Case Analysis D13001 Adil Khan 
Case Analysis- Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Rollout Adil Khan(D13001)
Q1. Did China and Mexico each do a good job of adapting the launch to meet local consumer needs? What is the likely profit impact of each plan? Which of the proposed adaptations were “must haves” versus “nice to haves”?
China
Though freshness accounted for 28% of consumer reason for a toothpaste purchase was a new concept Responses of the customer were above the norms for new toothpaste products in terms of buying behavior, perceived quality, value for money, and uniqueness
Sales in first year of 3882 tons, COGS as 50 % of sales and marketing expenses of 78%
Sales in second year of 4370 tons, COGS as 41 % of sales and marketing expenses of 42%
Given this trend the expected contribution margin will go up to nearly 70% and if marketing expenses comes down to 35% we have an operating profit of 985,000$ in 3rd year.
This adaptation is “a must have” as it clearly describes the need of the consumer that can be satisficed profitably.
Mexico
The main reason for purchase was cavity protection and freshness was an appealing concept.
Responses of the customer were below norms for new toothpaste products in terms of intention to buy, buying behavior, perceived quality, and uniqueness.
Sales in first year of 1600 tons, COGS as 47 % of sales and marketing expenses of 15%
Sales in second year of 1850 tons, COGS as 40 % of sales and marketing expenses of 10%
Given this trend the expected contribution margin will go up to nearly 70% and if marketing expenses comes down to 8% we have an operating profit of 700,000$ in year 3
This adaptation is “a nice to have” as it has acceptance that is slightly below par while at the same time preventing crest to gain acceptance in the market.
Q2. From a global CMF perspective, what is the short- and long-term impact of the complexity born out of these local adaptations? Is this added complexity good or bad for the global CMF business?
China
Globally, the
Q1. Did China and Mexico each do a good job of adapting the launch to meet local consumer needs? What is the likely profit impact of each plan? Which of the proposed adaptations were “must haves” versus “nice to haves”?
China
Though freshness accounted for 28% of consumer reason for a toothpaste purchase was a new concept Responses of the customer were above the norms for new toothpaste products in terms of buying behavior, perceived quality, value for money, and uniqueness
Sales in first year of 3882 tons, COGS as 50 % of sales and marketing expenses of 78%
Sales in second year of 4370 tons, COGS as 41 % of sales and marketing expenses of 42%
Given this trend the expected contribution margin will go up to nearly 70% and if marketing expenses comes down to 35% we have an operating profit of 985,000$ in 3rd year.
This adaptation is “a must have” as it clearly describes the need of the consumer that can be satisficed profitably.
Mexico
The main reason for purchase was cavity protection and freshness was an appealing concept.
Responses of the customer were below norms for new toothpaste products in terms of intention to buy, buying behavior, perceived quality, and uniqueness.
Sales in first year of 1600 tons, COGS as 47 % of sales and marketing expenses of 15%
Sales in second year of 1850 tons, COGS as 40 % of sales and marketing expenses of 10%
Given this trend the expected contribution margin will go up to nearly 70% and if marketing expenses comes down to 8% we have an operating profit of 700,000$ in year 3
This adaptation is “a nice to have” as it has acceptance that is slightly below par while at the same time preventing crest to gain acceptance in the market.
Q2. From a global CMF perspective, what is the short- and long-term impact of the complexity born out of these local adaptations? Is this added complexity good or bad for the global CMF business?
China
Globally, the