P&g Case Study

Executive Summary

P&G was founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble as a maker of soaps and candles. P&G was known in Corporate America as a company to be admired and imitated. In addition, it was envied for its profitability as well as strong brand name. P&G has a long standing reputation as having life long employees. This dedication and loyalty by P&G’s employees created the notion that outside sources were unwelcome and all products and ideas must come from within, however, this is not the way of the future.

Durk I. Jager was named CEO in January 1999 but tried to accomplish too much too fast. Jager entered into this position at a very difficult time in P&G’s history and tried everything he knew to keep the company going. He introduced new high end products, which did not fit within P&G’s culture. His solution to keep P&G going was to cut costs, however this was not a long term solution. He alienated the employee population in 17 short months. Acknowledging Jager’s failure, P&G’s board forced him to submit his resignation.

P&G employees needed a face lift and fast. A.G. Lafley, a Harvard graduate who spent his entire career with P&G was named CEO. He showed P&G employees that a family culture within the company was still attainable. Lafley focused on the employees and ensured the employees maintained focus on the consumers, as consumers are the basis of the market. He slowly began to change the old views of P&G. Not long after Lafley’s appointment to CEO he replaced more than half of the company’s top 30 officers and cut 9,600 jobs. P&Gs old view of internal creation was halted by Lafley. He acquired Clairol in 2001; P&Gs largest acquisition in its history. He also outsourced P&G’s information-technology operation to help maintain its focus on the consumer and its brands. Lafley was able accomplish these non-traditional moves without alienating the family that was P&G.

Although Lafley has had success, the underlying problem remains. How will Lafley return P&G to its rightful place in Corporate America? P&G’s solution to its problems is through product line extensions, expansion into non-premium brands, as well as acquisitions, licensing, reinforcing market orientation through consumer focus, and outsourcing. This recommendation was based on following items;

• Analysis of macro and micro factors,

• Understanding the problems at hand,

• Analysis of alternatives and key criteria for each alternative provided, and

• Final analysis of each alternative.

Macro Focus

The macro portion of the situation analysis paints a picture of a very competitive and dynamic industry. P&G is currently competing in five different areas; fabric and home care, beauty care, baby and family Care, health care, and snacks and beverages. Each segment is characterized by major competitors who are eagerly vying for market share, as well as driving prices down. This has forced P&G to re-think how they do business. Currently, they are in the process of outsourcing manufacturing on a number of items. This outsourcing is a cost saving method that P&G employed to stay competitive in markets such as fabric and home care, and baby and family care. P&G is also acquiring new companies and product lines such as Clairol. These acquisitions help to maintain competitiveness in lower end markets of the beauty care industry.

P&G must also deal with a variety of economic and political factors. P&G has recently begun the outsourcing of non-core business functions and manufacturing to reduce costs. However, P&G is behind the curve as many competitors have been outsourcing for some time and have an edge on these cost cutting measures. The prices of commodities have been rising steadily over the past few years and are projected to continue to rise in the near future. These increases, in the cost of doing business, will have to be hedged through other cost cutting measures or passed on to the consumer. Passing costs to consumers is not plausible in some of P&G’s more competitive markets. For example, in the baby and family care market, Kimberly-Clark is aspiring to dominate the disposable-diaper market by continuing to drive prices downward.

The higher prices of commodities in connection with rising inflation have reduced the levels of disposable income available to the American consumer. In turn, this has caused a trend toward lower priced options and discount big-box stores such as Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s power in the supply chain has grown exponentially and it is now the most powerful member of