1. Colgate Palmolive The Precision Toothbrush Abhishek Pangaria Mandeepak Singh Rajendra Inani Saravanan Logu Tarandeep Singh Vivek Edlabadkar 2. Contents Problem Statement Demand & Market Analysis Marketing Mix Marketing Strategy / Programs Recommendation 3. Problem Statement Defining the Marketing strategy (Positioning, Branding & Communication Strategies) for the New Toothbrush Colgate Precision 4. Nature of Demand Tooth brush market is close to a century old, but last few decades have witnessed many changes Now, there is a shift in demanded benefits Cavity Prevention Healthier Gums Young generation ready to pay for superior toothbrush Market is emerging from value and premium range to a third category of Super Premium range Enhanced Oral Care 5. Extend of Demand Current US Toothbrush market US $ 330 MN CPs share US $ 77 MN Market growth 9.3% per annum since 1987 ($ sale) Year 1992 Market growth 18% by volume, 21 % by $ sale $ growth exceeded volume growth due to emerge of Super Premium Toothbrush 6. Environmental Climate Political - Relatively insignificant Economic New entrants appeared in early 90s Proctor & Gamble and Smithkline Beecham Positioned in the super-premium segment Technological The new products in late 1980s & early 1990s design of the handle and head of the tooth brush the action of the bristles Super premium toothbrushes - with an emphasis on greater plaque removal and gum care 7. Environmental Climate Cont.. Social Aesthetic appeal in the late 1980 The childrens market Glow-in-the-dark handles Cartoon characters New product - technological improvements An additional social development - concern for gum health - the baby boom population Cavity prevention was the previous concern - willing to pay more for products designed for gum care 8. Environmental Climate Cont.. Current status and future trend The most current technology is the action of the bristles Concern for gum health is demonstrated by the current population New product offerings to feature technological improvements of aesthetic improvements 9. Colgate Precision Presently in Introduction stage Planned promotion for entry into Super Premium segment Expected ROI in few years Time 10. Product The Precision toothbrush is a technical innovation Using infrared motion analysis, CP developed a unique brush with bristles of 3 different lengths and orientations Three brush designs evolved with 35% more plaque removing efficiency The brush is also shown to be more effective in reducing gum disease than the leading brushes, specifically Reach and Oral-B 11. Product 12. Product 13. Price * Greater discount may be given as reflected in the financial forecasts Retail Price Trade Price Manufacture Price Main Stream Strategy $ 2.49 $ 1.85 $ 1.76 Niche Market Strategy $ 2.89 $ 2.13 $ 2.02 14. Promotion Under the niche market Aggressive advertising campaign - demonstrate technical superiority of the toothbrush Under the mainstream position Through financial incentives Coupon , buy one get one free Through professional channels Dentists Consumer promotions in strong CP market afree 5 oz. Tube of Colgate toothpaste with a Precision brush a 50%-off offer on Colgate toothpaste a 50 cent. coupon 15. Financial Forecast A financial analysis indicates a profit over a two year time frame for both market positions The Niche position generates a greater estimated net profit over two years ($12,527,333) The mainstream net profit over two years is estimated at $9,515,333 In addition, some sales of the new product are anticipated to come at the expense of sales of other existing Colgate products 16. Financial Forecast continued.. In the niche position, an estimated 35% of sales would come form other products decreasing Colgates overall toothbrush net profit by $2,507,400 in year one and $3,970,050 in year 2 In the mainstream position, an estimated 60% of sales would come from exiting products decreasing Colgates overall toothbrush net profit by $15,044,400 in year one and $21,133,800 in year two. Including cannibalization effect, only the niche market generates a profit over a two year period 17. Branding Emphasizing the Colgate name on the new Precision toothbrush would cause additional cannibalization of the existing Colgate toothbrushes - estimated at 20% Using the Colgate name would be congruent with Colgates strategy to build the Colgate brand equity 18. Communication & Promotion Information that may contribute to success Four concept tests conducted among 400 adult professional brush users (Colgate Plus, Reach, and Oral B) The results indicates - consumers were highly motivated by the Precision toothbrush claims Additional in-home usage tests were conducted 77% claimed that Precision was much more effective than their current toothbrush Other consumer research revealed that the higher the exposure to the product the greater consumer acceptance 19. Skills and Financial Resources Colgate Palmolive has spent $243 million to upgrade 25 of its 91 manufacturing plants Participated in several strategic acquisitions. E.g. Mennen, a mens toiletry company Manufacturing capabilities began in China and Eastern Europe If needed, some production can be re-directed to manufacturing sub-contractors which CP currently uses for other products. 20. Skills and Financial Resources Continued .. CP holds 43 % of the global toothpaste market and 16% of the global toothbrush market Sales have increased 12% to $1.3 billion, accounting for 22% of CPs total sales Toothbrush sales amounted to $77 million with operating profit of $9.8 million What does this mean? Colgate Palmolive, without any doubt, has the means and abilities to take on the endeavor 21. Pros & Cons of Positioning Main Stream Strategy Pros Cons Unsatisfied demand could create the perception of a Hot product, which may increase sale Possible increase in sales Greater erosion of Colgate Plus May require dropping one of the slow moving Childrens brush from the Plus line Possible pressure on production schedules resulting in inadequate supply of product More competition 22. Pros & Cons of Positioning Niche Market Strategy Pros Cons Niche could later be broadened to a mainstream position as additional capacity came on line. This would be an easy transition in the product