The effect of cultural differences on effective advertising: a comparison between Russia and the U.S.

Rhodes, Danny L. ; Emery, Charles R.

ABSTRACT

An important first step to successful global marketing is to understand the similarities and dissimilarities of values between cultures. This task is particularly daunting for companies trying to do business with Russia because of the scarcity of empirical data on their value system. This study uses updated values of the Hofstede's (1980) cultural model to compare the effectiveness of Pollay's advertising appeals between the U.S. and Russia. Only six of the 19 culturally-based hypotheses correctly predicted the Russian consumers' notion of effective advertising appeals. The Hofstede dimensions may lack the currency and fine grain necessary to effectively predict the success of the various advertising appeals. Further explanations are offered by a Delphi panel of Russian professors and students. In short, these findings suggest that it would be unwise to use Hofstede's cultural dimensions as a sole predictor for developing advertising campaigns.

INTRODUCTION

Increased competition is forcing companies to seek export opportunities for their shear survival (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Particularly notable is the increasing rush to gain first-mover advantage in developing markets. Exports to developing nations in 2001 were 32% of the value of world trade which represents a 120 percent increase over the last five years ("World Imports," 2002). A key question is which of these developing markets has the greatest, near to mid-term, potential as an export target (i.e., highest benefits and the lowest costs and risks). The answer is generally a function of the market environment (political, economic, and legal), market size, and the purchasing power parity of its consumers. An important factor, however, to sustaining exporting success is advertising. In turn, the effectiveness of advertising is dependent on the country's educational system (e.g., literacy rate), media sources (e.g., TV and Internet access), censorship/regulations, and culture (i.e., consumer behavior) (Leonidou, et al., 2002).

After considering the aforementioned factors, one might easily conclude that Russia offers the greatest near to mid-term potential as an export target. Although a great deal is known about most of the factors affecting Russia's market environment and advertising capabilities, there has been little empirical research on the cultural context of its consumer behavior. Most cultural research conducted outside the United States and Western Europe has been primarily in the Far East (Maheswaran & Shavitt, 2000). A review of cross-cultural advertising and marketing studies published in 13 empirically-based advertising and marketing periodicals between 1980 and 2001 found that only two studies examined the differences of US-Russian cultural values and none examined the relationship between the Russian culture and advertising appeals (Emery & Rhodes, 2002). As such, the purpose of this study is threefold: (1) examine the differences in effectiveness of advertising appeals in the United States and Russia, (2) determine whether an understanding of Russia's cultural dimensions offers an insight to effective appeals, and (3) recommend various advertising appeals to those companies wishing to export their goods and services to Russia.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Russia as an Export Target

Russia is the developing nation receiving the most attention of exporters on a dollar per capita basis (World Imports, 2002). Further, attention appears to be accelerating. In 2001, Russia increased its value of imports by 20%; the highest increase in the world (World Imports, 2002). This should not come as a surprise. President Putin is doing everything within his power to make Russia more attractive to foreign imports, including cutting tariffs, cutting government red tape and lobbying to get Russia accepted into international trade organizations (Belton, 2002). Further, the Russian economy has enjoyed a boom the last two years because of high world prices for its oil and a rise in domestic production, (Indicators Good, 2002). The purchasing power parity (PPP) of Russia is the highest among the developing nations (e.g., Russia has a PPP of $8,030 as compared to $3,940 and $2,390 of China and India respectively) (World Bank, 1999). The World Bank liberalization index based on three separate indicators-the extent of domestic market liberalization, foreign trade liberalization, and enterprise privatization and banking reforms-gives Russia a healthy index rating of .83 compared to China's index of .66 (International Monetary Fund, 2000). The Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom based on 10 indicators, such as the extent to which the government intervenes in the economy, suggests that Russia is the most favorable for exports of the most populous developing nations (Heritage Foundation, 2001). Further, the United Nation's Human Development Index based life expectancy, educational attainment, and standard of living indicates that Russia is the most suitable target of the developing nations for a broad range of exports (Human Development Index, 2000). Lastly, Russia has the strongest educational system and literacy rate of the developing nations (e.g., Russia has a literacy rate of 98%, while China and India have rates of 82% and 52% respectively) (CIA World Factbook, 2002).

Marketing/Advertising in Russia

Advertising in Russia can be traced to the opening of the first advertising office in Moscow in 1887 (Andrews, et al., 1994). However, after the 1917 Revolution, censorship severely limited advertising. There was a revival, to some degree, from the 1960's until the mid-1980's, when advertising was focused primarily on industrial products for organizational buyers. The rebirth of competitive advertising occurred in 1985 when the leadership of the Soviet Union transferred to the reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev and controls on the media were loosened (Yergin & Gustafson, 1993). For the first time ads began to appear on billboards, in newspapers, and in magazines (Dabars & Vokhmina, 1996). In 1987-1988 the Soviet Union Central Committee allowed joint venture agreements and direct negotiation for products and services, including advertising, among Soviet and Western firms. In the last ten years, foreign advertising expenditures in Russia have gone from $8 million to $2 billion ("Research Report," 2001).

