Podcast summary

This podcast features Katie Hart, a customer insights tutor at Cambridge Marketing College, discussing the Hofstede cultural dimensions model and its application in marketing. The conversation explores the model’s six key dimensions—individualism, indulgence, long-term orientation, masculinity/femininity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance and illustrates how cultural differences influence marketing strategies. Real-world examples, such as mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change attitudes, highlight the model’s practical value.

Kiran Kapur and Katie Hart discuss how globalisation and digital technologies are reshaping cultural dynamics, suggesting the need to adapt or expand existing frameworks for a more nuanced understanding of culture in marketing.

 

Podcast Transcript

This transcript is auto-generated.

Announcer (00:01):
The Cambridge Marketing Podcast with Kiran Kapur, brought to you by Cambridge Marketing College. See their range of courses and apprenticeships@marketingcollege.com.

Kiran Kapur (host) (00:13):
Hello and welcome. Today we are discussing culture specifically using Hof status cultural comparisons, and I'm joined by Katie Hart, Cambridge Marketing Colleges customer insights tutor. Katie, welcome. I know you are a little bit concerned that you're not an academic on cultural comparisons, but actually the reason I've asked you to come on and talk is because I saw a piece of work where you used Hofstede Cultural Comparisons in a way that really brought it alive to me and made sense. So I thought it'd be really interesting to explore the model in a sort of live context of how people can actually use it. Fantastic, yes, look forward to discussing it.

(00:53):
Great. So let's start with, can you just outline the Hofstede Model?

Katie Hart (00:59):
Yeah, absolutely. The Hofstede model has a number of different elements and what it does is it rates different cultures on each of those elements. So there's actually six components to the model, and through doing research with fairly large sample sizes, what they're able to do is give each culture a score, which marks them on a spectrum for each of those six elements. So what we end up with is the ability to really compare, and that to me is where the merit of this model comes in, is you can compare a number of different cultures and see where perhaps they have some traits that are the same and where they have some that may mean they need approaching in a different way.

Kiran Kapur (host) (01:44):
I found it absolutely fascinating, having taught the model for a number of years, actually seeing it come alive on a page because one gets very caught up in one's own culture, and in this case we are talking about a wider culture. It's not necessarily an organisational culture. We're talking about a nation's culture. And so one tends to see the world through the lens of your own culture. You assume that your culture is just normal, it's the zeitgeist. So can we talk through what the six are?

Katie Hart (02:15):
Yes, absolutely. And I think you're right, Kiran, that we do because culture is something that we're not usually taught our culture in a formal way. It's just something you grow up with. So very often you almost take it for granted or you overlook the fact that it is there and that there is the potential for other people to have different cultures, different views, and different sort of takes on the world. So being able to look at it and scrutinise it really does empower us and particularly when we're marketing and we want to reach out to different cultures, it's so important that we go into this with our eyes wide open. So yes, the six different elements in no particular order. So the first one is how individualistic a culture is. So as I say, each of these are a spectrum. So they range from low scores to high scores.

(03:11):
So somebody with a low score or a culture with a low score on individualism is a culture that actually cares a lot about the group and being part of a group and the loyalty to a group and values of a group. Whereas a culture that has a high score is much more individualistic. So it's much more about me. The United States has, I think it's about a 90, 91% score on individualism and we're not far behind them In the uk in marketing we often talk about what's in it for me. Well, that's classic US UK high individualism trait. So there is something that we come and look at it through that particular lens. But for other cultures it's very different. China for instance, is a culture which has quite low score for individualism. So they're much more about being part of a group and being loyal to that group rather than my own benefit triumphing.

Kiran Kapur (host) (04:13):
I found it quite interesting because obviously with covid and masks and compliance to mask wearing, you've got a huge movement of an individualistic culture like the states. And I think increasingly here where people are starting to turn around and go, "I don't need to wear a mask," where somewhere like Thailand, which is a highly collectivist country, I mean they score 20, which is on the sort of low end of individualism. The idea that you are fostering strong relationships and being concerned about other people is really, really important.

