Proctor & Gamble Case Analysis 2000

2824 Words12 Pages
Procter & Gamble Case Analysis Financial Stagnation: In this case study, Procter & Gamble (P&G) has experienced disappointing financial reports for the year 1999-2000. Profits, excluding reorganisation costs, grew by only 2 %, to $4.23bn, and it’s flagship brands endured disappointing growth, causing the company to scale back its growth forecasts. (Jones, 2001) P&G has responded in two ways. Firstly, it has acquired Clairol, the shampoo and hair-colouring business, for $4.95bn. This led to a 4% drop in share prices. Secondly, it has reaffirmed its commitment to market research, and generating more information about its customers. (Jones, 2001) Disappointing Growth of Flagship Brands: There are two major factors that are contributing to the poor financial outlook. Firstly, the disappointing growth of the company’s flagship brands and products resulted in meagre profit growth. P&G have always been a leader in customer research, and this has helped it make small amendments adding value to these existing products. As Jones (2001) explains, “consumer research lends itself to incremental tweaking.” In the mid-90s, P&G launched a campaign to cut down their proliferating product lines, to simplify and focus on their successful products, and to eliminate unsuccessful brands. The campaign was dubbed “Make It Simple”, and helped make choices easier for distributors and customers alike. Combined with international expansion, company-wide sales grew by a third (Schiller et al, 1996). Hence, the need to change their product mix is no longer a major issue for P&G. Their existing products and flagship brands have been around for a long time, with the last two major innovations being Pampers (1961) and Tide (1946). Since then they have had no major breakthrough products (Jones, 2001). If we analyse their portfolio of products,

More about Proctor & Gamble Case Analysis 2000

Open Document