Before beginning this discussion, read the Marketing in Action Case: Real Choice

Question

Before beginning this discussion, read the Marketing in Action Case: Real Choices at Mattel on pages 68-69 of your textbook.

Consider what you learned about Mattel’s reputation in this case study, as well as the dilemma it found itself in. Are its apologies and claims for new safety regulations enough? Where should it consider producing its products? Should it return to their successful roots? What other actions could it consider to protect its social responsibility reputation in the future? After you have read through the entire case study, post your responses to each of the following questions below. For your answer to the third question, you should include a full discussion of at least two possible alternatives. For your response to the fourth and fifth question, respond as those you are the marketing manager of this company.

What is the decision facing Mattel?

What factors are important in understanding this decision situation?

What are the possible alternatives? Fully describe at least two.

Pretend you are the marketing manager at Mattel. What decision(s) do you recommend?

What are some ways to implement your recommendation?

Explanation / Answer

In this specific case us district court find Mattal inc 88 million dollars against the claim of MGA for stealing the idea of Blockbuster Bratz dolls.

in 2005, MGA filed case against Mattel for copying their Bratz eye feature which was a specific to the Barbie doll. Mattel also sued MGA mentioning that the designer of the dolls was working for the company while they decided to design the dolls.Mattel mentioned that they own stake in the drawing of Braynt which was bound to the intellectual property contract between the Mattel and Braynt. Later Federal judge decided that MGA would pay 100 million dollars to Mattel. Photos of the bride products was stopped in the stores after the decision. Later another judge commanded that the products would be allowed to sell until the final decision comes.

Mattel lost $88 million to MGA in this specific case.

this specific case was fallen under the category of breach of the contract regarding the article of manufacture.As per the article of manufacture, the infringement could be defined by the violated product or the part of the product.

In this specific case metal should have avoided the specific conflict by redesigning the doll and using original ideas rather than copying it from MGA. This is specific type of original recommendation doll would have been most beneficial for improving the overall serviceability as well as reducing the impact of the specific.
Implementation of strong research and development as well as verification department in the organisation would have saved Mattel from getting sued by MDA for copying their Idea.

For implementation of this kind of idea I would suggest building a specific department for verifying the designs over the competitors as well as looking into the patents and other specific correlation with the product design. This type of approach would ensure proper reliability of the product in the specific operating environment as well as also provide positive approach for implementing the product range into the market without any problem .

Reference - http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2067001,00.html

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse B
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.