1.

Discuss the reasons for the initial failure of P & G in Japan

THE MAJOR REASONS
–lack of understanding of Japanese culture.
-lack of understanding of Japanese needs.
-not adopting the products to the Japanese needs,
-ineffective marketing strategies.
2. Where did P & G go wrong (if it did) in the evaluation of the
Indian market and its strategy?
-lack of understanding of Indian market needs.
-not adopting the products to the Indian needs
-not understanding the buying patterns and buying decisions of the
Indian consumers. -under estimating the competition strength.
3. Discuss the reasons for the difference in the performance of P
& G. THE REASONS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF P& G IN CHINA,
-better understanding of the Chinese culture.
-hence better understanding of the Chinese market / needs
-adopting the products to the Chinese market
-adopting the appropriate marketing strategy. IN INDIA,
-it was just the reverse in approach.
-hence the results too
–a disaster.
Discuss the reason for the initial failure. Discuss the reason for
the initial failure of P&G in Japan.
Ans.P & G entered Japanese market in year 1973.P & G entered
Japanese market with American products, American strategy,
American managers, and American sales method. This was the major
reason of  their failure in Japanese market. The main reason that they
were not successful in the initial stage was that the company did not
learn how to t the company did not learn how to adapt products and
marketing style to Japanese culture. If P & G would enter Japanese
market with the product according to the taste of Japanese people,
then they do not have such kind of disaster. One reason was also that
the American managers work according to the work conditions of
America, so they are not able to put their 100% in work in Japanese
market.

Where did P&G go wrong in Where did P&G evaluation of the

Indian market and its strategy? P&G entered the Indian detergent
market in the early nineties with the Ariel brand through P&G India.
P&G also introduced products like shampoo, medical products and
personal products of men and women. The Indian detergent market
was dominated by Hindustan lever Ltd from Past many centuries. So,
this was one of the reasons that P&G was not able to take over the
market. P&G more over introduced detergent with the brand of Ariel
which was sold at the price of Rs.60/kilogram, whereas the alternate
product by the Hindustan lever ltd. Nirma was Hindustan lever ltd.
Nirma was sold for Rs.8/kilogram. This was the major mistake made
by made by P&G that they introduced the alternative product at
higher rate in the market which was already dominated by Hindustan
lever ltd. Even though this product was targeted at the consumers with
high disposable income, who represented half the urban population,
consumers simply baulked at the outlay.
Discuss the reason for the difference in the performance of P&G
in India and china.
Ans. The difference was because, china’s business worth several times
than in India in less than 12 years, has emerged as highly promising
market for P&G. When the Chinese market opened P&G was the first
MNCS to enter china. The performance was better in because
percapita income is much higher in china than that of India, and the
growth rate in china is also much faster than in India. All these signify
that there is high disposable income with the people of china. Another
reason for P&G’s better growth in china is that understanding the
Chinese culture was much easier since the Chinese was not very
different from those back home whereas most Indian expats tended to
adapt far more to the cultural of the immigrant country.
Conclusion After going through this case study it is clearly
understood that if company wants to enter the market of the country
then it should adopt the strategy any methods according to the market
to that country and not by sticking to the methods and policy the
country of the parent company. Moreover, the company should
analysis the competitors of the country related to that product.
Company should also decide the price of the product according to the
percapita of the country.
INTRODUCTION
The case is all about how RICE Tec tried to enter the international
basmati market with the varieties like Kasmati and Texmati that were
developed using a new strain of aromatic rice by interbreeding
basmati with another variety.
When it comes to Basmati, Rice Tec which obtained patents was
objected by the Indian non-government organization (NGO’s). India
challenged arguing that Basmati was grown in the northern India and
not a name that Rice tec could claim and that inventions can be
patented.
ANSWERING TO THE FIRST QUESTION:
Basically, patents are given for the new innovations. And moreover,
these inventions can be patented only if they satisfy 3 criteria-
Novelty (like the product must be genuinely new without any prior
knowledge), Non-obviousness (The innovation should be obvious)
and Utility (the innovation should be used practically)
Firstly, Turmeric cannot be patented as it has been used in India since
thousands of years and unless until its new use is not being invented,
it cannot be patented as it would not be called invention for which
generally patents are given.
Likewise, neem also cannot be patented as neem is used in India since
many years say for medicinal purposes and all. So, until its new usage
is implemented patents cannot be issued.
Basmati name cannot be patented as the name is given to long rice
having food fragrance grown in the northern part of India and
Pakistan for thousands of years.

SECOND QUESTION:
The government of India reacted immediately after learning of the
Basmati patent issued to RiceTec Inc., stating that it would approach
the US patent office and urge them to re-examine the patent. Also, the
Council for scientific and industrial research (CSIR), Agriculture,
Biotechnology, All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA),
APEDA, and Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) set to
begin an in-depth examination of the case.
Also, RiceTec has got a patent for only three things: growing rice
plants with certain characteristics identical to Basmati, the grain
produced by such plants, and the method of selecting the rice plant
based on a starch index (SI) test devised by RiceTec Inc." The
lawyers plan to challenge this patent on the basis that the above-
mentioned plant varieties and grains already exist and thus cannot be
patented. As basmati is not patented by geographic location even
within India, the country's international patent appeal appears weak.
And Finally, India won the case and RiceTec has to withdraw his 15
claims out of 20 but the main question which always comes out is that
whose basmati it is? So, we can evaluate government role as fair
enough for protecting the name basmati because government
immediately reacted against it, made a committee, and took help from
those who have already experienced same in case of turmeric and they
also prevented patent of basmati through APEDA under ministry of
commerce through re-examination and finally won the case based on
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS.