In seven pages this paper discusses the failed MWX product marketing efforts by Rohm and Haas in this case study consideration with recommendations offered. One source is cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_MTrohass.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
popular product is being repackaged for totally new market. It can be assumed that since a product did so well in one particular form, it will do just as well
into repackaged form. But one chemical company learned otherwise. When it attempted to take a product that was successful, repackaged it to target a different end-user but used the
same promotion and distribution strategies, the product ended up being a dismal failure for. The case study analyzed, "Rohm and Haas --
a new product marketing strategy" was written for the Harvard Business Review in 1986. This case study is a good example of what happens how two similar products marketed in
the same way may not necessarily sell in the same way. Rohm and Haas, which was founded in 1906 in Germany, opened its
U.S. branch in 1909. By the end of World War I, the American branch was incorporated as an independent entity. The company manufactures metalworking fluid, and which assists
in operations such as turning, grinding and drilling; and biocides, which are chemicals that kill microorganisms that form in water-based metalworking fluids without impacting fluid performance.
One main product introduced by Rohm and Haas was known as the biocide Kathon886 MW (K886), a liquid that was a primary maintenance biocide. The purpose of
K886 was to extend the life of diluted fluids and central system reservoirs. In addition to the K886, Rohm and Haas decided, in 1983, to distribute and a similar product,
KathonMWX, or simply MWX. Ten of the companys 12 distributors agreed to distribute the MWX as a private label brand. While K886 was geared toward larger industrial companies,