Once America’s most innovative consumer products company, Procter and Gamble (P&G) started by selling soaps and candles in a small Cincinnati storefront in 1837 (Procter and Gamble, 2008). After a hundred and seventy-one years P&G has grown to over one hundred household brands in over eighty countries (Markels 2006). Their products range from air fresheners to prescription drugs. However, as P&G headed into the twenty-first century they announced that they would not be meeting their 1st quarter earnings forecast [Lafley, 2003]. Revenue margins were dropping and P&G was quickly losing market share to Kimberly Clark and Johnson & Johnson. After missed earnings P&G’s stock price fell from $59.18 to $26.50 between January 2000 and March 2000 (PG). Upset, the board of directors pressured then CEO Durk Jager to resign after a lack luster attempt at turning P&G around and replaced him A.G Lafley, an unproven CEO, whom analysts felt lacked the experience to give P&G a much needed clean up (Lafley, 2003).
Before Lafley took over for Jager, P&G was stretched to the max, haplessly wasting away resources and opportunities with an overcomplicated business strategy. P&G was raising prices on their best selling brands to cover for missed sales and high production costs for new brands that failed to be a successful [Lafley, 2003]. They had hired too many employees and were involved in several investments that were unprofitable. P&G had not had a hit product since the launch of ALWAYS feminine products in the 1980’s and each additional product flop only stretched their recourses thinner and thinner. Costs were high and moral low with employees not afraid to voice their lacking confidence with P&G’s leadership and direction. Subsidiaries were blaming corporate for their missed earnings and visa versa [Lafley, 2003]. Strategies between the brands at P&G clashed and each were out to safe guard their own interests. The prices of their consumer products were too high while the company failed to deliver customer satisfaction. These factors distracted them from what had originally made them successful – being an industry leader in innovation (Markels, 2006).
Seeing the downward spiral P&G was quickly ascending into, Lafley knew he had to act fast. He had to provide direction that was needed for a turn around. He started internally breaking the company down from the inside out and then rebuilding it. He had a plan to change P&G and was quoted as saying, “We accepted change, and rather than trying to resist it, we committed to leading it.
As the private brands may not achieve or maintain market acceptance these brands may provide the adverse results expected. Financial condition and results of operation can be negatively affected if pricing, quality and other factors are not up to customer’s satisfaction levels. With all brands sold by Dollar General there is the unfortunate shrinkage that may occur. Profitability may be negatively affected by inventory shrinkage and the inability to properly manage the inventory balances. Effective inventory management is a key component of Dollar General’s business success and profitability. If the company’s buying decisions do not accurately predict consumer trends, excess inventory will negatively affect financial results. Inventory turnover has improved and the company is aware and focusing on addressing all of these risks in the most productive way possible. The biggest risk that the company is facing from a consumer’s perspective is that their sector is highly competitive. Operating in a basic consumer goods market there is already a strain on margins, and low prices are necessary to stay competitive. This restriction on increasing prices may result in a loss when costs increase. The objective is to keep overhead, salaries, marketing and all costs to a bare minimal. Other competitors have saturated the geographic market where Dollar General once was
Dillard’s is an excellent example of what can go wrong when a management model from yesteryear is applied to modern day advancement and technologies. They are not growing with consumer desires or employee needs, and they are becoming an outdated brand. Instead of stressing satisfaction rates, they stress the bottom line profits. While this formula has made the company successful and allowed national growth at the turn of the century, it is also dropping employee morale, which is known to drive down customer attraction and satisfaction rates.
When Jim Kilts showed up at Gillette in 2001, the first outsider to run the Boston-based company in more than 70 years, he found a business with great brands losing market share. Its acquisitions of Duracell and Braun were not delivering. Sales and earnings were flat, the company had missed its earnings estimates for 15 straight quarters, the stock had plummeted, and Wall Street had lost patience. Yet two-thirds of the top managers were getting top ratings. People were being rewarded for effort; performance, under Mr. Kilts regime, became the new measure.
Despite the economically uncertainty Pret A Manger keeps on thriving in the U.S. fast food market. It’s growing fast, with huge success. Pret is proving to the world its a big threat in the sandwich industry. In 2011, U.S. sales up 40% from the year before, “the company’s overall profits grew by 37% in 2010, and annual workforce turnover is only 60%, compared to fast food industry averages of 300-400%.” (Smart Advantage)
In this paper I will discuss the Wrigley Company and how it became one of the most recognized and largest branded companies in the world. When you think of Wrigley people tend to think of the gum products it is now for, as well as the commercials we all have grown to love over the years. Remember the double mint twins, what about, Juicy fruit, even big red- all are a part of the every expanding brand of Wrigley. One of the many achievements the company can tip its hat too is being able to say that it lead all gross product sales in the year of 2007. This is a major accomplishment considering that the US is one of the largest consumers on the planet- so the competition is fierce. But overall its leadership and management have given the come the wherewithal to withstand to new challenges the company has faced over the decades.