life cycle Less erosion of Colgate Plus.The products are more isolated Entry into new superior toothbrush market which CP currently holds no position CP would face less competition Less contribution to net profit in future years 23. CP would have a strong position against competitors on the basis of product attributes a better product with better performance The new product development was specifically focused on a gum effectiveness brush position the brush in the Super premium Segment specifically tailored to therapeutic brushers R&D investment concludes Super premium Niche segment is more consistent than mainstream market for the advanced gum care Recommendation A B C D Performance Price 24. Implementation Professional endorsement from dentists Pursue an aggressive advertising campaign Match price-points with other super-premium brands Associate a super-premium toothpaste with Precision Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Sep Oct Nov Dec Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 1 MilestoneColgate palmolive case study - promotion strategyDocument Transcript 1. Running Head: Colgate-Palmolive http://www.Virtual-Dissertation.com`Colgate-Palmolive case study - Promotion Strategy[Write name appear here][Institute name appear here] 2. Colgate-Palmolive http://www.Virtual-Dissertation.comColgate-Palmolive case study - Promotion StrategyColgate-Palmolive is the global leader in the domain of Personal care products includingtoothbrushes and toothpastes. During the 1990s it sales reached the pinnacle of of six milliondollar that became the catalyst of 2.76 billion US dollar profit. Furthermore, Colgate-Palmoliveis also enjoying the forty three percent of share of global toothpaste market and sixteen percentshare of global tooth brush market. in the USA its share is twenty three percent in the domain oftooth brush sales ("Our company"). For the full year 2010, worldwide sales were $15,564million, up 1.5% versus full year 2009. Global unit volume grew 3.0%, pricing was flat with theyear ago period and foreign exchange was negative 1.5%. Organic sales (excluding foreignexchange, acquisitions and divestments) grew 3.0%. Net income and diluted earnings per sharefor full year 2010 were $2,203 million and $4.31, respectively, compared to $2,291 million and$4.37, respectively, in 2009. As previously disclosed, full year 2010 results were reduced by aone-time, non-cash after tax charge of $271 million ($0.53 per diluted share) resulting from arequired accounting change related to the transition to hyperinflationary accounting in Venezuelaas of January 1, 2010. Full year 2010 results also include $61 million of after tax charges ($0.12per diluted share) for termination benefits relating to ongoing overhead reduction initiatives, a$30 million aftertax gain ($0.06 per diluted share) from the sale of non-core product lines and abenefit of $31 million ($0.06 per diluted share) resulting from a non-recurring tax initiativerelating to an overseas subsidiary. Excluding these items, net income was $2,474 million anddiluted earnings per share was $4.84, increases of 8% and 11%, respectively, versus full year2009. "Colgates global market shares in toothpaste and manual toothbrushes are both at record 3. Colgate-Palmolive http://www.Virtual-Dissertation.comhighs year to date. Colgates share of the global toothpaste market strengthened to 44.2% year todate, led by share gains in Brazil, China, India, Venezuela, France, Greece and the UnitedKingdom. Colgate also strengthened its global leadership in manual toothbrushes, with its globalmarket share in that category reaching 31.6% year to date, up 1.6 share points versus year ago.(Thompson , & Spiller)Discussion about product, product strategies, products positioning and other related aspects.Besides, Colgate-Palmolives strategy to reach and reap the cross borders market and itsbenefit is the key catalyst that gives a power to its strength. in that connection Colgate introduceda range of 275 new products globally with building the factories in Europe and china. Because ofthis unique and dedicated strategies Colgate profit and growth is increasing by leaps and boundsand during the 1990s its sales totaled to 1.03 billion US dollar with overall profit of 9.8 millionUS dollar. (Harvard). This was the time period when Colgate further thrust to its rivals byintroducing its new breed of tooth brush with unique branding.It should be noticed that the key strength that give the edge to the Colgate-Palmoliveamong its rivals under the domain of niche market, is its product that are promoted in the marketas Colgate 360 that is proven as a effective and efficient plaque remover that is comparatively35% more smarter than its rival products. These advantages are key characteristics that areattributed to the dedicated research by using CAD and infrared scanning and innovative design.Because Colgate treat toothbrushes regarding policy as technical innovation, researchers usedinfrared motion analysis to track consumers brushing movements and consequent levels ofplaque removal (Harvard). 4. Colgate-Palmolive http://www.Virtual-Dissertation.comThe top of the Colgate 360 toothbrush are comprised with the diverse angles of bristlesand every angle having its own characteristics. This characteristic leads the 360 to product lifecycle from launching as the toothbrush to the oral health care tool. (Harvard). This uniquedesigning of bristles give the edge to the Colgate 360 to remove the plaque efficiently andcomparatively 35% more than to its rival products.The classification of the product is totally dependent upon the consumer needs andperceptions; they may consider it as homogeneous or heterogeneous both. The homogeneous inthat perspective, all toothbrush perform same action, therefore, the lowest price is their choiceand as a heterogeneous because of the efficiency and quality.The key purpose to select the brand name is to avoiding the perplexity to consider it newproduct as homogeneous one. Colgate did consider different name in that regard such asColgate System III, Colgate Advantage, Colgate 1.2.3, Colgate Contour, Colgate Sensation, andColgate Probe (Harvard).As far as the positioning concern, it could either be niche or