This study analyses the marketing strategies of two multinational companies: Proctor and Gamble and Unilever. Proctor and Gamble has been in the global market for a long time and its products are sold to millions of people globally.
The company started as a privately owned business but it quickly grew into a publicly owned company with millions of shares floated in the New York and Paris stock markets. The company deals in the sales of more than 300, high quality branded products to several consumers worldwide, with the aim of improving their lives (Peng 219). Some of these products are: "Braun, Gillette, Old Spice, Lacoste, Hugo Boss, Max Factor, Pringles, Olay, Fairy, Ariel, Daz, Bold and Duracell batteries and IAMS dog food" (Peng 219). Though Proctor and Gamble is centrally located in the US, its operations span more than 180 countries, with an employee base of more than 135,000 people (Peng 219).
Unilever Company almost shares the same profile with Proctor and Gamble because it deals in the production and sales of several products worldwide. The company started in the 1890s when its founder William Hesketh Lever developed several products to improve hygiene in the household environment (Peng 219).
[...] Some of these marketing tools include PEST, SWOT, and Boston consulting group matrix. These marketing tools are further analyzed below: PEST analysis would analyze the political, economic, social and technological forces of the market, as part of the wider macro-economical framework of analysis for the development of sound marketing mix strategies (Young 204). These marketing tools would be used to analyze the marketing potential for growth; business position and the potential and direction to be undertaken by company management in sustaining existing products, or in introducing new products in the markets. [...]
[...] Such information would be useful when using the marketing tools to determine the branding strategy. Task Strategic Marketing Choices The strategic marketing choices for both Unilever and Proctor and Gamble have been to focus on their strongest brand by re-launching the products (for Proctor and gamble for example) and fuelling the growth of their highest growing products (for Unilever for example). Since both companies have refocused their energies on the re-assertion of their soap brands, Unilever seems to be in favor of a market growth strategy, where it seeks to secure the future of its products through supporting its highest growing brand. [...]
[...] However, this analysis is subject to the producer's expectations. Nevertheless, meeting producer's expectation is often a very important concept in determining if to discontinue a product or not. Going into the future, Unilever and Proctor and Gamble may be under intense pressures to conform with current trends, especially because they are companies which started a long time ago and their products may be reflective of past customer needs (Stuff4Beauty 1). For instance, some of Unilever's products span three centuries ago and a variety may not be reflective of current market trends. [...]
[...] This strategy will require both companies to be on the forefront in embracing business technology and business model innovation. Alternatively, the companies could also have embraced porter generic strategies, which would require them to focus on their strategic scopes and strengths. The companies' strategic scope would entail their ability to penetrate into the market, while their strategic strengths would be competitive advantages both companies hold over one another. To make this strategy a reality, the companies would have to pursue one of three strategies: product differentiation, cost leadership or market segmentation (BBC 2). [...]
[...] Products which are past their prime time are therefore often subject to discontinuation. The third reason for the reduction in brand portfolio for both Unilever and Proctor and Gamble would be that, some of their products may have recently suffered a huge dip in sales volumes and they are likely not to revamp back to their initial status in the near future (Stuff4Beauty 1). The reduction in sales volume is normally witnessed even for products which have performed well in the past; prompting the managers to discontinue the products because of a lack of faith in the product's ability to revamp back to its initial state. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
