URI Clean Edge Razor Segment Marketing Case Study

User Generated

WrffvpnPnef

Business Finance

University of Rhode Island

Description

*This case study assignment will reinforce concepts related to market segments, targeting, and positioning. In addition to these strategic components, the case will bring pricing strategy into the strategic planning process.

Clean Edge Razor is a 'wet shave' company that sells non-disposable razors (i.e., consumers buy replacement razors), very much like Gillette Fusion blades.

*As you review the case and prepare your case study submission, please keep the following discussion points in mind:

1. What are the dynamics of the non-disposable razor category? Is it stable, growing, or declining? Include numbers from the case. What is Paramount's (company that sells Clean Edge) position in the industry (i.e., market share leader, etc.)

2. Be sure to identify, describe, and discuss the three price/quality price tiers (value, mainstream, premium). Notice the different names. What is happening in each of those price tier segments (i.e., growing, stable, declining)? In addition to the price/quality price segments, please discuss the 'benefits sought' segments (e.g., aesthetic shavers) in your discussion - these segments need consideration for assessing growth trends and whether to target the mainstream or premium segment.

3. The central issue, in this case, is how to position Clean Edge (the newest razor technology) in the mainstream vs. premium segment. Discuss the pros/cons of targeting the mainstream segment; do the same for the premium segment. Discuss the potential profits for both segments (premium vs. mainstream) - this will require using pricing, estimated sales volume (units), and costs (variable and fixed).

4. Make a recommendation based on your analysis. Be sure to include potential short-term consequences and long-term consequences of your decision. Marketing managers usually put more emphasis on short-term results over long-term results (short-term sacrifice with long-term growth). Please include these considerations in this case.

*Read this case in the attachment !!!

*A robust case study will be 5-7 pages in length and include cited sources to support your analysis.

