“From the Orb vault” is a series of previous market research, presentations, blurbs, and other conceptual writings that we will start publishing regularly, in hopes it might help shape views on the often unregarded topic of global expansion and localisation (L10N). Through these insights, we aim to shed light on the complexities and inefficiencies that many overlook in the rush to scale internationally.
A strange thing happens when a company takes its first steps into international markets. The assumption (reasonable at first glance) is that fidelity in translation equates to effective communication. A phrase is lifted from the source language, rendered into another with impeccable linguistic accuracy, and yet, somehow, it fails to land. The message arrives, but it does not resonate.
This failure is not one of grammar, nor of vocabulary. It is not even, in the strictest sense, a failure of translation. It is a failure of alignment.
Localisation operates in two orthogonal dimensions: linguistic fidelity and market resonance. The first concerns itself with preserving meaning, ensuring that the message remains unaltered in its journey across languages. The second concerns itself with reception: how that message is perceived, whether it carries the intended weight, whether it activates the right associations in the minds of the audience. These two dimensions do not always point in the same direction.
Consider the case of humor. A joke can be translated with perfect accuracy and still fall flat because humor relies not only on words but on shared context, implicit assumptions, and the rhythms of speech (see Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, where cultural competence determines one’s ability to grasp and appreciate social cues). An advertisement, meticulously localised to retain the original phrasing, may still alienate an audience because the cultural frame in which it was meant to be understood has shifted beneath it.
Luxury brands understand this, though often only in part. They grasp that their products are aspirational and that aspiration is culturally contingent. They know that the way prestige is signaled in one country may differ from another. Yet even among these brands, surprising missteps emerge, often rooted in well-known sociological concepts, if one delves into the field:
- Campaigns that feel strangely off-tone e.g., Dolce & Gabbana’s chopsticks ad in China, which unintentionally patronised its audience, illustrating Edward Said’s notion of Orientalism.
- Celebrity endorsements that ring hollow e.g., Kendall Jenner’s Pepsi ad, which attempted to channel social activism but came across as trivialising real protests.
- Linguistic choices that technically make sense but fail to evoke desire e.g., Mercedes-Benz initially entering the Chinese market as “Bensi,” which sounds like ‘rush to death’ in Mandarin, demonstrating how linguistic relativity, as proposed by Sapir-Whorf, can shape perception.
This is the heart of the problem: linguistic fidelity and market resonance are not always aligned, and prioritising one at the expense of the other is a strategic error. If a message is perfectly translated but fails to persuade, it is useless. If a message resonates emotionally but distorts the brand’s intended meaning, it is dangerous.
The solution, if it can be called that, is not simple. It requires a methodology that does not reduce localisation to a mechanical task. It requires an appreciation for what words do beyond their dictionary definitions. It requires, above all, an awareness that language is more than a conduit for meaning: it is a social, cultural, and economic force, one that interacts unpredictably with the environment into which it is placed.
And so, to those navigating the complex, multidimensional space of global communication: be wary of false symmetries. Translation is not a function that maps one language cleanly onto another. It is a transformation, and like all transformations, it will induce distortions.
