Clash of cultural values: Epic expansion and merger fails

DKDaniela KirovaContributing writer · Psychology, New Bulgarian University

Growing a business internationally takes a delicate balance of grasping cultural nuance and getting the timing right. The examples below will show you why. Get it wrong, and it costs a company far more than money and a bruised ego.

Here's the thing I keep coming back to: even a great idea can fail. Businesses need to be genuinely cautious when they expand into unfamiliar territory, or when they try to combine two autonomous, unique entities into something new. Culture doesn't just come along for the ride in these deals. It often decides the outcome.

Let's look at some companies that didn't make it abroad, and some mergers that failed for the same underlying reason.

Target didn't explore Canadian shopping habits

Target expanded into Canada with a lot of confidence. They'd been wildly successful at home, so why not take the same playbook north? They approached the Canadian market almost exactly like they approached domestic expansion.

Less than two years later, Target had lost billions of dollars and figured they wouldn't turn a profit for years. The brand laid off around 17,600 employees and liquidated all 133 of its Canadian stores.

What went wrong? Target leaned hard on huge discounts and advertising to draw shoppers in, which had worked beautifully in the US. But Canadians weren't responding the same way. Some retail analysts have pointed to a shift in how Canadian shoppers approached discount-hunting over this period, and anecdotally, more of them had come to see clipping coupons as more trouble than it's worth — though no single study puts a firm number on either shift.

Canadians tend to stick to their shopping lists. Americans, by contrast, lean more toward impulse buys and pay closer attention to advertising.

Put those pieces together, and you get one of the more spectacular retail failures in recent memory.

Walmart bets on German frugality - and loses

Walmart tried Germany in 1997. It did not go well.

Germans have a reputation for saving rather than spending, so Walmart figured there was a discount market waiting to be tapped. In theory, that's not an unreasonable bet. In practice, the market never became lucrative, thanks to restrictive working-hour rules, thick bureaucracy, and complicated labor laws.

There was a subtler problem too: Walmart didn't account for how much Germans value personal space. Customers were unsettled by Walmart's famously friendly greeters, and most preferred to bag their own groceries, thank you very much. Walmart pulled out of Germany nine years after arriving, having lost $1 billion US dollars along the way.

Home Depot was ahead of its time in China

China's economy was booming through the 2000s, and DIY giant Home Depot figured it was a good moment to break into the local market.

After opening a dozen stores, they discovered something rather fundamental: DIY really wasn't a thing in China yet.

Home improvement is a beloved pastime in the West. In some developing economies at the time, though, fixing up your own home read as a sign you couldn't afford to pay someone else to do it. Home Depot shut down all its Chinese stores in 2012, losing $160 million after taxes.

Here's the twist, though. They really were just ahead of their time. Revenue in China's DIY and home-improvement market has since grown into the tens of billions of dollars, and it's expected to keep climbing at a mid-to-high single-digit rate each year, though the exact figures shift depending on which research house you ask.

Starbucks in Australia: too fast and too pricey

Starbucks made much the same mistake with Australia that Target made with Canada — assuming that because coffee is coffee, the culture around drinking it would translate. They pushed into the Australian market in 2000, expecting Australians' coffee habits to mirror Americans'.

The first crack was price. Starbucks came in too expensive for a market where local providers already dominated. The losses accumulated slowly but steadily, reaching about $105 million by 2008. Starbucks closed 61 stores that year alone.

The chain hung on for six more years before finally selling off the rest of its stores to another franchise operator.

What Starbucks needed, and never really gave itself, was time to actually understand Australian coffee culture. That culture has real roots — it traces back to Greek and Italian immigrants who arrived in the mid-20th century and brought espresso with them. Long before Starbucks arrived, Australians had already developed their own distinctive drinks, like the Australian long macchiato, though nobody can quite pin down the exact decade it appeared.

