Omega Paw plans to aggressively expand sales of its self-cleaning litter box in North America after finding success in Canada. To achieve sales goals of $1.7 million in year one and $5.7 million in year three, Omega Paw is considering various marketing strategies like mass distribution, TV/mail advertising, trade magazine ads, or grocery store distribution. Given resource constraints, Omega Paw will focus on existing manufacturer rep relationships combined with TV/mail and trade ads, targeting families with children and new cat owners representing 25% of the market. If ineffective, mass distribution presents the best alternative opportunity for market penetration.

1. Omega Paw
Marketing Plan
September 24, 2017
Presented by:
Group I
Acciaroli, Karen
Bokhari, Syed
De Mille, Aaron
Kunaratnam, Dharshini
Mylvaganam, Malini
Pillsworth, Ethan
Searls, Sarah
Torres, John Edgar

2. Executive Summary
Omega Paw has plans to aggressively expand its sales across North America after
experiencing considerable success in Canada over a short period of time. It’s product, the self
cleaning litter box, presents to consumers an affordable way to reduce the time and energy required
to maintain soiled cat litter. The business has directed it’s attention to the relatively untapped
potential of the United States in hopes to achieve these goals. They have explored various options
to distribute and promote their product and have developed the following alternatives to pursue:
1. Mass distributions - large house accounts
2. TV/Mail order campaigns
3. Advertise in trade magazines
4. Grocery store distribution
5. Manufacturer Reps combined with TV/Mail Order and Trade adverts
6. Maintain the status quo
Given existing resource constraints and price point considerations Omega Paw will be focusing
its efforts on its existing relationships with manufacturing reps while engaging in TV/Mail Order and
Trade Magazine advertisements. The groups that are targeted for marketing actions are “Families
with Children” and “New Cat Owners” as their needs correlate with the points of differentiation that the
self cleaning litter box provides. These two groups represent 25% of the existing cat owner market
and present a distinct opportunity for specific marketing actions.
If this strategy proves to be ineffective at meeting the stated sales goals, the alternative that
provides the best opportunity for market penetration has been identified as Mass Distribution, and an
alternative approach and budget will need to be formulated.

3. Problem Statements
The issue in this case is that Michael Ebert is unsure on how to grow the Omega Paw
business from it’s current position given scarce resources, fierce competition and new
distribution channels. His product, the “Self Cleaning Litter Box” has experienced success in
Canada but to achieve his future goals for growth he needs to consider the potential of
penetrating the United States’ market. Eberts faces lots of competition regarding his new
product, which has been on the market for one year and will need to differentiate from the
already established other self cleaning litter box brands in the market in terms of price point,
functionality and availability. He has debated over several options in which he believes could
reach his sales goal of $1.7 million by the next year, which is a $0.7 million increase from his
first year. Several possible marketing strategies exist to reach this sales goal which include
entering into the grocery store market, further penetrating the mail-ordering market, advertising
in trade magazines, or pursuing mass markets. Ebert must choose the strategy that will allow
his product to reach the largest number of consumers and to increase his sales proficiently.
Another problem is that Omega has segmented consumer groups into extremely
general categories. “New cat owner”, “Existing Cat Owner” and “Gray Area” do not adequately
describe the markets into which Omega must dedicate resources to communicate with. In
order to adequately penetrate the North American Market, they must obtain a clearer
understanding of why consumers would need their products and emphasize these points of
difference.
Finally, the problem of new distribution channels requires a significant investment in
money and time which present a potential barrier to entry into mass markets and grocery
stores. Omega must be careful not to drain its resources in a way that impedes their current
traction while taking new opportunities to enter the USA marketplace at a competitive price to
achieve stated goals.

