data case procter & gamble company (a)

8/3/2019 Data Case Procter & Gamble Company (a)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/data-case-procter-gamble-company-a 1/34

48 oz. 32 oz. 22 oz. 12 oz.

% Respondents 13% 30% 42% 15%

Source: Company research.

Table A

Sizes of Dishwashing Liquid Used in Past Seven Days



1960 1970 1980 1990a

LDL Household

Penetration 53% 83% 90% 92%ADW Household

Penetration 5% 18% 36% 44%Total Households

(millions) 53 63 79 91

a Company estimates

U.S. LDL Market Influences

Table B



Size Items/Case Carload

Case Price

Carlo

ad

Item

Price

Avera

ge

Retail

Price

48 oz. 9 $22.77 $2.53 $2.99

32 oz. 12 21.24 1.77 2.04

22 oz. 16 19.2 1.2 1.46

12 oz. 24 $16.08 $0.67 $0.84

Ivory, Dawn and Joy Pricing

Table C

Manufacturer’s



1981 1980

Income

Net sales $11,416 $10,772

Interest andother income

83 52

11,499 10,824

Costs andexpenses

Cost of products

sold

7,854 7,471

Marketing,administrative,and otherex enses

2,361 2,178

Interest expense 98 97

10,313 9,746

Earnings fromoperations beforeincome taxes

1,186 1,078

Income taxes 518 438

668 640

Extraordinarycharge: costsassociated with

the suspensionof sale of Relytampons (less

applicable taxrelief of $58)

-75 —

Net earnings $593 $640

Per common share

Net earningsfrom operations

$8.08 $7.74

Consolidated Statement of Earnings ($ in millions except per

share amounts)

Net earningsfrom operations

Ending June 30

Exhibit 1



Extraordinarycharge

-0.91 —

Net earnings

Average sharesoutstanding

1980—82,659,861

Dividends $3.80 $3.40

Source: Companyrecords

$7.17 $7.74



Fiscal Year Volume

Ending June 30 (millions

cases)Mildness Performance Price

A. Actual

1973 56.4 44% 19% 37%1974 57 45 20 351975 56.4 44 21 351976 56.8 43 22 351977 56.1 40 28 321978 57.8 40 30 301979 57 39 32 291980 58.7 38 33 29

1981 59 37% 35% 28%

B. Projected

1982 59.4 37% 35% 28%1983 59.8 36 35 291984 60.1 36 35 291985 60.8 35 36 291986 61.1 35% 36% 29%

% of Category Volume

LDL Market Historic Growth Trends and Projections

Exhibit 6



Makes dishes shine 64% 16%

Pleasant odor or perfume 40 17

Don‘t have to use much 70 13

Doesn‘t make skin rough 65 12

Is low-priced 50 19

29 14

Does a good job on pots

and pans 75 13

67 15

Is mild to hands 68 13

Makes long-lasting suds 83 12

Cuts grease 87 6

Is economical to use 72 13

60 17

Good for tough cleaning

jobs 52% 13%

Source: Company research

Good for hand-washing laundry

Does not spot or streak glasses or dishes

Soaks off baked-on or burnt-on food

Attribute a*

a* Respondents were asked to rate the importance to them of LDL attributes on a 6-point scale,To be read, for example: 64% of respondents claimed ―Makes dishes shine‖ as one of the attribuof respondents claimed this attribute as the one they wanted least.

Attribute Importance Ratings

Exhibit 7

6 5



No Average

Answer Rating

7% 6% 2% 2% 3% 5.30%

11 10 7 10 5 4.2

6 5 1 2 3 5.5

7 5 4 3 4 5

10 9 3 4 5 5

9 11 9 23 5 3.7

4 2 1 1 4 5.6

8 3 2 2 3 5.4

5 5 3 3 3 5.2

7 2 2 2 2 5.5

2 1 – 1 3 5.8

6 4 1 1 3 5.5

7 5 2 4 5 5.2

8% 9% 4% 9% 5% 4.80%

ith 6 being ‗‘want the most‖ and 1 being ‗‗want the least.‖tes they wanted most in a dishwashing liquid, while 2%

% of Respondents

4 3 2 1



Brand Segment 1961

P&G

Joy Performance 14.90%

Ivory Mildness 17.5

Dawn Performance —

Thrill a* Mildness/performance —

32.4

Lever Brothers

Lux Mildness 17.3

Dove Mildness —

Sunlight Performance —All others Price 5.9

23.2

Colgate-Palmolive

Palmolive Liquid Mildness —

Dermassage Mildness —

All others Price/performance 5.5

5. 5

38.9

Total LDLs 100.00%

Source: Company records

a* Thrill was introduced by P&G in 1969. The brand ultimately proved not to provide a needed

discontinued in 1975 because of faltering volume.