Cultural Values

The first step to successful cross-cultural marketing is to understand the cultural differences (Keegan, 1989). Consumers grow up in a particular culture and become accustomed to that culture's value systems, beliefs, and perception processes. Consequently, they respond to advertising messages that are congruent with their culture, rewarding advertisers who understand that culture and tailor ads to reflect its values (Cheng & Schweitzer, 1996; Chandy, et al., 2001; Culter & Javalgi, 1992; and Wells, 1994). Albers-Miller's (1996) study of 55 country pairs indicates that similar cultures have similar advertising content and dissimilar societies have dissimilar advertising content. Hofstede's (1980) seminal study regarding the relationship between national culture and work-related values is the most frequently cited benchmark for cross-cultural understanding (Tian, 2000). He considered that a country's value system could be depicted along four dimensions: individualism (IDV), power distance (PDI), uncertainty avoidance (UAI), and masculinity (MAS).

Hofstede (1980) explained that the dimension of individualism was the degree to which individual decision-making and actions are encouraged by society. This dimension reflects the way people live together. In a collectivist society, the lower end of the individualism-collectivism continuum, individualistic behavior may be seen as selfish. As such, it appears logical to conclude that appeals highlighting individualism will be less effective.

The power distance dimension indicates the degree to which power differences are accepted and sanctioned by society. In other words, it indicates how different societies have addressed basic human inequalities in social status and prestige, wealth, and sources of power. The societal norm in a country with a high score on the PDI dimension is for powerful people to look as powerful as possible. People with power are considered to be right and good. Powerful people are expected to have privileges. In countries with large power distance, the exercise of power gives satisfaction, and powerful people try to maintain and increase power differences (Hofstede, 1980). As such, appeals that reinforce the culture's sense of power distance (e.g., prestige) will be effective.

The uncertainty avoidance dimension represents the degree to which society is unwilling to accept and cope with uncertainty. People use law, religion, and technology to address uncertainty. This dimension is related to anxiety, need for security, dependence on experts, and the application of information (Hofstede, 1980). As such, appeals that address new ideas, change or adventure will be considered as less desirable by societies high in uncertainty avoidance.

The masculinity dimension indicates the degree to which traditional male values (assertiveness, performance, ambition, achievement, and materialism) are important to a society. The opposite end of this continuum has been labeled femininity. The societal norm in a country with a high score on the MAS dimension is to try to be the best while valuing achievement, productivity and "machismo" (Hofstede, 1980). In these countries, big and fast are considered beautiful. As such, effective advertising in masculine cultures must reinforce the notions of assertiveness, competitiveness and winning.

While Hofstede's research has been instrumental in furthering an understanding of cross-cultural consumerism, his 1980 study did not report cultural indices for the communist block countries. Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, and Nicholson (1997) updated the original Hofstede study and included the dimensional values for Russia. It is important, however, to note that they used undergraduate and graduate students in their study rather than adult workers and that their data is from 1990. In 2000, Naumov and Puffer performed a two-country comparative study of Russian and U.S. cultures using the Hofstede dimensions and instruments on undergraduate students. By and large, their findings were similar to those of Fernandez, et al. and suggest that the U.S. is relatively similar to Russia on the dimension of masculinity and considerably different on the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, individualism and power distance. The relationship between Russian and U.S. cultural dimensions is presented as a standardized score in Table 1.

Both Fernandez, et al. (1997) and Naumov and Puffer (2000) suggest that Russia should be considered as a masculine society that exhibits its masculinity slightly more than the United States. Both countries favor a strong military, a relative unwillingness to compromise, and a separation of the male and female roles in the family and society in general. These studies, however, indicate that the U.S. is becoming slightly more feminine than reported by Hofstede (1980). The United States is increasingly supporting more feminine appeals and issues such as, environmental protection, charitable spending, and equality of gender roles.

