Organizational Issues in the Cleopatra Case

First off, the members of the "Global Marketing Group" seem to have a tactic looking for a strategy, rather than a strategy looking for tactics to support it. Instead of evaluating the needs of various prime markets or target groups across the world, selecting those who might have the strongest potential and then developing a marketing strategy including product, price, place and promotion to fit that niche, the company took an existing product and tried to jam it into other markets unaltered.

One issue is that the success of Cleopatra in France was well known throughout the company and management had a natural inclination to want to spread that success to other markets. I would venture to guess that the entry of Cleopatra in France was a well thought out and developed product launch. The same diligence needed to be applied to the Canadian market.

It is easy for people to jump on the bandwagon when senior management are sold on an idea. Depending on the culture of a firm, it might actually be very difficult for lower level employees to voice their concerns as it might be perceived as disloyal or questioning the judgement of those who are in charge. If no one in Colgate-Palmolive management encouraged the role of a Devil's Advocate, concerns might not be voiced to an appropriate level. Thus, groupthink, poor reasoning and a lack of product analysis might have been systemic to the culture of the company when expanding products into new markets.

Steve Boyd, the Group Product Manager for Canada, and Bill Graham, Divisional Vice President for Marketing Canada, seemed eager to show the leadership in New York that Canada could be just as successful for the star Cleopatra product. It seems like both Bill and Steve were hungry for a big win and recognition from corporate. Stan House, Assistant Product Manager, seems to be unwilling to critically think about the success or failure of this product independently. He might be motivated by a desire to look supportive of the boss or his faith in the judgement of Steve. But either way, he has jumped on the "perfect market for Cleopatra" bus. Ken Johnson seems to be the skeptic of the group. The case doesn't describe the professional relationship among the players and it is difficult to tell if Ken is genuinely concerned about Cleopatra being the wrong product, if he is always resistant to change or if he feels discounted because other senior management doesn't agree with his Canadian "national" brand idea. No matter what the reason, Ken's thoughts about Cleopatra being a wrong fit for Canada needed to be thoroughly considered.

Another interesting point is that all of the key people mentioned in the case are headquartered out of the Toronto office and might not be familiar with the uniqueness of the French-Canadian culture as compared to France. The French generalization seems pretty myopic for people who represent and market products across the country. Since there was a major sales office in Quebec, the Canadian management team might have been well advised to seek input and assistance from people who were successful selling in Quebec. They might have been able to steer the team in a more appropriate direction for entry into this market. As a manager it is never safe to assume that you know it all. There is great information that can be learned from people at lower levels of an organization. Sometimes the best insights come from people who are doing the lowest level work every day. This reminds me of that new show, Undercover Boss. On the show, senior management is exposed to aspects of their company that they don't often see. Taking the time to ask for input from all employees can really help a business in the long run. The larger a company is, the more detached its leadership seems to become from those employees at the bottom of the ladder.