*Please follow Assignment Rubric and Case Analysis template to write this paper, thank you.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL 1) BRIEF CASES 4249 JANUARY 19, 2011 JOHN A. QUELCH HEATHER BECKHAM Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning On August 9, 2010, a group of executives from Paramount Health and Beauty Company on the other side of a sat in a research room intently observing a dozen men shaving nondisposable razor, Clean Edge, two-way mirror. The subjectswere testingout Paramount's newest encouraging. The majority of men feltit and discussing the experience. The verdict was extremely cleanest,and smoothest shave they had encountered. was the closest, (Paramount) uålizing a vibrating technology Clean Edge's improved design provided superior performance by shave. l thorough for a more allowing skin, hair folliclesand liftthe hair from the to såmulate considering room observation darkened the in sat Edge, Jackson Randall, product manager for Clean process and new product development the positioning s&ategy for this new product. He had led the at executives All launch. upcoming the for product the position to was now grappling with how Paramount However, segment of the market. agreed Clean Edge should be priced in the super-premium a mainstream entry within some executives believed Clean Edge should be launched as that segment, on the market. with the broad appeal of being the most effective razor available Others felt a more differentiatedniche strategy, targeting the most intensely involved super-premium technologically advanced consumers, would be opåmal. Paramount had decided to launch this strongest presence, with an the had company the where product into the men's market first after. soon following market introducåon into the women's As Stuart Quimby, directorof Paramount's U.S. Grooming Division,leftthe observaåon room, he asked Randall to provide a recommendationto the executive steering committeeby the end of the budget allocationsfor the launch. Randall week for product posiåoning, brand name, and marketing now he just had to determine the best course anyone; than better product new this felthe understood of action for Clean Edge and convince his boss of the merits of his sfrategy. 1 Paramount would be the first company to provide scientific testing by a third-party lab to back these claims. HBS Professor John A. Quelch and writer Heather Beckham prepared thiscase solely as a basis for class discussion and not as an endorsement, a source of primary data, or an illustration of effective or ineffective management. This case, though based on real events, is fictionalized, and any resemblance to actual persons or entities is coincidental. There are occasional references to actual companies in the narration. Copyright 0 2011President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685' write Harvard Business Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may photocopied, or otherwrisereproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School. not be digitized' 4249 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning The U.S. Razor Market Background The U.S. Razor market could be broken up into several categories, including nondisposable razors, refill cartridges, disposable razors, shaving cream, and depilatories. Clean Edge competed in the nondisposable razor and refill cartridge categories. Nondisposable razors experienced approximately 5% growth per year from 2007 to 2010, with refillcartridges capturing slightlyless growth of approximately 2% per year over the same time period. Most of the growth in this market can be attributed to innovations and new product introductions. Table A provides retail sales for the select categories. Table A U.S. Shaving and Hair Removal Products: Retail Sales ($ in millions) 2005 Nondisposable Razors $ $ $ $ $ RefillCartidges DisposableRazors Shaving Cream Depilatories Source: "Shaving and Hair Removal 2006 178 763 440 271 104 Products $ $ $ $ $ 2007 212 801 456 275 101 - U.S. - May $ $ $ $ $ 2008 188 802 477 269 106 $ $ $ $ $ 2010 2009 198 815 490 266 100 $ $ $ $ $ 208 832 504 263 94 $ $ $ $ 218 853 522 260 88 2008," Figure 5, Mintel International Group Note: 2008 figures are mid-year projections; 2009-2010figures are estimates. Market Segments and Consumer Behavior Currently, industry experts divided the nondisposable razor and refillcarfridge market into three segments based on price and quality:value, moderate, and super-premium. In the lastdecade, the industry had experienced significantgrowth in the super-premium segment. Numerous product innovations in the super-premium segment (e.g.,5-blade technology, glide stips, lather bar, low resistance blade coating, etc.) fueled the growth. Table B provides a breakout of industry sales by segment. Table B 2009Nondisposable Razors and RefillCartridge Retail Sales by Segment Volume Dollar 25% 43% 32% 34% Super-Premium Moderate Value 22% Note: Information is fictional. Paramount cartridges more studies from 2009 showed cycle had been shortened due to consumers sponsored that consumers purchased razors and frequently than they had in any year previously. trying out new replacement Executives felt the replacement products as well as advertising and aråcles that touted the benefits of frequent blade replacement. In addiåon to the traditional price/quality segmentsthat industry experts tracked, Paramount's consumer research indicated disfinct segmentation in terms of product benefits and consumer behavior. Research showed these segments held frue for both men and women. Exhibit 1 summarizes 2 Paramount's findings on these groups. BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning 1 4249 The intensity of involvement with the product varied significantly among consumers. There was a group of consumers labeled as "Maintenance Shavers" who that Paramount were almost completely disinterested in the product category. Involved users could be broken up into "Social/Emotional" and "Aesthetic" shavers. Both