Procter and Gamble and Company

Procter and Gamble Company is actually an American corporation that is global in nature. It is based in Cincinnati in Ohio. This Company is a wide manufacturer of consumer goods. It is known to be the twenty fifth largest Companies in United States when analyzed in terms of revenue. The history of this Company is very interesting. The founders of Procter and Gamble Company are called William Procter and James Gamble. The two of them married sisters. William was a candle maker while James was a soap maker. The two of them joined and formed the Procter and Gamble Company. This is because their two Companies used similar resources.

When the two Companies started having problems with each other, their father in law managed to convince them to become business partners. This is when Procter and Gamble was formed. When this Company started, it used to manufacture soap and candles only. This Company made so much profit from these products which were sold during the American Civil War. Procter and Gamble Company is now manufacturing various brands. (Dyer, 2004)

They include Always which is a sanitary pad, Ariel used for washing dishes, Bounce, Bounty, Braun, Camay, Cascade, Charmin, Cheer, Clairol, CoverGirl and Crest toothpaste among other brands. Learn more about 

Therefore the products that are currently manufactured by this Company are very many. They range from beauty soaps, tampons, mouth wash, deodorant, cologne among other products. Looking at the ways through which Procter and Gamble Company uses in carrying out research on consumer products, they are diverse. This Company is known to carry out extensive research in relation to consumer behavior. In order to get to know the consumer behavior, the Company carries out both primary and secondary research. This Company has a department that deals specifically with research. (Davis, 1993)

Read more

The War Between Detergent Giants Hindustan Unilever (Hul) and Procter & Gamble (P) Continues

The war between detergent giants Hindustan Unilever (HUL) and Procter & Gamble (P&G) continues. [pic] This ad is special as it is plain stupid. However, a recent ad on TV takes a direct dig on the competitor’s product which is not something that has been seen on the Indi-Ad scene. The indirect references in ads have been in plenty but never ever I have seen such a direct attack. If you are familiar with Tide ads, their USP has been to highlight the superior technology which make the clothes more white/bright as compared to the other detergents.

The new campaign that I am referring to has been started by Rin, a product of Hindustan Unilever Limited. It is a direct attack on the Tide Naturals product by Procter & Gamble. Note that when I say a direct attack – it means an uncensored visual shows the competitor product and then highlights how the other product is better then the former. The sequence of the ad is as follows 1. Two ladies are standing on a bus stop, waiting to pick their kids from their school bus. 2. Both are carrying their shopping basket/bag with them. 3. Lady 1 has Tide Naturals in her bag. 4.

Lady 2 has Rin in her bag 5. Both ladies have a look at each other’s bag and Lady 1 boasts that Tide has a good fragrance and provide better whiteness/brightness to the clothes 6. In the meantime, the school bus arrives and it’s shown that the white shirt of Lady 2’s kid is strikingly brighter and whiter then the Lady 1’s kid. 7. Lady 1 gets astonished by the whiteness seen. 8. Lady 2’s kid reacts by asking he mother, as to why is the other lady so observant and amazed 9. There is a disclaimer during the ad that the analysis has been done by an independent agency 10.

It’s then claimed that now there is promotional price of Rs. 25 on Rin as opposed to the earlier Rs. 35. As you can notice, there is a direct mention of the competitor product along with the visuals. Earlier we had seen, how a row was created when Onida referred to Nokia in it’s ad though  indirectly . This one seems to be an absolute direct attack. It is difficult to say if the ad will continue on TV. Tide would definitely come out with a protest. However, I think the damage is already done. The main point about the reduced price of Rin would definitely catch the consumer’s eye benefiting HUL.

The ad is as given below The gloves are off, and it seems a bare-knuckle fight between consumer product majors Hindustan Unilever and Procter & Gamble is inevitable in the market. HUL has landed the first punch on Cincinnati-headquartered P&G on air, in front of millions of viewers on primetime television. In the first move of its kind by HUL, the latest on-air communication of homecare brand Rin has openly taken on rival P&G’s Tide, without the typical airbrushing or pixellation to hide the rival brand name on TV.