4. Company Objectives
Omega Paw’s objectives are to grow sales to $1.7M in the first year, $3M in the second and to
$5.7M in the third. The self cleaning litter box product that Omega offers is aimed to be the
preferred solution for cat owners seeking a convenient way to maintain soiled litter. To
achieve these lofty goals, Ebert and his team plan to expand their offering to the whole of
North America.
Company Background
Ebert invented the "Self-Cleaning Litter Box" to avoid the unpleasant smell while cleaning a
litter box. Omega Paw has already reached $1 million in sales in the first year of distributing
their new product. The "Self-Cleaning Litter Box" comes in two sizes, making it easy to fit into
any space and a comfortable fit for a small or large cat or multiple cats.
Before Ebert can move forward, he needs to decide which advertising avenue to access for the
start-up. The company initially started out shipping the litter boxes directly to the customers.
Due to production delays, Omega Paw suffered a dent to its reputation and decided to add a
distributor channel to overcome that issue. To reach the above mentioned budget sales,
various advertising alternatives are being considered. Before determining which alternative will
be the most suitable for the company, it is important to address the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats that the company are currently facing.
Situation Analysis
Strengths
● Omega Paw had reached impressive sales levels in a short period of time.
● Product is simple and friendly for the user and has been positively received by customers and
distributors.
● Six out of the seven distributors picked up the products right away because of its good quality
● Selling price is reasonable compared to its direct competitors.
● Product has a unique self-cleaning method that is superior to comparable products in the same
price range.
● The Canadian distribution has been successful
● Experience working with selective distribution and direct selling in Canada.

5. Weaknesses
● Due to Ebert being in business for just over a year, this low level of experience is a weakness
if the company plans to expand their operations.
● There is minimal diversification as a result of the company primarily selling only one type of
product to one market segment.
● The available marketing budget of $100,000 may not be sufficient to increase their marketing
technique.
● Reputation was dented due to the faulty prototype products.
● The selling price is higher compared to its indirect competitors.
● Does not have experience in intensive distribution strategies
● Early prototypes had problems and may have negative branding implications
● Has no useful information directly pertaining to American consumers
● ~50% ($9.06/$18) gross margin is considered somewhat low in the pet industry for dry goods
as compared to typically approximately 60% .
Opportunities
● Cat population is estimated to grow at an annual rate of 3.6% for the next few years.
● Consumers prefer cats compared to other popular pets because they are easier to care and
maintain.(is this true?)
● Potential increase in market share for being the only self-cleaning litter box in U.S.
● Opportunity for aggressive growth in the USA
● A smaller profile product will allow Omega to capture market growth resulting from
condo/apartment dwellers.
● Intensive distribution, although expensive and unfamiliar, may be the tool needed to
aggressively penetrate the USA market. However, with $50,000 upfront costs and $111,000
required for retail displays, additional financing would be required.
● Revise packaging to be eye catching, informative and easy to open. This will be attractive to
the three key segments.
Threats
● Many cat owners prefer the basic model of cat litter boxes which are sold at a lower price of
$10.00 to $15.00
● More potential competitors in the future since other companies may be motivated to sell this
product because of the growing cat population and few barriers to entry.
● Many existing competitors both direct and indirect.
● Competition in Canada is fierce and some are much more aggressive in terms of promotion
(like Everclean and Quicksand)
● Omega won’t be the only self-cleaning litter box solution in the USA for long and needs to build
a strong brand image and distribution before new industry entrants emerge.
● Some of the competition, especially Everclean, are already multinational and have much larger
budgets.
Market Analysis
Environmental Scanning
Social:
Cat ownership is on the rise as a result of several factors, which include the increased trend in
apartment and condominium living, as well with the rising average age in population due to baby
boomers and the increasing mobility of the workforce. The older generation prefer cats compared to