groups were willing to experiment with new technology. "Social/Emotional" shavers were motivated by the overall shaving experience, while "Aesthetic" shavers were more interested in cosmetic results. Trends The rate of new-product razors and for nondisposable introductions flurry of 22 new accelerated in recent years, with an unprecedented refill cartridges had stock-keeping units (SKUs) being introduced between 2008 and 2009. Most of these new SKUs were line extensionstargeted at the super-premium As segment and promoted a result of new-product advertising expenditures benefits from advances in technology. in order introductions and in this category had been to stimulate demand, rising faster than retail market total media this sales, and trend was expected to continue. Exhibit 2 provides media expenditures for the major brands, and a breakout of advertising/promotion expenditures for Paramount nondisposable razors and refill cartridges are given in Exhibit 3. In general, disfribution outlets responded shelf space for the product to the growth SKUs by increasing frequently enough to be a &affic in nondisposable category. Razors were not purchased builder for the stores, but retail margins associatedwith the products tended to be considerably care items (e.g.,toothpaste). Distribuåon higher than other personal was also starting to shift outside stores. In 2000, food stores sold over half of all razors, but by 2009 they of sales. Exhibit 4 summarizes the changes in retailchannel distibuåon from tradiåonal food and drug represented only 42% 2007 to 2010E. products seemed Male-specific grooming indicated men's grooming men's body routines moved spray, fragranced shower to be a bright spot in the industry. well beyond gel, and a splash of aftershave. New Recent trends products such as skincare lines proliferated in the last several years. Male-specific personal care products outpaced the growth in the women's beauty market as these products became more mainstream. With more media attenåon on men's grooming issues and less stigma associated with men's preening, the segment seemed poised for growth. Company Overview Paramount was a global consumer products giant with $13 billionin worldwide billion in gross profits for 2009. Paramount's and Grooming. respected brand Paramount corporate divisions included the U.S. confributed Beauty entered the nondisposable razor market in 1962 and quickly became $170 million in revenue, Paramount a razors and refillcarfridges in gross profit of $92 million, and operaång profit of $26 in the industry. Sales from Paramount's million in 2009. sales and $7 Health, Cleaning, currently offered two nondisposable lines of nondisposable razors and refill cartridges—the Paramount Pro which was positioned in the moderate segment of the product category, and the Paramount Avail, which was considered a value offering. Neither Pro nor Avail had introduced significant technology innovations in the last five years. Together, these two products allowed Paramount to capture the unit-volume market-leader posiåon in 2009, with a 23.3% retail unit share.2 2 Average contribution per urüt for Avail and Pro combined HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL I BRIEFCASES was $1.76 for razors and $2.80 for cartridges. 3 Q49 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning Competition Competition for nondisposable razors included direct compeåtors as well as subsåtute products. Disposable razors provided a "wet" shave alternative, but appealed primarily to the value-oriented customers or to customers that wanted a new blade for each shave. Disposables generally competed on price and lacked the technology and innovations that were standard in the nondisposable market. Electric shavers captured a moderate percentage of the overall market (approximately27% of men used an electric shaver). Although they did not provide as close a shave as "wet" razors, elect-ic shavers were easier to maneuver and produced less skin irritation.As a result,electricshavers generally appealed to older consumers. Other substitutesincluded depilatory creams, waxing, and laser hair removal. In 2010,the nondisposable razor and refill cartridge market was dominated by three multinational players: Paramount, Prince, and Benet & Klein. New Simpsons—both in the space. entrants,Radiance Health Inc. (Radiance) and established personal-care products companies—had Other smaller competitors and private-label brands recently intensified competition comprised the rest of the market. The majority of these other competitors were priced in the value segment of the market. Exhibit 5 details each of the main players' market shares. Exhibit 6 provides representaåve retail prices for each major brand by product segment. Prince —Prince manufactured and sold personal care products throughout the world. The company's principle focus included oral care products, skin care products, shaving products, and deodorants/antiperspirants. and held the number Prince had been a market leader in nondisposable razors since the 1950s one position in terms of retail dollar sales in 2009. Prince sold nondisposable razors and refill carb•idgesunder the brand names Cogent and Cogent Plus. Both were considered super-premium products. Revenues for Prince'snondisposable razors and refillcartridges in 2009 were approximately $224 million with $45 million in operating profit. Benet & Klein (B&K)—B&Kwas a mulånational beauty and health products company that manufactured and sold vitamins, cosmetics, shaving products, skin care products, hair care products, and fragrances. B&Kentered the nondisposable razor market in 1985with the Vifric brand. B&K unveiled a new provided product line of nondisposable an advanced razors and refillcartridges (VifricMaster) in 2009 that lubricaåon s&ip, non-slip handle, and superior anti-corrosivetechnology blades. New Entrants — On August deodorant brand, Tempest. smoother shave. 