China’s Brand Globalization

Going Global on an Unfinished Power Base

“Marketing is about values” — Steve Jobs

Before discussing “going global,” we must clarify two often-conflated concepts: export and brand. Export measures scale and channels; brand concerns identity, legitimacy, and long-term bargaining power.

On the surface, Chinese trade remains resilient: reaching new highs in 2024, with exports still growing in 2025. However, these impressive numbers mask deeper structural pressures. Exports to the United States, Europe, and other traditional consumer markets are slowing and increasingly politicized. The ability for products to appear on foreign shelves no longer guarantees genuine acceptance. The identity of “Made in China” still provides few added value, and in many cases, it remains a liability, no matter how good the product itself is. For many Chinese companies, the real shortcoming lies not in manufacturing or design but in legitimacy, ethical foundations, and the ability to convey “meaning of production.”

Why has this happened?

For decades, China’s competitive advantage relied primarily on scale, efficiency, and low costs, while systematic brand building has lagged significantly. Even many “advertising professionals” and “brand managers” still have a superficial understanding of what a “brand” truly is. Even those trained in top multinational companies may grasp some technical skills but often unconsciously operate within the ideological framework of the West.

To this day, most Chinese companies have not managed to transform China’s historical, cultural and value resources, as well as technological advantages, into clear and differentiated propositions for specific global audiences; there is still a severe lack of brand narratives, identity construction, and value-driven communication.

This internal capability gap is further magnified by the increasingly rigid external narrative environment. The U.S.-China trade war has placed tariffs, export controls, and investment restrictions at the center of policy, and the logic of “decoupling” and “de-risking” has swiftly spread from trade to technology, data, finance, and even information and opinion warfare. In large swathes of Western political and media contexts, major Chinese enterprises are often viewed from a security perspective, regarded as “dangerous,” “risky,” or as tools of the Chinese government to exert influence.

In such an environment, many Chinese brands are forced to actively “de-value” and “de-Chinese” themselves. They no longer dare to express their positions openly but retreat to simple “product talk”: performance, quality, price and local consumer insights. Some even go as far as intentionally downplaying or concealing their Chinese identity, adopting a more “international” visual system, naming conventions, and even corporate structures to appear as if they come from elsewhere.

Tactically, this might make sense; but strategically, it is a humiliation: how come a brand that does not dare to be itself, that does not believe in its own identity and value, can genuinely lead the industry? A brand so fractured between soul, faith, execution, and expression is destined to lack lasting persuasive power.

Of course - this situation cannot be entirely blamed on Chinese branders. Because global branding is not purely an economic issue, but more fundamentally a political issue grounded in national power.

A strong brand often stems from a country’s fundamental essence and strength. They appear in groups, representing its origin’s strengths, value and proposition. French luxury, Japanese quality, and American innovation all did in this way. Such brands are actually spreading in an orderly manner under the so-called Western democracy system. This value system, led by the United States, has long been regarded as the world’s most legitimate and reasonable value system. Under the absolute military, financial, and media dominance of the United States and its allies, brands within this system amplify and disseminate these values to every corner of the world.

People, organizations, and nations that do not align with this system’s interests—including, of course, products and brands—are regarded as anomalies that should not exist, or even as enemies. When brand comes from China — a country that now challenges the United States and Western value systems in every respect, they are naturally at a disadvantage in terms of legitimacy and morality, subject to attacks from the Western democratic value system.

At present, it must be acknowledged that China’s national strength seems insufficient to protect its brands’ free access to all parts of the world, let alone support its brands in boldly exporting values labeled as Chinese. Chinese brands may still need a long time to proceed cautiously in their value propositions—otherwise they risk being labeled an “evil” or “illegal” monster and destroyed

To that end — many brands are attempting a “clever” approach — resonating with customers with a so-called “mission, vision, and values” that transcend the East-West framework — neither deliberately pandering nor deceiving. I acknowledge this is inclusive and forward-looking, but in actual practice, these brands still avoid emphasizing their Chinese identity — essentially pretending that “this vision” and “this idea” originates from somewhere else in the world, not from Chinese entrepreneurs. While this approach can indeed enhance brand power to somehow, this solution still operates within a “de-China” framework.

Since the brand’s place of origin, story, and founder’s identity fail to resonate in harmony, its influence is inevitably limited. Moreover, this deliberate concealment may still pose moral and legitimacy issues in the future. Who knows when it might be labeled as fraud and accused of misleading local consumers.

Considering everything — China might remain far from building a brand ecosystem comparable to America’s at its peak, one that can freely impact markets with its own propositions. At this moment, as a brand from China, pragmatism is essential; survival and sustainable profitability must come first. But in the long run, Chinese brands cannot forever downplay their origins, hide their values, or outsource the production of meaning to others. They need to develop their own brand theory system, lead not only in product and technology, but also in philosophy, thought, and lifestyle, and practice an identity and expression that is consistent in word and deed.

Sadly, without national strength, all of this is just empty talk.

"Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you, and you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use” — Steve Jobs