BackgroundOptical Distortion Inc. lens (ODI) is a nonhuman contact lens that reduces chickens eyesight, which in turn makes the chicken eat less and easier to handle. The discovery of this product was a complete accident in 1962, by Daniel Garrisonpresident and chief executive officer of ODI. The main reason why ODI lenses came to market was to offset the problems of cannibalistic behaviors of chickens and hens. Cannibalism among poultry is both harmful to the lives of chickens, and the profits of the farmers.

Many factors play into the cannibalistic behaviors of chicken. First, chickens are social birds and chicken societies have a finite structure. Birds are able to identify other birds in the group, and through fighting and pecking, establish a hierarchical type of social organization. Second, If there is insufficient access to resources in the environment, birds will act in competitiveness and result to violence. In order to counter cannibalistic behavior among chickens, farmers have resorted to debeak chickens, which involves the removal of part of the birds beak. However, this can be a very costly and timely process.

ProblemBecause debeaking chickens were an ineffective solution, ODI wanted to develop and introduce ODI lenses to the chicken farming industry. ODIs main problem was developing a marketing plan for ODIs new and only product. To be more specific, ODI wanted to be in every chicken farm in America, while staying in the constraints of their limited managerial and financial resources.

ODI knew that between the two solutionsdebeaking and ODI lenses, ODI is obviously better because it is less harmful to chickens. The lenses reduce mortality due to cannibalism from 25% to 4.5% whereas debeaking reduces cannibalism from 25% to 9%. Debeaking birds resulted in major trauma to the chickens that left them malnourish, which resulted in low egg production. In contrast, there is also no great trauma to the chickens that used the lens, which also meant that egg production would increase as well. Ultimately, the lenses are the best alternative to the problem. The lenses were chicken friendly, and saved the farmers money. ODI knew they had a great product, but did not know how to market it.

RecommendationOne recommendation for ODI is for the company to first enter the market by running their core operations in California where there is the most percentage of chicken farms. After ODI has perfected its business model and operations in California, they should then expand their business to the West-South Central and South Atlantic, where it is projected to be most profitableaccording to exhibit 3.

To market ODIs product to farmers, I believe ODI should offer a packaged bundleoffer the product as well as the additional services throughout the usage of the lenses, such as installation of the lenses, in order to sway them away from debeaking practices. To determine the price point of the lenses, ODI must evaluate the worth of the lenses to chicken farmers. They can evaluate all the costs benefitssavings on egg production lost by cannibalism and labor costs of debeaking. From there, ODI can determine the amount of money that farmers will save by switching to ODI lenses, and then the company can decide what price to set as well as how to market the product.