Both studies (Fernandez, et al., 1997; Naumov & Puffer, 2000) rate Russia extremely high in uncertainty avoidance and very different from the United States. Decades of communist rule programmed the Russian people with an ideology of one truth, the importance of security and a suppression of deviant ideas and behaviors. Risk taking and innovation were foreign concepts. While Hofstede (1980) reported the United States as relatively low in uncertainty avoidance (e.g., 43rd of 53 nations), recent studies indicate that the U.S. is moving more toward the median. Studies (Hofstede, 1991; Fernandez, et al., 1997; Naumov & Puffer, 2000) speculate that this movement might be caused by anxiety associated with the increasing potential for war and economic instability. The studies by Fernandez, et al. (1997) and Naumov and Puffer (2000) confirm that Russia and the United States are vastly different on the dimension of individualism-collectivism. Although these studies indicate that Russia is exhibiting a slight movement toward individualism, it remains one of the most collective cultures in the world. This is not surprising given its communist history where loyalty to the group was rewarded by the protection of its members. On the other hand, the United States has historically had the highest score for individualism of any country in the world and it does not appear to be relinquishing this position (Hofstede, 1991).

Lastly, the studies (Fernandez, et al., 1997; Naumov & Puffer, 2000) offer notable differences in Russia's position on the power distance dimension. The Fernandez, et al., (1997) study indicated that Russia scored the highest power distance score of the nine countries studied. This seems logical since the Russian communistic society readily accepted the unequal distribution of power between the government and its citizens and it consistently suppressed venues for protest. Further, this willingness to live with an unequal distribution of power (i.e., Czarist Russia) is consistent with its beliefs prior to the Revolution. Naumov and Puffer (2001), however, found that Russia scored much lower on power distance and statistically identical to that of the United States. One might speculate that this decrease in power distance might be attributable to perestroika, the recent economic reform and growing individual freedoms.

Advertising Appeals

The second step to successful cross-cultural marketing is to understand a society's sensitivity to advertising appeals. Advertising appeals are the specific approaches advertisers use to communicate how their products will satisfy customer needs by embedding a culture's values, norms, and characteristics (Arens & Bovee, 1994). The appeals are typically carried in the illustration and headlines of the ad and are supported and reinforced by the ad copy. Researchers have argued that cultural values are the core of advertising messages and typical advertisements endorse, glamorize, and inevitably reinforce cultural values (Pollay and Gallagher, 1990). Evidence indicates that different cultures seem to emphasize different advertising appeals. For example, Japanese ads have been found to contain more emotional and fewer comparative appeals than American ads (Hong, et al., 1987). Ads in China have been found to contain more utilitarian appeals that focus on state of being and promise a better life (Tse, et al., 1989).

Combining Cultural Values and Advertising Appeals

Research on cross-cultural advertising appeals is generally conducted by pairing countries to test for differences in several values portrayed in advertising to determine the most effective methods (Zinkhan, 1994). Albers-Miller and Gelb (1996) conducted perhaps the largest and most referenced test of cross-cultural advertising appeals using Hofstede's (1980) four cultural dimensions and Pollay's (1983) list of common advertising appeals on 11 countries. Pollay (1983) developed a list of 42 common appeals by drawing on previous advertising literature and values research in other disciplines. Albers-Miller and Gelb, however, did not examine Russia because of the lack of Hofstede dimensional measures.

Albers-Miller and Gelb (1996) used six coders from various countries (i.e., Taiwan, India, France, Mexico, and two from the United States) to relate Pollay's appeals to Hofstede's dimensions. The coders were instructed to relate each appeal to one end of a single cultural dimension or to indicate that the appeal related to none of the dimensions. Appeals retained for their research were ones for which at least four of the six coders indicated the same hypothesized relationship. Subsequently the list was reduced to 19 benchmark appeals because 23 of 42 appeals consistently failed to support the hypothesized dimensional values at p<.10. The hypothesized relationships between these benchmark appeals and the Hofstede dimensions are summarized in Table 2.

Hypotheses

The Hofstede dimensional values from the Fernandez, et al. study (Table 1) were used rather than those from the Naumov and Puffer study because their values had been derived from a multinational study and their results had been converted to z-values. In turn, directional hypotheses were created for each of the 19 appeals based on the notion that a country's value system (i.e., Hofstede dimensions) would be reflected by the importance their citizens placed on the appeals (Table 2). For example, the Russian culture is considered very collectivist (Fernandez, et al., 1997). As such, one would expect the Russians to rate the individualism appeal of independence as not very important. Conversely, one would expect that they would rate collectivist appeals as very important.

For the purpose of developing comparative hypotheses, the value systems were considered significantly different, if the cultural dimensions between countries differed by more than 1.96 standard deviations (p=.025 in each tail). For example, the difference between Russia and the U.S. on the IDV dimension is 3.41 standard deviations (Table 1) or a significance of p<.01. As such, we hypothesize that Russian consumers would consider appeals associated with individualism (e.g., independence and unique) to be significantly less important than U.S. consumers (i.e., R<US). Additionally, because Russia and U.S. differed by 2.16 standard deviations, we posited that Russian consumers would consider appeals associated with power distance (e.g., attractiveness, value, and prestige) to be significantly more important than US consumers (i.e., R>US). Lastly, because the differences between the Russian and U.S. consumers on the importance of appeals associated with uncertainty avoidance and masculinity dimensions were less than 1.64 standard deviations, we hypothesized that the differences between the two cultures would be indistinguishable or non-significant (i.e., R=US).

