Monsanto Case Study

Question 1: Will the advertising campaign that is proposed at the end of the case study be effective in penetrating the European Market?
No the advertising campaign proposed at the end of the case study would not be effective in penetrating the European Market.
Question 2: If it doesn’t work, what is a better entry strategy for Monsanto?

Monsanto failed to capitalize on the key issues that ultimately led European to oppose genetically modified foods. Firstly, Monsanto took an approach that was targeted to Europeans as a whole. In other words, Monsanto should have campaigned in a fashion that is unique to each country within Europe. For instance, if Germans are sensitive to buying foods that are domestically grown, Monsanto could have proposed that they would open up a facility in Germany. This would have no only created jobs in the local economy but would have also satisfied the Germans with respect to preserving their culture. Every country within the European Union is different and as a result the advertisement campaigns should also be different for each country. This is a major component that Monsanto failed to address.

Another strategy could have been to use a pull strategy than a push strategy. Monsanto used traditional methods of trying to educate the European population: newspaper advertisements, toll-free hotlines, leaflets, websites, etc. These are all push strategies meaning the company is trying to persuade their objective through traditional means. Rather, if the company used a pull strategy they would have been more successful. Many individuals are not going to go out of their way to educate themselves on the benefits of genetically modified foods. The one occasion they will be interested in such subjects is when they are shopping at the local supermarket or deli. Monsanto should setup information booths and provide free samples to customers when they grocery shop. This would allow customers to be enticed by the free samples they offer and also receive some information on GM foods which would allow them to make a better choice.

Monsanto makes incredibly drastic claims on their technology and product but do not support it with hard evidence. Monsanto should do longitudinal research studies on the health benefits/deficits of genetically modified food. By doing more of these studies on various cultures and demographics, Monsanto would have hard facts to support their position. The public do not want to hear claims of what Monsanto and GM foods can do rather they want to see hard facts approved by organizations that are credited around the world. Perhaps if the Germans and Austrians can see the benefits of GM foods they would be more susceptible to purchasing such foods.

Overall there are various strategies Monsanto could have capitalized on in order to penetrate the European market. Their failure to attract the European audience is largely due to poor market research and an in-depth understanding of the European cultures. The aforementioned strategies with regard to penetration of the European market all should have been implemented in order to ensure success and acceptance of GM foods. Furthermore, a strategy that encompasses a pull method rather than a push method would have certainly impacted the results. Monsanto now must face the challenges of people’s concern over food consumption due to a public outrage on diseases such as mad cow and other diseases associated with food that are not directly linked to genetic modification. European cultures are risk-averse and in order to truly entice the European audience, there needs to be substantial evidence to illustrate that GM foods are beneficial. Monsanto needs to go back to the drawing board and re-strategize if they truly want to penetrate the European market.