BRL Hardy Globalizing an Australian Wine Company Case Solution

2. What is the source of the tension between Stephen Davies and Christopher Carson? How effectively has Steve Millar handled their differences?

The source of tension between Steve Davies and Carson was on the nature and scope of delegation. BRL’s approach towards delegation frustrated Hardy’s management whereas Carson believed that BRL’s management was not equipped with the skills to handle international marketing. Due to these differences and tension between these two key executives aggravated in the new company. Similarly, both of these executives also confronted on the issue of marketing strategy, particularly branding. More specifically, Carson advocated the reposition and re-launching of Hardy’s Notage Hill and Stamps despite the fact that these two brands amounted to over 80% of the company’s sales. Due to the tension between these two key figures of the company; Steve Miller decided to intervene in the matter in order to handle their differences effectively. Miller decided to have Carson report directly on financial performance of the UK company to him whereas report marketing affairs through Davies. This eased the tension between these two executives and brought the atmosphere of the company back to normality.

3. Should Miller approve Carson’s proposal to launch D’istinto? Why  /why not?

The proposal to launch D’istinto had both proponents and opponents. The main proponent was Carson and the UK management. On the other hand, Australian management has some apprehension about this project. These apprehensions were rooted in the fact that Carson failed to sustain a similar project ‘Mapocho’. Moreover, the deteriorating relationship of the company with the Chilean supply chain partner also contributed towards the opposition of the proposal to launch D’istinto. In addition to this, there were also fears in the organization that this brand will cannibalize Hardy’s main two brands. Moreover, there was also concern in the organization that the launch of D’istinto will distract the UK management to focus on the core processes. Last of all, there were some concerns about the European sales organization’s capacity to successful carryout the launch of the new product. In the light of aforementioned arguments, it is recommended that Miller should not approve Carson’s proposal to launch D’istinto. This will allow the organization to save the UK management from making further losses and augmenting the weakness of the organizational capacity.

4. What recommendation would you make to the organization concerning the conflicting proposals for Kelly’s Revenge and Banrock Station? What would you decide to do as Carson? As Millar?

The most appropriate course of action in the context of Kelly’s Revenge and Banrock Station is to launch Banrock Station in the UK and put Kelly’s Revenge in the backburner. This is due to the enormous success of Banrock Station in different parts of the world. It will be no surprise that Banrock Station will replicate its success in the UK market. Moreover, the initial consumer reviews regarding Kelly’s Revenge are not that positive to launch it in the UK market in place of Banrock Station. In the case of Carson, the most appropriate option will be to support Banrock Station in place of Kelly’s Revenge. This will greatly mitigate the apprehensions of the top management regarding the UK’s management team. On the other hand, in the case of Millar, the most appropriate course of action will be to continue supporting delegation especially in regard to UK’s organization. This will develop a positive relationship between the two managements despite the controversy of Kelly’s Revenge and Banrock Station.