally. Due to an increase in the use of social media as a communication platform for brands, consumers get even more information than ever about a brand’s political inclinations or lack thereof.
Perceived brand globalness (PBG) studied by various scholars in my paper, provides insight into potentially mitigating unfavourable consumer attitudes and buying intention towards brands associated with conflicting political beliefs or associations. Some key examples of brands with strong PBG are Adidas, Netflix, Apple, or Coca-Cola, which naturally obtain several benefits due to this characteristic. Some scholars within my research suggest that brands can intentionally cultivate a global positioning, through the use of their logo, language use, where the brand is offered, and so on. Brands with strong PBG are therefore less closely associated with any single nation where negative political associations may be commonly drawn during conflict.
However, not all brands may want to intentionally utilize PBG, as many use the strategy of country-of-origin positioning within their branding as it highlights “positive and normally stereotypical attributes of another country”, as two scholars Moon & Jain (2022) state within my research. A significant variable when evaluating the effects of country-of-origin strategies is “consumer ethnocentrism” a term coined by two scholars Shimp and Sharma (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism is best understood within my research as providing consumers with a sense of identity, feelings of belonging, and an understanding of what purchase behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable to the in group.
These two brand positionings create nuance as neither global positioning nor country-of-origin branding is inherently advantageous during geopolitical conflict. Brands with strong perceived brand globalness may benefit from potentially softening backlash when political tensions rise, while at the same time, that global identity can seem detached or profit-driven in markets where patriotism intensifies. Conversely, country-of-origin branding can strengthen authenticity and cultural pride, but during conflict it may transform from an asset into a liability if the brand’s national roots become politically controversial. Consumer ethnocentrism further complicates this dynamic, as some consumers view purchasing domestic brands as a moral act of loyalty, while others prefer globally positioned brands that signal openness. The nuance lies in the fact that brand identity and communications become context-dependent, interpreted through shifting political, cultural, and emotional lenses rather than remaining a stable marketing strategy.