1, 2009, Simpsons launched a new nondisposable razor using its The Tempest razor touted an advanced pivoting head that allowed for a Radiance also planned to extend its deodorant brand name, Naiv, into razors. The Naiv razor offered a pulsing feature that was somewhat similar to Clean Edge's vibrating technology. Executives at Paramount had leamed the Naiv razor was due to launch naåonal.ly in September 2010. In testmarkets, Naiv acquired a 13% share. Estimates for 2010 market nondisposable share are provided in Exhibit 5. Based on Radiance'spast launches in new-product categories, Paramount believed it would come out of the gate strong. Paramount marketing executives esåmated Radiance would spend over $16 million for media adveråsing to support the Naiv launch in 2010. There were also widespread rumors of significantpromoåon events that would soon be unveiled. Currently, Radiance and Pararnount were fierce competitors in several personal care product categories. 4 BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning 1 4249 Clean Edge Razor Design and Testing In 2007, Paramount's CEO created a special nondisposable-razor project team devoted to developing a technological breakthrough and providing Paramount with a standout new product in the category. The team was led by Randall and included representatives from R&D, marketing, and production. The team evaluated several new designs and determined that a vibrating,ultra-thinfive- blade design (dubbed Clean Edge) would be the revolutionary product Paramount needed to establish themselves as an innovation leader. One AAA battery was housed in the handle of the razor which provided vibrations that stimulated hair follicles. In addition, the larger, heavier handle allowed for better balance, grip and control while shaving, and the advanced ultra-thin blade design reduced iritation. Over an 18-month period, extensive clinical testingand consumer research were performed. Clinical trialsindicated Clean Edge achieved a 25% increase in hair removal versus other leading nondisposable razor brands (e.g., Cogent and Vitric). Trials also proved benefits to overall skin condition with more even skin tone and improved Randall managed the development skin texture. and testingprocess and was now spearheading the product's launch. Senior executives already determined that Clean Edge would be priced somewhere in the super-premium segment, and the launch of the men's razor would occur in January 2011, with the women's razor to follow soon after. The looming question was how to best position Clean Edge. Positioning Within the super-premium segment, Randall had the option of recommending Clean Edge for a niche product posiåon focusing on highly involved, fastidiousgroomers looking for a superior shaving experience, or a mainstream position focusing on the broad possible shave. Randall had consulted with markeång financial forecasts for both opåons. Exhibit 7 summarizes advantage of offering the closest and manufacturing teams to develop initial Randall's assumptions and forecasts. In order to develop a comprehensive pro forma income statement for each positioning option, he would also have to consider the impact of cannibalizaåon. In a recent division status meeting, Randall had observed a heated exchange on thistopic between Paramount's newly hired corporate marketing director,William Kim, and Paramount Pro's product manager, Albert Randall knew Rosenberg. Kim had been brought on board to provide a fresh perspective to the nondisposableDivision for over had been a respected manager in the Grooming razor product category. Rosenberg two decades and had significant political capital in the division. When the question of Clean Edge's product positioning was broached, Rosenberg said, "1 can't believe we consumers positioning strategy. You will just siphon off are even considering a mainstream from Pro. A mainstream strategywill dilutethe brand power for our bread-and-butter product, Pro. complement We will just be cannibalizing ourselves. A niche strategy makes our existing product more sense. It will portfolio perfectly." Kim thought Rosenberg was too concerned with protecång his turf and not thinking of what was best for the overall company. He responded, "Albert,research shows our consumers are becoming more sophisticated and expect more advanced technology. Pro does not provide this. Pro is in the mature phase of the product lifecycle. It is only a matter of åme before we see the decline. Positioning Clean Edge as a mainstream product will help prevent loyal Paramount customers from being wooed away to more innovaåve brands. Clean Edge has the potential for frue market domination and needs to be positioned as such." HARVARDBUSINESS SCHOOL I BRIEFCASES 5 4249 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning Randall was unsure of the exact effect of cannibalizaåon, but product launches in other Paramount product categories indicated a considerable portion of the volume sales for Clean Edge could come at the expense of Paramount Pro and Avail. Randall's team spent a good amount of åme researching potential cannibalization scenarios. They determined 60% of Clean Edge sales would likelycome from current Pro/ Avail customers in a mainstream positioning scenario and 35% of Clean Edge sales would likely come from current Pro/Avail customers in a niche positioning scenario. Branding Considerations Randallhad not yet determinedthe relativeemphasisof the "Paramount"and "Clean Edge" names on packaging or in advertising. He had informally discussed m ro opåons with different executives. Those executives who felt the design was a major breakthrough in grooming believed the product should stand apart from the current lineswith an emphasis on the "Clean Edge" name (e.g., "Clean Edge by Paramount"). In opposition to this were a handful of executives who thought Paramount's name should receive top billing as this was consistentwith the overall corporate s&ategy of building the Paramount brand name equity. The name this group preferred was "Paramount Clean Edge." Focus groups revealed both concept