Delivered at the MRS UK New Product Development Conference, March 9th 2011 Many of the largest global businesses are headquartered in the Western world, often with innovation activities centralized and driven directly from these headquarters. This paper focuses on the differences inherent between these markets based on Faceʼs experience of innovating in developing markets over the last couple of years. It will talk about our experiences gleaned from working in 3 of these BRIC markets specifically – Brazil, India and China, and show the lessons learned about the crucial differences in approach and mentality required to co-create successfully NPD breakthroughs in these markets. Written by: Esther Garland, Associate Director, Face and Marilena DʼAmone, CMI Director Emerging Markets, Reckitt Benckiser

1. Mind the BRIC – how to successfully conduct open
innovation projects in BRIC Markets
Delivered at the MRS UK New Product Development Conference, March 9th
2011
Esther Garland, Associate Director, Face and Marilena DʼAmone, CMI Director
Emerging Markets, Reckitt Benckiser
Introduction
Many of the largest global businesses are headquartered in the Western world, often
with innovation activities centralized and driven directly from these headquarters.
There is a problem with this approach. Itʼs a fairly obvious point to make, but an
important one, that the emotional and rational needs, the state of the category, and
the level of consumer sophistication differs in each market. And this means Brand
Owners canʼt simply take centralised innovations or concepts, “translate” them and
expect them to work or perform in the same way as they do in our Western markets.
This is why increasingly these global companies are recognizing the need to adopt a
more bespoke innovation strategy.
This is particularly important when it comes to the new “hot” markets such as BRIC
that are ever increasing in terms of significance, power and opportunity with the
seductive combination of huge populations and rapid growth in consumer spending
power.
As brands enter new markets, the need to develop and communicate new products
against new consumer needs and innovating with consumers becomes ever more
important. And getting innovation right leads to big prizes.
But categorizations like BRIC are themselves misleading, and hide a myriad of
important cultural differences. The approach taken to innovation has to be different in
each market; itʼs not a one-size fit all approach however the global pie is sliced.
This paper focuses on the differences inherent between these markets based on
Faceʼs experience of innovating in developing markets over the last couple of years.
It will talk about our experiences gleaned from working in 3 of these BRIC markets
specifically – Brazil, India and China, and show the lessons learned about the crucial
differences in approach and mentality required to co-create successfully NPD
breakthroughs in these markets.
Innovating the Face way
As the co-creation planning agency, Face uses co-creation not only to create new
products for our clients, but increasingly insight, communications, brand positioning
and brand strategies.
We believe in working with people, not at them; working directly with consumers,
clients, agencies and experts in the innovation process as equal and active creative
partners, with each party bringing their own specialist expertise to the table.

2. To work with consumers in this way does require the right type of consumer. We
work with people who are creative, articulate, enthusiastic, skilled abstract and
conceptual thinkers, but who are ultimately consumers, representative of the
category target market demographically and attitudinally and are not professionals
(unless of course that is the target audience!)
We work online and offline, with a process that typically encompasses individual,
small group, “crowd” level samples and back again. (See figure 1)
Figure 1: Faceʼs Innovation Process
4 cultural differentials impacting innovating in BRIC markets
This paper will talk about the differences in approach and mentality required to run
successful co-creative open innovation programs in BRIC markets like Brazil, India
and China.
There is obviously a level of generalization required in order to pull out the
differences between these markets, and as such it is worth recognizing that not all of
the learning and principles will be true in all cases and with all consumers.
However we believe that there are 4 key areas of cultural difference that impact the
approach required to run open innovation projects in these BRIC markets:
1. Openness to innovation
2. Natural interaction dynamics
3. Creative processes
4. Working style

