以下涉及的案例为新加坡南洋理工大学亚洲商业案例中心(The Asian Business Case Centre)提供的教学材料，标题、编号及发布日期如下：
MARKPLUS&CO(A): MANAGING FOR GROWTH
ABCC-2004-011A
Print version: 2 Dec 2004
MARKPLUS&CO(B): EXPANDING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
ABCC-2004-011B
Print version: 3 Dec 2004
案例中提到Hermawen Kartajaya利用自己在营销界的声望与影响力来推动公司的有序扩张，以应对市场中不断增长的业务需求，但同时又希望重新定位公司品牌与其个人品牌之间的关系、使公司获得良性发展的动力。在与Den讨论这个问题的时候，我引用微软的比尔·盖茨以及通用的杰克·韦尔奇为例，认为那些“平定天下”的商业领袖、创始人可以通过平淡退出和提前挑选接班人的方式来抵消他们的个人影响力在公司发展运营中产生的不利影响。可能是讨论时间比较紧凑的原因吧，我当时并未说清自己的详细想法，事后在返程地铁上琢磨半天，觉得这个问题并不能通过简单的选择一个接班人轻易解决。
即使何麻温(Hermawen)真的找到候选接班人，那么将自己的个人品牌及影响力从MarkPlus身上去除也仍需要很长时间，因为他已经被深深烙在人们的记忆中了，这深深的烙印便是“成也萧何，败也萧何”的主要原因。
如果能够趁势建立一个何麻温名字的网站和品牌，这样就可以将人们的注意力集中到这上面去，而不至于一提及MarkPlus反而会令人想到HermawenPlus。如果一个品牌存在于人们的头脑中，而实际却并不存在，那么应当创造一个以填补这个定位上的空白，这样也有利于人们将Hermawen与MarkPlus区隔开来。当人们的注意力有了“着落”，也就是说他们发现真的HermawenPlus能够完全对应于从前头脑中的HermawenPlus(也就是MarkPlus)的时候，他们就不会再将从前头脑中的HermawenPlus对应到MarkPlus上去了，继而Hermawen的个人品牌影响力就会完全施加于HermawenPlus而非MarkPlus。这样的方式才是将两者重新定位的最佳方式。
目前，Hermawen仍旧在主持一些MarkPlus的高级商业服务，如组织MarkPlus高端商业论坛、受邀替商业杂志写专栏文章、发行亲自录制的多媒体产品等。我想这样反而是加强了Hermanwen个人在MarkPlus上的影响力，不利于MarkPlus在全方位多角度继续发展。一个较好的方式可能是将Hermawen铸造成MarkPlus的高端品牌，做成MarkPlus旗下的一个子品牌，这样一方面可使MarkPlus携Hermawen之势，一方面也将两个不同的品牌和业务区分开来，因为MarkPlus目前只是在地区业务上有巨大的影响，从全局看，仍然属于低端品牌，有待发展。这样的结果就将是一个大集团内部拥有高端品牌和服务(Hermawen Kartajaya本人的go-to-market策略就是以服务培训和俱乐部研修会的方式来开拓市场结识人脉)，同时这个服务还能继续为集团目前主要的金牛类业务(MarkPlus & Co公司利润率最大的分别为战略咨询业务和信息业务)提供源源不断的后续支持，且两者品牌不会互相有负面的影响。
[CASE]MarkPlus & Co Company
-
aRNoLD
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 977
- Joined: May 13th, 2004, 11:10 am
再补充一点对此案例中成功因素的个人观点，摘自11月14日凌晨2点12分发给Hooi教授的邮件。在此邮件中，我提出：
1. MarkPlus的成功从环境角度来解释，是由于起步期的市场并不成熟，持市场营销观点经营哲学的公司易打败持销售观点或生产观点哲学的公司（MarkPlus至今的主要市场仍然在东南亚的印尼）。
2.MarkPlus的发展受阻与领导层授权有关，从领导者个人成长的背景来看，是否出于打天下者不愿放权的心理？
Dear Professor Hooi,
Thank you for leading us and inspiring us in the case study lecture today. Teachers in Nanjing University once said that case study method is an efficient way of learning business and of putting what we learnt into practice.
For today's case on MarkPlus and Kartajaya's success, I read it again and want to raise one more point to you for your further advice which will help me understand the case more thoroughly.