6. dogs because they are a lower energy, less responsibility pet. The cat population in North America
steadily increases at an annual rate of 3.6%.
Technological:
Technological advances in the cat litter box industry have created new products such as the
“Litter Maid”, making the market that much more competitive. Companies repeatedly come out with
better innovative products for consumers, showing how important technological advances are within
the litter box industry.
Economic:
A major economic factor like a recession could hurt the cat litter box market. As a result,
people will not want to spend money on non-essential items such as new cat litter boxes.
Regulatory:
The pet industry’s dry good market, unlike the food market, is not heavily regulated and will not
present a significant barrier to marketing actions.
Market Population
Cat owners are the primary market for Omega Paw’s self cleaning litter boxes. In North
America, this population is distributed between Canada with an estimated 10.2M cat owners, and the
USA, with an estimated 74M cat owners. Having experienced 50,000 sales in only seven months
since introducing Omega’s self cleaning litter box, there is a tremendous opportunity to expand their
influence in this market.
Based on Omega’s experience and knowledge of the industry, and the population, these
customers can be further subdivided into specific categories. The first is the “new pet owner” who
represents approximately 5% of the market. These are customers that would likely buy the deluxe
litter boxes and are excited to supply their new feline with the best that the market has to offer.
These consumers typically buy from vets office or pet stores and presents an appealing opportunity
for Omega to aggressively advertise and make their products available on the shelves in pet stores
and vet offices. Advertising would take the form of displays, brochures, testimonials and coupons.
Price points for this consumer can be higher. Their new acquired cat/kitten will be the most important
thing at this moment and are more likely to spend larger dollars. New cat owners are likely time
impoverished and therefore convenience will also be important to them so not to fill overwhelmed with
their furry friend.
The second important segment is the “existing cat owner” who represents 80% of the
estimated market. These customers would purchase for convenience since they already probably
have a litter box and are unsatisfied with the effort and lack of cleanliness. These customers would
purchase for convenience since they already probably have a litter box and expect to find products at
vets, pet stores, household supply stores and grocery stores. Marketing actions that would reach this
group include magazines, tv commercials, radio commercials, and in-store displays. They will need
extra price incentives to switch from their existing solutions to Omega’s self-cleaning solution.

7. Market Segmentation
While the new cat owner population is relatively small and clearly describable, the large
existing cat owner market warrants further understanding to enable marketing efforts to be relevant to
the various needs of these consumers.
Segment # 1 2 3 4
Name No room for big
animals
Aging and
lonely
boomers.
I just bought a cat;
Now what!?
My kids never take
care of this cat they
wanted - HELP!
Qualifying
dimensions
Who? Generation X and Y
cohorts
Baby
Boomers
Babyboomers,
Gen X an Y
Families with Children
What? Lives a fast paced
life and are single
seeking
companionship
Commands
the majority of
wealth
Little knowledge
of pet care. Wants
the best for their
new companion.
Requires easy
solutions to balance
complex lifestyles
When While owning or
considering cats
While owning
or considering
cats
After new cat is
adopted
While owning or
considering cats
Where? Living in CMA’s in
small
condo/apartment
dwellings.
Living in
households
primarily
CMA’s CMA’s - detached,
apartments/condos
Why? Requires space and
time economy.
Seeking best
options for cat
companions
Wants easiest
and best way to
care for new cat.
Needs to allocate tasks
to children
How? Through consumer
product innovation
and value conscious
marketing.
Through
trusted referral
Expert advice and
research
An easy effective way
to teach children how
to help with cat
maintenance
Segment
size
Over 50% of
population in US4
and 40% Canada5
10% cat
owner
population
5% of cat owner
market
20% of cat owners
Trends Apartments and
Condo’s are a
rapidly growing
industry.
Fastest
growing
population
segment in
Canada
Most consider
cats as part of
family.
Apartment and Condo
growth. Increase in
commuting lifestyles
(time-poverty)
Determining
dimensions
Benefits
sought
Convenience, time-
savings, space
efficiency
Quality, Value
and Trust
Information,
convenience
Convenience
Usage rate Daily Daily Daily Daily

