As an executive in Nestle, I would have changed the marketing approach after the boycotts began. This is because, with the boycotts came negative publicity. To counter the negative publicity, there was need to change the marketing tactics. After WHO introduced the code for infant formula marketing, it would only be advisable for Nestle to adhere because lack of adherence would only add to the negative publicity. When organizations such as WHO issue such directives, lack of adherence is seriously viewed as lack to support healthy living. So as Nestle did, it was advisable for them to change the marketing tactics to adhere to the code as directed by the World Health Organization.

Nestle suffered long term effects because of the third-world marketing technique. First, it suffered boycotts after the WHO voted for a code of infant formula marketing. Though in 1988 the company introduced a new infant formula, then Abbott Laboratories the industry leaders tarnished the name of nestle in an attempt to hinder its expansion. When Carnation a subsidiary of Nestle started advertising in magazines and television, the American Academy of Pediatrics objected to this kind of direct marketing. In addition, four months after introducing the new formula, it was being investigated by the FDA because of six cases of vomiting caused by the formula. In the end, direct marketing was prohibited by the AAP thus disadvantaging Nestle but advantaging long time formula makers who were well established through physicians.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?