In the case when MarkPlus' early years is mentioned, it says personal relationships were important factors in business strategies and deals, while on the contrary, marketing was unimportant. Executives viewed marketing as merely the function of sales, which resembles the selling concept in marketing history. I can recall in one text book it says if your competitors implement differentiation strategy and you do with mass-production without customization, you are more likely to lose. I think selling concept is somewhat like the mass-production philosophy. So when Kartajaya practiced his unique marketing concept under that business environment (not very mature like that in the US but developing, and the Asian Financial Crisis that tightened the seller's market on one hand and drove away international consultation firms on the other), it is like a warrior equipped with more advanced weapons, the Marketing Concept vs. a poor warrior with only a short and worn spear, the Selling Concept.
Referring to the China's bank issue, according to my experiences and feelings, China's Merchant Bank, although not a State-owned, practiced Marketing Concept very early when entering the coastal cities in China. They trained and selected employees very strictly so as to provide perceivable excellent services to customers and always beyond their satisfaction level. I believe this is customer-centric mode. It developed so fast and even imposed threats to the Four-State-Owned banks who were government-supported and were almost in monopoly. I guess these two issues are similar. So can I say that the nature of Kartajaya's success (or his company's success) can be interpreted as a success of philosophy? The Marketing vs. the Selling? Because I think MarkPlus, if started in a more mature market like the US, might be overwhelmed by big giants like McKinsey.
China is very big in its scale, the market volume and population. Sometimes a firm made a success in one area of China may not be able to retain its leading strategy/status in another area, for example, from Nanjing to Shanghai. I think its success are heavily location- or area-contextual. One area/city is more advanced than another and thus is influenced more by those leading and new ideas. When average people in coastal areas enjoy customers' privileges, people in remote and poor west areas may still be in a selling-concept-dominant market.
And also, compared with Chairman Mao, Kartajaya is also very independent. He supported himself from his early years of study and earned personal fame totally by his own effort. So is that difficult for him to really empower his staff and employees, especially on very critical issues? What I mean is people who made success by their own instead of through a team from the beginning are liable to not diluting their power or control.
1. MarkPlus的成功从环境角度来解释，是由于起步期的市场并不成熟，持市场营销观点经营哲学的公司易打败持销售观点或生产观点哲学的公司（MarkPlus至今的主要市场仍然在东南亚的印尼）。
2.MarkPlus的发展受阻与领导层授权有关，从领导者个人成长的背景来看，是否出于打天下者不愿放权的心理？
Dear Professor Hooi,
Thank you for leading us and inspiring us in the case study lecture today. Teachers in Nanjing University once said that case study method is an efficient way of learning business and of putting what we learnt into practice.
For today's case on MarkPlus and Kartajaya's success, I read it again and want to raise one more point to you for your further advice which will help me understand the case more thoroughly.
In the case when MarkPlus' early years is mentioned, it says personal relationships were important factors in business strategies and deals, while on the contrary, marketing was unimportant. Executives viewed marketing as merely the function of sales, which resembles the selling concept in marketing history. I can recall in one text book it says if your competitors implement differentiation strategy and you do with mass-production without customization, you are more likely to lose. I think selling concept is somewhat like the mass-production philosophy. So when Kartajaya practiced his unique marketing concept under that business environment (not very mature like that in the US but developing, and the Asian Financial Crisis that tightened the seller's market on one hand and drove away international consultation firms on the other), it is like a warrior equipped with more advanced weapons, the Marketing Concept vs. a poor warrior with only a short and worn spear, the Selling Concept.
Referring to the China's bank issue, according to my experiences and feelings, China's Merchant Bank, although not a State-owned, practiced Marketing Concept very early when entering the coastal cities in China. They trained and selected employees very strictly so as to provide perceivable excellent services to customers and always beyond their satisfaction level. I believe this is customer-centric mode. It developed so fast and even imposed threats to the Four-State-Owned banks who were government-supported and were almost in monopoly. I guess these two issues are similar. So can I say that the nature of Kartajaya's success (or his company's success) can be interpreted as a success of philosophy? The Marketing vs. the Selling? Because I think MarkPlus, if started in a more mature market like the US, might be overwhelmed by big giants like McKinsey.
China is very big in its scale, the market volume and population. Sometimes a firm made a success in one area of China may not be able to retain its leading strategy/status in another area, for example, from Nanjing to Shanghai. I think its success are heavily location- or area-contextual. One area/city is more advanced than another and thus is influenced more by those leading and new ideas. When average people in coastal areas enjoy customers' privileges, people in remote and poor west areas may still be in a selling-concept-dominant market.
And also, compared with Chairman Mao, Kartajaya is also very independent. He supported himself from his early years of study and earned personal fame totally by his own effort. So is that difficult for him to really empower his staff and employees, especially on very critical issues? What I mean is people who made success by their own instead of through a team from the beginning are liable to not diluting their power or control.