Case Brief: Proctor & Gamble, Inc.

Scope

Background and Decision

Proctor & Gamble is successful consumer goods company in the world with brand presence in 150
countries and net earnings of $1.6bn (1990). Scope was introduced in 1967 by Procter & Gamble, is a
green mint tasting mouthwash, and was positions as a great tasting mouth refreshing brand that
provided bad breath protection. Scope held 32.3% share of the Canadian market in 1990. In 1970
Scope became the market leader in Canada, with many competitors, such as Listerine mouthwash. But
by the time in 1988 Plax, a brand by Pfizer got introduced into the market and became the major
competitor for Scope, on a platform quite different from the traditional mouthwashes, and gained a
10% share since launched. The USP of Plax carried with itself was that it was supposed to help loosen
plaque to make brushing effective. Scopes brand manager, Gwen Hearst has a major challenge to deal
with this threat and also, capitalize on this emerging market segment also she has to develop and present a
three-year plan for Scope.
Analysis
According to data given, Canadian mouthwash industry is growing at a rate of 5%.The mouth wash
industry is about 1.358 million units in 1990. The major player in the industry is Scope followed by
Listerine, Listermint etc. Complete Canadian market. According to the data from the market research,
(given in book) around 75% of Canadian population are using mouthwash brands, and on average,
usage is three times per week for each adult household member. Regarding the distribution channels.
Scope positioned its brand as Great tasting, mouth refreshing brand while its competitor
positioned their mouthwash as, Plax (the major threat here to P&G) rinsing with Plax, than
brushing alone, removes up to three times more plaque than just brushing alone. Plax was
growing at a very fast pace, as it clearly shown in case that in two year captured 10% of the market.
Moreover the brand image among the
Alternative 1: Maintain status as it is:
This strategy would add no value to the brand (no strategic backfiring at best) and pose strong risk for
P&G to lose market share and profitability of the brand. If scope doesnt innovate as per the customer
demands and needs, its market share would be taken up by competitor brands who come up with
innovative new product as per the Needs of the customers. It may be create huge loss to P&G. (See
Exhibit 1 and 2)
Alternative 2: Extend the product line under Scope name
By doing so Scope is trying to avoid the cost of launching a new product. It is also trying to keep the
original product in market and bring out the advanced version of the original product to compete with
Plax. In Calculation, it can be drawn that breakeven point of the original product goes further down,
but the new product is making loss as it is not able to breakeven, see (Exhibit 3)
Alternative 3: Create a new flanker brand to compete with Plax
In this alternative option there is risk attached to this preposition but profitability is also high. So
basically Scope accept customer centric approach in which it changes product according to the need
a demand of the customer. Moreover scope of getting back lost market share due high competition and
introduction of innovative product is also high. (Exhibit 4)
Alternative 4: Re launch Scope with plaque fighting formulation
In this alternative re launching the product is somewhat create the loyalty that the old product has
already established. Moreover the launching product would be competitive to the old product at the
competitive price, this would give advantage to the parent company. Risk associated with is only that
it might hit the sentiments of the old customer who loved the older version of the product and dislike
the newer one. (Exhibit 5)
Recommendations
According to me I should recommend to opt alternative

Page 1 of 2

Case Brief: Proctor & Gamble, Inc. Scope

Exhibit 1
Detailed buying behavior:
Furthermore, market can be segmented according to the frequency of usage:
a) heavy users (once per day or more) 40%
b) medium users (two to six times per week) 45%
c) light users (less than once per week) 15%
Most important reasons for usage of mouthwash are as follows:
a) It is part of my basic oral hygiene 40%
b) It gets rid of bad breath 40%
c) It kills germs 30%
d) It makes me feel more confident 20%
e) To avoid offending others 25%

Page 2 of 2