Durex Case Study

1178 Words5 Pages
In the minds of most Westerners, commodities manufactured in the West are better than those made in China. It should be stated that some brands from other parts of the Far East, such as Japan and South Korea, have of course achieved in establishing a good reputation for quality in the West (Melewar et al. 2003: 456). However, as cited in the introduction, in order to be successful, Chinese firms need to conquer the COO effect. It can be defined in many ways, including in terms of country-of-design, country-of-assembly, and country-of-corporate-ownership (Li etal. 2000). Yet, essentially it relates to country of manufacture. Compared to studies in the West, only a limited amount of research has directly examined the COO effect in relation to…show more content…
Although promoting condoms in China is very hard due to government barriers, the company is making considerable success. Durex has experienced a growing market share. In terms of the branded market, they have about 22 per cent. In Guangdong Province and Beijing they have about 25 per cent. In some parts of Guangdong, like Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Dongguan they have about 40 per cent market share. One of Durex’s local competitors is a brand called Jessbon. SSL plc sued Jessbon for stealing some information about Durex from their company website and claiming it as their own. A ‘known brand strategy’ take was incubated and created great enthusiasm amongst Chinese enterprises, which were willing to catch up with the lessons of branding strategy. At the central level was the China Council for the Promotion of Famous Brands, an organization that is in charge for “uniform evaluation, management, publicity and cultivation’ of brands.” Almost immediately people found themselves besieged by brands, many of which had the label of ‘famous brand’ at county, city or provincial level. This huge craving for famous brands has cooled down as a result of government efforts to stop various brand evaluation or rating exercises, which were regarded as misleading (Reuvid and Li 2005:

More about Durex Case Study

Open Document