8. The selected target markets are families and new cat owners as they are the most likely
groups to be satisfied with Omega’s products. Combined they represent 25% of the existing cat
owner market.
Competitive Analysis
Omega Paw Ltd. has several competitors in the litter box market, both direct and indirect.
Omega’s market share at 0.03% is quite small, and these competitors who have been in business for
much longer than Omega Paw have had the upper hand. The competitors range from many different
marketing tactics, from TV to national magazine advertisements.
The first competitor recognized by Ebert was First Brands Corporation, that produced the
“Everclean Self Scoop Litter Box”. This was retailed anywhere from $53 to $63. They spent most of
their time advertising to pet stores via trade magazines, and had North American-wide distribution.
Because they target pet stores like Omega Paw Ltd. does, they are one of their main competitors.
A second direct competitor to Omega Paw Ltd. is “Quick Sand”, which is said to be an
awkward product that takes more care to use, but is priced at a more competitive retailprice level of
$29. This product is shorter in length, and as result is easier to put in a secluded spot which can be
an attractive aspect for consumers. “Quick Sand” gained attention when it began a media campaign
in 2012 which showed great results for the product.
The last main competitor is “Lift & Sift” which is often compared to the “Quick Sand” product,
because they are both quite similar in design. Their product has been on the market for 3 years now,
but never had any extreme exposure until “Quick Sand’s” extensive media coverage gave them
penetration into mass distribution outlets such as Wal-Mart.
Indirect competition includes the basic model litter box, which is not an “owner friendly” litter
box. These products retailed for $10 to $15, and are sold at numerous locations. These litter boxes
made up for 90 percent of the market, however they are said to be awkward, messy and smelly.
The last indirect competition that Omega Paw Ltd. faces is a product called “Litter Maid”,
which is on the opposite side of the spectrum compared to the basic model of litter boxes. This
product is the most advanced, and easy product on the market. It uses electric eyes and an automatic
sifting comb, which is extremely consumer friendly, retailing via mail order for $129.
The impact on Omega Paw is primarily in terms of price point, function and advertising.
Everclean and Quicksand have aggresively advertised and have experienced success as a result.
Litter Maid and traditional boxes are positioned outside of Omega’s focus and will should not interfere
with marketing actions.

9. Marketing Mix Implications of Competition
Direct Competition Indirect Competition
Ever clean Self-
Scoop Litter box
Quick Sand Lift & Sift Traditional
Litter box
Litter Maid
Product Similarities:
● Rounded
edges
● Box is rolled
to collect
litter
Differences:
● Box is open,
top is
attached only
for cleaning
then
removed
● Uses 3
layered
trays
● Trays are
sifted and
litter
thrown
out
● Whole
box must
be carried
to be
emptied
● Shorter in
length,
easier to
place
● Also uses
3 layered
trays
● Includes
directions
● Basic and
cheap
● Messy
and
difficult to
clean
● No odor
control
● Computerize
d Self-
Cleaning
● Cleaned
within
minutes of
cat leaving
litter box
● 1 Year
manufacturer
warranty
Price Retail Price $53-
$63
Retail Price
$29
Retail Price
$27
Retail Price
$10-$15
Retail Price
$129
Promotio
n
● Advertising
to pet stores
through
trade
magazines
● Well known
manufacture
r
● Endorsed
by talk
show
host
● Bought
by Smart
Invention
s and
campaign
was
launched
● Limited
advertisin
g
● Benefited
from
Quick
Sand
advertisin
g
● Well-
known
product
● Little
advertisin
g needed
● 90% of
litter box
market
● Heavily
advertised in
TV and
magazine
Place North-American
Wide
Distribution
Canada and
United States
Mass
distribution –
Wal-Mart
Numerous
Locations
Purchased by
mail order