mainstream. following arethe advantages and disadvantages of both markets.Advantages of Niche marketThe Colgate has the option an opportunity to set the price, according to its desire withoutfear about the rivalry. the issue of cannibalization can be reduced such as Colgate Extra clean,etc. and develop the equity of brand ("Colgate 360," ). The Colgate has the vast room to producethe product adequately as well as to translate from one market to another one according to theavailable capacity. this niche market is the catalyst to reach and fulfill the demand of those 5. Colgate-Palmolive http://www.Virtual-Dissertation.comclientele who are sensitive about the oral hygiene such as therapeutic and cosmetic brushers aswell as different type of gum disease.However, there are also flip sides that are following:The organization will have the fewer market shares comparatively than the mainstreammarket. it will has to face the high entry barriers into the niche market domain. Furthermore,Colgate can take a position as a mainstream brushes to promoting the highest effective brushesthat are available for users.Advantages of Mainstream marketIn the Mainstream market, Colgate has the comparatively big share. The new products aseffective and efficient tool to clean the teeth and gum will have the bigger realization from thewhole clientele. As far as the disadvantages are concerned, the organization may face the supplybarrier because of not producing the enough products. The new product may create the hype ofhot in the market but there could be a possibility not to get the predefined revenue targetbecause of low price and volume. The Colgate has to acquire further uncertainly investment tofull the product demand. The new product could be the catalyst to lead the Colgate to off theirexisting any stock keeping units. (Laird, Boivin, Shelton, Srivannusorn, & Chanprasert)The price of the product is the type of barometer at some extent that set customer mind inthe perspective of product quality. it is obvious that pricing of the new product will be differentfrom the existing one because of the research and production cost but Colgate should set theprices after analyzing the market and consumer trend properly. 6. Colgate-Palmolive http://www.Virtual-Dissertation.comRecommendation about the Promotion Strategy(s)As far as the pricing, strategies and recommendation is concerned, in the domain of nichemarket, Colgate can set the price after analyzing the consumer behavior and market trend, itcould be lower, equal and greater than the existing product range but the core focus should be onthe uniqueness so that customer attention could not only be developed but also retained. forbranding the new product will be called as Colgate 360. For attracting the customer and enjoythe lion share of niche market, Colgate can promote its new product as an efficient, effective anunique gum remover with the flexibility to clean those part of the teeth that are generallyunreachable by the standard tooth brushes. In that connection, Colgate can setup the workshopand free sample testing to have the customer confidence ("Identify the leading," 2006). For themainstream market, in the perspective of pricing, Colgate also needs to be more cautious asshould use its goodwill to gain the customer confidence. For promoting, Colgate should displaytheir product in all types of stores, including grocery stores, etc. for branding; Colgate should thesame niche market technique as described above. for having the attention of mainstreammarkets costumers, Colgate should use the general ideas such as it is the product that isdeveloped after the highly dedicated research that enabled it to portray as a totally unique breedof tooth brush that was not available in the market before. Sample testing facility will also workhere as in the niche market (Kotler, 2000). Besides, to promote the new brand, Colgate shouldalso focus the colleges and university students by giving them a special discount on the basis ofconfirmation of their college or university identity cards, etc. The reason behind is that fast food 7. Colgate-Palmolive http://www.Virtual-Dissertation.comand choloclates are the common among the students, and these type of foods are the key sourceof plaque and gum in the teeth, in case of careless behavior regarding teeth. Therefore,promotimg this product among the juvenile students will open the new door of cash inflows.http://www.Virtual-Dissertation.comWe provide writing help to develop quality Essays, Term Papers, Coursework, Thesis and Dissertation, etc. for those who are quality oriented.We cover lots of different subjects including (but not to bound only these),Cyber Laws,Cyber Security,English Literature,Anthropology, Social Science,Case Studies,Law,Philosophy,Psychology,IT,Economics,Business,Marketing,Management,Politics,Global Issues and lots of others.Colgate-Palmolive Company: The Precision ToothbrushIntroductionColgate-Pamolive (CP) was poised to launch a new toothbrush in US named Colgate Pamolive in August 1992. Susan Steinberg, Precision product manager, had managed the entire new product development process and now had to recommend positioning, branding, and communication strategies to division general manager Nigel Burton.Company Background Colgate-Pamolive was a global leader in household and personal care products in 1991 sales of $6.06 Billion and a gross profit of $2.76 billion. CP planed to launch new products and entry into new geographic markets during 1991-1995, with improved efficiencies in manufacturing and distribution and continuing focus on core consumer products. In 1991, $243 million was spent to upgrade 25 of CPs 91 manufacturing plants; 275 new products were introduced worldwide; several strategic acquisitions (e.g., of the Mennen men's toiletries company) were completed and manufacturing began in China and Eastern Europe. Since 1985, gross margins had climbed from 39% to 45% while annual volume growth since 1986 had averaged 5%. Although international sales remained CP's strong suit, accounting for 64% of sales and 67% of profits in 1991, the company faced tough competition in international markets from Procter&Gamble, Unilever, Nestls L'Oreal Division, Henkel of Germany, and Kao of Japan.

