Evaluate the performance of Scope in the past three years.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

While Scope is the dominant brand (32 percent share), is profitable (gross margin of $6.7 million), has a strong “tastes great” image, and has the “best” advertising to sales ratio, there is some cause for concern, namely:
• No share growth in past two years.
• Appears to be a reactive stance in the market (i.e., no apparent anticipation or response to Plax).
• Lower penetration in drug versus food stores.
• Lower price may be a major reason for market share.
• Consumer perception of Scope image is average to below average among all users and, on a relative basis, is weak among brand users of Scope.
The implication is that a review of current marketing activities for Scope may result in changes that improve both the market position and profitability for the brand.
The position of Scope and the competing brands should be discussed. First, the two major dimensions, fresh breath (which includes “tastes great”) and killing germs, are used to position the major brands (Exhibit TN–1). Then, the new “health” benefit and killing germs are used to position the brands (Exhibit TN–2). The positions are based on case Exhibit 3, the verbal comments about brands, and judgment.
The implication for Scope is that it is strong in “fresh breath” but weak on the other two dimensions. If the market moves more to the health and killing germs area, Scope is very vulnerable.
There are some side issues that the instructor may want to introduce here. First is the issue of the regulatory environment, which creates some hurdles for P&G if it wishes to pursue the plaque claims. Second is the team approach to preparing the direction for Scope. Gwen Hearst needs to get most, if not all, of the team members “on side” for the future course of action. If not, support for her plans may not be forthcoming from upper management. The pros and cons of the team approach might be debated for a short time. The obvious problem is that each group has a different view that reflects its interests. Third is the issue of whether Plax is, in fact, beneficial. There is no evidence in the case that Plax or P&G’s new product provides any meaningful value to the consumer.