10. Market Positioning
Financial Analysis
Scenario 1 - Mass Markets via House Accounts w/advertising
This option has the benefit of reaching a multitude of customers and the highest gross margin
at $9.12/unit to Omega Paw. This margin unfortunately comes at the highest cost to the consumer
due to various markups required at the distribution and retail levels. Additionally, the complexity
required to retool production and distribute large quantities will both increase the time-to-market and
require additional investment in manufacturing capacity as the current level will not satisfy quantity
demands. Given that the current plant produces 3500 units per week and that the Canadian market
is already demanding 50% of this capacity, at $1.7M sales, the plant would not be able to produce
enough. WIth the additional efforts in TV/Mail order advertising this effect is enhanced.
If the firm is able to raise additional capital or produce enough equity to support the
construction of new manufacturing capacity, this option does have the greatest potential for profit.
Scenario 2 - Manufacturer Reps and Small Distributers w/advertising
This option provides the second highest margins at $9.06 per unit. However, in addition, the
retail selling price is at a highly competitive point as manufacturer reps only require a 6% margin on
MSP which doesn’t have to be passed to the end consumer to remain profitable. With a $100,000

11. marketing budget available and low up-front costs, the option to aggressively pursue two strategies is
possible for Omega to both distribute to the US while directly engaging in TV/Mail order campaigns to
maximize sales potential.
Scenario 3 - Grocery Stores
Grocery stores present the lowest margin due to various commissions and fixed costs required
to enter this channel. This reduces margins to $4.53/unit which puts great pressure on Omega to
maximize sales volume. Additionally, the markups required at both the distributor and retail level
including cooperative advertising makes this alternative the highest price to the consumer. At $31.50
retail, Omega will have a difficult time competing with alternative offerings. The main pitfall of this
option is that new manufacturing will be required to hit the first sales target of $1.7M (hmmm)
Key Factors
Key Opportunities
● Large relatively untapped market in USA
● Higher market share
● Improves litter maintenance
Key Success Factors
● Awareness
● Best Option for Distribution Channel
● Quality Control
Key Uncertainties
● Competitive Reaction
● Consumer Acceptance
● Lack of knowledge in complex distribution schemes

12. Alternatives
Alternative #1 - pursue mass distribution through mass markets like Walmart
This alternative is attractive by virtue of its immense size and reach. Walmart and other mass
marketers are the most frequented stores in the world and Omega Paw’s product would be in position
to reach millions of consumers and would be a compelling way to reach enough consumers
necessary to achieve sales goals.
Being successful in this strategy requires that Omega make a considerable investment in
production, commission, distribution and advertising. With regards to production, an estimated
$50,000 in additional retooling costs would be required which would take time to implement and drain
the company’s scarce resources. In addition to production, regional and national brokers each
demand a 4% margin increasing variable costs and reducing profit. Distribution centres require a
40% markup on MSP in addition to 10% for selling costs which will shift the current price point from
$18/unit to $30/unit. This increase may decrease the competitive advantage and have an adverse
effect on sales.
Pros:
● Sales would definitely go up, since outlets such a Wal-Mart experience many more
customers than pet stores
● Demand would be plenty as this is such a broad market (almost everyone goes to
distribution outlets in our consumerist society)
● Would still be distributing via pet stores as another source of income
Cons:
● Now experience direct competition with “Lift and Sift” who also sell in mass distribution
outlets as well
● Have to pay a 40% markup on manufacturer’s sales price (MSP)
● Have to pay a $50,000 fee for additional tooling, different packaging and increased
advertising
● Changes would have to be made to the product, such as the product’s selling price,
image and promotional plans
Alternative #2: revisit mail order channels in America, and keep distributing via pet stores in
Canada.
This alternative is appealing as it leverages existing success in the Canadian market while
tapping into a strategy that has been proven to be successful in the USA. The tv campaigns cost

