The pressures at home placed Colgate in a difficult position, especially as it had no management rights in its agreement with Hawley and Hazel. In the Asian market, neither Colgate nor Hawley and...

The pressures at home placed Colgate in a difficult position, especially as it had no management rights in its agreement with Hawley and Hazel. In the Asian market, neither Colgate nor Hawley and Hazel had any knowledge of consumer dissatisfaction because of racial offensiveness, despite the fact that the local Chinese name for “Darkie” (pronounced hak ye nga goh ) can be translated as “Black Man Toothpaste.” The logo seemed to enhance brand loyalty. One Asian customer stated, “I buy it because of the Black man’s white teeth.” The demographics of the Asian market may help to explain the product’s apparent acceptance. There are a relatively small number of Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis in the region; therefore, the number of people who might be offended by the logo is low. Also, some people of color did not seem disturbed by the name. For example, when asked about the implications of “Darkie” toothpaste, the secretary of the Indian Chamber of Commerce noted, “It doesn’t offend me, and I’m sort of dark-skinned.” Initially, Colgate had no intentions of forcing Hawley and Hazel to change the product. R. G. S. Anderson issued another formal statement to the ICCR as follows: “Our position . . . would be different if the product were sold in the United States or in any Western English-speaking country, which, as I have stated several times, will not happen.” Hawley and Hazel concurred with the stance. The alliance was very fearful of a loss of market share and did not believe that the complaints were issues relevant to Pacific Rim countries. A spokesperson for the alliance referred to the protest campaign as “a U.S. issue.” The trade-off for revamping a successful product was deemed to be too risky and costly.