3. 1. Openness to innovation
It once again sounds obvious, but for open innovation to work, a market needs to be
open to the idea of innovation at a cultural level.
Many of the large global brand owners have been so very successful in innovating in
our western markets because as a culture our recent consumerist history has lead us
to believe mostly that new is better; that there is always a bigger, better deal out
there.
That is not always the case.
Our experience has shown us that Brazil is similar to our Western countries when it
comes to openness to innovation, but that it can be more challenging in China.
There are three main traits that lead to a less “innovation open” Chinese
environment.
Firstly we have found it to be difficult for Chinese consumers to challenge the status
quo; their communist social history, and Long Term Orientation1
conditions them to
accept willingly what they are offered as the best option available. Making things
better is simply counterintuitive to many.
Secondly we have found that Chinese Consumers can tend to have a more linear
and rigid thought pattern; the Chinese consumer tends to think about one thing at a
time, and once they get into a particular thought pattern or direction it can be hard to
shift them out of it.
And finally as a product of an education system that emphasizes rote memorization
over creativity, knowledge over ability, we have found they also have a natural
tendency to imitate or copy over innovating – copying both what is already out there
on the market, and what others in their group might come up with.
As a result when working in China the natural scale of innovation is often quite
polarized; the Chinese consumerʼs “creative range” is not very developed. Typically
what comes easiest are either small, simple and very incremental innovations or
something completely tangential (i.e. science fiction or completely out of category or
scope). It can be challenging to get the Chinese consumer to think anywhere in the
middle.
Implications
These points are really most relevant when thinking about the stimulus you use as
part of the creative process, as this can be used both to help stimulate creativity and
bridge the gap in the innovation scale.
Stimulus in China needs to be more abstract and left field in order to give the
Chinese consumer permission to think differently, to knock them off track and get
them challenging the status quo. We have found that using tools such as cross
category and cross culture ideas and experts, random objects textures and images,
counter-intuitive and unrelated words, and imaginary scenarios (often generated from
global trends or the “state of play” in other markets) can be very effective in helping
the Chinese consumer make the required creative leaps.

4. By way of comparison, in Brazil, where consumers have a naturally more conceptual
and dynamic thought model, we have found that stimulus needs to be used more to
direct and set the parameters for them to create within. We have found that here it is
a case of increasing, rather than decreasing the relevance for example using more
adjacent categories, relevant words to avoid generating ideas that are hard to tie
down into a workable idea. Brazilians, as a highly stylistic culture have a natural
tendency to focus on creating abstractly new and exciting concepts in co-creation,
rather than things that actually directly solve an unmet need or desire.
2. Natural interaction dynamics
The importance of group dynamics when conducting research is well documented,
but once you throw the need to create together into the mix as in co-creation,
creating the right group dynamics becomes of critical importance.
There are some crucial differences in how people in each market approach both the
idea and experience of co-creation that drive the need to flex project design and
approach.
Brazil is by nature a collective and highly social culture and this means working in
teams, even with strangers, is in no way daunting or uncomfortable. Opportunities
like taking part in research are often in fact seen as an opportunity to meet new
people and learn new things. Groups will naturally adopt an equal and inclusive
communication pattern, regardless of status or role.
Chinese social culture by comparison is quite formal, reserved, respectful of status
and role, and research can often be seen as “business”. As such we have found that
consumers donʼt naturally and spontaneously interact with one another in these open
innovation sessions, instead preferring to focus the majority of their communications
on the moderator.
Furthermore there are important differences in how people naturally relate to each
other when they do talk in these cultures.
In China, stimulating debate is hard; opinions are kept to themselves unless explicitly
asked for on an individual basis; maintaining harmony and balance is the prevailing
norm.
In Brazil, the intellectual cut and thrust that allows ideas to develop and grow
happens naturally; argument and debate is the standard mode of social
communication and interruption is viewed as enthusiasm!
Implications
This means in China the workshop agenda and exercises have to be designed to
structure a group building process necessary for open innovation.
We have found that including a mix of individual and group exercises all the way
throughout the sessions helps with this as it both forces the Chinese consumer to
challenge thinking and gives them permission to do so without losing face or
disrupting group harmony.

