Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction 1
3. PESTLE Analysis 3
5. SWOT Analysis 6
6. Generic Strategy 8
7. Recommendations 9
8. Conclusion 10
9. Bibliography 11
1. Introduction
For the fiscal year of 2010, Procter & Gamble witnessed an increase on net
sales by 3% to $78.9 billion and a 4% increase in unit volume (Deloitte,
2010). Under the unfavourable environment of global recession, P&G has
successfully retained positive increases since the Financial Crisis and kept
the position of worlds largest consumer products manufacturer. In
Fortunes list of most admired companies for the year of 2010, P&G is
ranked as 6th among the worlds corporations (Fortune, 2010). Products of
P&G serve 4.2 billion of the 6.5 billion people in the world from everyday
morning (P&G, 2010c). The aim of this report is to undertake a detailed in-
depth research centred on the company of Procter & Gamble with a
number of theoretical frameworks. In the beginning of the report, a brief
history of P&G will be presented and point out some strategic challenges
facing the firm. Secondly, there will be a PESTLE analysis of the current
external environmental conditions for the firm. Then, the companys
effectiveness and sustainability of current strategies will be examined,
followed by recommendations for P&Gs strategies, accompanied by
appropriate explanation and justification.
The concentration industry of this report will be the SIC code 2844
Perfumes, Cosmetics and Other Toilet Preparations (OSHA, 2010). It will be
defined as Personal Products Industry throughout this report. The world
personal market will be regarded as a whole and the market can be
categorized into six segments, encompassing hair care, make-up,
skincare, personal hygiene, oral hygiene, and fragrances (Graul et al,
2006).
P&G was founded by Willian Procter (a candle maker) and James Gamble
(a soup maker) in 1837 in Cincinnati, Ohio, the US. The company was
responsible for supplying soap and candle to the Union Army in the
1
American Civil War and enjoyed the companys growth based on military
contracts in that period. In 1911, the company started to open factories in
other places in the US due to rising demand for its products and its
products began to diversify. In 1920s and 1930s, the company sponsored
many radio programs that were later known as soap operas. P&G began
its international operation in 1930 by acquisition of a UKs company called
Thomas Hadley Co. Thereafter, through its own products diversification
and numerous acquisitions, the company gained capabilities to offer
consumers with a wider range of consumer products and its size kept
growing as its expansion to different nations. By 1980, the company had
operated in 27 countries besides America and sales in these countries
made up a quarter of the companys $11 billion total sales (Bartlett et al,
2008). In 2005, P&G acquired the UKs prestigious razor producer, Gillette,
replacing Unilever as the worlds largest consumer products brand.
Nowadays, P&G has become a company operating in America, Europe and
Asia, with 135,000 employees, more than 300 brands covering cosmetic,
home, baby, toiletries, and fragrance industries (Datamonitor, 2010). The
annual sale of the company equals to the GDP for some small countries
and hence it is even called P&G Empire.
Facing enormous benefits from its extremely large size and profits, P&G
has to deal with strategic challenges inevitably at the same time. First of
all, the most outstanding issue exactly results from its size, i.e. issues of
too big. With its dominance in various industries and hundreds of
brands, issues on its industry and brand management are prominent for
the company to deal with. For instance, a particular strategy designed for
one product to increase its sales might somehow cannibalize the
companys another products sales as a result. On the other hand,
operations in a number of countries pose significant challenges to
maintain its worldwide operation efficiency. P&G has a matrix
organizational structure (Galbraith, 2009). The company deployed
numerous country subsidiaries in those regions it operated and global
business units (GBU) are charged with particular products and brands
operation. P&G categorized its global business into three GBU, consisting
2
of beauty & grooming, health and well-being, and household care. The
matrix structure did help the companys multinational management and
boost its worldwide expansion by 1990s. However, since competing in
more than 75 countries by the mid-1990s, the overseas expansion
opportunities left rather limited for the company. The company
consistently treated innovation as its core strength and pressures from
distinctive markets local responsiveness also required the company to
develop its research capability. Nevertheless, incremental coordination
was needed to innovative new products, leading to reductions in
organizational flexibility and efficiency. Therefore, the matrix structure
revealed its shortcomings for P&G which threat the companys sustainable
development in the global market.
3. PESTLE Analysis
On one hand, the company has to deal with and adapt to political
pressures in different nations. On the other hand, with regard to the
corporations size, it plays integral roles to cooperate with and affect local
government.
Social The company has to pay attention different social norms during
overseas operations due to distinguished cultural background in different
3
markets. For personal products, social need is evolving with time. For
instance, the demand for mens grooming is rising recent years.
Ethical Because personal products are essential for peoples daily life, the
quality of productsare extremely important for brands. Any scandals about
product can lead to significant damage on the brand image.
Buyer Power Buyer industry in the UK has been growing these years and
presenting an optimistic trend in the future. As figure 1 shows, since 2005,
the total market for cosmetics (make-up) and fragrances has witnessed
increased by 5.1% (2006), 6.5% (2007), 7.2% (2008), and 6.5% (2009)
than their previous years (Baxter, 2010a). By the year of 2009, the total
value of cosmetics and fragrances market has reached 2.18 billion (ibid).
4
Similarly, the UK market for toiletries (including hair care, skincare, oral
care, personal wash and bathroom toiletries, and shaving and razor) has
manifested stable growing pattern, with YOY growth rate of 4.2% (2006),
2.3% (2007), 2.5% (2008), and 2.1% (2009) (Baxter, 2010b).
Supplier Power Each product line of personal products has its own
unique requirement and preferences. On the other hand, various
ingredients, raw material, and components are needed and there are
subsequent procedures throughout the production process. Hence, P&G is
coping with significantly differentiated suppliers while face relatively
5
limited bargain power from its suppliers. However, the company still faces
switching costs primarily due to its quality need to build its brand image.
Threat of Substitutes Even major players like P&G and Unilever has
been dedicating to build and reinforce their brand recognition and loyalty,
this advantage still might be eroded by pricing power of substitutions. For
instance, retailers such as Tesco and Wilkinson in the UK market, they
offer their private label products with lower prices than strong brand ones,
posing significant challenges for leading companies. Despite sufficient
availability of substitutions, customers only face slight uncertainty and
switching costs in this industry. All in all, high threats of substitutes exist
in personal products industry.
6
reach $424.1 billion by the end of 2013 (Datamonitor, 2009). Facing such
a large market value, the completion within the market is extremely
fierce. There are a number of comparable rivals for P&G in terms of
company size, brands, capital, and research capability. Major rivals such
as Unilever, Avon, Estee Lauder, LOreal, all possess their own leading
brands and products, and considerable R&D capability and market
competence in global operations. Taking low switching cost for consumers
into consideration, the completion within this industry tends to remain at
high degree in the long run.
5. SWOT analysis
7
2010; P&G, 2010b). With a number of leading brands, the company
obtained significant competitive advantage over its rivals in the market
and contributed to its robust cash productivity and financial growth.
Moreover, diversifications in industries and products helped P&G achieve
economies of scale in production and distribution, and hold favourable
bargain power against suppliers and retailers.
8
other competitors including Avon, Clorox Company, Colgate-Palmolive
Company, Energizer Holdings, Henkel, Kimberly-Clark, LOreal, and Reckitt
Benckiser (Datamonitor, 2010). Every year, P&G spends $350 million on
consumer understanding programs, implements more than 15,000 market
researches, and communicates over five million consumers in about 60
countries all over the world (ibid). Innovation is strategically regarded as
core strength of the company. The fiscal year of 2010 was the companys
continuously fourth year with almost $2 billion in R&D (P&G, 2010a). In
the last 15 years, P&G had 125 innovations appeared on the Top 25
Pacesetter list (ibid). In addition to its own investment in R&D, the
company also involved with other research partners to develop its
research capability.
Weakness It seems that P&G depends too much on the Wal-Mart in terms
of sales revenue and distribution channel. Since 2006, around 15% of
P&Gs revenue derived from Wal-Mart and its affiliates (Datamonitor,
2010). Hence, any declines of Wal-Marts revenue or market share will
inevitable trigger loss for P&G. Furthermore, over dependence could lead
to loss of bargain power against the Wal-Mart. Peng (2009) doubt that the
purpose of acquisition of Gillette by P&G in 2005 was enhancing its size to
gain bargain power over the Wal-Mart.
9
product recalls can be alleviate to a significant extent and customer base
and loyalty can be retained as well.
6. Generic Strategy
7. Recommendations
10
For P&Gs global operations, the issue of too big is the most import and
prominent challenge that should be dealt with cautiously. Within the
organization, managers of P&G should pursue more efficient operations
under matrix structure. Sufficient cross market coordination work is
essential for the company to share market and consumer knowledge,
facilitate research development, and implement cooperation between
different divisions. After years of acquisition and merger, it might be the
time for the company to have a rest and take a careful look inside. With
more than 300 brands, an effective and efficient management and
coordination on its brand portfolio will be necessary for the company to
sustain its competitive advantage.