The Rin washing powder commercial, which went on air on Friday, claims to be a better quality product in comparison to Tide. The visual clearly shows a variant of Tide, Tide Naturals, shown against Rin with the audio saying ‘Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin’ (Rin gives better whiteness than Tide). Within a day of its going on air, the campaign has landed up in court. A source at HUL said its rival has gone to court and everyone at HUL has been asked not to speak about the ad. “I have not even seen the advertisement,” said a person in the sales team handling Rin’s marketing. But we have been told not to comment on anything. ” However, the HUL spokesperson said, “This advertisement reinforces the promise to Rin consumers that Rin delivers superior whiteness. This claim is based on laboratory tests done through globally accepted protocols in independent third-party laboratories. ” People close to the action said the HUL move comes as the company was worried about the Tide variant eating into Rin’s pie riding on superior quality attributes. Earlier, skirmishes between the two companies were always restricted to disguised comparative advertising or matching each other’s price cuts in the market.

This time, however, HUL has decided to engage P&G directly, backed by laboratory data and certification of a superior quality product. “The company realised there was some confusion in the minds of Rin consumers because of the rival offering at a lower price. So HUL decided to take on competition openly,” a person said. When asked about the likely response to the ad, a P&G spokesperson said, “We are aware of a disparaging advertisement on air against one of our brands. We will, however, continue to stay focused on growing our share via delighting consumers and focusing our communication on the benefits of our brand. A market expert said the HUL commercial was strategically timed to coincide with the long weekend thus giving the Anglo-Dutch company enough air time to show the commercial. “Even if P&G decides to take any action against HUL, the TV commercial running on prime time has already got enough visibility in the past few days. ” Industry observers are now watching with interest P&G’s possible response to such a blatant claim by a rival. While some are talking about a possible legal recourse, another school of thought envisages P&G opening up another front against HUL by taking on Surf.

The war between FMCG giants Hindustan Unilever and Procter & Gamble intensified with the two seeking legal redressal alleging foul | | play on detergent powder advertisements. HUL, which has been asked by advertising watchdog ASCI to respond to complaints of “disparaging” the rival product Tide in its Rin ad, got a boost from an order by Madras High Court directing P&G to modify its Tide ad. Meanwhile, P&G moved Calcutta High Court yesterday against HUL for putting out a “disparaging” advertisement against Tide. We are aware of the disparaging advertisement on air against Tide Naturals and have filed a case against the same,” a Procter and Gamble spokesperson said. “The matter is currently being heard in the court and we are not in a position to comment on the outcome,” the spokesperson added. HUL’s Rin TV commercial, which went on air on February 26, claims that it is better than Tide, with a tagline ‘Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin’. Until now, it has been rare for Indian companies to compare rival brands by naming and/or attacking them directly in advertisements.

According to the latest January report by Morgan Stanley, Rin has lost as much as 25 basis points in market share while P’s Tide has gained 60 basis points. HUL has already reduced prices of Rin to arrest the decline. In its case HUL has challenged P&G’s claim in an advertisement that Tide contains natural ingredients like lemon and chandan. The Court on March 1 passed an order asking P to mod he gloves are off, and it seems a bare-knuckle fight between consumer product majors Hindustan Unilever and Procter & Gamble is | | nevitable in the market. HUL has landed the first punch on Cincinnati-headquartered P on air, in front of millions of viewers on primetime television. In the first move of its kind by HUL, the latest on-air communication of homecare brand Rin has openly taken on rival P Tide, without the typical airbrushing or pixellation to hide the rival brand name on TV. The Rin washing powder commercial, which went on air on Friday, claims to be a better quality product in comparison to Tide.

The visual clearly shows a variant of Tide, Tide Naturals, shown against Rin with the audio saying ‘Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin’ (Rin gives better whiteness than Tide). Within a day of its going on air, the campaign has landed up in court. A source at HUL said its rival has gone to court and everyone at HUL has been asked not to speak about the ad. “I have not even seen the advertisement,” said a person in the sales team handling Rin’s marketing. “But we have been told not to comment on anything. ”

However, the HUL spokesperson said, “This advertisement reinforces the promise to Rin consumers that Rin delivers superior whiteness. This claim is based on laboratory tests done through globally accepted protocols in independent third-party laboratories. ” People close to the action said the HUL move comes as the company was worried about the Tide variant eating into Rin’s pie riding on superior quality attributes. Earlier, skirmishes between the two companies were always restricted to disguised comparative advertising or matching each other’s price cuts in the market.

