BRL Hardy case report
BRL Hardy case
1. Explain how BRL Hardy was able to achieve such a remarkable post-merger success? What are its sources of competitive advantage?
According to the case, before the merger of BRL and Hardy happened, the two companies have quit different strategies and organizations. Hardy was known for award-winning quality wines, while cooperatives specialized in fortified, bulk, and value wines; thus they brought marketing expertise, brands, and winemaking know-how which were BRL needed. BRL had more aggressive and commercial culture compared to Hardy; thus they had access to fruit, funds, and disciplined management which were Hardy’s lacking elements. Therefore, they worked together will perfectly matched.
After the two companies merged, they accounted for 22% of the Australian wine market and 17% of national wine exports. With higher market share and greater brand awareness, the new merged company got more advantages to success. Also their CEO introduced a new strategy to make their new company improved in the market. The strategy is simple but fit for their situation, they would protect its share of bulk cask business but concentrate on branded bottle sales for growth. Obviously, this strategy used both BRL and Hardy’s advantages and combined them in a great shape.
2. What is the source of tension between Stephen Davies and Christopher Carson? How effectively has Steve Millar handled the differences?
The tension between Stephen Davies and Christopher Carson is from a debate about what kind of strategy should be used in the U.K.’s market. Davies wanted to use a global brand strategy, but Carson believed that is hard to operate in U.K.’s market.
The tension made both Stephen Davies and Christopher Carson keep thinking further about the strategy and improving it. Millar utilize the debate make the company become much powerful in marketing.
3. Should Millar approve Carson’s proposal to launch D’istinto? Why/why not?
Millar should approve Carson’s
1. Explain how BRL Hardy was able to achieve such a remarkable post-merger success? What are its sources of competitive advantage?
According to the case, before the merger of BRL and Hardy happened, the two companies have quit different strategies and organizations. Hardy was known for award-winning quality wines, while cooperatives specialized in fortified, bulk, and value wines; thus they brought marketing expertise, brands, and winemaking know-how which were BRL needed. BRL had more aggressive and commercial culture compared to Hardy; thus they had access to fruit, funds, and disciplined management which were Hardy’s lacking elements. Therefore, they worked together will perfectly matched.
After the two companies merged, they accounted for 22% of the Australian wine market and 17% of national wine exports. With higher market share and greater brand awareness, the new merged company got more advantages to success. Also their CEO introduced a new strategy to make their new company improved in the market. The strategy is simple but fit for their situation, they would protect its share of bulk cask business but concentrate on branded bottle sales for growth. Obviously, this strategy used both BRL and Hardy’s advantages and combined them in a great shape.
2. What is the source of tension between Stephen Davies and Christopher Carson? How effectively has Steve Millar handled the differences?
The tension between Stephen Davies and Christopher Carson is from a debate about what kind of strategy should be used in the U.K.’s market. Davies wanted to use a global brand strategy, but Carson believed that is hard to operate in U.K.’s market.
The tension made both Stephen Davies and Christopher Carson keep thinking further about the strategy and improving it. Millar utilize the debate make the company become much powerful in marketing.
3. Should Millar approve Carson’s proposal to launch D’istinto? Why/why not?
Millar should approve Carson’s