More importantly, and I think this is the real lesson here: socialising at coffee shops is highly valued in Australia. Starbucks' whole model was built around speed and convenience, coffee-to-go, the quick pick-me-up. That's very much a US lens on what coffee is for, and it simply didn't fit.

On top of all that, Starbucks' sugary menu never quite won over local tastes either.

Tesco didn't grasp the US shopping experience

Tesco opened its Fresh & Easy shops in the US in 2007, a few years after the local-and-organic food wave had already crested. That timing was the first of several missteps. The US economy was also teetering toward recession, and consumers weren't in a mood to overspend on groceries.

Then there was the format itself. Fresh & Easy stores were small, built for people who shop daily — which is exactly how a lot of people in big UK cities live. Americans, though, shop very differently. They buy in bulk, and tend to do a big grocery run once every two or three weeks rather than little and often.

Tesco also leaned too heavily into self-service checkouts, again ahead of where the market was, while overlooking the leading US supermarkets in favor of chasing niche shoppers.

Tesco's American venture folded in 2012–2013. The chain closed more than 200 stores, with losses estimated somewhere between $1.6 and $2 billion depending on how you count it.

The case of Best Buy's cultural misalignment

Best Buy entered the UK in 2010, planning to open 200 stores. They managed 11, and closed all of them within about a year and a half. Part of the problem was timing — they'd picked a steep economic downturn to launch into — and the venture lost tens of millions of pounds, including GBP62.2 million in its final full financial year alone.

But there was a cultural misread here too. Best Buy chose isolated locations, away from the larger population centers. UK shoppers simply aren't inclined to travel long distances for electronics, or honestly for much else.

Add to that a broader shift: much of UK electronics spending had already moved online, driven by convenience and rising fuel costs, with many customers buying smartphones and tablets straight from Apple or other specialist retailers instead.

Mattel's miss and hit in China

In 2009, Barbie maker Mattel made its first run at China. It was a miss, and a spectacular one. The company built an enormous Barbie flagship store in the heart of Shanghai's retail district — reportedly somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 square feet across six floors, complete with a Barbie-themed bar and a stairway lined with hundreds of Barbies.

The trouble was cultural, not architectural. Chinese parents at the time were focused on educational toys and skill-building, and many saw Barbie as more of a distraction than anything else. The giant Barbie store closed within two years.

There's a pricing dimension too. Chinese customers' purchasing decisions tend to be less price-driven than Western customers', and they often prefer custom-made products over mass-market ones.

Mattel tried again in 2017, this time partnering with online retailer Alibaba. Online shopping was, by then, becoming an increasingly popular alternative to physical toy stores in China, according to some market observers. This second attempt seems to have actually worked.

Top mergers failed by incompatible values

Plenty of famous companies have entered acquisitions and mergers hoping to reshape the market with some new combined offering. Sadly, many found their values and cultures simply didn't mix — resulting in failure. And, as you'll see, one unlikely success.

Amazon and Whole Foods: efficiency vs. idealism

Amazon and Whole Foods merged in 2017, letting the online retail giant move beyond e-commerce into groceries through Whole Foods' physical stores. The values and cultures of the two companies, though, were different enough that the merger never quite clicked the way either side hoped.

Amazon's core values center on technology and efficiency — personalisation is a relatively low priority. Whole Foods, on the other hand, has always been driven by more idealistic values.

In the years since, Amazon has reshaped Whole Foods considerably — integrating checkout technology into stores, pushing prices down. Whole Foods still had roughly 500 to 535 stores, across the US and a handful of international locations, in 2022.

AOL and Time Warner: worlds apart

AOL's takeover of Time Warner was the largest of its kind in US history, and it failed largely because of cultural incompatibility. The two companies had almost nothing in common when it came to values or corporate culture.

They missed critical opportunities to move online advertising forward because tradition and modernity simply didn't cooperate. AOL led in certain areas, sure, but Time Warner kept marketing its own products and services in those same niches regardless.

