Proctor & Gamble Case Analysis

Topics: Marketing, Brand management, Positioning Pages: 6 (1241 words) Published: February 11, 2013
I. Situational Analysis
a. Industry: Canadian Mouthwash Market
i. Size
1. Retail Sales:
a. 1988 = $60.2 million
b. 1989 = $65. 4 million
c. 1990 = $68.6 million
2. Unit sales:
d. 1988 = 1,197,000
e. 1989 = 1,294,000
f. 1990 = 1,358,000
ii. Nature of competition
3. Addition of new ingredients in mouthwash products 4. Mouthwash Flavors
g. Increased industry growth sales
h. Prompted competition based on producing new and refreshing flavors 5. Entry of new players
6. Plax coming out hard with advertising spending i. Only been in market for 2 years, similar spending and air time as Listerine and Scope j. Competitive advertising budgets

7. Scope is currently dominating in terms of market share at 32.4% iii. Number of competitors: (6)
8. Listerine : -(Market Share = 16.6%)
k. Succeeded with “Bad breath” strategy
l. ADA seal, not CDA
m. “Flights plaque and helps prevent inflamed gums caused by plaque. “ i. New strategy positioning ‘88
ii. Motivated by the introduction of Plax
9. Listermint (’77): -10.6%
n. Added fluoride
o. CDA seal for preventing cavities (’83)
p. No longer promoting Fluoride ingredient and removed seal 10. Cepacol (’88):- 10.3%
q. Entered Canadian market through licensing agreement between Merrell Dow & Strategic Brand r. Strategy included gaining greater distribution and basing on price 11. Colgate Fluoride Rinse (’88): -.05%

s. CDA seal (cavities)
t. “Colgate’s new fluoride rinse fights cavities. And it has a mild taste that encourages children to rinse longer.” iii. First introduction of children in target, not actually encouraging to buy, the mom’s, with psych influence of getting their child to use their mouthwash 12. Plax (’88): -10%

u. “Plaque fighter”
v. Unique platform:
iv. First “prebrushing” rinse
1. Every other mouthwash based in routine of using after brushing your teeth, no product for “prebrushing” v. Product benefits not breath-focused
2. Claimed to remove more than 3 times more plaque if used before brushing rather than just brushing alone w. Gained 10% market share in 1990
x. When launched into U.S. market, positioning of “removing up to 300% of plaque in compared to brushing alone was questioned and found false. vi. Plax revised their claim

iv. Barriers to entry
13. Canadian Dental Association seal of approval 14. SKUs
y. Determines shelving space location
15. Health Protection Branch (HPB)
z. Classifies products into “drug products” and “cosmetic products” {. Advertising scrutinized
v. Growth Rate:
16. An average of 3% a year per units from 1975-1986 17. Jumped to 26% growth rate in 1987 as a result of the introduction of flavored mouthwash; different flavors |. Did not significantly change the market shares held by the major brands 18. Declined to 5% from 1988-1990

vi. Segments:

b. Company: Proctor&Gamble:
vii. Brand positioning
20. Originally positioned as a great-tasting, mouth-refreshing brand that fights bad-breath viii. Growth Rate
21. Steady control of market share of Canadian mouthwash (see appendix C.) }. 32.3% in...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Proctor and Gamble Scope Case Essay
  • Proctor & Gamble Scope Case Analysis Essay
  • Proctor and Gamble (Scope Case Analysis) Research Paper
  • Essay about Proctor Gamble Case Analysis
  • Proctor & Gamble Scope Case Essay
  • Proctor and Gamble Case Study Essay
  • Case Study of Proctor & Gamble Essay
  • Proctor & Gamble

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free