not prevent them from using smartphones and tablets (Cliquet et al. 2018), and the Absher application that Saudi Arabian men use to track their wives does not help.
1.2.2.2. Definition of geomarketing
Geomarketing is based on digital geography using computer science, that is, computerized cartography and therefore geography on the one hand and marketing on the other. It is a term coined in France by practitioners in the 1980s. Strangely enough, this word is almost unknown in North America 30 years later. On the other hand, we hear about micro-marketing, geodemographics, GIS or Location Business Intelligence in the United States, even though people are familiar with geomarketing in Quebec. It has subsequently spread to the European continent: there is research on the openly displayed theme of geomarketing in Belgium (Gijsbrechts et al. 2003), and above all specialized works, often short and technical, for example in Germany (Schüssler 2006; Tapper 2006; Grasekamp et al. 2007; Herter and Mühlbauer 2007; Trespe 2007; Menne 2009; Kehl 2010; Kroll 2010), Spain (Chasco and Fernandez-Avilez 2009; Alcaide et al. 2012) and Italy (Galante and Preda 2009; Cardinali 2010; Amaduzzi 2011). In France, there are books by consultants that generally present, in a clear manner, the possibilities offered by their firm (Marzloff and Bellanger 1996; Latour 2001) and academic books either oriented towards business studies (Douard 2002; Douard and Heitz 2004) or methodology (Barabel et al. 2010) or concept and strategy (Cliquet 2006). Some books on digital geography also deal with geomarketing (Miller et al. 2010).
There are of course many definitions of geomarketing. However, most of these books agree at least on the objective of geomarketing, which aims to introduce spatial data into marketing analyses that are often totally lacking. However, “about 80% of all business-relevant information within a company has a relation to spatial data” (Menne 2009), in other words, 80% of the information related to a company's business is linked to spatial data.
Some will argue that the dramatic increase in online data tends to reduce the importance of spatial data. In fact, the opposite is true since a very large part of this online data is geolocated.
Geomarketing can simply be defined as a field involving disciplines such as digital geography and marketing, but also social sciences such as economics, sociology, psychology or anthropology, because geomarketing makes it possible to understand much more precisely the behavior of economic actors and the environments in which they operate. These behaviors and environments are changing increasingly rapidly as a result of demographic pressure and climate change. All these developments cannot be ignored by strategists in both private and public organizations.
1.2.3. Content of spatial marketing and geomarketing
Introducing space into management and marketing decisions in particular means resolving a dilemma that is driven by a priori oppositions such as local versus global or adaptation versus standardization.
1.2.3.1. Local versus global
The local level is often overlooked by strategists, while it can sometimes be realized that a priori remarkable strategies on paper are simply inapplicable on the ground, a fact that many politicians would do well to consider. Neglecting the field has sometimes cost even the largest multinational firms that thought the world would adapt to their strategies and genius: the major American firms have long thought so like General Motors CEO Charles Erwin Wilson, who said in 1953, “What is good for General Motors is good for the United States and what is good for the United States is good for the world.” Today, things have progressed on this front and everyone is aware that globalization is more a myth than a reality (Douglas and Wind 1986). But in the face of this dilemma, a question arises: should we first globalize and then localize in a top-down decision-making process or localize before globalizing in a bottom-up approach? Some believe that it is better to use a “glocalization” process (Svensson 2001; Kjeldgaard and Askegaard 2006; Cliquet and Burt 2011) by trying to show that it is appropriate to globalize your business strategy and at the same time localize your marketing strategy in the broad sense (Rigby and Vishwanath 2006) in order to attract customers very quickly, hence the need for located databases (Douard et al. 2015). We were able to show how Walmart had to change its marketing methods, and thus its so-called organic growth, when this major American distributor bought Asda in the United Kingdom in 1999 (Matusitz and Leanza 2011).
The purpose of introducing space into decision-making processes is both strategic and tactical: strategic, because a strategy must also be able to express itself in terms of territorial gains and not only in terms of turnover or market share, which are too global concepts; tactical, because the company will need to know its local markets well to implement its strategies efficiently and not only effectively.
1.2.3.2. Standardization versus adaptation
The second way of presenting the dilemma refers to the presumed opposition between, on the one hand, standardization (in other words, total standardization) and on the other hand, adaptation, which involves taking into account the local environment. This apparent conflict is frequent, particularly in the definition of retail and service outlet network strategies. The elements at the heart of the strategy are commonly distinguished from the elements at the periphery, which can be described as secondary (Kaufmann and Eroglu 1998). The elements at the heart of the strategy must never be adapted, as they are essential for brand recognition at any time and in any place by real and potential customers. On the other hand, it must be possible to adapt the peripheral elements when necessary in order to satisfy customers as much as possible regarding their tastes, consumption habits and even traditions. This problem is especially specific to the marketing of franchise networks, even if it is found in many sectors from the moment that activities are relocated or spatially distributed (Cox and Mason 2007). Indeed, while chains tend to want to simplify their offers, including geographically in order to benefit from better productivity and therefore lower costs, their customers increasingly want product customization. The idea of mass-customization then emerged as necessary (Pine 1993; Piller and Müller 2004). Indeed, in franchising, the brand is, with the know-how, one of the two fundamental concepts in the very definition of the network’s activities.
Let us take a concrete and very significant example of this problem, the bakery chain under the Great Harvest brand (Streed and Cliquet 2007). The first bakery was opened in 1976 in Great Falls, Montana (United States), the second in Kalispell, also in Montana. But the objective was not to distribute exactly the same type of bakeries everywhere. Freedom has been left to the franchises to manage their bakery (the “front office” in front of the customers) as they see fit, knowing that the “back office”, the making of bread in particular, is maintained by the chain. In fact, the founders, Pete and Laura Wakeman, created the first “freedom franchise”, which they define as follows:
We provide an alternative with some of the advantages of a traditional franchise and some of the fun of a “let’s-do-it-all-ourselves” start-up. Our philosophy is simple: let’s create unique neighborhood bakery cafes that are a reflection of the Great Harvest brand and the bakery cafe owner. We are no cookie cutter franchise. We are a freedom-based, healthy franchise that encourages excellence and individuality (not to mention a spirit of fun and generosity).2
There are now more than 200 Great Harvest franchises in the United States (including Hawaii and Alaska). And every franchised bakery must be the bakery in the city: we immediately see the importance of localization and the need for highly targeted spatial marketing.
But often, the franchisee’s freedom is more restricted and the peripheral components of the franchise are more limited, thus reducing the possibilities of adaptation. However, even large chains such as McDonald’s have realized that excessive standardization
