The Case Of Procter & Gamble

1) What significant changes have occurred in the Canadian mouthwash market in the past three years?

Given Proctor & Gamble's economic prowess, I believe that if they truly wanted to break into a new market, they would undoubtedly have the means to accomplish their expansionary goal. Not unlike Proctor & Gamble's financial peers, the discussion of ethics is quite often substituted with speculated projection charts at the boardroom meeting. Personally, I believe that products such as skin lightening creams are a sad remnant from a more oppressive era in which light skin was equated with beauty and social status. Unfortunately, this mindset has created a lucrative and dangerous market in which people are willing to put their personal health at risk in order to obtain what they believe to be a key to a better life. Proctor & Gamble's ethical

However, this strategy also has some disadvantages that may hurt the company’s development: The first is the fierce competition between these brands. And it is important to note that using this strategy means facing higher risks. Cost control is another big problem. Obviously, the more brands there are to manage, the higher the costs. For this reason, many prudent companies prefer brand extension over multi-brand management.

Products will stay the same over time, however service is never guaranteed to stay the same. The main overall cause of these problems within Proctor and Gamble were both the ineffective strategies used and the lack of planning on the executive’s parts. They were trying to grow the company in ways that may not have been very beneficial

Proctor and Gamble-Scope is faced with a very important decision, they need to prepare a marketing plan for P&G’s mouthwash business for the next three years. They want to know how they are going to be able to

In 2000, Unilever decided to reduce 1,600 brands down to 400 and then select a small number of them to serve as “Masterbrands”. One of the reasons to have fewer brands is to decrease control issues. It is harder to manage so many brands, especially when each one has its own particularities. As Deighton pointed, Unilever’s brand portfolio had grown in a relatively laissez-faire manner. In other words, the company’s brands were created without large interference.

The main issue of the P&G Korea case is centered around the question of market share. P&G and Unilever are the two major market shareholders in the Korean detergent industry holding 80-85% of the total market share. The remaining 15-20% of the market is held by low-priced local Korean brands. There are no new markets either company can tap for further market share since most Korean households already use laundry detergent, making the market saturated. Other than peripheral chemical changes claimed to be “improvements”, there are no major innovations to be explored for product development or diversification. Per Ansoff’s strategic opportunities matrix, P&G and Unilever are both focused on Market Penetration,

The Procter & Gamble has vast differentiated products due to its innovation culture. This is not just the invention of new products and services, but the ability to systematically convert ideas into new offerings that alter the very context of the business (Charan, 2008). The product differentiation allows the P&G to charge premium price for its products and assists to capture market share from its rivals by increasing the product demand.

P&G need to work hard and do more research and development in order to produce higher quality, more innovative, and more unique in products in order to answer consumer’s need and compete with those major world brand competitors.

Abstract: This report explores P&G's "Connect and Develop" open innovation initiative. Its focus is to analyse this innovation strategy in the context of the formal academic theory, other P&G's programmes and the company situation. Its objective is to understand the impacts, challenges and problems of implementing a large open innovation initiative inside a corporate giant such as P&G. Keywords: Procter & Gamble, P&G, Open Innovation, Connect and Develop, Innovation Networks

The product category is an important variable that plays a vital role in the success or failure of the brand extension. An established brand that has enough market share an increase its profit by adding new products into product categories that give the maximum revenue. Moreover, product categories that losing the market share can regain their share if they wisely adopt the brand extension strategies (Franziska Volckner,

When launching a new product, it is better to pursue a brand extension strategy, than to develop a new brand

Could you identify any product systems in this product mix? Is the toothpaste considered a shopping, specialty or convenience product? At what conditions, could this product considered a business product? With respect to Scope, do you consider it a "star" or "cash cow"? Why? With respect to the product life cycle of scope, what is the current status of the product? What is your marketing advice at this particular product life cycle stage?

This market is a well established market and P&G would have competition from existing companies and businesses since they include similar resources and advertising techniques. The competing companies and firms produce similar products and as such new ideas and innovation is necessary for the survival of P&G.

P&G’s main objective for years is to create the most successful brands in all categories of products that it produces. Over the past years company has undertaken considerable work and went through multiple changes to improve its business with focus on the following six corporate principles: customer focus, strategic choices, operational perfection and fiscal discipline, organizational structure, and the creation of brands which requires a lot of attention, monitoring, and constant changes. Example of big change: In June of 1999, P&G began an ambitious program of business restructuring, which was supposed to end in 2005. However, because of good coordination of management and right course of action introduction of change was rapid with large part of change implementation in 2003. In addition, management was able to spend