13. ~20,000 for the initial trial run but might be cheaper on consecutive runs should the strategy prove
successful.
Pros:
● Americans are more receptive to mail orders than Canadians, proving that targeting
Americans would be beneficial
● Small start up fee of $20,000 for initial run
● This option includes an initial run, so if it is not effective it is easy to opt out of it
● Omega would produce and ship directly to the customer
Cons:
● The mail order was not effective last time Omega Paw Inc. attempted it
● Costs are $20,000
● TV campaign sometimes anger people, infomercials tend to get on consumers nerves,
can dent Omega Paw Inc.’s reputation
● Has to now directly compete with the “Litter Maid”
Alternative #3: advertise in trade magazines only
Advertising in trade magazines would attempt to attract resellers to sell and market the product
on behalf of Omega Paw. They would have less control over the selling process but the effort would
be less costly to Omega.
Pros:
● Cheap alternative, costs only $3,000 to $4,000 per month
● Helps to get their new product’s name out there
● Does not introduce the idea of change too much to Omega Paw Ltd.
Cons:
● May not be sufficient enough to get Ebert to reach his sales goal
● This is not a risky move, where high risk = high reward most often
● Target market is still the same, doing nothing to try and bring a bigger variety of
consumers to buy the product
Alternative #4 – expand into grocery stores
In order to sell to grocery stores, Omega has to sell through a national broker that requires the
greater of 4% margin on MSP or $2,000 retainage monthly fees. Next is through a regional broker
that requires 4% margin on MSP, then to the distribution centre ranging from 20 to 25% markup on
the MSP, and lastly the grocery stores require a 40% markup on the distributors‘ selling price. In
addition, there is an additional estimated cost of $3.00 to produce POP display.
Pros:
● Product will have good exposure in the grocery stores, and thus, will help to increase sales
● There are 37,000 grocery stores in the United States
● The grocery market is relatively untapped
● Offers convenience to customers since they can purchase this product while picking up other
grocery items

14. Cons:
● Requires to pay markups to the members of the trade channel
● Buyers may not be willing to spend extra $30.00 on their weekly grocery spending
● Grocery industry may not be ready to accept this type of product in the store
● The production constraints of 3,500 units per week may fail to meet the significant increase on
the demand.
Alternative #5 - continue to utilize manufacturer reps in addition to TV/Mail order campaigns
and trade magazine advertising.
This alternative blends the success already experienced bymanufacturing reps regarding
additional profit potential typically a favorable response that Americans have with Mail/TV Orders.
Manufacturing Reps provide the least markups and fixed costs to implement and the shortest time to
bring the product to market. Additionally, thanks to the savings on up-front costs, there is the option
to reinforce this effort with Mail/TV Order ads in addition to trade magazine advertising to entice both
consumers and distributors to do business with Omega Paw.
Pros:
● Utilize existing trade relationships
● Influence sales messaging through TV/Trade adverts
● Lowest cost to the consumer improving positioning
Cons:
● Less penetration than other alternatives
● Little control over selling practices
● Failure in TV/Mail order campaign a possibility
● Will eventually require new manufacturing to satisfy demand if successful which may not be
affordable
Alternative #6 - status quo (do nothing)
Continue using manufacturer reps to distribute Omega Paw products to US pet stores and
utilize CPD in Cambridge to distribute in Canada. This alternative would do nothing to further
penetrate the USA market and would not likely meet the volume sales required to achieve sales
targets.
This strategy also doesn’t reinforce manufacturer reps with additional marketing such as trade
magazines or TV advertising. Sales control is left to the reps and individual distributors retail stores
who may have their own priorities.
Pros:
● Don’t have to change anything

15. ● Don’t have to spend more money on marketing tactics
● More years of experience result in more sales
Cons:
● Most likely will not result in the goal of $1.7 million in sales
● No risk, no reward
● Other consumer groups will not be penetrated
Recommendations
The best course of action for Omega Paw to take would be alternative #5. A combination of
utilizing existing manufacturing reps and advertising would both leverage existing competencies while
providing an opportunity to boost sales through direct selling via Mail Orders. This option also
provides the consumer with the lowest cost to obtain Omega’s product which is only ~2X more
expensive than traditional boxes for the additional utility of a self cleaning solution.
Pursuing mass markets would present new costs to Omega at an early time of maturity which
is a huge gamble given the traction that they have already made. Additionally, the 40% markup
required would reduce their competitive position making alternatives more desirable and reduce sales
potential.
Grocery distribution would be the least desirable due to the increased cost and time-to-market
due to production retooling. Additionally, grocery stores/channels require the highest markups
resulting in the least desirable price point position.
In all strategies the company will need to expand manufacturing capacity to be able to meet
the unit requirements inherent in sales goals of $1.7M, $3M and $5.7M over the next three years.
However, it is assumed that as these milestones are meet there will be sufficient access to capital to
expand operations.

