There are three main international corporate level strategies which are the multi-domestic strategy, the global strategy and the transnational strategy. The multi-domestic strategy is when an organization works on becoming more customized and responsive for the international market instead of standardizing its products and processes for better efficiency. For example, MTV does not aim at standardization. It aims at becoming more responsive to the local environment. The multi-domestic strategy is one that could lead to dilution of the brand and what they stand for. For example, MTV was seen to have a strong audience following, but in choosing for local strategies, it has to compete with local channels and this brings down its brand reputation. Standardization would give it a better reputation.
On the other hand, a global strategy is one that is more responsive to the local market. There is standardization in how products are sold out. Only some minor modifications will be made. Consider Microsoft as an example. While it makes developments, the developments do not challenge where they run or how they are run. These are aspects that are heavily standardized. Similarly Proctor and Gamble is another company.
The multidomestic strategy has some advantages in that it caters to the local and specific needs of a market. However, there is not much efficiency here as only local and specific needs are catered to, and not efficient structures. Customizations based on local consumer needs are met but costs are a big trade off here. This results in some amount of lack of optimization in international business workings. In the case of the global strategy better standardization and optimization is achieved. However, the strategy does not seem to cater to the local audience better. Imagine a store selling products that are standardized for the western society, then the store would not do so well when it comes to eastern societies. Imagine a similar level of standardization causing a problem country wise, and then this is an issue that challenges the very concept of trade attractiveness.