METHOD

This study uses the 19 advertising appeals employed in the Albers-Miller and Gelb study (1996) that were found to be the most highly correlated with the Hofstede dimensions (coder inter-rater reliabilities >.77 and correlation values above .40 at p<.10). Using Pollay's list (1983) of appeals and synonyms, the Russian and American researchers selected several descriptive words from each of the 19 appeal categories that were most likely to have the same meaning within each culture. For example, the terms beautiful and detailed are often used cross-culturally to represent the ornamental appeal. In turn, these descriptors were refined by a focus group of two English-speaking Russian students and one U.S. student until there was an agreement on which descriptor would be used to represent a particular appeal. Each descriptor was translated into the Russian language and dialect of the participating university students. The translated descriptor was then placed on questionnaires administered by the U.S. and Russian researchers.

All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) "extremely important" to (4) "important" to (7) "not important". Different bilingual translators translated the scales into Russian and then back-translated into English. Again, scale variances were subsequently resolved by the focus group of students to ensure equivalency between versions. The country scores were calculated by summing the responses for each appeal across individuals within a given country and calculating the means of those individuals' scores. The significance of differences between the means of the appeals was determined by a t-test. The probability, however, of finding a significant difference by chance alone increases rapidly with the number of tests. One solution to this multiple testing problem is to make a Bonferroni correction to the probability associated with each test by multiplying it by the number of tests executed (SPSS Base 10.0). For example, we wish to test 19 hypotheses at a level of significance of p<.05. As such, we can only consider those values less than p=.002 to be supportive.

The study used undergraduate college students in an attempt to capture the perceptions of new consumers as they begin to integrate their view of appeals with their value system. Although this group does not have years of purchasing experience, it was hoped that their perceptions might be predictive of future trends, i.e. the consumers of tomorrow. Lastly, we used managers and faculty members in this study to ensure that the test subjects were parallel to those of the Fernandez, et al. (1996) and the Naumov and Puffer (2000) studies.

Data from a randomized (gender, age, socio-economic class, marital and minority status) sample was collected between May and September 2002. The sample consisted of 149 undergraduate college students, staff, and faculty at a state university in Russia and 157 undergraduate students, staff and faculty at a state university and a private college in the United States. Fifteen minutes of training on advertising appeals using a selection of ads and on the questionnaire's scale was provided the students. The response rate was 96 percent in Russia and 76 percent in the United States.

RESULTS

The results of the hypothesis testing are summarized in Table 3. A Levene's test indicated that equal variances could be assumed for each of the appeal items. Overall, the findings appear to suggest that the Hofstede dimensions offer very little value in predicting the importance of various advertising appeals in Russia. For example, the results failed to support three of the four hypotheses that posited that Russian consumers would have relatively the same preferences for masculine/feminine appeals as the American consumers. Specifically, the U.S. consumers found the appeals of "effectiveness" and "modesty" to be more important than the Russian consumers (p<.001) and the Russians consumers found the appeal of "natural" to be more important than the U.S. consumer (p<.001). Interestingly, U.S. consumers rated "effectiveness" as the most important of the 19 appeals and the Russians found it to be the second most important. Further, it is noteworthy that the Russian consumers gave their highest rating to the appeal of "natural", which is considered as a highly feminine appeal. Also, it is noteworthy and not unexpected that the Russian sample considered "modesty" to be the second least important of the 19 appeals. Russian consumers tend to live in close conditions, which tends to reduce the importance of modesty.

Support was moderate for the proposition that the U.S. and Russian consumers would react similarly to appeals associated with uncertainty avoidance. Three of the four hypotheses were supported, i.e. "civilized", "adventure", and "miraculous". Interestingly, the appeal of "primitive" was not only found to be significantly less important to Russians than the U.S. consumers, it was considered a very unimportant influence in purchasing products. In general, the means of the appeals associated with the uncertainty avoidance dimension indicate that the consumers of both countries lean slightly towards uncertainty avoidance.

There was nonsupport for the hypotheses suggesting that there would be significant differences in appeals associated with individualism. Only one of the five hypotheses (i.e., "uniqueness") was significantly supported at p=.002. The appeal of "succorance" (e.g., expressions of gratitude and pats on the back) which is normally associated with a collective society was unpredictably supported in the opposite direction as hypothesized (p<.001). In general, the Russian consumers placed much less emphasis on the appeals associated with collective societies than was expected. Interestingly, the difference between Russian and U.S. consumers on the appeal of "independence" was insignificant (p<.763) and tilted slightly toward the individualistic end of the dimension. Further, the insignificant difference between Russian and U.S. consumers is particularly noteworthy on this dimension because the U.S. has been considered as the most individualistic country in the world in past studies (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Fernandez et al., 1997).

