Maybe Lenin was onto something when he said "Imperialism is the higest form of capitalism" (I have not checked this reference, but am assuming that the Wikipedia site was correct). Perhaps, though, the predicate could be more adeptly applied to cultural imperialism. I would imagine that the end result of capitalism would be a culture more broadly uniform in its ability to respond to a particular market. After all, the companies are looking to broaden their market share. Would not marketing in a way that allows you access to influence everyone be superior to more limited approaches? Also note that I'm not saying that they are using the same strategy, but that in their desire to reach new people, the dissemination of those products, and what they represent, would most likely result in a smoothed world culture (not homogenized).
However, many see capitalism through a merely western lens, whereas this merely labels and seeks to systematize a type of interaction is rooted more in any tit-for-tat relationship. As such, as opportunities to interact abound, so the culture (the way we reach people) becomes an integral part of the capitalistic outlook. The end result being 'cultural imperialism' via the current financial leader.