Clearly, this matters for major global brands and poses important questions. For example, many brands have different voices around the world. Ensuring that they reconcile -- and remain consistent -- requires thought in any international campaign, regardless of channel.

But should brand stewards concern themselves with territories if their product or service isn't available? In a nutshell, while it's not a top priority, it does warrant consideration. Like it or not, the web is a global stage, and people will be looking at your content from all over the world. It's a great opportunity to expand a brand's reach and possibly create new channels. Consider that social networks map to cultural boundaries and are not delimited by geographic ones. So a brand with no reach in Asia may still do well with a campaign in Cyworld, if they are seeking to reach an Asian-American demographic; many Korean-American users are found on the Korean site. 

Another reason global reach is so important is that brands do not always translate well from one culture to another. Despite its amazing popularity within the Korean market, the U.S. version of Cyworld has been less successful. Extensive primary research, a change in direction toward a younger user base and updates to the visual design to reflect an edgier and more diverse audience, were all intended to ensure adoption in the U.S.

Some argue that it was not well received due to the privacy structure inherent in Cyworld. Based on the "chon," a Korean concept describing the distance between family members, it can be very tiered or nuanced, and perhaps cumbersome for a U.S. user. Brands that wish to reach out to social networks must understand and embrace the risks inherent in bridging cultural gaps.

Cyworld USA