1. Why do you think that Roberto Goizueta switched from a strategy that emphasized localization toward one that empathized global standardization? What were the benefits of such a strategy?
I think that Goizueta believed that Coca-Cola could gain better sales from standardizing its productions around the globe to get the same type of consistency everywhere you went. The benefits of such a strategy are lower costs especially in the advertisement portion of running a business, and everything that had to do with advertisements.
2. What were the limitations of Goizueta’s strategy that persuaded his successor, Daft, to shift away from it? What was Daft trying to achieve? Daft’s strategy also did not produce the desired results. Why do you think this was the case?
The limitations of Goizueta’s strategy also came in his advertisements because what works in one side of the world will not work on the other side the same, in some cases it could even be offensive or your audience may not understand the message at all. Daft was trying to give the power of advertisement and marketing back to each country manager, it did not work most likely because it lacked a concise message, what one manager may think the message is may not totally represent the image that Coca-Cola is trying to get across.
3. How would you characterize the strategy pursued by Coca-Cola under Isdell’s leadership? What is the trying to do? How is this different from the strategies of both Goizueta and Daft? What are the benefits? What are the potential costs and risk?
The main benefits are the fact that each country follows a message put forth by Coca-Cola. The CEO will decide on the message but the Country Managers will adjust that message and tweak it to make it work for their area/country but still stay within a set of guide lines. The potential risk still remain that a manager may stray away from the guidelines set by Coca-Cola, and cost of...