|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | *Step 1
| + | Nutrasweet case |
| − | **Nutrasweet
| |
| − | ***Monsantos brandname for the chemical aspartame
| |
| − | ***70% margin
| |
| − | ***Patent from 1987 - 1992
| |
| − | *Step 2
| |
| − | **Challenger: Holland Sweetener Company
| |
| − | **Building an aspartame plant in 1985
| |
| − | **Anticipated patent expiration
| |
| − | *Step 3
| |
| − | **Monsanto's reponse
| |
| − | ***Deep price cuts
| |
| − | ***Contractual relations with customers
| |
| − | *Step 4
| |
| − | **HSC goes to court and force access to the customers
| |
| − | **Word war: "We are going to extend this fight to the US"
| |
| − | *Step 6
| |
| − | **Monsanto's position before and after competition
| |
| − | ***Before
| |
| − | ****No alterantive to Nutrasweet
| |
| − | ***After
| |
| − | ****Nutrasweet advantage greatly reduced
| |
| − | ****What left was brand value and cost advantage
| |
| − | *Step 5
| |
| − | **Coke and Pepsi signed new long term contracts with Monsanto
| |
| − | **There seemed to be an opportunity for competition: why blow it?
| |
| − | **Why?
| |
| − | ***Don't want to create perception that it is fooling around with the recipe
| |
| − | ***Monsanto already had gone through the learning curve for making aspertame and had a cost advantage
| |
| − | ***The just where after a 'price advantage'
| |
| − | *Step 6
| |
| − | **Consequence for HSC:
| |
| − | ***There was value for Coke and Pepsi
| |
| − | ***HSC could have demanded compensation for creating the competition
| |
| − | ***Once compensate it was more difficult for them to make money
| |
| − | ***Too quick to become a player
| |
| − | ***Should have captured what Coke and Pepsi could do for them upfront
| |
| − | *Step 7
| |
| − | **Monsanto position
| |
| − | ***Cost advantage and brand awareness was a great asset
| |
| − | *Step 8
| |
| − | **Coke and Pepsi position
| |
| − | ***Reduced dependency on single player
| |
| − | ***Savings of <math>200 M</math>
| |
| | [[Category:mbi]] | | [[Category:mbi]] |
