The Provenance Paradox

947 words 4 pages
The provenance paradox describes the challenge for brands originating in a number of regions in the world failing to compete in the top tier markets. Their origin carries a stigma which places them at an inferior position to brands that originate in supposedly more developed and reputable regions. Certain geographies are perceived to produce better products than others, despite the essence being that the products are of the same quality.

Following the examples from the case on how they built their up market positions with the strategies for combating the provenance paradox have been detailed:
Flaunt Your Country of Origin and Stick to Colonial History
Example: Chocolates El Rey and Concha y Toro
Chocolates El Rey fails to find a position
…show more content…

Build a Brand For the Long Haul
Example: Korean LG & Samsung and Japan automobiles

In the electronics industry, brands such as LG and Samsung did not just reach great heights overnight. The fact that they are of Korean origin raised many doubts about their product being of quality competent enough to compete with top electronic brands. The perception of the Brands not being good quality was gradually countered through a strategy of building a brand for the long haul. They did not just emulate high performing brands overnight, but they let the consumers realize their quality through the smaller markets that they were initially able to penetrate. With time, consumer confidence in the brands positioned them in the upmarket segment.
Furthermore, Japan can serve as the best example of how the slow progression to upmarket positioning is nothing easy as after 50 years the Japanese brands in the automobile industry (Nissan, Honda and Toyota), and electronics (Sony) have achieved the upscale position commanding steep premiums with strategic and financial commitment.
End note
Having also learnt about “The Champagne Effect”, where the Protected Geographical Status is a framework of labeling restrictions enforced by the European Union, this framework is more of a tool to insulate brands from quality competition by reinforcing stereotypes about provenance and limiting opportunities for new players from new markets, and not really to prevent