Unilever case questions:

1) whether Unilever should divert money from its premium brands to target the lower- margin segment of low-income consumers; (2) whether Unilever can reposition or extend one of its existing brands to avoid launching a new brand; and (3) what price, product, promotion, and distribution strategy would allow Unilever to deliver value to low-income consumers without cannibalizing its own premium brands too heavily.

High context culture: Illiterate people: visual effect more Cost: ost break-up: Formulation cost : $0.99Packaging cost : $0.35Promotional cost : $0.35Distribution cost : $0.05Total cost : $1.74 Targeting the top two wantedattributes by consumers : Cleanlinessand Smell Brand extension: omo, minervia premium and we are targeting lower segment.so not Cannibalize Repositioning: repositioning is difficult because cam is know is lower quality brand,,diffiuclt to change perception of people New brand: viver : ego gain/ ego clean prestige position as quality attribute middle of ca and mine to avoid cannibalization( positioning on quality plus just below min, lminimize lesser demanded attributes, harm to color)

http://www.slideshare.net/seanpauldcu/marketing-strategies-for-low-income-consumers-unilever ono, Minerva,: competing in high segmrnt, premium, aceptanceno need to alter campiro: low return , c petitor would come up with

product: prestige detergent plus laundary soap: to attain two growing market with one brand attribute : cleanliness, smell , remove stains

packaging: 1 kg and 5oo kg carboard package Place: Partnership: specialized dealers: that would have focused strategy promotion Clean ego: mothers sfirst choice. Spokes person mother