Colgate-Palmolive's Oral Care Business In 1991, CP held 43% of the world toothpaste market and 16% of the world toothbrush market. Other oral care products included dental floss and mouth rinses. A team of 170 CP researchers worked on new technologies for oral care products, and in 1991, new products launched in the U.S. market included Colgate Baking Soda toothpaste and the Colgate Angle and Wild Ones toothbrushes. In 1991, worldwide sales of CP's oral care products increased 12% to $1.3 billion, accounting for 22% of CP's total sales. CP's U.S. toothbrush sales in 1991 reached $77 million, with operating profits of $9.8 million.

The U.S. Toothbrush Market In the twentieth century, a major design advance occurred in 1938 with the launch of Dr. West's Miracle Tuft Toothbrush, the first nylon-bristle brush. In the late 1940s, Oral- B began selling a soft-bristle brush which was better for the gums, and in 1961 Broxodent launched the first electric toothbrush. Until the late 1970s, toothbrushes were widely viewed by consumers as a commodity and were purchased primarily on price. In 1991, the U.S. Oral Care market was $2.9 billion in retail sales and had grown at an annual rate of 6.1% since 1986. Toothpaste accounted for 46% of this market, mouth rinses 24%, toothbrushes 15.5% ($453 million in retail sales), with dental floss and other products making up the remainder.