Katie Hart (04:47):
Absolutely. And yes, I mean that was a brilliant example where we can see it playing out on our news channel every day and it does cut right to the core of 'am I wearing a mask to protect myself', which I think is the argument a lot of people took. "So I'm double jabbed, I don't need to worry anymore. Therefore off comes the mask". Whereas as you say, with cultures who are much more collectivist, it isn't just about me, it's about the impact that has on those near and dear to me. And that doesn't have to just mean family, it can mean community, it can mean sort of geographically near to me as well. And they really value those relationships and they want to protect and preserve those as much if not more so than self-preservation.

Kiran Kapur (host) (05:32):
I think it's fascinating with how that work plays out in things like the climate emergency and how countries might view, "well, I'm only prepared to do this because it affects our community" and countries that perhaps are prepared to look at a more world community view.

Katie Hart (05:49):
Yes, absolutely. And we all need to be taking that world community view right now.

Kiran Kapur (host) (05:55):
Great. So that was individualism. Let's have another rating.

Katie Hart (06:01):
The next one is indulgence. So this is the extent to which a culture tries to control or override their impulses and their desires. So again, one end of the spectrum with a high score, you have a very indulgent culture. So people who are almost quite whimsical, if there's something that they want, they go for it. Very often it's cultures who have lots of HP [hire purchase], so if I want something now I'm going to go out and get it. Now I'm going to get it on credit and I'll worry about how I pay for it later sort of thing. Whereas the opposite end of that spectrum is much more restrained and low scores. There are organisations like Egypt for instance, who is very restrained and they are constantly overriding those desires and impulses and sort of managing them in a much more deliberate, intentional way.

Kiran Kapur (host) (07:02):
And you can see how marketing that might work for somewhere like the UK or Ireland where there's a very high score compared to marketing for somewhere like Egypt would be, you'd need a totally different message.

Katie Hart (07:17):
Absolutely you do. And that's really where the strength of this whole model comes in is seeing where you need a different message. So where actually just translating content into a different language is going to suffice and where actually you need to be much more deliberate about thinking about the way those messages are communicated and what the key takeaway from those messages are. Because yeah, as you say, if it's all about indulgent, if there's something you want come and grab it now. That will work in some cultures, but in other cultures that is not going to motivate them at all.

Kiran Kapur (host) (07:52):
This is great. So the next metric, what are we going for?

Katie Hart (07:57):
The next dimension is called long-term orientation. So this is really a measure of whether a culture is quite long-term in its view. So whether it's a culture which is often planning for the future, investing in the future, saving for the future, you can have quite thrifty traits in cultures which have a high score on long-term orientation, whereas the converse, so low scores of this one tend to be much more quick results. If I buy something, I want it. Now the concept of investing in things is completely different from them. They're not planning for the future, it's much more about immediate gratification. So that long-term orientation again is something which has huge potential for us, but its potential is much more significant in some industries than others. So for instance, when you look at financial services, if you're trying to talk about financial planning or encouraging people to invest in their future or pensions or invest in healthcare schemes, if you are in the United States, things like that, knowing whether your culture has a long-term orientation or not is going to really empower you to make those communications more effective.

Kiran Kapur (host) (09:19):
Again, I find this fascinating. So the UK on long-term orientation actually sort of comes in with quite an intermediate score. So we're not quite sure whether we are long-term or not.

Katie Hart (09:30):
Yeah, I mean I think as a culture we can have moments where we are quite long-term in our thinking, but again, because we have a very high score on individualism, the long-term is me, so it's my future. Whereas some other cultures that have a much more high score on long-term orientation are again, I mean back to your example of climate change, they're not just thinking about me, they're thinking about generations ahead and legacies for the future of not only their family but their community as well. So although yeah, we are pretty much on that midline, which says we don't really have a strong preference one way or the other. So that doesn't help us in terms of marketing messages, but it does mean that as a culture we are able to be either side of that line so we can be encouraged to be more future thinking and to be more thrifty, but at the same time we can fall for quick wins along the way as well.

Kiran Kapur (host) (10:31):
And Germany comes up quite highly on long-term orientation.

Katie Hart (10:35):
Yes, yes it does. Yeah. And there again is an example of an organisation that is when you look at what they invest in research and development and technology and being at the forefront of a lot of innovation, that's absolutely the culture being manifest within the industries and the organisations that we know them so well for.

