Read the following case study and write a paper about it:

There are some products that are sensitive in the sense that if wrongly perceived, could create a lot of controversies. The most affected line of business whose products are deemed extra sensitive would include medicinal products and foodstuffs. The reason as to why some of these products are considered sensitive is based on the fact that their wrong use, or misinterpretation of their information, could go to extreme cases of death by the consumers. One such product that brings this aspect into a clear perspective includes the Nestle baby formula product case scenario.

This is one company (Nestle) which has been of massive global criticism as its baby formula product, is alleged to cause mortality among infants of the third world countries. Its global figure is seen when huge organizations such World Health Organization (WHO) intervene the situation as the results affects a huge population. Nonetheless, there are major questions that would require clear solutions in addressing such a scenario. Why is it that a global product (in this case Nestle baby formula product) impact negatively on some regions of its market and not others whereas the product is the same? What information does the involved institution address prior releasing a product to the global market? These are some of the major questions that such allegations would have to address before giving a judgment.

Basing this analysis on the given scenario, then there are some crucial responsibilities that global firm should assume. One of them would include a comprehensive communication strategy when marketing -in the sense that what the product ought to do - should be clear and concise to consumers. The language should be relevant to the different markets (for instance, using French language in Senegal, Mali and Cote D’ Vore). Having such a strategy in place, would avoid instances of misinterpretation of crucial information pertaining the product. In a nutshell, this would avoid the major confusions that would arise whenever a product is misused.

This was however not the case (to some extent) by Nestle which resulted in great fatalities in the death of infants. The crucial part that the institution failed to emphasize on in its marketing strategy, was based on the exact role of the product. This ought to have been necessary given the fact that third world countries are - to some level – illiterate. If at all Nestle should have taken that crucial step of emphasizing what role that product is supposed to play, then infant mortality cases would have been on the lower end with minimal blames being put on the Nestle product.

Since the blame had already downed on Nestle Company, measures should be adopted to avoid such a scenario in future. One of the important measures would include conducting as many programs as possible on informing the market or public, what a product is used for, how it is used and why it should be used. The various confusions that may arise on a given product in addition to the resulting exact effects of the product would be avoided amicably.

Another crucial strategy of avoiding such a scenario in the future, would be based on involving all the concerned institutions before launching a product in the market. In essence, this would mean that in case an adverse effect of a product is realized on a certain market, then the entirety of a blame would not lie on the producing firm solely. This is however not a common scene since a clear vetting procedure is normally followed when various expertise is sought out for during approval of a product is required.

If given an opportunity to address and give a judgment on Nestlé’s case, then various factors should first come into play. The literacy level of the market is one crucial factor that should be addressed. If at all the information describing the attributes of the product appear not clear and concise enough to the users of the market, then the firm should be held responsible if adverse effects result from the use of that particular product. In line with this, the various strategy for informing the public on the general purpose and use of the product are not effective enough, then it should be noted that the firm ought to have been held responsible.

The other vital fact that ought to have keen input when judging the Nestle baby formula product, is based on the ignorance level of the consumers. It could be true that the public might be having enough information and knowledge pertaining to a particular product, but then assume the same and misuse the product for purposes it should not be used for. Ignorance is one of the lee ways of shortcuts to doing things irrationally among third world states as proven by research. If this is proven actually true, then Nestle Company should not be held responsible on the mortality observed.

In conclusion, the Nestle Company should take advantage of the prevailing negative effects of breastfeeding among third world countries mostly including the HIV infection related to the same. In such markets, again it would be important to comprehensively inform the public on the purpose of the baby formula milk product. Such information, coupled with the disadvantages of breastfeeding, would be greatly considered a b=huge plus in marketing the product’s brand. Practically, this would include emphasizing the advantages the Nestle product would have on the markets that HIV positive mothers.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Nestls Situation Introduction There are some products that are sensitive in the sense that if wrongly perceived could create a lot of controversies The most affected line of business whose products ar... View the full answer