Similarly, there was nonsupport for the notion that appeals associated with high power distance would be much more effective in the Russian marketplace. Only one of the six hypotheses (i.e., "down-to-earth") supported this proposition. In fact, two of the appeals hypothesized were supported in the opposite direction (i.e., "design" and "product value"). Remarkably, there was no significant difference between the consumers on appeals of "attractiveness", "prestige", and "economical". Further, the Russian consumers indicated that the appeal of "prestige" was less than important (i.e., mean score less than 4). This is particularly surprising for a country with a non-representative style government and a small middle class.

Lastly, an examination of demographic differences (i.e., age, gender, marital status, and socio-economic status) within the groups of Russian and US. consumers indicated almost no significant correlation between the appeals and the demographic factors. Specifically, there was no correlation between the appeals and the demographic factors among the Russian respondents and only four instances among the U.S. respondents at p<.002 (Table 4). Differences in the relationship between the appeals and demographic variables would suggest the need for segmented advertising.

DISCUSSION

Clearly our results did not support the notion that Hofstede's cultural dimensions could be accurately used as predictors of appeal effectiveness as well as the Albers-Miller and Gelb (1996) study. Only six of our 19 hypotheses were supported. There could, however, be several explanations for difference in predictability beyond the validity and translation of the instrument. First, the eleven countries (e.g., Japan, Taiwan, India, South Africa, Israel, France, Finland, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, U.S.) used in the previous study (Albers-Miller & Gelb, 1996) have significantly different market economies, political-legal and advertising systems than Russia. As such, the significance of individual appeals might vary considerably. Second, the values (i.e., 1990 data) of the Hofstede dimensions might be too old to use in predicting the effectiveness of appeals. Third, the appeals-culture relationship may have significantly different validities from one age group to the next. The Albers-Miller and Gelb (1996) study was conducted using an adult population. Fourth, the product usage visualized by the respondents may have a moderating effect on the importance of appeals. Fifth, cultural dimensions may not be fine grained enough to predict the effectiveness of appeals. In other words, changes in the perceived importance of advertising appeals may take place much more quickly than changes in cultural values.

To supplement these explanations, we formed a Dephi panel of two Russian professors, sixteen Russian undergraduate and graduate students, and an American professor living in Russia. Many of the Russian panel members had traveled and studied in the United States, so their responses were based on personal knowledge of both countries. Additionally, the Russian respondents were from a wide cross-section of Russian culture (e.g., Moscow and the four separate CIS republics of Bashkortostan, Belarus, Tatarstan, and the Ukraine). The panel members were ask to specifically comment on the four hypotheses that were significantly not supported (i.e., p<.002) and the three hypotheses significantly supported in the opposite direction. Comments were gathered from each panel member, synthesized and redistributed through three rounds of analysis. The following paragraphs represent a summary of their insights.

Our study hypothesized that Russian and U.S. consumers would be equal in their consideration of "effectiveness" as an important advertising appeal. The Russians, however, considered this appeal significantly less important than the American consumers. (It is important to note, however, that Russian respondents rated "effectiveness" as the second most important appeal.) Our panel of experts suggests that Russians generally lack consumer sophistication. They have a reduced availability of products from which to make choices, and their buying decisions are based on limited experience. Additionally, Russian consumers have experienced several years of false claims in advertisements, disappointments in what they were told about products and services, and failed pyramid schemes. As such, there is a resultant tendency to question any claims of product effectiveness. In other words, most Russian consumers take a "doubting Thomas" approach to unsolicited testimonials. Russians are willing to wait and see the effects of a remedy, while Americans tend to believe research claims and prefer a quick remedy.

It was hypothesized that Russian and US consumers would indicate the same level of effectiveness or importance of an advertisement that demonstrated or gave testament to a product as "natural". Russians considered this appeal as significantly more important than the Americans. Our panel indicates that Russian consumers have a low trust for the artificial: fat-free, pesticide-treated, pre-packaged, and genetically modified foods. There are frequent incidents where cheap cosmetics have created allergic reactions. Additionally, most Russians believe that they have little influence over negative environmental factors such as pollution, difficult economic conditions, and stress. Chemical and nuclear disasters such as the Chernobyl incident have had lasting impacts on the Russian people. Use of natural products is seen as a way to offset the perceived negative influence of unnatural or artificial products.