Kiran Kapur (host) (10:59):
Great. So the next dimension,

Katie Hart (11:01):
The next dimension is always a bit of a controversial one, but it's called masculinity. So it's the high scoring end. So an organisation that has high in masculinity is a culture which is competitive. It values success and achievement in a very obvious way. The opposite end of the spectrum is referred to as femininity, and this is much more about being more, well they say it's about being more caring and it's about actually valuing the quality of life rather than the external appraisal of whether it's been a successful life and whether you've achieved a lot. So for instance, to give you some examples, Japan is a country which is incredibly high in masculinity. So they are very motivated by being successful and achievement and they want to be the best and they're very competitive and they have a score of 95% on this masculinity dimension. So that's almost about as much as you can be. Polar opposite is Iceland who only has a score of 10. So they are much more about being caring, being perhaps more socially aware and that sort of nurturing side rather than an all out competition.

Kiran Kapur (host) (12:28):
And again, yes, it's a shame in a way that you've got a masculine and feminine label on it because that makes it controversial, but actually that desire to be competitive versus a desire to be more caring I think is quite an interesting dimension in itself.

Katie Hart (12:45):
Yes, and I think it's one that we recognise in ourselves, in our children, in our societies as individuals as well as something that we can obviously interrogate cultures about and compare ourselves to other cultures with. But yes, I agree with you that the terminology is often what offends people, and I think it does tend to create more difficult comparisons about actually, which is what is desirable and what are we celebrating and what message are we conveying about whether these traits are viewed as positives or negatives as well.

Kiran Kapur (host) (13:21):
And the fifth dimension,

Katie Hart (13:25):
The fifth dimension is called power distance. So this is exploring the extent to which we accept that not everybody in our society is equal. So what we are really doing, we start from accepting that within all cultures there will be differences, there will be inequalities, some will have more power, some will have more money, others, and the dimension of power distance looks at how much the lower people within that culture, so those without the power and without the influence, the extent to which they really accept that. So it's sort of whether they accept their position or their lot or whether they are actually looking for less inequality. So again, we have high scores there where people are very accepting of the hierarchies, the structures, the inequality. That's something that they tolerate and they don't really question very much. So cultures that score high on that, for instance would be Russia is one of the very high scores, United Arab Emirates as another one that has a very high score.

(14:41):
So cultures that seem to be very comfortable with a hierarchy where you either sit at the top and you have lots of opportunity and lots of wealth and lots of power, or if you get dealt a different hand and you don't sit at the top, that's just the way it is, that's okay, that's something we accept. Whereas cultures on the opposite end of that spectrum don't accept it. So they are much less happy about the differences between different groups within their culture. And I think that's probably one where the UK, we are not exceptionally low, but we're in the sort of thirties on that one. So it's something that we don't have a particularly high score for, which as we can see manifest around us is much more about trying to reduce those inequalities and trying to make sure that people do have equal opportunities to experiences, progression skills, whatever it may be within our culture.

Kiran Kapur (host) (15:43):
Great. And the last one,

Katie Hart (15:45):
The last one is about uncertainty and the degree to which we can sort of sit comfortably with uncertainty or the degree to which we actually want to avoid it. So top end of the spectrum, high scores are cultures who are very uncomfortable with ambiguity. They want more security I suppose. So they tend to have quite rigid codes of conduct and beliefs and rules that people have to adhere to. Whereas at the bottom end of that spectrum, we are much more likely to tolerate not knowing, knowing exactly the way things are going to be. So an example of an organisation, a culture which scores relatively low on that is India. So India is a culture which is much more happy to tolerate things not being absolutely perfect, perhaps working out not as we'd planned, not as we'd expected, but they are much more likely to sort of go with the flow, whereas cultures that score high on that one. So again, Russia is exceptionally high on that, doesn't tolerate that uncertainty or that imperfection in anything like the same way.

Kiran Kapur (host) (17:05):
Thank you. So that was a very clear overview of Hofstede. Where have you found Hofstede is useful to use?

Katie Hart (17:16):
I think to me when I first was thinking about culture within marketing, I think we think of cultural sensitivities. So trying to avoid potentially doing what Facebook have done quite recently and using terminology which in a different culture is either offensive or which has a different meaning. And to me that feels quite superficial in terms of actually how we want to be perceived in different cultures. So where this model has real power is enabling us to create more compelling communications. So enable us to really talk to different cultures in a language which we know is going to resonate with them, which we know is going to land with impact and hopefully engage them. So there are all sorts of examples of how we can do that, and it really is about looking at the particular cultures and looking at the nuances of the particular industry you are working in.

