Colgate's Distasteful Toothpaste

451 Words2 Pages
Case Summary of Colgate's Distasteful toothpaste 300303273 Mi Li It’s quite ironic that there is no sense of racialism if “Darkie” is owned by its Chinese company, Hawley and Hazel. But the Reality is, it is “Darkie” who put Colgate in the teeth of storm. Colgate did nothing wrong in the whole case except for underestimating his rival Procter and Gamble and NGO ICCR. It’s so successful a product that Colgate really reluctant to modify the package and the image on the package in the risk of losing consumers’ loyalty. The toothpaste in some Asian countries such as The People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand was not considered offensive. But in traditional western countries it was linked with racialism. Colgate just did the “morally right thing”( Colgate-Palmolive chairman Reuben Mark said in January 1989), to express their understanding of respect and equality, which comply with Kantian Philosophical Traditions. "Black Person Toothpaste is still Black Person Toothpaste" (Slogan of Colgate’s Chinese-language advertising campaign). Nobody lost in this case, but Colgate was the only winner, even if it wined difficultly and facelessly. The value of Colgate’s stock increased throughout this period of controversy. The price of stock never lies, it always shows the confidence of market. So actually Colgate is much more a long term viewer, they care about the future partnership and common interest with partners, not only short term profit and market reaction. We would say Colgate was lessoned by its American identity rather than Culture differences. To make the right decision, it should obey the code of conduct of worldwide known MNC, follow the conscious and of course the moral code, balance the interest of stakeholders, partners and consumers. It’s quite unusual for a company to acquire 50 percent stake of its joint venture without any management
Open Document