It was hypothesized that the consumers would view the appeal of "modesty" the same across both cultures. The Russians, however, considered it to be far less important than the Americans did. Young Russians consider that self-promotion is a key to getting ahead and are not bashful in heralding personal achievements. Also, Russians are less physically modest. Russians have much closer living conditions than Americans, often with several generations living together in just a few rooms. They are more relaxed with nudity and, as such, are accustomed to showing more of their bodies. This is evident in the preponderance of mini-skirts and extremely tight fitting clothes among girls and young women, speedo-type bathing suits among men, and erotic films on public channel TV and at movie theaters. An interesting perspective of the Russians is that Americans have a stricter standard of personal morality and ethics. Russians, on the other hand, associate modesty with restriction and forbiddance and therefore are not positively influenced by this appeal.

It was hypothesized that Russian and US consumers would assess the same level of effectiveness or importance to an advertisement that demonstrated a product as "primitive". The Russian consumers, however, considered this appeal far less important than the American consumers did. This is a perhaps a matter of semantics. To Russians, primitive connotes old fashioned or out-of-date. Historically, Russians may think 1,000 years, while the Americans may think 100 years. Russians want to distance themselves from the past. They consider that they have been "primitive" long enough and long for "modern" products. Additionally, in Russia, primitive is synonymous with poor quality. Given a choice, Russians would prefer advanced and improved products rather than throwbacks to the past.

It was hypothesized that Russian consumers would consider the advertising appeal of "succorance" to be relatively more important to the success of sales than would U.S. consumers. This appeal was significantly supported in the opposite direction. In other words, Russians considered it significantly less important than Americans. However, support in the opposite direction may be a semantics problem. Russians interpret succorance as supporting others in their time of want rather than something that might support them personally in a time of need. Russia's restrictive economy focuses primarily on necessities. Purchases seem to follow a pattern based (in order of priority), on need, availability and affordability. Non-essentials, like gifts or products that offer support to others are considered trivial.

It was hypothesized that Russian consumers would consider the advertising appeal of "design" to be relatively more important to the success of sales than would an American consumer. This appeal was significantly supported in the opposite direction. In other words, Russians considered it significantly less important than Americans. Our panel of experts indicated that, except for a growing class of business elite, most Russians have lower standards of living compared to the United States. As a result, consumer decisions are driven by the means available at the time of purchase. Economic hardships cause them to be more concerned about survival than choices of design. In other words, functionality outweighs interest in design. Suggestions or claims of unique design seem to translate as more expensive.

It was hypothesized that Russia consumers would consider the advertising appeal of "product value" to be relatively more important in purchasing decisions than would US consumers. Again, this appeal was significantly supported in the opposite direction. Russians considered it significantly less important than Americans. Our experts suggest that the concept of competitive advertisements is relatively new in Russia. The matter of choice is hardly a decade old, and consumer sophistication is low. Russian ads provide considerably less information about the product than do ads in the United States, and there have been many false claims in advertisements. As a result, Russians do not trust the ads, thus claims of the product's value are not important. Consumers perceive emphasis on the value of a product as an indicator of a high price. In other words, Russian consumers cannot afford the luxury of considering the appeal of "value".

Lastly, we considered the notion of that changes in the perceived importance of advertising appeals might take place much more quickly than changes in cultural values. In fact, changes in the importance of advertising appeals may mimic current societal trends and may be precursors to cultural changes. As such, we reversed the logic by using our data on appeals to indicate the dimension magnitudes relative to the previous studies. The findings indicate that the Russian culture may be changing more rapidly than other societies. Perhaps this should not be surprising for a country undergoing such political, economic, and technological changes. Although Russia is still a predominately masculine country, the mean scores of the appeals suggest a trend toward femininity. Further, the appeal data from our study supports Naumov and Puffer's (2000) findings that uncertainty avoidance is lower, particularly among full-time students, and university faculty members and administrators. Additionally, our study supports the conclusion by Naumov and Puffer's (2000) that power distance has significantly decreased; Russians are becoming increasingly insistent on equality. Lastly, our data supports the Naumov and Puffer notion that the Russian culture is moving further away from collectivism and more toward a society of individualistic values. Although one would normally discount the suggestion that a culture might show visible changes within a decade, our findings seem to indicate a continuation of the trends posited by Naumov and Puffer (2001). The following table indicates the magnitude of Hofstede's dimensions for Russia from three data points. The Fernandez, et al., (1997) study collected data in 1990, the Naumov (2000) study in 1995-1996, and our study in 2002.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examined the differences in advertising appeals between the United States and Russia in hopes of providing some recommendations to organizations that desire to advertise in Russia. As Keegan (1989) points out, the first step to successful cross-cultural marketing is to understand the cultural differences. Findings indicate that Russia has experienced, and continues to experience, considerable cultural change since perestroika in the late 1980's and early 1990's. The same may be true in other fast developing countries. The results of this study, however, appear to suggest that the Hofstede dimensions offer very little value in predicting the importance of various advertising appeals in Russia. As a result, using heuristics such as Hofstede's cultural dimensions may be too broad an approach to capture the detailed differences required in launching an effective advertising campaign.

