7/25/2019 P&G - International Business - Globalisation

1/3

7/25/2019 P&G - International Business - Globalisation

2/3

lly when it is operating in a sector like FMCG which caters to all the classes in the society. It has therefore always adapted its strategies as per the changing economic and global situations.b. In the rising era of ecommerce P&G has again bagged the firs mover advantage by grabbing this market through it rewardmeapp.com website which sells andpromotes P&G products exclusively thus reaching out to the masses through the most sought after media.

Performance Review P&Gs revenue in the first quarter stood marginally lower at $20.79 billion thahe same period in the previous year. The performance was disappointing as volume and pricing growth, and cost savingas well was wiped out by a volatile global currency market.Brand Shedding Continues in EarnestP&G holds market-leading positions in several of its product offerings and in abid to reduce overheads and improve management, the company has been focusing resources on its 40 best-selling brands. I would consider those products as best sellers that generate more than $500 million annually and represent approximately85% of our sales; we have decided to strip down our business and sell-off brands that fall below this metric. In November last year, we sold off Duracell, our leading battery brand, to Berkhire Hathaway in a $3 billion dollar deal. Having sold off the China-based batteries joint venture, the sale of Duracell marks our exit from the batteries business.

In December we announced the sale of Camay and Zest soap brands to Unilever. We are also exploring our options for divesting the hair care unit Wella and alo the electric razors and toothbrushes making unit Braun.Industry and Competitive analysis P&G has always focussed on quality and innovation. Many local and internationalbrands, including Colgate-Palmolive offer substitutes, such as Colgate, for Oral-B. P&G has higher shares & revenue in North America and China, while Unilever doesbetter in India and Nestle in Western Europe. P&G is the leader in 7 of the 10 product categories we serve and number two in he remaining three categories. Geographical concentration is also expected to behigher, as the top 5 countries of each category will account for 54% to 98% oftotal global profit of that category.

We look forward to investing in developing markets such as India. We are happy o announce that Procter & Gamble has topped Nestle and ITC to become India's third-largest consumer products maker. We have nearly doubled our sales volume in the country in the last three years. Our combined revenues were Rs 9,274 crore for the year ended March 2014, ahead of Nestle India's Rs 9,197 crore and the FMCGbusiness of ITC that had sales of Rs 8,099 crore.

P&Gs business model is not flawed because of the number of brands that it has, rather it is the innovation expectations of the consumers that the company needs to fulfil.After establishing itself well, P&G seemed to perform magnificently in every domain it entered. For decades, they expanded into razors, batteries, beauty, healt

h care and several other consumer goods categories. As P&G grew in size, its revenue quadrupled between 1980 and 2000 from $11 billion to $40 billion. P&G followed a centralized structure, this enabled them to succeed and outmarket their competitors.Few of the issues were:1. Cartel formation P&G was fined for forming a cartel with Unilever and Henkel in Europe. P&G had to pay 211.2m Euros, this was after a 10% discount on admitting the cartel formation2. Toxic shock syndrome TSS is caused strains of a particular bacteria. Youmay find these bacteria living in human bodies as harmless entities. In 1980, 8

7/25/2019 P&G - International Business - Globalisation

3/3

14 TSS cases were reported and 38 deaths were registered. Most of these women were reported to be users of P&Gs super absorbent synthetic tampons mainly the Relytampon. In mid-1980, Centers for Disease Control released a report stating thatRely was one of the primary reasons behind most of the registered cases. P&G was forced to withdraw Rely subsequently3. Reduction in animal testing P&G claimed to reduce animal testing of their food and drug products (~ 80% of their portfolio) in mid-1999. They made investments over $275 million to develop alternate methods4. P&G was sued in 2002 for conveying false message that their drug Prilosec could cure heartburn in 24 hours5. The companys biggest problem was the number of brands P&G owned. In 2014,P&G decided to drop 100 brands under it and retain only 80 of them. This was because these 80 brands generated 95% of P&Gs profits. We can apply Paretos rule here where 80% of the revenue is generated by 20% of the product portfolio