I notice that the word “Global” has been used more frequently especially when describing a company’s involvement, but how global do they mean? Most of the time, they may just have a branch or respresentative office in a second country, and call themselves global. It reminds me of those american sports leaque calling themselves “world champions” when sports like football isn’t popular outside of NA to begin with. Having lived in some parts of the world, I cannot even say I’ve been to that many places to call myself “global”.
IMO there are very few companies that have the right to call themselves global business. I will consider companies like 3M, P&G, Microsoft and such as true global company.
I’m a student in the UK, studying industrial design and am doing a research project at the moment into; 'The aesthetic/design qualities of consumer products and how they appeal across different cultures.’ I am looking in particular at mobile phones.
I have devised an online survey and would appreciate it if people interested would complete it for me. I will post the results for all to see after the project is complete.
Stop being so provincial and trying to spit hairs here on this point. There are companies that do under $1 million in revenue who outsource to china, india, thialand etc.
You do not need be a mega brand to operate globally. In fact, any business plan to design, manufacture and import/export must be based in globility. To think otherwise you are just weaving baskets in some small village in Botswana or making bars of soap in New Hampshire. Most new ventures are spinoffs from mega brands anyway, because the new global relationships that surround the venture are too disruptive for the mega brand to deal with.
This is where design education needs to be heading for the future.
I never said you got to be big to be global. It just happened that the examples I sited are mega. There are some big corps that claim to be global but are not.
I look at the word “global” from more than a business stand point. I see it as the extend of influence of the company’s actions. If a company only has operations in US and Mexico, that’s not global. If a company only has operation in US and China, that’s not global. Global is a big word to claim. To me it’s more than “international”. I am mentioning this because I see more and more cases of abuse of the word in order to create the illusion that a company is more involved than what they really are.
And that’s a part of my point. The world is as big as what one can see. You hear Chicago Bulls claim to be the “world champion” when they won the NBA ( granted that no other team in the world could possible beat them). You see little airports with the title of “international” simply because they serve flights to Canada.
Most of us see the world as the part where we can see through the media. The rest don’t exist. There are very few companies that see those uncovered parts and are extending their influences. These may not be big companies, but their reach is far more extensive than what some big companies are doing.