Presented By Subho Mistri
J.U.(B.E.)
(A HBR case study)
• Company Background
• US toothbrush market
• Product segments
• Consumer behavior
• Competition
• The precision marketing mix
• Conclusion
Contents
WHY STUDY THIS CASE
• To understand the market competition faced by
Colgate precision Toothbrush
• To analyze the consumer behavior of that time
period
• To summarise the profits gain by the company
COLGATE PRECISION
 A new product toothbrush launched by CP
in August 1992
 Developed over a period of 3 years
Who is Susan Steinberg?
 Precision product manager, managed the entire new development
process.
 Responsible for recommending positioning, branding and
communication strategies.
Company’s Background
CP– A Global Leader in Household & Personal Care Product:
THE U.S. MARKET
The U.S. Toothbrush
market has seen many
changes from Dr.
West’s miracle Tuft
toothbrush to the
newly launched the
Colgate Precision
The Five year
Plan(1991-1995)
1.To launch new products
2.To enter into new geographic
markets
3.To improve efficiency in
manufacturing and distribution
4.To continue focus on CORE
CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Product
1. Value
2. Professional
3. Super-Premium
The industry executives had divided the toothbrush
category into following segments:
CONSUMER
BEHAVIOUR
CP’s Consumer Research indicated that Baby
Boom generation Consumers were now
becoming more concern about the health of
their Gums as opposed to cavity prevention
and were willing to pay a Premium for new
Products addressing this issue
COMPETITION
PROMOTION
MEDIA EXPENDITURES
TELEVISION & ADVERTISING COPY STATEGIES & EXECUTIONS
CP TELEVISION ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE FOR CP TOOTHBRUSHES
• In 1992, 22% of all toothbrushes were
expected to be distributed to the
consumers by dentists.
• Manufacturer margins on toothbrush sales
through dentists were less than half those
achieved through normal retail
distribution.
• Exhibit 13 summarizes toothbrush retail
distribution by volume & value
PRODUCT DESIGN
AND TESTING
In 1989, CP had established a task
force comprising executives from:
 R & D and marketing
 Dental professionals
 Outside consultants
MISSION
 To “develop a superior,
technical, plaque removing
device”
Capacity and Investment Cost: Three types of equipment
were required to manufacture the precision toothbrush :
1. Tufters
2. Handle molds
3. Packaging machinery
Table D gives the cost, depreciation period, and annual
capacity for each class of equipment
Production Cost
Warehousing cost
Transport cost
Steinberg estimated the cost & Price data as below
 Total manufacturing cost+
total Advertising
cost=Input cost (Variable
+ Fixed cost)
 Total Profit= (Retail
Price*No. of brushes) -
input cost
 For Breakeven, Input
Cost= Total revenue
generated by selling the
precision brush.
Table C+
Table E
A Pro-forma
income
statement
Profit
implications
• Niche Vs Mainstream
• Position Strategies
• Uncertain Cannibalization
Two tests were carried out:
Consumer concept test
Name Test
OUTCOME:
Under the niche and mainstream positioning scenarios-
1. Cannibalization figures for Colgate Plus would be increased by
20% if the Colgate brand name was stressed.
2. Remain unchanged if the precision brand name was stressed.
CP’s stated
corporate
strategy was to
build on the
Colgate brand
equity
4 concept tests conducted among
400 adult professional brush users
(Colgate Plus , Reach & Oral-B
users)-18 to 54 years of age.
Result of Four concept tests :
TEST 1:
(69+68+66)/3=67.67% Probably would buy
(15+15+10)/3=11.67% Definitely would buy
TEST 2:
(80+71+74+68)/4=73.5% Probably would buy
(19+19+18+14)/4=17.5% Definitely would buy
TEST 3:
(63+72+62+66)/4=65.75% Probably would buy
(13+16+11+14)/4=13.5% Definitely would buy
TEST 4:
(87+61)/2=74% Probably would buy
(19+48)/2= 24% Definitely would buy
 Precision-A technological breakthrough-
more than a niche product/simple line
extension
 How precision should be position, branded
and communicated to customers.
 What the advertising & promotion should be
and how it should be broken down.
 To develop a marketing mix and profit-and-
loss pro forma to enable precision to reach
its full potential.
This presentation made By Subho Mistri (J.U.), during a
marketing internship under Prof. Sameer Mathur (IIM-L)

Colgate-Palmolive Case Study

  • 1.