This time, however, HUL has decided to engage P directly, backed by laboratory data and certification of a superior quality product. “The company realised there was some confusion in the minds of Rin consumers because of the rival offering at a lower price. So HUL decided to take on competition openly,” a person said. When asked about the likely response to the ad, a P spokesperson said, “We are aware of a disparaging advertisement on air against one of our brands. We will, however, continue to stay focused on growing our share via delighting consumers and focusing our communication on the benefits of our brand. A market expert said the HUL commercial was strategically timed to coincide with the long weekend thus giving the Anglo-Dutch company enough air time to show the commercial. “Even if P decides to take any action against HUL, the TV commercial running on prime time has already got enough visibility in the past few days. ” Industry observers are now watching with interest P possible response to such a blatant claim by a rival. While some are talking about a possible legal recourse, another school of thought envisages P opening up another front against HUL by taking on Surf. ify the ad.

Read more

Ad Comparison Soap

Nick Barnett Bethann Bowman English 101 October 5, 2009 Soap Over the Ages Many of these advertisements feature soap. It makes you smell great and can even attract a member of the opposite sex. Soap advertisements have been baiting men by bringing attractive women into the ads for decades. The soap ads of the 1950s and the ads of today are equally effective; both use sex appeal, although the bluntness and textual content vary greatly, the new ads are more explicit and less wordy. The audience of the 1950s needed soft colors and visual images with many meanings.

The Lifebuoy ad uses cartoon people and very pale colors. Visually, this allows the few things in a bright color to stand out. The tag-line “It smells so good now, it makes me wonder… ” stands out along with the Lifebuoy box which is also red to grab the attention of the reader amongst the dull colors surrounding it. The woman in the background has a few possible meanings; sex appeal, appeal to women, or maybe even a figure of cleanliness. Text in an ad of the 1950s is a must and tells exactly what is being advertised and why it is better than the competition.

The text in the ad builds up Lifebuoy by saying, “Now you get protection as long as 3 days. ” Lifebuoy also announces its discovery of something new called Puritan. Then, Lifebuoy start bashing the competition with words such as, “ New Lifebuoy protects you longer than the old Lifebuoy, and longer, of course, than any leading toilet soap. ” The use of italics with the phrase toilet soap is meant to draw your attention to it and make sure you understand how bad all other soaps are. Lifebuoy also guarantees you will like it or you will receive a refund.

The text of the 1950s ad is the bulk of the ad unlike the ads of today. This is most likely due to the culture the 1950s had a slower pace of life than the 2000s. The LYNX advertisement of the 2000s is almost entirely based off images. The focal point of the ad is a woman in nothing but underwear covered in mud with the words “wash me” written on her. The woman is also standing in a shower and looks like she is getting ready to take off the rest of her clothes. This ad is completely based on sex appeal. Sex has been proven to sell, and in this case, sex is selling body wash.

Masculinity is provoked by the very opposite, a feminine body in the blue (male) shower with the blue (male) body wash. LYNX selling point is that if you use LYNX, you will have attractive women wanting you. This an effective strategy, but it is also stereotyping women as sex objects. The “wash me” written on her stomach is similar to what people write on cars and is used to humor the audience. There is only one line of actual text in the ad it says, “LYNX Shower Gel. Get Dirty. ” The text is used to reinforce the image and the sex appeal of the product.

In fifty years, soap advertisers have not changed their visual strategy. Both the ad from the 1950s and the one of the 2000s rely on sex appeal to sell their product. The use of women as the sex object from which they are launching their advertising campaign is also the similar. They both are also risque for their time and push the border between what is appropriate and what is not just a little further. They both imply that if their soap is used, then you too will have a beautiful woman almost naked wanting you. They both also have provocative text to reinforce their sexual images.

The 1950s ad says, “It smells so good now, it makes me wonder… ” implies that he is wondering something sexual because there is a woman in a towel in the background. The LYNX ad uses the line, “Get Dirty. ” with the dirty woman in the ad this is obviously a sexual innuendo. Both advertisements use sex to sale their product, that is undeniable, but the degree which they do it is vast. The LYNX ad uses just seven words to sell their product, only two of which tell what the product is. The 1950s ad on the other hand has over five paragraphs of text describing the product in full detail.

The Lifebuoy ad takes a shot at the competition in their text and even offers a money back guarantee. The LYNX ad does none of these things in its short, seven word ad. The LYNX ad also has a more blatant use of sexuality. These differences are likely due to the difference in time periods. The ad in the 1950s had to do more than catch attention with sex appeal. It had to describe thoroughly why it was better to win over an audience that placed an astounding importance on quality. The 2000s audience however does not have time to read words in its fast paced society making the limited amount of text convenient to the reader.