Product Segments In the 1980s, industry executives divided the toothbrush category into two segments: value and professional. Many consumers traded up to professional, higher-priced toothbrushes with a resulting erosion of the value segment despite growth in private-label sales. In 1992, three players dominated the U.S. toothbrush market overall: Colgate-Palmolive and Johnson & Johnson, whose brushes were positioned in the professional segment; and Oral-B, whose brushes were positioned in the super-premium segment. New entrants in the early 1990s included Procter&Gamble and Smithkline Beecham; both had positioned their new product launches in the super-premium segment. Toothbrushes differed by bristle type (firm, medium, soft, and extra soft) and by head size (full/adult, compact, and child/youth). Firm-bristle brushes accounted for 8% of toothbrushes sold but were declining at 13% a year. Medium-bristle brushes accounted for 39% and were declining at 4% a year. Soft-bristle brushes held a 48% market share and were growing at 7% per year. Extra-soft-bristle brushes held only a 5% share but were growing even more rapidly.

Consumer Behaviour CP's consumer research indicated that consumers of the baby boom generation (adults born in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s) were becoming more concerned about the health of their gums as opposed to cavity prevention and were willing to pay a premium for new products addressing this issue. CP estimated that 82% of toothbrush purchases were unplanned, and research showed that consumers were relatively unfamiliar with toothbrush prices. Due to the prevalence of "two-for-one" offers, purchase frequency lagged replacement frequency, with consumers purchasing toothbrushes once every 11.6 months in 1991 (compared to 12.4 months in 1990 and an expected 9.7 months for 1992). Unlike toothpaste, toothbrushes were not typically shared by members of the same household. Most consumers agreed that toothbrushes were as important as toothpaste to effective oral hygiene and that the primary role of a toothbrush was to remove food particles; plaque removal and gum stimulation were considered secondary. According to CP research, 45% of consumers brushed before breakfast, 57% after breakfast, 28% after lunch, 24% after dinner and 71% before bed. Forty-eight percent of consumers claimed to change their brushes at least every three months; the trigger to purchase a new brush for 70% of them was when their toothbrush-bristles became visibly worn. Eleven percent decided to switch to a new brush after seeing their dentists, and only 3% admitted to purchasing on impulse.3 Sixty-five percent of consumers had more than one toothbrush, 24% kept a toothbrush at work, and 54% had a special toothbrush for travelling.

Competition Oral-B(owned by Gillette) had been the market leader since the 1960s. In 1991, it held a 23.1% volume market share and a 30.7% value share of U.S retail sales, with 27 SKUs. Oral-B relied heavily on professional endorsements and was known as "the dentist's toothbrush." In July 1991, Oral-B launched the Indicator brush, priced at a 15% premium to its other brushes. The Indicator brush had a patch of blue bristles that faded to white when it was time for replacement (usually after two to three months). In 1992, consumer promotions were expected to cost $4.5 million (5% of sales) and include $1.00-off coupons, "buy-one-get-one-free" offers and $2.00 mail-in refunds. Media expenditures for 1992 were estimated at $11.2 million (12.7% of sales). In 1992, Oral-B announced that it would restage its dental floss, roll out a new mouthwash, and possibly introduce specialty toothpaste. Oral-B management stated that "to be a leader in the oral care category, we must compete in all areas of oral care.