The Procter and Gamble Company. (2013, November 17). Company Strategy. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from http://www.pginvestor.com: http://www.pginvestor.com/GenPage.aspx?IID=4004124&GKP=208821
Although Lafley has had success, the underlying problem remains. How will Lafley return P&G to its rightful place in Corporate America? P&G's solution to its problems is through product line extensions, expansion into non-premium brands, as well as acquisitions, licensing, reinforcing market orientation through consumer focus, and outsourcing. This recommendation was based on following items;
What we conclude from our research that there’s no single organization free from facing complications and difficulties. Each and every organization face few or many strategic problems. Johnson & Johnson had a problem with one of their products, and they were smart in handling that problem to keep the company on the safe side without letting it effect it negatively. It is very important to act quickly to fix the problem before many consumers notice.
In 2002, CEO of Levi Strauss, Phil Marineau was faced with a tough decision: whether he should sell product at Wal-Mart. In the last five years, Levi-Strauss had lost sales and had to close US plants to move production to cheaper offshore areas. Levi's really needed to revive the brand image to gain back some lost sales and was using marketing to create new advertisements and product placement to broaden their target market. Levi's had tough competition on every level of the price-point spectrum, whether it be high end retailers like Diesel or Calvin Klein, middle vertically integrated retailers like Gap or American Eagles, and on the bottom, private-label brands like Wal-Mart and Target.
Source One: Chaudhuri’s article on Pret A Manger, discuses the expansion of the company in the United States. The CEO elaborates on the history of the company’s growth by demonstrating data over the course of years. The article supports the claim with a bar graph of the brand’s revenue. Furthermore, the CEO explains the reasons as to why Pret A Manger has not rush to open new establishments in the United States because of their history of a crisis.
BR was sold to Delta Foods in 1996 for US $2 billion. At this time, it was one of the largest fast-food chains in the world generating sales of US $6.8 billion. DF purchase of BR brought in a new cultural paradigm. DF is an individualistic, aggressive growth company with brands they believe are strong enough to support entry into new overseas markets without the need for local partnership. The DF strategy is one of direct acquisition and JV’s were not part of their strong suit. DF strategic implementation is based on hiring local managers directly or transferring seasoned managers from their soft drink and snack food divisions. The DF disdain for JVs is clearly reflected by their participation in only those JVs where local partnering was mandatory (e.g. China) to overcome regulatory barriers to entry. JVs had been the predominant strategy for BR which was unlike the DF outlook. Terralumen’s strategy was misaligned and out of sync with the DF strategy. This was unlike the complementarity that existed with BR’s strategy. This misalignment began to affect the JV relationship that had worked well with BR in the initial years. The failure of Terralumen and DF to recognize this fundamental cultural difference between their operational strategy styles i.e. Individualistic and Collectivism leads to their inability to proactively create steps for better alignment in the early period after acquisition, creating uncertainties and difficulties for both corporations. There is a lack of communication and virtually absence of trust between two new partners. DF appeared to be flexing its muscles in the relationship and using a more masculine approach compared to Terralumen’s more feminine approach. Both the corporations are strategically involved in a complex situation where they appear reluctant to address the issues at stake and move ahead together. The DF strategy of
The P-O-L-C framework, has been a reoccurring topic in these case studies and has been used to describe management processes throughout the book. P-O-L-C stands for, planning, organizing, leading and controlling, which is an exceptional framework for companies to establish themselves and keep them afloat. The discussion in this case, Pret A Manger, involves the teamwork that Pret builds itself on. In 1986, Pret A Manger started planning their company with a vision and mission to provide healthy, inexpensive food while avoiding preservatives and chemicals, as well as establishing a well-oiled team structure. In the organizing section of the framework, Pret designed its company to be able to provide for their customers for a low price, but
The purpose of this report is to compare financial reports from the two largest soft drink manufacturers in the world. The Pepsi Co. and Coca Cola have been the industry's leaders in their market since the early 1900's. I will use relevant figures to determine profitability, and break down key ratios in profitability, liquidity, and solvency. By breaking down financial statements, and converting them to percentages and ratios, comparisons can be made between competitors regardless of size.
...re chances of growth and development for the company which is clearly understood through the research done on the Ansoff’s matrix. P&G is much ahead of its competitors and has also won many honors in terms of offering quality and innovative products. The company’s products are also sold by wide variety of retailers around the world and also through many e stores that sells the product online. Finally the company has also got more expansion opportunities which is clearly understood through the Yips model of Internationalization. As the company continues to acquire international brands over the years and succeeds in offering quality and innovative based products to the people all over the world it tend to give a much better completion to its competitors and of course get a wider market share making its competitors give a tough time in the industry.
Relationships have been in place with two main groups in Singapore long before Proctor and Gamble ever decided to build a plant. The Economic Development Board and A*Star’s Institute for Materials Research and Engineering are the two main groups they have been involved with. Since Proctor and Gamble built these relationships before building a plant in Singapore they have thus established a strategic alliance with Singapore. The Economic Development Board and A*Star’s Institute for Materials Research and Engineering have come together with Proctor and Gamble to share resources and complete a project. Proctor and Gamble benefit from setting up a strategic alliance with A*Star by getting the privilege of looking at IMRE’s innovative research (Moneycontrol.com, 2008). In return for this preferential treatment, P&G shares its new innovations with A*Star’s IMRE (Moneycontrol.com, 2008).