This audience also more callused to sexuality so a more explicit image is necessary to attract the same amount of attention. Ads for soap have changed dramatically over the years. They have gotten less wordy and more colorful. The style of the soap has even changed from bar form to liquid. The thing that has not changed though, is that selling soap is still all about sex. Works Cited Lever Bros. “It smells so good now, it makes me wonder… ” Advertisement. Lever Bros. Lever Bros, n. d. Web 10 Oct. 2009. Unilever. “Get Dirty” Advertisement. Unilever. Unilever, n. d. Web. 10 Oct. 2009. Works Sited

Read more

Dove Brand Evolution

Describe the evolution of the ? The origins of the Dove brand lay in the U. S. In 1957 the first dove product was launched that was called the beauty bar. This product claimed that it was different than soap and that it would not dry out your skin. The advertising campaign for this launch was created by the Ogilvy and Mather advertising agency. The main message of this advertisement was that Dove soap does not dry out your skin because it contained a quarter of cleansing cream. The message that Dove does not dry out your skin was expressed in billboards, television and print.

As time passed by minor changes were made to the slogan. For example, the term cleansing cream was replaced with the term moisturizing cream. The Dove beauty bar was endorsed by dermatologists and physicians for the treatment of dry skin in the 1980s. In the year 2000 Dove was approached to become a Masterbrand. This meant that Dove would lend its name to Unilever entries in the personal care categories. Next to the beauty bar category there would also be other categories where Dove would have an active name.

For example, deodorants, hair care products, body lotions, facial cleansers and hair styling products. Now that Dove became a Masterbrand it was no longer sufficient to communicate functional benefits. Just because now there were different categories and functionality has a different meaning throughout the different categories. It was important that Dove would stand for a point of view. Having this in mind, research led to “The campaign for Real Beauty”. The ideas for this campaign started in the year 2002.

There was a search for an alternative view of the goal of personal care. The findings of the research of this campaign showed that only 2% of the respondents worldwide described themselves as beautiful. Following this research the first exploratory advertising executions were initiated. In these advertisements ordinary people were used in supermodel contexts. This was called the Tick-Box campaign. In 2005 the next series of Dove ads were known internally as the Firming campaign. Firming campaign because a cream was promoted that would firm the skin.

The goal was to change the way how beauty is viewed by society by provoking discussions and debates about “real beauty”. However this campaign was rather risky because they did not knew whether consumers would be inspired to buy a brand that focuses on real beauty and that does not promise to make you more attractive. The risk for Dove was that it would be perceived as an ordinary brand and would not stand out among the other brands for beauty products. In 2006 Dove ran an ad in the broadcast of the Superbowl football game.

The next stage in the Real Beauty campaign of Dove was developing a film concerning self-esteem. Unilever defined a mission statement for “The Campaign for Real Beauty”. Namely, “Dove’s mission is to make more women feel beautiful every day by broadening the narrow definition of beauty and inspiring them to take great care of themselves”. Later that year, Dove announced a contest where consumers were aspired to come up with their own ads for Dove Cream Oil Body Wash. This was a new product that would be launched in early 2007.

Dove came a long way and was now seen as a brand of great value. Dove had grown a lot and was identified as one of ten brands with the greatest percentage gain with regards to brand health and business value for in the previous three years. How do you asses Unilever’s branding strategy (i. e. reducing the number of brands and building masterbrands)? When looking at Unilever’s branding strategy the focus lies on building masterbrands. This is a good strategy because the number of brands is reduced. Hence the focus lies on one larger brand instead of several smaller brands.

This is good because it makes the decision making process a lot easier for the consumer. On the other hand it is also easier for Unilever because it now can put its energy on one larger brand. This means that the developments around the brand can be more specific. Meaning that you could create brand awareness more easily because there are less choice alternatives available for the consumer. Secondly, because of the masterbrand different products belong to one brand. This means that consumers can buy different products from one brand. The brand is no longer specific for one product category.

Therefore if a consumer is loyal to a brand it will also buy more products that belong to that brand and will not go to competitors. For example, if the consumer knows that Dove offers a good quality moisturizing cream the consumer is more likely to perceive other products of Dove as good quality. Furthermore, if Unilever would not pursue the branding strategy of masterbrands it would lead to competition among the several smaller brands. You could say that each brand of Unilever would operate as a separate business, meaning that it would compete with its fellow brands as well as with brands of other firms.

The previous would only lead to a division of Unilever which is not good for brand development. Instead the brands should work together because they all are a part of Unilever. Finally, the branding strategy of Unilever also provides possibilities of growth for the brand. By reducing the number of brands which are for example not profitable enough. The focus lies on the masterbrands and this reduction in costs can be used for the more promising masterbrands and therefore lead to growth by expanding product lines and so on.