names were viewed favorably. Randall knew his decision would have an impact on how closelyconsumers associated Clean Edge with Pro and Avail and consequently influence the rate of cannibalization. Marketing Budget Paramount executiveshad not yet decided how to incorporateClean Edge into the overall nondisposable razor and refill carfridgemarketing budget and ifan increase in overallbudget was necessary. The 2010 budget for consumer totaled $48.3 million with $20.2 million for advertising and $28.1 million and trade promotions. Randall was aware that the steeringcommittee was looking to curb excessive marketing expenses in all product categories. If the budgets were to remain constant for 2011, then a reallocaåon would have to occur. Randall considered the option of allocating the budget based on an expectedpercentageof sales; but this would not be sufficient for Clean Edge to enter the market in a meaningful way. successful launch. Rosenberg had been However, Clean Edge needed significant marketing dollarsto ensure a was already campaiB1ing to protect his allocaåons. Rosenberg quite vocal in his stance that Paramount and as such needed razor l.frle to sustain current marketing Pro was the backbone of the company's allocaåons. To capture the volume estimates laid out in Exhibit 7, Randall determined a niche positioning require $15 million in total marketing expenditures for Clean Edge's firstyear. In order to reach full sales potential with the mainsfream position, a $42 million marketing budget would be needed for year one. It was clear to Randall that launching Clean Edge as a mainstream more marketing support. Mainstream razor unit volumes were product would require significantly strategy would to capture over three times niche volumes in the firstyear, and reaching the masses would require an extensive advertising campaign. In addition, considerable consumer and trade promotion events would be needed and many expenses associatedwith these events would be volume based. In order to induce trial,several consumer promotions were being considered. Cents-off coupons (e.g., expected $1.00 off purchase) would be an important part of the consumer promotion strategy for either posiåoning stategy. A coupon for a free razor with cartridgepurchase had also been proposed. Randall estimated the cost of this promotion to be approximately $4 million and had included it in his iniåal markeång budget assumptions for the mainstream launch located in Exhibit 7. Even though an increase in the overall product category marketing budget would be highly scruånized, Randall felt this might be the best route. 6 BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning 4249 Conclusion Randall's gut told him Clean Edge had significantmainsfream potential in the super-premium He feltthe vibraång, thin-blade razor would become the new standard in men's shaving segment. and would quickly gain mass appeal. However, Randall had to consider the opåmal positioning strategy in the context of the enåre company. He knew Paramount Pro's product manager, Rosenberg, would vehemently oppose a mainstream launch, and he had to consider iflaunching as a niche product for a year or two might be a better move. Randall hoped that an economic analysis would help him find the right answer. took into account would He planned to build a simple profit-and-loss pro forma that the effects of cannibalization on Paramount Pro and Avail. Randall also realized it be important to develop contingency plans to address differentscenarios. After this was complete, he could make startedon brand name a more ilformed decision about a positioning recommendation and then get and budget recommendations. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL I BRIEFCASES 7 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning Behavior Segmentation of Nondisposable Razor Consumers Exhibit 1 Involved Razor Users Social/Emotional Shavers Involved Razor Users Aesthetic Shavers Uninvolved Razor Users Maintenance Shavers (39% of Nondisposable Razor Users) (28%of Nondisposable Razor Users) (33% of Nondisposable Razor Users) Search for products that most effectively remove hair. View products as the same. Lack of interest in product category. Differentiate among products. Search for products based on both funcåonality and messaging. Shaving Shaving is consistently done to remove unwanted hair. as an essential part of a daily grooming ritual. Shaving makes them feel more Shaving is a means attractive and confident. to smooth skin they desire. Shaving routine is inconsistent. Shaving is a chore they fry to finish as quickly as possible. Note: Information is fictional. Exhibit 2 Nondisposable Razor Media Advertising Expenditures, a 2009—2010E 2009 2010E Media ($ in millions) Benet & Klein Media ($ in millions) $ 36.8 29.2 20.2 $ 35.2 Prince 27.8 19.1 Paramount Simpsons $ 2.4 15.2 Radiance a Media $ 16.1 advertising expenditures does not include trade or consumer promotion. Exhibit 3 Adveråsing and Promotion Expendituresfor Nondisposable Paramount Razors: 2009—2010E 2009 Media Consumer Promotions Trade Promotions Total 8 $ $ $ $ 19.1 11.5 13.7 44.3 ($ in millions) 2010E $ $ $ $ 20.2 13.1 15.0 48.3 BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL 4249 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning Exhibit 4 % of Nondisposable Razor Sales by Retail Channel: 2007-2010E vol Food Stores vol ( 0/0) ( 0/0) vol vol ( 0/0) 47 45 Drug Stores Mass merchandisers 2010E 2009 2008 2007 ( 0/0) 33 20 29 21 33 18 31 18 32 19 29 21 43 31 21 Club Stores Other Note: Information is fictional. Exhibit 5 Nondisposable Razor Unit and Dollar Market Share by Brand: 2007—2010E Brand vol vol ( 0/0) 2010E $ (Yo) vol (0/0) 2009 2008 2007 ( 0/0) $ ( 0/0) vol ( 0/0) Paramount Paramount Pro Paramount Avail Total Prince Cogent Cogent Plus Total 12.0 20.5 12.6 6.6 19.2 13.7 21.8 15.2 6.2 21.4 Vitric Master Total 23.4 22.2 21.4 29.4 1.3 30.7 16.1 21.3 19.8 26.2 15.2 0.2 4.0 19.4 15.8 0.1 5.2 21.1 2.6 32.6 23.1 18.1 2.5 0.0 20.6 20.5 