5. The more reserved and status aware, natural interaction dynamic in China also
requires that when working face to face with consumers in the way Face often work,
in a number of small co-creative teams, each team needs “internally facilitating” to
help foster and normalize that dialogue and group dynamic.
This has obvious implications in terms of the resource required to drive the program
forwards both from an agency and client perspective. Itʼs crucial from a client team
not only to have people who are personable and able to suspend being a “client” and
engage on an equal level, as in all co-creation, but people who are also capable of
using their clients skills in a consumer friendly way.
However even though we have mentioned the fundamentally Chinese issues around
individuality and their place in groups and society, it is worth making clear that we
experienced none of the issues around working directly with clients in China that one
may have anticipated.
We believe that this is due to the type of consumer that Face typically involve in their
co-creation programs. For these creative, articulate, forward thinking consumers, the
respect for status manifests itself in more sensitive way than providing a handicap to
the process.
Figure 2: Natural interaction dynamics
The above learning around natural interaction dynamics in both cultures also teach
us something about the best way to interact with these cultures in open innovation.
In Brazil the best stuff comes from working face to face. Brazilians are of course a
culture that share and interact by their very nature; a culture where touch and body
language are as important facets of communication as words. Online tends to lack
the emotion or engagement characteristic of their culture; itʼs effectively asking a
Brazilian to communicate with their hands behind their back!
In China on the other hand online is the perfect medium. Where Chinese consumers
are colder, more reserved, more closed off to the facilitator and each other face to

6. face, the exact opposite is true online. The anonymity affords permission for the
Chinese consumer to express themselves more openly without the fears of “losing
face” or being judged. Through working with Chinese consumers on our Mindbubble
platform, we have found you can get fantastic, emotional stories, verbal imagery and
language, and a real honesty and interaction between participants that is incredibly
insightful and helpful in building concepts and innovations.
3. Creative Processes
The outputs required in innovation are typically the same wherever in the world you
are doing it, but in order to get there clients and agencies need to recognize the
difference in how consumers think and tailor their approaches accordingly. This is
perhaps the biggest area of significance when it comes to thinking about how to
approach open innovation in these markets, and areas where some of the biggest
differences exist within consumers in BRIC (Figure 3).
Chinese consumers have a tendency to be very rational and literal, and Mianzi
(saving face related to personal prestige) is still a strong cultural influence. We have
found that the Chinese consumer tends to be extremely diligent and fearful of
misinterpreting instructions or not being able to do the task required of them.
By comparison the Brazilianʼs natural start point is more emotional and abstract; their
natural thought process more dynamic and fragmented. However they are still goal
orientated and have a low tolerance of uncertainty.
In India there is less of a focus on logic at all; the Indian consumer is much more
open to unstructured ideas and situations than either Brazil or China. Additionally the
Indian consumer tends to be much more task orientated, with the enjoyment of a
process derived as much from the inherent tasks as the achievement of the end goal.
Implications
The above findings have significant implications on how agencies need to structure
projects and agendas in each market.
In order to run a successful co-creation in China, agencies need to design very clear,
concrete, discrete tasks, and help the Chinese consumer build up to the final output
logically and sequentially. Project and workshop design needs to take them on a
journey, step by step. Additionally agencies need to design the agenda and exercises
such that they allow the Chinese consumer to be literal and functional first, and then
add on the emotional to those building blocks.
In Brazil by comparison, agencies need to use techniques and tools to allow
consumers to build in the rational and tangible; to ground the emotional and abstract
in real needs and benefits.
In India an agenda comprised of discrete but seemingly unrelated sections can work
well as not only does it play better into how they naturally think, but it helps keep the
more task orientated Indian consumer engaged.