Read more

A Case Study of Unilever and P&G

Based on coordination game, the decision of Unilever to introduce a new product without informing P&G could result to loss-loss situation to both of them. Alternatively, if Unilever continued to pursue coordination with P&D, win-win situation that was presently offered to both firms would continue. Therefore, the strategy of Unilever is destructive to its own market share as its preemptive approach would result to lose of market for both firms.

Some consumers would think that the new product has flaws while other would view the present product line of Unilever as defective because an improvement is initiated through the product introduction. In the contrary, as Unilever and P&G were closely-branded products, consumers of P&G would be invited to buy other alternatives outside the product lines of both Unilever and P&G. The conclusion is detrimental to both companies. There is a way that Unilever can force P&G not to retaliate which is proven by coordination game.

In coordination game with at most two strategies that can be used by participants, there is no way that the shift of strategy of Unilever from Strategy 1 to Strategy 2 cannot affect the outcome of P&G’s current use of Strategy 1.

When Unilever shifts to Strategy 2 through betrayal because this strategy has greater payoff, P&G has the option to do the same wanting to derive the same level of payoff. However, when both of them use Strategy 2, this can lead to Prisoner’s Dilemma where their standing is worse-off than their both use of Strategy 1.

Unilever can force P&G not to retaliate only if the former can show the latter that doing the same betrayal Unilever have done can cause the current performance of P&G to decline. In effect, knowing that P&G will be worse-off after jumping to Strategy 2, rational decision will refrain the change in current position. When Unilever decided to go with its product introduction and P&G is caught without new product, P&G must create strategies based on competition game. According to this concept, both firms have a better-off place in the market if only they can implement appropriate strategies. Also read Colgate Case Study

Based on the payoffs of the previously coordination game, P&G must jumped into new strategies that can outperform its current performance, minimize the effects of Unilever’s new product and even outperforming Unilever though Unilever seems to have good position with its new product introduction. There are many ways and methods that P&G can practically leverage its market position against Unilever. One alternative is to initiate price war. This strategy is a means of undermining the effects of differentiation, innovation and product quality that Unilever have put into its new product.

Another interesting comparison Unilever vs Nestle

Since the product is coming out fresh from innovation, its prices are expected to be high as it caters to quality, best practices and “thinking’ consumers. However, as P&G is selling its tried-and-tested product, consumers may see value in lowering the prices of its products. This could be an enough strategy to match the innovation-based product of Unilever. As a result, risk-averse and price-conscious consumers would shift to P&G products while high-end consumers would only be the one who will patronize Unilever’s new product.

As indicated by this strategic option, P&G can even broaden its market base while Unilever can experience contraction in its market due to ambiguity of the innovation to consumers. An extension of this alternative is for P&G to execute research and development endeavors. This add-on tactic can serve as the long-term retaliation plan of P&G especially when the time has already make the new product from Unilever acceptable to market due to familiarity.

References

Moreno, D. & Wooders, J. (1996). “Coalition-Proof Equilibrium”. Games and Economic Behavior 17: 80–112.

Read more

Success Marketing Model for Solero

On balance I feel that the marketing director of Solero should use the marketing model as a tool in deciding how to respond to the recent fall in sales as the many benefits far out way the few consequences, also most of the consequences wouldn’t be a problem if the marketing model was performed to a high standard and all stages were done properly and with relevant care.

The success does inevitably depend upon whether the consumer buying public are still in a position to be won back over or have they found a new ice cream that meets their needs better than Solero does, if this is the case then almost all of what Solero do in a marketing sense will be ignored as the people they are trying to win over have already moved on.

Also if Solero did win the customers back that they lost to other competitors, through the use of clever advertising the customers they have would be ones that are not repeat buyers but people who buy what they last saw on the TV, this would make it very hard for Solero to draw up any forecasts as a close competitor could launch a massive advertising campaign a week after and take all the buyers.

Another future problem could be in the fact that the marketing director, the man who will be controlling the operation has obviously never contemplated using the Marketing model so therefore will not be capable of using it to head a huge advertising campaign for a major UK brand for his first attempt. This could easily be avoided though by employing an expert in the field to come in to start the ball rolling and teach the people around him the finer details of the process so that next time they will be able to do it all themselves.