All other LDLsMainly price/generics and private labels

Exhibit 8

LDL Market Shares by Brand and Company (shares of statistical



1971 1981

12.00% 12.1

14.9 15.5

— 14.1

2.9 —

29.8 41.7

7.3 3.1

4.8 3.1

— 0.71 —

13.1 6.9

11.7 11.8

— 3.5

9.6 8. 3

21.3 23.6

35.8 27.8

100.00% 100.00%

product benefit and was

hare of Market

cases)



Cost of goods 51%

Distribution 7

Selling and general administration 10

Marketing expenditures 20 *

Profit 12

Total 100%

Source: Company records

* Includes advertising, trade andconsumer promotion expenditures.

Exhibit 9

Cost Structure for an Established LDL Brand



Yes No Yes No Yes No

Best for mildness 89% 51% 53% 12% 41% 7%Best overall for getting dishes clean 64 9 78 14 88 15Best for cutting grease 41 6 49 7 96 45

Best for removing tough, cooked-on foods 47 7 55 10 88 28

Best for leaving dishes shiny 44 10 81 45 59 5Gives the best value for your money 74 24 60 4 65 6

Makes the longest-lasting suds 79 29 60 10 67 11

Has the most pleasant fragrance 43% 11% 64% 35% 39% 9%


* A brand user was defined as a respondent who reported that brand as the usual brand us

Ivory Liquid Joy Dawn

Exhibit 10

Usual Brand

Attribute

LDL User/Non-User Attribute Association (%)

Note: Respondents were asked to indicate which one brand was best described by each attphrase. To be read, for example: 89% of respondents who claimed Ivory Liquid as their usuindicated that it was best for being mild to your hands; 51 % of people who did not claim Ivotheir usual brand indicated it was best for being mild to your hands.



Yes No Yes No

71% 27% 13% 2%61 5 18 135 4 16 1

41 6 19 2

40 4 14 155 5 40 750 5 12 1

35% 11% 14% 1%

d over the

Palmolive Price Brands

*

ributeal brandry Liquid as



Ivory Joy Dawn

Usual brand 23% 13% 25%

Past 12-month trial 35 30 29

Ever tried 58% 43% 54%


Note: An estimated 60%–80% of total brand volume was consumed by usual brand users

Current Product Usage (%)

Exhibit 14



for each brand.



Ivory Dawn Joy Ivory Dawn Joy

Actual

1977 9.1 6.7 6.7 16.30% 11.90% 11.90%1978 9 7.3 6.7 15.5 12.7 11.61979 9.1 7.5 6.8 16 13.2 121980 9.1 8.2 6.9 15.5 14 11.71981 9.1 8.3 7.1 15.50% 14.10% 12.10%

Estimated

1982 9.2 8.7 7.2 15.50% 14.70% 12.20%1983 9.3 9 7.4 15.5 15 12.3

1984 9.3 9.3 7.5 15.5 15.5 12.41985 9.4 9.7 7.6 15.5 15.9 12.51986 9.5 10.1 7.8 15.50% 16.50% 12.70%

Source: Company recordsNote: Projections are based on each brand manager‘s judgment.