While the findings do not provide explicit recommendations for developing advertising, they do provide some general information for marketing practitioners seeking to conduct business in Russia. For example, one may consider the appeals with means less than 3.5 (natural, effective, handy, economical, and family, in descending order of importance) to be influential in selling a product. Conversely, those appeals whose means were greater than 4.5 (down-to-earth, modesty, primitive, popular, adventure, and prestige, in descending order of unimportance) might be avoided. Although we concur with the findings of Wells (1994), Kanso and Nelson (2002), and others that the culture of the target market must be considered when developing advertising, the appeals need to be validated through focus groups.

It appears that some respondents had difficulty interpreting some appeals (e.g., effectiveness and succorance). Future researchers may need to provide instruction using examples, pictures, and discussion with feedback prior to or during the application of the surveys. In addition, only students and university faculty and administrators were used in this study, so the findings are not generalizable across the entire Russian population. Further research is necessary to determine if our findings are true for all subgroups.

REFERENCES

Albers-Miller, N. D. & B. D. Gelb. (1996). Business advertising appeals as a mirror of cultural dimensions: A study of eleven countries. Journal of Advertising, 25(4), 57-71.

Albers-Miller, N. D. (1996). Designing cross-cultural advertising research: A closer look at paired comparisons. International Marketing Review, 13(5), 59-76.

Andrews, J. C., S, Durvasula. & R. G. Netemeyer. (1994). Testing the cross-national applicability of U.S. and Russian advertising belief and attitude measures. Journal of Advertising, 23(1), 71-82.

Arens, W. F. & C. L. Bovee. (1994). Contemporary Advertising (Fifth Edition). Boston: Richard D. Irwin.

Belton, C. (2002, June 17). A gleam of hope for Russia inc. Productivity is exploding, and foreign capital may follow. Business Week, 48.

Chandy, R. K., G. J. Tellis, D. J. Macinnis & P Thaivanich. What to say when: Advertising appeals in evolving markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 399-415.

Cheng, H. & J. C. Schweitzer (1996). Cultural values reflected in Chinese and U.S. television commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(3), 27-45.

CIA World Factbook: Literacy Rates 1990-2002. (n.d.) Retrieved January 20, 2003, from http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

Culter, B. D. & R. G. Javalgi (1992). A cross-cultural analysis of the visual components of print advertising: The United States and the European community. Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 71-80.

Dabars, Z. & L. Vokhmina. (1996). The Russian way. Lincolnwood, IL: Passport Books.

Emery, C. R. & D. L. Rhodes. (2002). [Advertising over the last two decades in Russia]. Unpublished raw data.

Fernandez, D. R., D. S. Carlson, L. P. Stepina & J. D. Nicholson. (1997). Hofstede's country classification 25 years later. The Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 21-18.

Gupta, A. K., & V. Govindarajan (2000). Managing global expansion: A conceptual framework. Business Horizons, (March/April), 45-54.

Heritage Foundation. (2002). 2001 Index of Economic Freedom (n.d.) Retrieved January 10, 2003, from http://www.heritage.org:so/index/countries/maps&charts/list1.gif.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Value. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hong, J. W., A. Muderrisoglu & G. M. Zinkhan. (1987). Cultural differences and advertising expression: A comparative content analysis of Japanese and U.S. magazine advertising. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 55-62, 68.

Human Development Index. (2001). Human Development Report. New York: United Nations.

Indicators good. (2002, May). Russian Life, 45(13), 7.

International Monetary Fund. (2000). World economic outlook: Focus on transition economies (October). Geneva: IMF.

Kanso, A. & R. A. Nelson. (2002). Advertising localization overshadows standardization. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(1), 79-90.

Keegan, W. (1989). Global Marketing Management. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leonidou, L., C. S. Katsikeas & S. Samiee. (2002). Marketing strategy determinants of export performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 51-68.

Maheswaran, D. & S. Shavitt (2000). Issues and new directions in global consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 59-68.

Naumov, A. I. & S. M. Puffer (2000). Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede's dimensions. Applied Psychology, 49(4), 709-718.

Pollay, R. W. (1983). Measuring the cultural values manifest in advertising. In J. H. Leigh & C. R. Martin, Jr., (Eds.), Current Issues and Research in Advertising (pp. 72-92). Ann Arbor: Graduate School of Business, Division of Research, University of Michigan.

Pollay, R. W. & K. Gallagher. (1990). Advertising and cultural values: reflections in the distorted mirror. International Journal of Advertising, 9, 359-372.

Research report reveals Russian ad-sales boom (2001, December 7). The St. Petersburg Times.

SPSS Base 10.0 (2001). Applications Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.

Tian, R. G. (2000). The implications of rights to culture in transnational marketing: An anthropological perspective. High Plains Applied Anthropologist, 20(2), 135-145.

Tse, D. K., R. W. Belk & N. Zhou. (1989). Becoming a consumer society: A longitudinal and cross-cultural content analysis of print ads from Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 457-472.

Wells, L. G. (1994). Western concepts, Russian perspectives: meanings of advertising in the former Soviet Union. Journal of Advertising, 23(1), 83-95.

World Bank (1999). Knowledge for development. World Development Report, 1998/1999. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

World imports by region and selected economy 1991-2001. Retrieved January 20, 2003, from http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2002_2/

Yergin, D. & T. Gustafson. (1993). Russia 2010---and what it means for the world: the Cera Report. New York: Random House.

Zinkhan, G. M. (1994). International advertising: a research agenda. Journal of Advertising, 23(1), 11-16.

Danny L. Rhodes, Anderson College Charles R. Emery, Lander University

Table 1. Comparison of Hofstede Dimensions (Standardized Scores)

Dimension Russia U.S.

MAS 0.17 -0.58
UAI 2.05 0.59
IDV -1.89 1.52
PDI 2.15 -0.01

Note: 1990 data excepted from Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, & Nicholson
(1997)

Table 2. Relationships of Appeals to Hofstede's Dimensions and
Hypotheses

Appeals MAS UAI IDV PDI Hp

Effective + R = US
Handy + R = US
Natural - R = US
Modesty - R = US
Civilized + R = US
Adventure - R = US
Primitive - R = US
Miraculous - R = US
Independence + R < US
Unique + R < US
Family - R > US
Popular - R > US
Succorance - R > US
Design + R > US
Attractiveness + R > US
Product Value + R > US
Prestige + R > US
Economical - R < US
Down-to-earth - R < US

Note: Plus and minus symbols indicate convergence or divergence between
Pollay's appeals and Hofstede's dimensions.

Table 3. Descriptive Data and Hypothesis Testing

 Mean SD

Dimension Appeal Russia USA Russia USA

Masculinity Effective 2.89 2.17 1.75 1.35
 Handy 3.12 3.36 1.63 1.47
 Natural 2.71 3.97 1.73 1.50
 Modesty 5.61 3.97 1.37 1.70

Uncertainty Civilized 4.46 4.30 1.64 1.60
Avoidance Adventure 4.93 4.51 1.64 1.47
 Primitive 5.46 4.46 1.68 1.76
 Miraculous 4.39 4.16 1.82 1.66

Individualism Independence 3.87 3.81 1.86 1.51
 Unique 4.10 3.53 1.85 1.59
 Family 3.16 3.17 1.65 2.15
 Popular 4.93 4.48 1.73 1.47
 Succorance 4.41 3.99 1.63 1.47

Power Design 3.95 3.42 1.51 1.44
Distance Attractiveness 3.77 3.96 1.75 1.57
 Product Value 3.60 2.85 1.70 1.48
 Prestige 3.82 3.90 1.88 1.62
 Economical 3.23 3.21 1.61 1.55
 Down-to-earth 5.62 4.26 1.62 1.50

Dimension Appeal P-value Hp

Masculinity Effective .001 NS
 Handy .164 S
 Natural .001 NS
 Modesty .001 NS

Uncertainty Civilized .408 S
Avoidance Adventure .021 S
 Primitive .001 NS
 Miraculous .256 S

Individualism Independence .763 NS
 Unique .002 S
 Family .980 NS
 Popular .016 NS
 Succorance .001 S-O

Power Design .002 S-O
Distance Attractiveness .316 NS
 Product Value .001 S-O
 Prestige .698 NS
 Economical .933 NS
 Down-to-earth .001 S

Notes: S = support, NS = nonsupport, and S-O = support in the opposite
direction

Survey used a 7-point anchored Likert scale with poles as 1 = extremely
important and 7 = unimportant

Table 4. Correlation Between Appeals and US Demographics

Appeal Age Gender Marital Status Class

Economical Value -- -- .001 --
Miraculous .001 -- .001 --
Civilized .001 -- -- --

Table 5. Comparison of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions for Russia from
1990-2002

 MAS UAI INV PDI

Fernandez, et al. Med-high High Low High
Naumov & Puffer Med-high Med-high Med-low Med-low
Rhodes & Emery Med Med Med-low Med-low