| Summary: | 碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 社會學系碩士班 === 100 === Taiwan is hardly a brand-developing oriented country. Taiwan had been colonized for a long time, and its people generally prefer foreign brands to local ones. Compared with Taiwan, Korea is more suitable for developing its own brands. This historical difference caused the inherent advantage differences of brand-developing. With the help of global production network, being the ODM supplier for developed countries wins Taiwan the title of the world’s no.1 manufacturer. It goes without saying that Taiwan’s key competence comes from ODM. However, being the manufacturer within the global merchandise chain, Taiwan is facing a harsh situation brought by low profit margins and endless price competing. Also, the destiny of business is always deeply influenced by international firms to which Taiwan’s products go. For example, the financial crisis in the U.S. had caused a “holiday-without-payment” phenomenon in Taiwan’s tech zones, hence crashed Taiwan’s tech business. In times like this, to invert the disadvantaged position of ODM, the need to establish Taiwan’s own brands has drawn a wild attention.
As the proverb goes, “Whoever owns the route goes anywhere he wishes.” A newly-developed brand has to be backed up with supportive routes and suitable markets. Contemporarily, China is frequently thought to be a suitable place for Taiwan to develop its brands, and these kinds of arguments are generally seen in relative books and articles. Due to the over - emphasis of the common Chinese culture origin, Taiwanese people holds a myth that, the two cultures across Taiwan Straight are pretty similar to each other but that is not the truth. The two sides has separated for sixty years, the difference between them might have gradually outweighed the similarity. So far, Taiwan’s own brands aim to develop in Taiwan then switch to China, but this strategy has hardly seen worked.
In this article, we contend that it is wrong to see China as the stepping stone to develop a successful brand. In two case studies, we will give examples for brand-development routes of HTC and ACER. Despite technology industry, we also provide some traditional industry examples, such as GIANT and MAXXIS, and an additional example of DBTEL, which tried to follow the routes recommended by academia and industry and once chose China as a place for brand-development, but failed.
Most scholars strongly believe that Taiwan’s own brands should follow a “First Taiwan, then China” pattern, but our case studies suggest the opposite way. It’s worth noting that Taiwan’s own brands should reconsider regarding China as a water-testing market. Taiwan’s own brand routes ought to focus more on the newly-risen and other important markets.
|
|---|