7. Figure 3: Creative processes
We have found that using a series of templates that build up to a final output works
well in China. It not only provides a framework that allows the consumer to feel
completely safe to create within, but it also provides a tangible output and roadmap
for them which removes anxiety around performance and achievement.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, we have found templates can work well in Brazil, as they
force the naturally abstract and conceptual Brazilian to structure their thinking and
build in the logic. However it is key to position them as a way to capture the overall
idea at the end of the process rather than a framework for telling the story used
throughout (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Templates help structure thinking

8. The outlined differences in creative process and nature also contain some learning
for the final outputs from co-creation, be that NPD or brand.
In China when it comes to developing and writing concepts rational, functional
substantiation is key for the Chinese consumer – very emotionally focused or
expressed concepts struggle with believability.
However, in Brazil often the rational substantiation is less necessary. Brazil is a very
high context culture2
, meaning a strong emphasis is placed on the overall
presentation rather than on the words used alone. As a result, for many Brazilians,
the eloquence with which you present your position becomes a part of the message.
So, often, as long as it is interesting, emotive and inspiring it will be received with
warmth.
4. Working style
The final section of our paper deals with the different approaches to task completion
in the different markets.
A workshop should always be fun and creative (in our opinion, whatever the market
or brief) but itʼs worth stating here that the more rational and literal mental style and
approach of the Chinese consumer does not mean that agencies should run equally
rational and literal sessions. The Chinese consumer can be highly creative, with
conditions created to help them get to where you need them be.
But even with the most playful and dynamic workshop in the world, differences in
approach to task completion will have knock on effects for facilitation style.
Chinese culture places a strong focus on achievement and success, and consumers
are task committed with a strong sense of personal responsibility to the group.
However their fear of losing face, means that unclear instructions or expectations
related to a task will not be challenged or questioned by a Chinese consumer, and
this will create anxiety and discomfort that can hinder the process more than it would
in other cultures.
Brazilian consumers will attack each and every exercise with passion and gusto for
as long as it is fun and stimulating. Brazilians naturally talk and think quickly and
dynamically, meaning that boredom has a tendency to be quick to come by and will
not to be tolerated well. Interestingly, and perhaps in contrast to Geert Hofstedeʼs
findings around the Brazilianʼs low tolerance for uncertainty, we have found that the
Brazilian consumer also appears to like the ambiguity of how to reach an end goal as
it allows them to be more creative and more naturally suits how they think.
In India however we have found itʼs harder to keep consumers focused on the task,
both in terms of time and depth of thought and interrogation, before descending into
the natural social chatter that is characteristic of Indian culture.
Implications
These differences in working style mean that Facilitators have to adopt different roles
and styles in the different markets.

9. In China, the role of the Facilitator is to direct and support the consumers clearly
through each stage of the task not only to ensure the objectives are achieved, but
also to ensure the Chinese consumer feels comfortable and empowered to be
creative.
In Brazil the role of the Facilitator is to set the overall goal of the task but then step
out and let the Brazilian consumer get there however they see fit – negotiating the
journey seems to be half the fun (as evidenced by the very Brazilian Jieto)!
When working in India we have found that the role and approach of the Facilitator
should be more akin to a coach or school mistress; keeping the Indian consumers
focused, encouraging them to probe and push further as they may not naturally go
there themselves.
Conclusions
The speed with which you can negotiate co-creative innovation programs in the
markets differs, as does the amount of planning, and resource required (particularly
when working face to face). As such agency and client teams need to be realistic
both about how long a co-creation project will take to yield, but how much time and
energy they will have to commit to the process itself.
Conducting open innovation programs take significantly longer in China, or India than
in Brazil.
In Brazil they think and talk fast and groups need less internal facilitation, however
the more structured and logical path you need to go through in China means that
things just take longer. While in India itʼs a case of a slower pace of thought and life
overall, and it is harder to keep them focused – and of course the numerous food
breaks!
It is undoubtedly tougher in China and India than in Brazil as you do need to plan
more carefully and devote resource. But instilling that diligence in planning and,
particularly in China, utilizing online methodologies can bring huge rewards both
emotionally and physically.
Co-creating in developing markets is definitely possible, despite their developing
status, and with the right approach, the rewards for any agency or Brand owner can
be significant.
References:
Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture, 1976
Geert Hoffstede Cultural Dimensions www.geerthoffstede.com