16. Action Plan - 2012
Date Item Description
Immediately Check with
marketing
department
Person – marketing manager
Verify marketing data
Review marketing plan
Approve budget
1 month Start issuing items Person – marketing manager
Form television advertising team and issue objectives and
requirements for mail order campaign and target market
incentives. Communicate with production team and provide
production requirements.
Communicate with manufacturer reps and convey goals and
shipping schedules
2 month Complete TV
Adverts
Review produced TV advertisment for mail order campaign.
Prepare call centre for sales procedures
Segment shipping department for both mail order fulfillment
and distributer shipping
2 month Ensure production
efficiency
Follow up with production to ensure quotas are maintained in
terms of quantity and quality to serve both US and CDN
markets.
6 months Assess TV
Campaign
Review trial run of TV/Mail order campaign. If successful order
more airtime. Otherwise scrap.
6 months Review financials Compare actual sales to forecasted sales and take corrective
actions.
10 months Begin Christmas
Promotions
Offer coupons and discounts during Christmas to drive sales
12 months Review Financials,
production and
promotion
Solicit and evaluate reports from production, finance and
advertising to assess results against marketing plan.
Contingency
Mass markets would be the next best option to chooseif sales goals aren’t achieved through
manufacturer reps. This will require new marketing efforts as this options nearly doubles the
selling price from $18 to $31.50.

17. Appendices
Appendix 1 - Financial Analysis
Factors Mass Markets via
House Accounts + TV
Orders
Grocery Manufacturing Reps
+ Supportive
Advertising
Annual
Manufactu
ring
Capacity
3500/week*52weeks = 182,000
Monthly canadian consumption so far = 50,000/7 = 7,142(2x7142*1.25)
Est. Christmas season (Nov-Dec) volume increase = 25%
Capacity
Est. Annual Canadian consumption on capacity = 50,000 + (3x7142) +
*(2x7142*1.25) = 50,000 + 21426 + 17855 = 89281
Est. Capacity available for USA = 92719 (51%)
*Christmas season would be higher volume than months leading to
September. Assuming 25% in this case for Nov-Dec.
Selling
Price
$25.20
MSP = $18
*DSP =MSP * (1+40%)
$31.50
MSP = $18
*DSP =MSP *
(1+25%+40%*10%)
$18
Fixed
Costs (FC)
High $150,000;
50,000 for retooling and
packaging changes
100,000 for marketing
211,000
100,000 for marketing
$3 per store @
37,000 stores =
111,000
100,000
100,000 split between
TV ads and trade
magazines
Variable
Costs
(VC)
Production
$6 for manufacturing
$1.5 for shipping
$1.38 for packaging
Production
$6 for manufacturing
$1.5 for shipping
$1.38 for packaging
Distribution*
$0.72 = 4% margin on
MSP for national
Broker
$0.72 = 4% margin on
MSP for regional
Broker
Advertising
10% on RSP for co-
operative advertising
Production
$6 for manufacturing
$1.5 for shipping
$1.38 for packaging
Man. Reps.
6% MSP
commission
*Assumption that additional markups are passed to the consumer.
Break- FC = 150,000 FC = 211,000 FC = 100,000

