CASE ANALYSIS

OF
CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED

PUNJAB COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

SUBMITTED BY:
Inderdeep Singh
PGDM-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Consumer Products Ltd. was a public limited company and leading in marketing and
manufacturing in household goods. Marketing was their co-coordinating function and the
marketing management had the profit responsibility for a particular product/product group.
Washing product is the major profit centre of the company. Their main product ‘DAZZLE’
accounted for 1/3rd of profit of washing group. The washing powder market was 1/10th of the
washing soap market. The product quality is superior to all others. The company’s market share
was 80 present till September 1966. But, after it faced a solid competition from Spark, CPL’s
market share reduced. Now the company had to decide as to how to regain profitability growth.

CASE FACTS

 CPL is a leading in manufacturing and marketing in household products.

 Washing product was the major profit centre for the CPL.
 Their main product ‘DAZZLE’ accounted for 1/3rd of profit of washing group.
 Fabric washing market is divided into two products- Washing Soaps and Washing
Products.
 WASHING SOAPS- small-scale units operating in very small localized areas
contributed more than 3/4th of the washing soap, they have inferior quality and had poor
distribution channels at national level
 WASHING POWDER- production located entirely in the organized large-scale sector
of the industry requiring greater technical knows.
 Washing powder market was 1/10th the size of washing soap market, but high
profitability because of higher margins
 The market for washing powders was restricted to large urban towns and the market was
highly competitive but had high growth potential in small towns.
 But difficulties in distribution and the high cost at distribution in smaller towns. The
transportation part was left to the wholesaler’s trade channels
  Four main brands in washing powders market: DAZZLE, BRIGHT, WHITE and
SPARK.
 White and Spark - marketed by the same company.
 Dazzle- leading in market share of washing powder until September 1966. It enjoyed a
market share of 80 percent of the total washing powder market. Bright-10%, White-7%,
Spark 3%
 Until September 1966, Dazzle, Bright and White were sold in similar carton pack sizes of
700gm, 400gm, 200gm but Spark was sold only in bulks as 1kg and 2kg
 Dazzle- superior quality, expensive, targeted urban population
 White and Bright- Inferior quality, Cheaper, targeted small towns.
 Dazzle, Bright, and White- heavy expenditure on theme based advertising and some
consumer promotion such as free gifts.
 Spark’s Promotion Strategy as on September, 1966
- Pack size 1 kg, 2 kg.
- Plastic bucket for Rs. 6 on six cartons of large pack
- A coupon was printed on each large carton, six of these coupon could exchange at
retail store for gift.
 As a result, market share of Spark rose to 10% to 25% within just 4months.
 White and Spark were marketed by same company.

SITUATION ANALYSIS

CPL is a leading company with authorized cap of Rs.10 crores, dealing in household products.
Marketing is their co-coordinating function and the marketing management has the profit
responsibility for a particular product/product group. Washing product is the major profit centre
of the company. Their main product ‘DAZZLE’ accounted for 1/3rd of profit of washing group.
The product quality is superior to all others. Since the washing powder market is restricted to
large urban areas, CPL has an opportunity to provide in smaller areas. But difficulties of
distribution and the high cost of going to the smaller towns are acting as barriers. Hence they had
to rely upon wholesale trade channels in such areas. Till September 1966, Dazzle enjoyed a
market share of 80 percent of the total washing powder market. But after that Spark came up
with all new promotion strategy and its market share increased drastically. Now CPL needs to
regain their market share. Along with this, there is a conversation between CPL’s marketing
Team.

 Marketing Manager and Marketing Controller and they suggest that CPL should
come up with second Brand with higher quality then Spark but with lower rate.
 General Sales Manager and Sales Manager and they suggest that step up the
expenditure per ton to the level that of Spark and counter Attack with Heavy Promotion.
 Promotion Manager and Production Manager and they suggest that Promote Dazzle
same as Spark, gift should be more attractive then spark’s gift, put money in press,
cinemas and point-of-sale materials.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

1. What was the reason behind the declination of dazzle?

2. What Promotion strategy CPL adopts to counter Spark?
3. What Should CPL do to regain profitable growth?

ALTERNATIVES

The various alternatives available with CPL are as follows:

 Create awareness of product with heavy theme based advertisement.

 Launch new product to counter Spark and cater to rural market.
 Look for distributers in small and rural areas.
 Do proper research on declination of DAZZLE‘s Market Share.
 Produce and marketed new product and capture market share in different segments like
cleaning sprays for mirrors, Dish wash liquid, liquid conditioner for cotton fabrics, Toilet
cleaners.
 Provide attractive offer with gifts like in every pack there is a table spoon in order to
measure it and another one is provide water proof gloves to protect the user’s hand.
SOLUTION

After analyzing the case and examining the various alternatives, I suggest that the company
should come up with a few new products to satisfy urban population.

 They should expand their distribution networks because pie of market share is increasing.
 The company should come up with attractive offer and gifts in order to counter attack
Spark.
 Company should cut down the cost on manufacturing and focus on theme based
promotions.