2.7 0.0 23.2 18.2 1.6 0.0 19.8 20.0 17.8 0.7 20.0 1.9 0.0 21.9 o.z 19.2 0.9 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 4.6 0.0 34.9 25.9 33.9 24.1 33.5 22.8 32.0 Simpsons Other 18.5 31.7 Tempest Total 17.3 4.9 32.6 31.7 Radiance Naiv Total 18.5 24.5 0.0 24.5 24.0 0.0 24.0 Benet & Klein Vitic Vitic Advanced 16.9 6.4 23.3 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL I BRIEFCASES 1.1 2.0 4.6 23.0 4249 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning Exhibit 6 Select Nondisposable Razor Brand Prices:a 2009 Suggested Retail Price StandardRefill Cartridges (Average 4-count) Razor Super-Premium Cogent Plus Cogent Naivb Vi&icAdvanced Vifric Master Tempest $ 12.50 $ 10.00 $ 11.19 $ 889 $ 11.80 $ 11.20 $ 10.85 $ 10.99 $ 899 $ 865 $ 875 $ 9.50 $ 8.89 $ 755 $ 700 $ 5.75 $ 4 60 $ 945 Moderate Paramount Pro Vitic Value Paramount Avail a Table includes only key brands in the market. Prices are representative of most popular SKU in the brand category. Prices for other SKUs will vary. b Projected price at launch Exhibit 7 Financial Forecasts: Alternaåve Positioning Scenarios for Clean Edge Niche Positioning Planned capacity Razor unit volume (millions of units) Year 1 Year 2 Planned Capacity capacity Carfridge a unit volume (millions of units) costs ($ in millions) 4.0 9.9 Year 2 10.0 21.9 Year 1 $ 061 Year 2 $ 087 $ 500 $ 9 09 price $ 12.99 $ 243 $ 735 $ 10.50 Razor: Suggested price Cartridge:a Average Producåon unit cost Manufacturer Cartridge: a Average price Cartridge:a Average Suggested price Advertising Consumer ($ in millions) promotions ($ in millions) Trade ($ in millions) 1.71 $ 245 $ 474 $ 783 $ 11.19 $ 2.24 $ 622 $ 889 Year 1 7 Year 2 7 Year 1 6 6 14 2 3 6 8 Year 2 promotions 3.3 4.0 Year 1 Razor: Production per unit cost Razor: Manufacturer 1.0 1.5 Mainstream Positioning Year 1 Year 2 19 a Car&idge unit assumes average 4-count refill package. 10 BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL Case Study Rubric Criteria (Weight) Professional (100%) Thorough (90%) Adequate (75%) Not Fully Developed (50%) Quality of Assignment Content. Weight: 70% Submission demonstrates a full, in-depth understanding of the associated learning objectives presented in the assignment. Writing demonstrates graduate level writing throughout. Assignment is clearly understandable to the reader and is free of punctuation, spelling, and capitalization errors. Submission demonstrates a thorough understanding of the associated learning objectives presented in the assignment. Writing demonstrates graduate level writing in most areas. Assignment is mostly clear and understandable to the reader and contains only occasional punctuation, spelling, and /or capitalization errors. Submission demonstrates a basic understanding of the associated learning objectives presented in the assignment. Writing is unclear and/or disorganized in some areas. Assignment is partially clear and understandable to the reader. Contains several punctuation, spelling, and/or capitalization errors, but does not inhibit readability. Submission Demonstrates a lack of understanding of some of associated learning objectives presented in the assignment. Writing is unclear and/or disorganized in most areas. Assignment is unclear and not understandable to the reader. Contains many and serious intrusive errors of punctuation, spelling, and/or capitalization which partially inhibit readability. Submission follows directions and includes all components indicated in the instructions. If requested, references are included and cited properly according to APA. No formatting errors. Submission follows directions and includes most components indicated in the instructions. If requested, references are included and mostly cited properly according to APA. Few formatting errors. Submission does not follow all directions and is missing some components indicated in the instructions. If requested, some references are included and partially cited properly according to APA. Several errors in formatting, or format is inconsistent. Submission follows minimal directions and is missing many components indicated in the instructions. If requested, references are not included and/or not properly cited according to APA. Errors in formatting interfere with meaning. Mechanics and Readability of Assignment Weight: 15% Structure and Organization, Format, Presentation Weight: 15% Does Not Meet Requirements (0%) Nothing submitted. Nothing submitted. Nothing submitted. Case Study Rubric Case Analysis Formatting Template Cover Page Title Your Full Name Course & Section i.e., Mon/Wed. Date Situation Analysis “Synopsis” – briefly summarize the case in your own words – No more than 2 pages Environmental Analysis SWOT Analysis – in bullet format Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Internal External Problem Statement “WHY?” Keep it brief…no more than 20 words. Challenge yourself to be concise but brief. This should be written as a statement not a question. Development of Alternatives Your alternatives are derived from your opportunities outlined in your SWOT. Number each alternative and explain. Evaluation of Alternatives & Recommendations Evaluate each alternative using the pros and cons of each choice. Use outside sources to back up your hypothesis. Select the best choice based on the company’s strengths and opportunities. Recommendation End this section with an overall recommendation/conclusion – no more than 1 paragraph. Other pointers for working on your cases…. • • All cases are typed, contain a cover sheet, sections are labeled and are double spaced and printed in a 12-point font. Don’t forget bullet points can help the reader to follow your points. Bullets should be utilized in the SWOT analysis. Do NOT use paragraphs for this section. Suggested Reading – Read the case at least 3 times. Yes, 3 times. If you only read it once, you will only be able to detect surface problems.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
5 pages
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.