Every year, the company also spends quite much on promotion and
advertising. A research based on P&G conducted by Ailawadi et al (2001)
revealed a positive relationship between investment in advertising and
promotion. Nonetheless, it pointed out that distinctive mix of advertising
and promotion results in different implications on consumers brand
recognition and brand loyalty that companies should be aware of. Thus, it
11
will be better for P&G to implement an organic integration of promotion
mix in order to optimize its effects.
On the other hand, P&G should pay enough attention to cope with
external environment. The company devoted outstanding investment and
effort to obtain consumer understanding. This is also one of the
companys core strengths. It already performed much better than
competitors but continuous searching for more efficient and appropriate
consumer interaction methods should be stock to as well. Facing the new
development pattern in the world market, the BCGs growth matrix might
be helpful for P&G to manage products and regional markets. For instance,
the company should identify cash cow markets (might be Europe and
the US) to support further development in rising star (might be China and
India). Similarly, in terms of products, dog brands should be abandoned
while cash cow brands supporting rising star brands.
8. Conclusion
12
According to SWOT analysis, P&G performed well to defend its
weaknesses by its strengths of strong brand portfolio, robust cash
productivity, and outstanding investment in consumer understanding and
innovation capability. Under the framework of Porters generic strategies,
P&G has been consistently undertaking differentiation strategy in terms of
products, brands, innovation, and organizational management. Several
recommendations are given with respect to issues of P&G. First of all, it is
necessary to achieve and maintain efficient operation within the
organization. Then, P&G should optimize the value chain by aligning its
resources. The effectiveness of its investments is worthy noticing as well.
Finally, taking advantage of changing external environment is another
stimulus for the companys sustainable development.
With its size, brands, and influences in the global market, Procter &
Gamble is a good example for studies on global expansion strategies of
multinational organizations, brand management, and international
marketing strategies.
9. Bibliography
Ailawadi, K., Lehmann, D. and Neslin, S. (2001) Market Response to a Major Policy Change in the
Marketing Mix: Learning from Procter & Gambles Value Pricing Strategy. Journal of Marketing.
Vol. 65 (January 2001), 44-61
Bartlett, C., Beamish, P. and Choshal, S. (2008) Transnational Management: Text, Cases, and
Readings in Cross-Border Management (5th ed). New York. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
13
Baxter J. (ed) (2010a) Market Report Plus 2010: Cosmetics & Fragrances.23rd Edition March 2010.
Key Note Ltd.
Baxter J. (ed) (2010b) Market Report Plus 2010: Toiletries. 23rd Edition June 2010. Key Note Ltd.
Concordia, M., Levine, D., Martyn P, and Sandholm, T. (2006) Changing the Game in Strategic
Sourcing at Procter &Gamble: Expressive Competition Enabled by Optimization. Interfaces. Vol.
36, No. 1, January-February 2006, pp. 55-68.
Datamonitor (2010). Procter & Gamble SWOT Analysis [serial online]. July
2010:1-11. Available from: Business Source Premier, Ipswich, MA. [December 10, 2010]
Deloitte (2010) Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm in P&G 2010 Annual
Report.
Farasyn, I., Perkoz, K., and Velde, W. (2008) Spreadsheet Models for Inventory Target Setting at
Procter & Gamble. Interfaces. Vol. 38, No. 4, July-August 2008, pp 241-250.
Galbraith, J (2009) Designing matrix organizations that actually work: how IBM, Procter & Gamble,
and other design for success. San Francisco. Calif: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
Graul, L., Henricks, S., Olp, S. and Strohecker, C. (2006) Procter & Gamble, Unilever and the
Personal Products Industry. University of Maryland, University College.
Holt, D. and Wigginton (2002) International Management (2nd ed). US: Thomson South-Western.
OSHA (Occupational Safty & Health Administration) Industry Group 284: Soap, Detergents, And
Cleaning Preparations; Perfumers, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations. Available at
<http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.display?id=614&tab=description> [10
December 2010]
Wartzman, R. (2009) Lafley on Drucker: an interview with A.G. Lafley, Chairman and CEO of
Procter & Gamble Co.. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2009) 37: 12-16. Academy of Marketing Science
14