Johnson&Johnson(1&J) entered the U.S. toothbrush market in the 1970s with the Reach brand, in 1991. The Reach line was positioned as the toothbrush that enabled consumers to brush in even the hardest-to-reach places, thereby increasing the efficiency of brushing. Procter&Gamble(P&G) was the most recent entrant in the toothbrush market with Crest Complete, an extension of the company's toothpaste brand name, Crest. The brush had captured a 13% value share in test markets and was expected to reach similar total market share levels in its first year after full launch. Media expenditures for the last quarter of 1992 were estimated at $6.4 million; television commercials would carry the theme "Teeth aren't flat, so why is your brush." Smithkline Beecham entered the U.S. toothbrush market in August 1991 with Aquafresh Flex, an extension of the company's toothpaste brand. Aquafresh Flex toothbrushes had flexible handles that allowed for gentle brushing. By the end of 1991, Aquafresh Flex held a 0.9% share by volume and 1.1% by value of the U.S. retail market. The 1992 promotion plan, estimated at $4.6 million (25% of sales), included $1.99 mail refunds, "buy-two-get-one-free" offers, toothbrush on-pack with toothpaste, and a self-liquidating premium offer of towels. Other competitors includedLever, Pfizer,andSunstar.In 1991, Lever offered three lines of toothbrushes: Aim; Pepsodent Professional with 5 SKUs; and Pepsodent Regular with 4 SKUs. Combined, Lever held a 7.2% volume and 6.6% value share of the U.S. retail market in 1991.

Advertising and Promotion In the case of toothbrushes, however, increased advertising and promotion enhanced the category's visibility which, in turn, seemed to fuel consumer demand.

Johnson & Johnson spent $8 million in media support to introduce its new Reach brush in media expenditures.Oral-B spent $10 million to launch its Indicator brush in media expenditures.Procter & Gamble was expected to support its Crest Complete brush with $15 million in media expenditures.CP spends $7.0 MM on in media expenditures. Retail advertising features and in-store displays increased toothbrush sales. A typical CP toothbrush display increased sales by 90% over a normal shelf facing. When Colgate toothbrushes were combined with Colgate toothpaste in a single display, toothbrush sales increased by 170%. CP had four display systems: Counter Tops, containing 24 to 36 brushes; Floor Stands, 72 brushes; Sidekicks (used by mass merchandisers), 144 to 288 brushes; and Waterfall displays, 288 to 576 brushes. The CP toothbrush line held 25% to 40% of the category shelf space in most stores. To maximize retail sales, CP salespeople tried to locate the Colgate line in the middle of the category shelf space, between the Reach and the Oral-B product lines.

Distribution In 1987, traditional food stores sold 75% of oral care products, but by 1992 they accounted for only 43% of toothbrush sales and 47% of toothpaste sales. Though purchased too infrequently to be used as a traffic builder, toothbrushes provided retailers with an average margin between 25% and 35%, twice that for toothpaste. As a result, many retailers were more receptive to adding new toothbrush products than new varieties of toothpaste. In 1992, 22% of all toothbrushes were expected to be distributed to consumers by dentists. With a dedicated sales force, Oral-B dominated this market segment.

The Precision Marketing Mix

Product Design and Testing The Precision toothbrush was a technical innovation. In laboratory experiments, researchers used infrared motion analysis to track consumers' brushing movements and consequent levels of plaque removal. With this knowledge and through computer aided design, CP developed a unique brush with bristles of three different lengths and orientations. In 1989, CP had established a task force comprising executives from R&D and Marketing, dental professionals, and outside consultants. Its mission was to "develop a superior, technical, plaque-removing device." The entire research and development process was managed from start to finish by Steinberg. The task force had five goals:

Understanding the varying techniques consumers used when brushing their teeth. Researchers later concluded that brushing usually did a good job of removing plaque from teeth surfaces but was often ineffective at removing plaque from the gum line and between the teeth.Testing the between-teeth access of differ.ent toothbrush designs. The tests revealed that CP's new design was superior to both Oral-B and Reach in accessing front and back teeth, using either horizontal or vertical brushing.Establishing an index to score clinical plaque-removal efficacy at the gum line and between teeth. In tests, a disclosing solution was used to reveal the otherwise colourless plaque, and each tooth was divided into nine specific areas. Presence of plaque was measured on each tooth area; the percentages of tooth areas affected by plaque pre- and post-usage of different brushes were then calculated. In July 1992, CP senior management decided to launch Precision early in 1993. It was decided that Precision would be priced within the super-premium segment and distributed through the same channels as Colgate Plus. Precision was developed with the objective of creating the best brush possible and as such, becoming a top-of-the range, super-premium product. It could be positioned as a niche product to be targeted at consumers concerned about gum disease. It was estimated that, as a mainstream product, Precision could capture 10% of the market by the end of the first year. Volumes: Steinberg believed that with a niche positioning, Precision retail sales would represent 3% volume share of the toothbrush market in yearIand5%in year 2. Capacity and investment costs: Three types of equipment were required to manufacture the Precision brush: tufters; handle molds; and packaging machinery. The positioning decision had important implications for the appropriate shelf location of Precision. Steinberg believed that the best location for Precision on the retail shelves would be between the Colgate Plus and Oral-B product lines, with the Colgate Classic product line on the other side of Colgate Plus. She wondered however, if mainstream Precision could be located separately from the other Colgate lines, close to competitive super-premium toothbrushes such as Aquafresh Flex and Crest Complete.

Branding At the time consumer concept tests were carried out by the task force, name tests were also conducted among those consumers positively disposed towards the concept. Alternative names tested included Colgate Precision, Colgate System III, Colgate Advantage, Colgate 1.2.3, Colgate Contour, Colgate Sensation, and Colgate Probe. CP executives had not yet decided the relative prominence of the Precision and Colgate names on the package and in advertising. They debated whether the brush should be known as "Colgate Precision" or as "Precision by Colgate." Stressing Precision as opposed to Colgate would, it was argued, limit the extent of cannibalization of Colgate Plus.

Communication and Promotion Once the basic product design was established, four concept tests, conducted among 400 adult professional brush users (Colgate Plus, Reach, and Oral-B users) 18 to 54 years of age, were run during 1990-1991. Consumers were exposed to various product claims in prototype print advertisements and then asked about the likelihood that they would purchase the product. Additional consumer research, including in-home usage tests, revealed that 55% of test consumers found Precision to be very different from their current toothbrushes, and 77% claimed that Precision was much more effective than their current toothbrush. However, problem was that the benefit of reduced gum disease from extra plaque removal was difficult to translate into a message with broad consumer appeal, since few consumers acknowledged that they might have gum disease. One proposal consistent with a niche positioning for Precision was to increase total CP category spending by $11.2 million and to allocate this to the Precision launch. However, Steinberg believed that this was not enough to permit Precision to reach its full sales potential. The Colgate Plus product manager, John Phillips, argued that Plus was the bread-and-butter of CP's toothbrush line and claimed that his mainstream brand should receive more rather than less support if Precision was launched. He argued that continued support of Plus was essential to defend its market position against competition. However, Steinberg believed that the launch of Precision would enable CP to increase its overall share of trade advertising features and special displays in the toothpaste category. Another important tactic was to use dentists to sample consumers since professional endorsements were believed important to establishing the credibility of a new toothbrush. Steinberg believed that, under the niche scenario, 3 million Precision brushes could be channelled through dental professionals in the first year after the launch, versus 8 million under the mainstream scenario.

Conclusion Steinberg, the product manager of Precision, believed that Precision was more than a niche product or simple line extension and that the proven benefits to consumers represented a technological breakthrough. She wondered how Precision should be positioned, branded, and communicated to consumers, as well as what the advertising and promotion budget should be and how it should be broken down. She developed a marketing mix and Profit-and-Loss pro forma that enabled Precision to reach its full potential, yet also be acceptable to Burton and her colleagues, particularly the Colgate Plus product manager, John Phillips