Time Warner, having already been through two mergers, had a culture where every business unit ran autonomously. AOL, by contrast, prized profit above all and leaned toward short-term goals.

AOL shrank rapidly after the deal — partly because of the culture clash, partly because dial-up was dying as broadband took over. It's been part of Yahoo, Inc. since 2021.

Google and Nest: rigid structure vs. informality

In 2014, Google acquired the start-up Nest, drawn in by its innovation and automation chops. The two proved incompatible fairly quickly. Nest's approach was more structured; Google's was more casual, bottom-up, and engineer-driven. Nest, meanwhile, placed greater weight on transparency and ran a more top-down culture.

Novell and WordPerfect merged more than 20 years ago, hoping to build something strong enough to take on Microsoft. It didn't just fail to happen — the merger dragged down both companies' share prices and led to massive layoffs on both sides.

The root cause was a severe culture clash. Novell planned to absorb WordPerfect's products, services, and culture, and to instil its own values across the combined team. WordPerfect wasn't having it, and the friction bled into the wider business.

Eventually, Novell sold WordPerfect off for a fraction of what they'd paid.

Clash of the railroad titans

Pennsylvania Railroad and New York Central Railroad — two long-time competitors — merged in 1968 to form Penn Central, at the time the sixth-biggest company in the US.

It turned out to be a disastrous decision. Decades of fierce rivalry don't just evaporate because two logos become one, and the two sides were never really prepared to cooperate. Penn Central filed for bankruptcy in 1970.

Chrysler dropped off the map after the Daimler merger

Roughly two decades ago, Chrysler and German automaker Daimler (maker of Mercedes-Benz) merged in what was billed as the "merger of the century." The reality fell well short of the hype. Conflict started almost the moment the deal closed, and the combined entity struggled from there.

The clashes ran deep — over expenses and payment, formality, operating style, the works. Daimler's culture ended up dominating, and Chrysler employee satisfaction cratered. Significant losses were forecast as early as 2000, and layoffs began in 2001.

The struggles continued for years. Cerberus Capital Management bought a controlling 80.1% stake in Chrysler for $7.4 billion in 2007. Chrysler filed for bankruptcy two years after that.

Daimler, for its part, kept operating with reasonable success — announcing a string of partnerships and start-up acquisitions in the ridesharing space in 2017, and continuing to invest heavily in engineering and patent development. In 2022, Daimler rebranded as Mercedes-Benz, chasing greater value as it moved into electric vehicles with a focus on digital equipment.

The unlikely success of HP and Compaq

And here's the one that bucks the trend. Hewlett-Packard and Compaq were both struggling computing companies back in 2001. HP acquired Compaq a year later, in a merger that looked ill-fated from day one. Compaq valued swift decision-making and selling at almost any cost. HP valued consensus, cooperation, and a more engineering-driven approach. On paper, a poor cultural match — and the market agreed, wiping out around $13 billion in combined market capitalisation.

Ten years on, though, it became clear the merger had actually worked. It produced a genuine global tech powerhouse, with strong revenue across printers, computers, and servers — which, notably, is exactly what the two companies had promised customers when they joined forces.

After the integration settled, HP strengthened support for its enterprise products and refined its partner program. Compaq brought real enterprise focus into HP, pushing it further into enterprise-targeted technology than HP might have gone alone. It's a bit ironic: Compaq was the smaller company, yet it often felt like Compaq had acquired HP, since its sales- and enterprise-focused approach ended up shaping the combined culture.

The deal also removed two of HP's biggest rivals from the board, grew HP's market share, and handed it some genuinely high-value product lines — enough to go toe-to-toe with Dell, a rivalry that's still very much alive. HP and Dell remain two of the most prominent computer manufacturers around. As of April 2022, Dell held 27.2% of the US PC market compared to HP's 23%.

HP kept the Compaq brand alive for lower-end systems until 2013, when it finally retired it.

Sources

Discover your own core values

Take the free, research-backed Values App assessment — nine minutes, max.

Discover your values