Why Do Companies Such as Procter & Gamble Target Emerging Markets?

Its origin goes back to the 19th century when a group of companies operating independently, produced soaps and margarine. In 1930, the companies merged to form Unilever that diversified into food products in 1940s. Through the next five decades, it emerged as a major fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) multinational operating in several businesses. In 2004, the Unilever 2010 strategic plan was put into action with the mission to ‘bring vitality to life’ and ‘to meet everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene and personal care with brands that help people feel good, look good and get more out of life’. The corporate strategy is of focusing on core businesses of food, home care and personal care. Unilever operates in more than 100 countries, has a turnover of €39.6 billion and net profit of €3.685 billion in 2006 and derives 41 per cent of its income from the developing and emerging economies around the world. It has 179,000 employees and is a culturally-diverse organization with its top management coming from 24 nations. Internationalization is based on the principle of local roots with global scale aimed at becoming a ‘multi-local

Operation of Unilever around the world starts fragmenting, but Unilever continues to expand globally and investment made in R&D is increased.

This report aims to analyse the financial position of Unilever PLC within its daily operating activities and it also compares the company’s performance with its key competitor, the Proctor and Gamble Company (P&G). The report also includes background of both the companies and an industry overview. To better understand the performance of both the companies, the segmental analyses have been done for both region and products. Due to the global crisis, Unilever and P&G both are facing price rise and inflation pressures, also instability in the Eurozone. All these factors are strongly impacting their operation activity and long-term growth decision plan. Finally After a careful examination of the financial ratios of both the companies, we recommend Unilever as a good company to invest as compared to P&G .The reasons for the following can be seen in the report below.

The answer? Yes. In fact, P & G has already taken many steps towards changing and expanding its operations. They have gone global—accessing worldwide markets in the U.S., Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Sweden and Turkey, to name a few. Not only have they expanded their customer base, but in their international markets they promote specific brands in each country that are specific to that region, so as to gain some product recognition in foreign markets. For example, in Latin American a brand of dishwashing soap they offer is Cierto ® and Ela ® feminine napkins; as well as, Lanxiang and Panda—cleaning aids marketed in Asia. Offering brands that customers in each different region are familiar with enables customers to feel more comfortable purchasing those products and in turn, helps P & G establish security in international markets.

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,

What strategy was Proctor and Gamble pursuing when it first entered foreign markets in the period up until the 1980’s?

If the product is not doing good in the home country, why we should try to go global? May be some boss may think the foreign country will be adopting the product better compare to the home country, and I think this is wrong. The Product is the company’s core.

For firms seeking growth, overseas markets represent new market segments, which they may be able to serve with their existing range of products. In this way, a company can stick to producing products that it is good at. Finding new overseas

As a large global company, P&G has strengths that have helped them to acquire such a vast market share. The company’s culture, strong product quality, the ability to understand customers, brand equity, and centralized management is at the

Companies can decide to go global or to enter international markets for various reasons, and these different objectives at the time of entry that enable the business to produce different strategies and the performance goals, and even forms of market participation.

Well known companies like Nike, Microsoft, Sony, Shell Group are just some of the big companies that went global and expanded their trading around the world, they are large businesses that operate internationally in many countries. Development of worldwide integration urges companies to reach out international markets and interact with foreign customers. Businesses focus on fulfilling the demand of the market by its products or services, besides their target is increasing profit, in order achieve these goals they favor to expand their work in a foreign market. Other reasons to internationalize their business may be to become

Emerging Market Multinationals mainly emerged because domestic companies in developed countries saw a shift in growth pattern once they reached the peak of their economic curve. Growth slowed down and even became stagnant. This was primarily because the markets in the developed countries had already reached their optimum levels. On the other hand, this was the period of time when developing countries began to experience rapid economic growth. This prompted companies to look towards the potential and resources of these emerging markets as their source of salvation and develop

Procter & Gamble is a large company in the U.S. that manufactures consumer products. It has earned public image and reputation as one of the global best marketers. The produces and markets above two hundred products that it vends in approximately one hundred and thirty nations across the world. Procter & Gamble is leading international force in cleaning products, laundry detergents, pet food products and personal care products (Sandholm et al., 2006, p. 57). P&G is one of the largest US-based consumer products companies that have managed to develop successful business model in both domestic and international markets.

Unilever is operating in a highly competitive and volatile environment. Current economic crisis have made it difficult for many businesses to operate with profitability. Legal requirements, technical changes, and change in the habits of the customers have created problems for businesses. Companies, including us, have to be updated, and continuous R&D is the key solution to many of our problems. An attractive business is one with higher margins and low competitions. Therefore, if the environment where we operate is with higher level of competition and low level of profit margins, our best strategy is to keep customers satisfied and loyal, continuous R&D, cost control, and responsive to our competitors.