Shipment and Share Data for LDL Brands

Exhibit 16

Factory Shipments

(millions of cases)

Market Share

(% of LDL category)



Heavy

LDL Ivory No

Name/

Users * Liquid Joy Dawn Palmoli

ve

Plain

Label

9% 48% 49% 51% 48% 47%90 51 51 49 42 53

46 28 32 35 30 3629 27 26 29 27 29

25 45 42 36 43 35

Under 50 32 39 30 33 38 28 2050–1,999 45 40 45 44 43 46 48

2,000 and over 23 21 25 23 19 26 32

Geographic Area

Northeast 22 26 22 23 19 24 36

North Central 28 28 26 27 31 27 31South 33 35 34 37 35 33 16West 17 11 18 13 15 16 17

Employment**

Employed 48 37 48 50 49 49 55Not employed 52 63 52 59 51 51 45

Age***

Under 35 33 39 31 34 38 39 3535–50 30 25 29 31 30 30 3751–59 16 15 17 16 15 16 1260+ 21 30c 23 19 17 24 16

Number in Family

1–2 40 41 43 38 38 42 283–4 44 41 42 45 46 44 505+ 16% 18% 15% 17% 16% 14% 22%

Total LDL

Households

ADW Usage—Past 7 Days

Yes 36%No 64

Yearly Income

Under $15,000 32$15,000–25,000 27

Over $25,000 41

Population Density (000/sq.

Usual Brand

LDL-User Demographic Profile (% of total responding households)

Exhibit 17




*** The heavy LDL-user skew toward older respondents may be misleading. P&G management belie

Note: To be read, for example: 48% of respondents who claimed Ivory Liquid as their usual brand ha* Defined as +15 sinksful per week.**Female head of household.



Attribute Ratings (%)

Overall

Cleaning

Removing baked/burned/dried-on food

Grease Removal Amount of suds made Mildness

Amount of suds made Mildness

Mildness

Odor of product

Color of product

Favorable Comments (%)

Unduplicated cleaning

Cleans well

Cleans hard-to-remove food

Cuts grease Unduplicated sudsing Product color Mildness Unduplicated odor

Unduplicated sudsing Product color Mildness Unduplicated odor

Product color

Mildness

Unduplicated odor

Unduplicated cap/container

Unduplicated consistency

Like scrubbing particles/abrasives

Unfavorable Comments (%)

Unduplicated cleaning

Not clean well

Not clean hard-to-remove food

Not cut grease

Unduplicated sudsingProduct color

Mildness

Unduplicated odor

Unduplicated cap/container

Unduplicated consistency

Not like abrasive/gritty feel

Dishwashing Information

Used product full strength for scrubbing

Used scrubbing implement for tough jobs

Exhibit 18

LDL Category Assessment (4-week blind in-home us




Note: To be read, for example: 77% of the 425 households who used H-80 rated it as4 or above on a 5-point scale on overall performance.

* Unmarked bottles of H-80 were given to one of two representative samples of LDLusers. The other sample group received

unmarked bottles of an established competitive brand. Both brands wereaccompanied by instructions suggesting the product be diluted for generaldishwashing but used full strength for tough dishwashing jobs.



H-80 with Scrubbing Instructions *

Established

Competitive

LDL with Scrubbing

Instructions *

77 71

79 73

73 61

77 72

73 69

55 63

70 68

72 69

73 65

36 29

25 15

34 32

49 45

6 5

25 34

45 40

8 2

12 2

12 —

4 9

— 1

1 5

3 8

9 17

1 3

16 14

10 9

2 2

12 1

11 1

61 52

79 85

e test of H-80 in 45 households)



1. What is the worst thing about doing dishes?The time it takes

Having to do them

Cleaning pots and pans

Scrubbing/scouring

Cleaning greasy items

Hard on hands

2. What is the toughest dishwashing job?

Removal of baked/burnt/fried/cooked foods

Removal of greasy foods

Cleaning of pots and pansCleaning of skillets

Cleaning of casseroles

Cleaning of dishes

3. What is most disappointing about your current dishwashing liquid?

Nothing

Suds disappear

Leaves grease

Odor

Hard on hands

Price/expensiveHave to use too much

4. What improvement do you want the most in a dishwashing liquid?

Milder to hands

Do it by magic/itself

Eliminate scouring or soaking

Cut grease

Soak dishes clean

Suds never vanish

Nothing/satisfied


Selected Research Data: Personal Feelings Concerning Dishwashi

Exhibit 19



% of Consumers

24%

22

15

14

6

4

39

32

2216

7

3

51

12

8

6

2

44

11

10

9

9

9

6

9%

g

data case procter & gamble company (a)

Documents