Multinational corporations tend to view globalization as a positive phenomenon because of its strategic appeal and its link to operational efficiencies (Steenkamp, Batra, & Alden, 2003). Yet, the political climate in many Western countries has recently been characterized as populist, nativist, or protectionist, as evidenced by the recent Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s successful U.S. presidential election campaign. Indeed, some claim that “globalization is out of favor” (O’Sullivan, 2016), and similar sentiments are being expressed in B2B markets worldwide where conglomerates like GE are shifting from a global brand strategy to a local brand strategy (Mann & Spegele, 2017; Murray, 2016). These geopolitical developments are relevant to business-to-business (B2B) marketing academics and practitioners as studies point to the significant value that accompanies a brand’s perception as global or local (e.g., Halkias, Davvetas, & Diamantopoulos, 2016; Swoboda & Hirschmann, 2016). Perceived brand globalness (PBG) is the extent to which individuals “believe that the brand is marketed in multiple countries and is generally recognized as global in these countries” (Steenkamp et al., 2003, p. 54). Perceived brand localness (PBL) captures individuals’ perceptions of the extent to which a brand is produced with the use of local resources (Davvetas, Diamantopoulos, & Halkias, 2016). Brands perceived to be global are appealing because they are viewed as having a minimum level of quality and are typically more prestigious (Swoboda, Pennemann, & Taube, 2012). On the other hand, local brands are important in markets where individuals are sensitive to local tastes and demands, and where support for local economies and resistance to globalization tendencies are common (Davvetas et al., 2016). Today’s global marketplaces demand that marketers understand how individuals choose between global and local brands and, importantly, why individuals prefer one or the other (Özsomer, 2012). While PBG and PBL have been studied in the business-to-consumer (B2C) context (e.g., Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013; Steenkamp et al., 2003; Swoboda & Hirschmann, 2016), they remain underexplored in the B2B setting. This is an important oversight because B2B markets are distinct from B2C markets in numerous, meaningful ways (Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2006; Kuhn, Alpert, & Pope, 2008; Webster & Keller, 2004). Further, while B2B branding research is still considered relatively novel, studies underscore its importance in an industrial marketing context (e.g., Brown, Zablah, Bellenger, & Donthu, 2012; Homburg, Klarmann, & Schmitt, 2010). This research examines the role of PBG and PBL within a B2B cobranding context. B2B firms increasingly rely on co-branding or copromotion strategies (e.g., Besharat, 2010; Chiambaretto, Gurău, & Roy, 2016; Helm & Özergin, 2015; Kalafatis, Riley, & Singh, 2014). Brand alliances1 are considered beneficial because of the potential advantages on offer (Voss & Mohan, 2016a). By engaging in brand alliances, firms aim to communicate or reinforce their distinct value propositions while leveraging aspects of the ally brand’s positive equity—often referred to as positive spillover (Simonin & Ruth, 1998).