18. even
Analysis
(Fixed
cost
divided by
margin)
Margin=$9.12=(18-6-
1.5-1.38)
BEP=150,000 / 13.68
= 16,448 units
Margin=$4.53=(18-6-
1.5-1.38-0.72-0.72-
(.10*3150))
BEP=211,000 / 4.53
= 46,579 units
Margin= $8.06 = (18-
6-1.5-1.38-(.06x18))
BEP = 100,000 / 9.02
= 11,037 units
Profit @
1.7M
Sales
Unit Sales * Margin
Unit Sales = 1.7M /
25.20
=67461
Profit = 67461 x 9.12
= 615,245
Unit Sales * Margin
Unit Sales = 1.7M /
31.50
=53968
Profit = 53968 x 4.53
= 244,476
Unit Sales * Margin
Unit Sales = 1.7M / 18
=94,444
Profit = 94,444 x 9.02
= 855,662
**Exceeds current
manufacturing
capacity
Profit @
3M Sales
Unit Sales * Margin
Unit Sales = 3M / 25.20
=119,048
Profit = Units x 9.12
= 1,085,717
**Exceeds current
manufacturing
capacity
Profit = (3M/31.50) x
4.53
=431,429
Unit Sales * Margin
Unit Sales = 3M / 18
=166,667
Profit = 166,667 x
9.02
= 1,510,000
**Exceeds current
manufacturing
capacity
Profit @
5.7M
Sales
Unit Sales * Margin
Unit Sales = 5.7M /
25.20
=226,191
Profit = Units x 13.68
= 2,062,862
**Exceeds current
manufacturing
capacity
Profit = (5.7M/31.50)
x 4.53
=819,715
Unit Sales * Margin
Unit Sales = 5.7M / 18
=316,667
Profit = 166,667 x
9.06
= 2,869,000
**Exceeds current
manufacturing
capacity
Annual
Profit at
100%
USA
Capacity
92719 x 9.12
=$845,598
92719 x 4.53
=$420,018
92719 x 9.06
=840,034

19. Projected income statement for selected alternative: Manufacturer Reps + Advertising:
Sales 2012 2013 2014
Sales Canada $ 1,542,857.14 $ 1,542,857.14 $ 1,542,857.14
--CAD units 85,714 85,714 85,714
Sales USA $157,142.86 $1,457,142.86 $4,157,142.86
--USA units 8,730 80,952 230,952
Total Sales $1,700,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $5,700,000.00
--MSP $18.00 $18.00 $18.00
--Total Units 94,445 166,667 316,667
**Annual Production Capacity @ 3500/wk 182,000 182,000 182,000
Variable Costs
Production @ $6 $ 566,670.00 $ 1,000,002.00 $ 1,900,002.00
Shipping @ $1.50 $ 141,668.00 $ 250,001.00 $ 475,001.00
Packaging @ 1.38 $ 130,335.00 $ 230,001.00 $ 437,001.00
USA Manufacturer Rep Commission @ 6% MSP $ 9,428.57 $ 87,428.57 $ 249,428.57
Total Variable Costs $ 848,101.57 $ 1,567,432.57 $ 3,061,432.57
Contribution Margin $ 851,898.43 $ 1,432,567.43 $ 2,638,567.43
--per unit 9.02 8.6 8.33
Fixed Costs
TV Advertising (remaining budget) $ 52,000.00 $ 52,000.00 $ 52,000.00
Trade Magazine @ 4K/mo. $ 48,000.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 48,000.00
Total Fixed Costs $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
Net Income $ 751,898.43 $ 1,332,567.43 $ 2,538,567.43
Note: In year 3, new manufacturing will be required

20. References
1. Population by marital status and sex in Canada (2016) from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-
tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil01-eng.htm
2. Marital Status in the USA (2000) from
https://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
3. Generation X and Y perceptions about Marriage from
https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/eickmeyer-gen-x-millennials-fp-15-
12.html
4. Housing stats in USA (2000) from
https://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/censusatlas/pdf/14_Housing.pdf
5. Housing stats in Canada from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-
som/l01/cst01/famil133a-eng.htm
6. Baby Boomers in USA from http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/baby-boomer-generation-fast-
facts/index.html