    Presented By SubhoMistri J.U.(B.E.) (A HBR case study)
  • 2.
    • Company Background •US toothbrush market • Product segments • Consumer behavior • Competition • The precision marketing mix • Conclusion Contents
  • 3.
    WHY STUDY THISCASE • To understand the market competition faced by Colgate precision Toothbrush • To analyze the consumer behavior of that time period • To summarise the profits gain by the company
  • 4.
    COLGATE PRECISION  Anew product toothbrush launched by CP in August 1992  Developed over a period of 3 years Who is Susan Steinberg?  Precision product manager, managed the entire new development process.  Responsible for recommending positioning, branding and communication strategies.
  • 5.
    Company’s Background CP– AGlobal Leader in Household & Personal Care Product:
  • 6.
  • 7.
    The U.S. Toothbrush markethas seen many changes from Dr. West’s miracle Tuft toothbrush to the newly launched the Colgate Precision
  • 9.
  • 10.
    1.To launch newproducts 2.To enter into new geographic markets 3.To improve efficiency in manufacturing and distribution 4.To continue focus on CORE CONSUMER PRODUCTS
  • 11.
  • 12.
    1. Value 2. Professional 3.Super-Premium The industry executives had divided the toothbrush category into following segments:
  • 14.
  • 15.
    CP’s Consumer Researchindicated that Baby Boom generation Consumers were now becoming more concern about the health of their Gums as opposed to cavity prevention and were willing to pay a Premium for new Products addressing this issue
  • 18.
  • 24.
  • 26.
  • 27.
    TELEVISION & ADVERTISINGCOPY STATEGIES & EXECUTIONS
  • 28.
  • 29.
  • 31.
    • In 1992,22% of all toothbrushes were expected to be distributed to the consumers by dentists. • Manufacturer margins on toothbrush sales through dentists were less than half those achieved through normal retail distribution. • Exhibit 13 summarizes toothbrush retail distribution by volume & value
  • 34.
  • 35.
    In 1989, CPhad established a task force comprising executives from:  R & D and marketing  Dental professionals  Outside consultants MISSION  To “develop a superior, technical, plaque removing device”
  • 39.
    Capacity and InvestmentCost: Three types of equipment were required to manufacture the precision toothbrush : 1. Tufters 2. Handle molds 3. Packaging machinery Table D gives the cost, depreciation period, and annual capacity for each class of equipment
  • 42.
  • 43.
    Steinberg estimated thecost & Price data as below
  • 45.
     Total manufacturingcost+ total Advertising cost=Input cost (Variable + Fixed cost)  Total Profit= (Retail Price*No. of brushes) - input cost  For Breakeven, Input Cost= Total revenue generated by selling the precision brush.
  • 46.
    Table C+ Table E APro-forma income statement Profit implications • Niche Vs Mainstream • Position Strategies • Uncertain Cannibalization
  • 49.
    Two tests werecarried out: Consumer concept test Name Test OUTCOME: Under the niche and mainstream positioning scenarios- 1. Cannibalization figures for Colgate Plus would be increased by 20% if the Colgate brand name was stressed. 2. Remain unchanged if the precision brand name was stressed.
  • 50.
    CP’s stated corporate strategy wasto build on the Colgate brand equity
  • 52.
    4 concept testsconducted among 400 adult professional brush users (Colgate Plus , Reach & Oral-B users)-18 to 54 years of age.
  • 53.
    Result of Fourconcept tests : TEST 1: (69+68+66)/3=67.67% Probably would buy (15+15+10)/3=11.67% Definitely would buy TEST 2: (80+71+74+68)/4=73.5% Probably would buy (19+19+18+14)/4=17.5% Definitely would buy TEST 3: (63+72+62+66)/4=65.75% Probably would buy (13+16+11+14)/4=13.5% Definitely would buy TEST 4: (87+61)/2=74% Probably would buy (19+48)/2= 24% Definitely would buy
  • 57.
     Precision-A technologicalbreakthrough- more than a niche product/simple line extension  How precision should be position, branded and communicated to customers.  What the advertising & promotion should be and how it should be broken down.  To develop a marketing mix and profit-and- loss pro forma to enable precision to reach its full potential.
  • 58.
    This presentation madeBy Subho Mistri (J.U.), during a marketing internship under Prof. Sameer Mathur (IIM-L)