Gillette Case Study

.docx

School

Rutgers University, Camden *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

52

Subject

Economics

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by JusticeOstrich2528

Report
Megan Gray Strategic Management Gillette Case 1. The buyers of the battery industry has many buyers but the main buyers include supermarkets, drug stores and discounters. These three main buyers bought the batteries and then sold them to the retailers. Buyers have power in this industry with being able to switch how they get their batteries, and still knowing they are going to be getting a good quality battery no matter what. The case stated that in 2000 discounters were responsible for 52.5% of total dollar sales of alkaline batteries. Drug stores held 23.8% and supermarkets held 23.7% of total alkaline sales in 2000. The buyers were also powerful because the switching cost was low, they had the power to switch suppliers without the risk of purchasing lower quality batteries. 2. The threat of rivalry was low in the battery industry. This was due to the high concentration in the battery industry, in the year 2000 the case stated that Rayovac, Energizer, and Duracell controlled 85.76% of the market share. The market was so concentrated due to the fact that Duracell, Rayovac and Energizer had huge pricing power. The industry growth in the battery industry was also growing with companies producing better and better products. This includes a high competition with secondary competitors like Sony and Panasonic. We see in this case these three companies Rayovac, Duracell and Energizer combined to total $4.8 billion in revenues and operating margins of $832.
3. With the threat of new entrants it is favorable. We saw the case state the threat that Panasonic, Kodak, and Sony started developing their own batteries for their electronic products and had stopped buying from other brands. Sony claimed that their batteries performed better in the company’s electronic devices. It was easy for other manufacturers to come into this industry and just copy the industry standard due to the low upfront cost of having to produce long lasting batteries for a reasonable price. It is also favorable due to the economies of scale and brand loyalty. The case stated that in 1997 the market share with brands outside of Duracell, Energizer, and Rayovac was 11.7%. 4. The generic strategy for Duracell and Energizer was differentiation. They were able to prove this by producing the “Advanced Formula” and “Ultra”. They were able to differentiate themselves by promising long lasting batteries compared to the regular batteries. The Duracell Ultra campaign promoted “More Power, More Life”. The introduction of the Duracell Ultra made the market less concentrated and more competitive. Ultra did not replace the original Duracell battery but rather coexisted on the retailer shelves. Ultra was priced at a 20% premium over the older technology. In 1999 Duracell came out with a new Ultra that would have a 20% improvement in performance over the original Ultra. Energizer Advanced Formula could last 60% longer than ordinary alkaline batteries and 9% longer than Duracell Ultra. As the case stated, different from the launch of Ultra, Advanced Formula was introduced at the same price point as its previous alkaline battery. Sony came out with “Stamina” AA batteries, and Panasonic came out with “Panasonic Plus” in order to compete with the long lasting batteries in this
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help