Colgate P&G case 2

Colgate P&G case 2 - GM 3/5/2008 When Procter and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
GM 3/5/2008 When Procter and Gamble launched a revolutionary oral-care product Whitestrips in the year 2000, they had created an entirely new market which had already generated $590 million by 2003. When rival oral-care company Colgate-Palmolive launched a competing product called Simply White in late 2002, it immediately became the market leader in the industry due to a lower price point and a claim of equal whitening ability to Whitestrips. P&G was now faced with a decision on how to best regain market share, whether by stronger marketing or through legal efforts challenging Colgate's product. There are a few alternatives to increase Procter and Gamble's market share that were highlighted in the case study. The first alternative involves trying to force Colgate to change its advertisements and overall message for Simply White. According to Ayman Ismail, general manager for global oral care at P&G and the person responsible for Whitestrips profit and loss, Colgate had been falsely advertising Simply White as being able to bleach teeth just as effectively as Whitestrips. Based on P&G's own data, this proved to be false. To calculate how much whiter teeth became, Procter and Gamble would calculate a change in a tooth's b* value. B* measured the yellowness of the teeth. They ignored the a* value (how red in color teeth were) and L* (the brightness of colors). They justified this because scientists at P & G found a correlation only with b* and customer satisfaction in whiteness. Based on P&G's data, Whitestrips improved b* greater than five times more than Simply White. This did not surprise them, however. The key ingredient to whitening teeth was hydrogen peroxide, and the longer it was in contact with teeth, the more white they became. Whitestrips needed to be worn for 30 minutes twice a day for optimal results, yet Simply White only directed customers to apply a gel for 30 seconds. Colgate was even able to use this time difference as an additional selling point. Based on these results, Procter and Gamble could decide to approach the television networks
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/11/2008 for the course MATH 126 taught by Professor Brutche during the Spring '08 term at Bowling Green.

Page1 / 2

Colgate P&G case 2 - GM 3/5/2008 When Procter and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online