Global or local? Hub or spoke? This old debate is asking the wrong question.

Global and local marketing teams are supposed to be on the same side. Instead, they’re playing tug of war with multimillion dollar budgets. We’re all pursuing the same goal — so why are we competing? 

We tend to see problems either top down (re: competing priorities and KPIs) or bottoms up (hello broken processes and ineffective roles) but asking a few critical questions can help give a guiding light towards a better balance. Plus, as we think about the acceleration and opportunities presented with AI, the duplication and confusion runs the risk of compounding. 

Here’s where it gets interesting.   

Why the Current Models Fail

Competing market demands

Here's the daily reality: Global teams are crafting 18-month masterpieces while local teams are putting out fires with yesterday's brief. One group plans for the marathon, the other sprints toward moving targets. Result? Nobody wins. 

Budget ownership 

When nobody owns the whole budget, everybody owns pieces of the mess. Global allocates strategically, local spends tactically, and finance discovers they've funded the same campaign twice. Meanwhile, competitors are eating your lunch with half the spend.

No Feedback Loops 

Handoffs tend to happen in isolation, with global teams developing campaigns without sufficient local input, then passing rigid parameters to local teams who lack the context to execute effectively. The absence of feedback loops means successful local innovations rarely inform global strategy, while global teams remain disconnected from market realities.

The right balance between global and local isn't universal - consider these critical questions:

How standardized is your product/service across markets?

• Highly standardized: Centralize brand messaging, decentralize cultural adaptation
• Moderately adaptable: Centralize core brand, allow significant local product variation
• Highly customizable: Decentralize most decisions, centralize only brand standards

What's your market maturity spectrum?

• All mature markets: Focus on efficiency and consistency through centralization
• Mix of mature and emerging: Hybrid model with different decision rights by market stage
• Primarily emerging markets: Decentralize to allow rapid local learning and adaptation

How fast does your competitive landscape change?

• Slow-moving industries: Annual planning cycles with centralized strategy work effectively
• Moderate pace: Quarterly strategic reviews with monthly tactical adjustments
• Rapid disruption: Real-time decision authority pushed to local teams with lightweight global oversight

The most successful organizations use these questions to design decision rights that match their specific context rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.

The optimal balance between global and local control varies significantly by industry category, with successful companies tailoring their operating models to match product characteristics and market dynamics.

Global-Centric Model 

P&G doesn’t reinvent Tide for every market. They learned the hard way that “Tide cleans tough stains” means nothing if local teams can’t afford the media during peak sales seasons. Global creates the playbook, local teams execute the plays—primarily handling media buying and regulatory compliance—with enough budget flexibility to win. 

The standardized nature of products like detergent or toothpaste means cultural adaptation focuses mainly on language translation and local media preferences rather than fundamental product or message changes.

Hybrid Model

A balanced approach tends to be a better starting place for QSR brands as they require more localization due to food preferences, dietary restrictions, and cultural eating habits, but benefit from global consistency in brand experience and operational efficiency.

McDonald’s cracked this code decades ago: The golden arches and “I’m lovin’ it” stay consistent, even while Taiwan sells the McRice and Mumbai sells the Maharaja Mac. Global owns the brand identity and operational standards, while regional teams own the taste buds—adapting menus and messaging for local tastes and cultural norms. 

Culture-Sensitive Model 

Brands tied to cultural expression like athletic apparel and lifestyle brands tend to require significant local empowerment as cultural norms, social preferences, and messaging cues  culture, fashion preferences, and aspirational messaging vary dramatically across markets. Global teams focus on brand positioning and major investment decisions while local teams have substantial creative autonomy.

Product-Led Global Model

Tech companies often centralize heavily due to standardized digital products and global user expectations. However, they may decentralize market entry strategies, local partnership decisions, and compliance approaches while maintaining unified product development and core brand messaging globally.

The truth is that success requires restructuring roles, processes, and accountability around decision types rather than simply addressing organizational hierarchy. 

Stop reorganizing and start clarifying. Modern marketing teams aren’t drawn on org charts, they’re built around decisions. Who decides what, when, and with whose money? Answer those clearly, and the rest solves itself. Chances are, your competitors are building agents to steal market share while your teams are debating dotted lines.