This does have a draw back though as when the expert is in employment the Marketing Director will also be so 2 salaries will be paid for one job, and it may not be a short time as with the testing and forming of hypothesises and reviewing it could be a long time before he leaves which could leave Solero with barely enough to put it into action when it’s finished.

Something which could also present a problem is the competitive nature of the market with every company fighting for every % of market share, the other companies are diversifying into different sectors like ‘take home’ and ‘scooping and soft mix’ this isn’t just a good move because the impulse market is currently shrinking by over 1/2 a million a year and the take home is growing an average of 1 million a year.

It is also a good move because as they move into different markets and stay in the ones they were in they increasing the awareness of their product so if a mum sees Magnum in the supermarket and gets it then when she goes into the newsagents for milk she may show a preference to Magnum as she knows it’s good, it’s not a risk she’s seen it in a big supermarket.

It also means that fans of a particular ice cream can go into any type of shop and buy it. To combat this Solero would have to do the same thing and make a move into the take home market although this could prove difficult as with new packaging, possibly a changed product as well as new distribution cost the start up cost may be to high for Solero at this point in time.

The final thing that may cause problems to their plans is the weather, if at the time when they release their advertising campaign to the public it rains solidly for 3 weeks sales will fall no matter how good the campaign especially as they are in the impulse sector of the ice cream market, perhaps if they were in the take home the sales figures wouldn’t show as much of a change.

On the other hand if when the campaign comes out its 3 weeks of record breaking temperatures sales would be likely to soar and possibly continue through the not so good weather as people remember sitting down having a Solero in the blissful sunshine and feel that getting a Solero will bring it all back. This could be planned quite accurately as weather forecasting is a very precise business so Solero could just find out when the next good spell of weather is and do it then. They could even release it at different times throughout the UK to time it with the weather to save the costs of TV advertising when no ones going to listen.

Read more

Unilever Strategy for Organising and Structuring Its Global Operations.

Unilever is a complex global organization that has a portfolio of 400 brands, pning 14 categories in home and personal care and food products. The company has 163,000 employees in the 170 countries within which it operates (Unilever, 2010). Organizations such as Unilever face the challenge of configuring a global structure that “works well in diverse locations but also brings units together in a coordinated fashion” (Shenkar & Luo, 2007, p. 312).

Given its wide range of products and the diversity of countries in which it operates, Unilever has to employ a global organizational strategy that addresses its global complexity and the diversity of its product portfolio. In its portfolio, there are some product lines that can be extended to new markets with little or no modification, while there are others that need to be modified to suit the local preferences. For example, chemical products are highly standardized and require little variation for local markets (Child, 2005, p. 45). Standardization of such products creates economies of scale in production and requires a “high level of global coordination and integration” (Child, 2005) and centralized R&D. On the other hand, some of Unilever’s products, such as packaged foods, require modification to suit local tastes and cultures. There are no production economies of scale for such categories and product development has to be facilitated locally.

These factors present two scenarios for the company – striving for high global integration in the case where products can be introduced to new markets without modification and striving for high local responsiveness where there is need for modification to meet local preferences. Unilever has to therefore adopt a global organizational structure that addresses the two scenarios. The organization employs a transnational strategy, which is best suited for Unilever’s global operations, as it is faced with high pressure for both local responsiveness and global integration (Child, 2005, p. 43; Shenkar & Luo, 2007, p. 312). Unilever also uses the transnational strategy to organize its functions. Its sales, distribution and promotional tasks are locally responsive and are decentralized to suit individual markets, whereas the R&D function is globally integrated to leverage learning in the different markets. The transnational strategy enables Unilever to leverage the advantages of low cost in conjunction with the advantages of differentiation. Unilever adopted the transnational strategy mainly in esponse to competition from Procter and Gamble, which was already pursuing a transnational strategy by 1990 (Child, 2005, p. 247). However Unilever is still lagging behind P&G, in terms of revenues, marketing and innovation, because it has faced difficulty in reorganizing its activities to meet the requirements of a transnational strategy. The transnational strategy is both demanding and expensive to implement. It also requires a “flat” hierarchy (Child, 2005, p. 249) and Unilever has gone through a process of reorganizing its structure through the “One Unilever” programme, which was launched in 2005.

The programme resulted in “better allocation of resources, faster decision-making and a lower cost level” (Unilever, 2007) and enables the organization to leverage its scale both globally and locally. References: • Child, J. (2005) Organisation: contemporary principles and practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 241-253 • Shenkar, O. & Luo, Y. (2007) International business. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. • Unilever Website. Available from: http://www. unilever. com

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp