Advocates of standardization claim that global market segments are emerging and that advertising not only can,

but also should be standardized across markets. The major benefits from standardization are economies scale in the advertising function and consistent brand image. However, advocates of adaptation claim that the difference between cultures is so vast that standardization is not possible and that standardization results in lost competitive advantage and lower sales. However, to adapt advertising each market increases costs and decreases possibilities to create synergies across markets.

Backhauls, K., Buschken J., &Voeth, M.(2005). International marketing. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Boddewyn, J. J., & Grosse, R. (1995). American marketing in the European union: standardization's uneven progress. European Journal of Marketing, 29 (12), 23-42. Buzzell, R. D. (1968). Can you standardize multinational marketing? Harvard Business Review, 46 (6), 102-13. Childers, T.L., &Houston, M.J. (1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (September), 643-654. De Mooij, M. (2005). Global marketing and advertising: understanding cultural paradoxes (2d ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Deresky, H. (2005). International management: managing across borders and cultures (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Doole, I., & Lowe, R. (2003). International marketing strategy (3d ed). London: International Thomson Business Press. Duncan, T., & Jyotika Ramaprasad. (1995). Standardized multinational advertising: the influencing factors. Journal of Advertising, 24 (3), 55-68. Edell, Julie A., & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (June), 45-61. Elinder, E. (1965). How international can European advertising be? Journal of Marketing, 29 (4), 7-11. Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalization, and the nation-state: recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education, 47 (3), 361-82

Onkvisit, Sak & Shaw, J.J. (1999). Standardized international advertising: some research issues and implications. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (6), 19-24.

Percy, L., & Rossiter, J.R. (1983). Mediating effects of visual and verbal elements in print advertising upon belief, attitude, and intention responses, in Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Larry Percy, (ed). Lexington: Lexington Books, 171-96.

Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 450-61.

Pieters, R., &Wedel, M. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68 (April), 36-50. Singh, S. N., Lessig, V.P., Kim, Dongwook, Gupta, R. & Hocutt, M. A. (2000). Does your Ad have too many pictures? Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (1-2), 11-27. Tungate, M. (2003). French Ad industry shows the way for alcohol self-regulation. Campaign, (44), 20-23. Unnava, H. R., &Burnkrant, R.E. (1991). An imagery-processing view of the role of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (May), 226-31. Whitelock, J., &Chung, Djamila. (1989). Cross-cultural advertising: an empirical study. International Journal of Advertising, 8 (4), 291-310. Rey, Jean. C. (1998). Cross-cultural advertising in Europe: an empirical survey of television advertising in France and the UK. International Marketing Review, 15 (4), 257-276.

Yavas, U. (1994). Research note: students as subjects in advertising and marketing research. International Marketing Review, 11 (4), 35-43.

In recent decades, the question of standardization versus adaptation has taken center stage in both academic debates and international advertising practice (Agrawal 1995; Griffith, Chandra and Ryans 2003; Levitt 1983). The assimilation and homoneziation of consumer needs and purchasing behavior across nation borders drives standardized marketing measures (Duncan and Ramaprasad 1995; Elinder 1965; Levitt 1983), but standardization decisions involve a trade- off between the possible economic benefits of a standardized approach and the performance gains attained by adapting to the needs of local markets. (Duncan and Ramaprasad 1995; Harvey (1993); Hite and Farser 1988; Onkvisit and Shaw 1897).