(18:16):
So for instance, I've already said financial services, when you look at the dimensions of long-term orientation and individualism, they need handling very sensitively to really get the message across for different cultures who may score either high or low. But it's also things like with uncertainty avoidance. So if you are potentially selling a technology or something into different cultures with uncertainty avoidance, if you are talking to a culture which has quite low scores on that, then it's perhaps some of the traditional marketing methods that we would use. And it's talking about the benefits and perhaps the emotional associations with that technology. Whereas when you want to sell that into a culture which has high uncertainty avoidance, they're going to be much more interested in things like the specifications and the details and the warranties. They want to really reduce their risk, they want to know that this is going to be a good investment for them. So there's lots of different ways that we can really start to play with these different dimensions of the model and make sure that we aren't just assuming that other cultures are going to focus on the same sort of priorities and going to have the same sort of attitudes towards the benefits or the different attributes of our products and services that we have within our own culture.

Kiran Kapur (host) (19:53):
And as I said, I think sometimes we just assume that our culture is the worldview and you do have to step back and go, oh no, hang on a second, there is something else going on here. Particularly perhaps if you're in a customer service role where you've got somebody with a different cultural background asking questions and you can sometimes think, well why are you asking these questions? Well, it may be that they're reducing their uncertainty and therefore asking what could perhaps be seen as nitpicking questions around the warranty, for example, to use your example.

Katie Hart (20:25):
Yeah, absolutely. But obviously it goes beyond, it goes so broad. So we can think about the images that we use. So it's not just the language and the terminology, but it's also the images and whether we are representing something which is very much about a group benefit rather than it being about, if you think about some of these adverts where you've got a soul person, if you're a car advert for instance, you've got one person driving a car across a dust bowl somewhere, there's nobody to see for miles around individualistic cultures will love that. It's very much about me and it's about me being dominant in the space that I'm in. But you take an example like that to somewhere like China and it just wouldn't resonate at all because they want to be part of a group and they absolutely value that and actually they perceive a bit more danger of being on the outside of that and actually talking of danger.

(21:23):
It's quite interesting because things like colours as well as part of that. So as part of the images that we create, colours are really powerful. So the colour for danger for us in the UK is sort of red. It creates urgency, excitement, whereas in other cultures it has very different associations. So if we think of the Chinese New Year, it's all about happiness and luck. India brides wear it, it's about purity. Whereas South Africa it's a much more about mourning and sacrifice. So when we start to interrogate these different cultures, we need to make sure we are really, really aware of the potential associations that we could be creating with the content that we're pulling together.

Kiran Kapur (host) (22:16):
So are there any criticisms of Hofstede?

Katie Hart (22:18):
Yeah, of course there are. [laughter] I mean it has been around for a long time. It is very well established. I'm certainly not aware of anything better out there. But yes, it isn't perfect. You don't have to have conversations like this very long before you start thinking about the sort of individual differences within a group of people. So are we really saying that everybody in one of these cultures would respond in the same way? And that's clearly not going to be the case. But I think the more technology expands and the more global that we become, the more the reaches of culture are going to expand beyond the geographic boundaries. So there is also another criticism of Hofsteder that actually nation is synonymous with culture. So are we saying that actually once you cross a border of a nation, the culture is completely different, even though you could only be 20 kilometres away or just over the other side of the valley?

(23:24):
Does that really mean that your culture is going to be fundamentally different because you are part of a different nation? And I think for me, perhaps the most important conclusion I come to with this is that cultures are very dynamic. They aren't cast in stone, they do shift, they do adapt. And I think the pace of connectivity that we have across the world, that change and that shift is happening far quicker. So the work that Hof State has done is brilliant, but it really needs to be revisited on a very regular basis to ensure that the responses and the measures that countries are allocated on each of these dimensions are actually an accurate reflection of their culture as recently as we can possibly achieve.

Kiran Kapur (host) (24:14):
Katie Hart, thank you so much for bringing a much established model to life and to help us understand how we can actually use it. We've been talking about Hofsteder, that's H-O-F-S-T-E-D-E, Cultural Comparisons Model. Thank you so much for your time, Katie.

(24:33):
You're welcome.