Marketing Case Study: Clean Edge Razor
Thesis statement: The presented, clean edge razor case study, integrates marketing concepts,
including market segmentation, targeting, and positioning. Based on the discussion, the case
study will recommend the marketing position needed for the newly launched clean edge razor
product.
I.

Introduction

II.

Situation analysis
a. Company overview
b. The razor market
c. Market segmentation

III.

Environmental analysis
a. Strengths
b. Weaknesses
c. Opportunities
d. Threats

IV.

Problem statement

V.

Development of alternatives

VI.

Evaluation of alternatives & recommendations

VII.

Recommendations


1

Marketing Case Study: Clean Edge Razor

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date

MARKETING CASE STUDY: CLEAN EDGE RAZOR

2

Marketing Case Study: Clean Edge Razor
Organizations projecting to launch a new product should have a marketing strategy. This
provides a framework that the marketing team should implement to enhance the success of the
product launch. The presented, clean edge razor case study, integrates marketing concepts,
including market segmentation, targeting, and positioning. Based on the discussion, the case
study will recommend the marketing position needed for the newly launched clean edge razor
product.
Situation Analysis
Company Overview
Paramount Health and Beauty Company is a firm with health, cleaning, beauty, and
grooming divisions. These product sections contributed to worldwide sales amounting to 13
billion dollars and 7 billion dollars of gross profits in 2009 (Quelch & Beckham, 2011).
Paramount’s nondisposable razors made the organization a leading brand, having in mind that it
entered the razor market in 1962. Strategic positioning of the razor products made the company
quickly outshine regardless of intense competition. Paramount's sales in 2009 amounted to 170
million dollars in revenue, 92 million dollars gross profit, and operating profit accounting to $26
million (Quelch & Beckham, 2011). As an organization with two product lines offering
nondisposable razors and refill cartridges, the Paramount Pro attained a moderate segment
position while Paramount Avail got a value offering rank. Although the two product lines did not
launch significant technology innovations for the past five years, the company still managed to
acquire the u...


Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags