What's Wrong With Proctor and Gamble

From an interesting post by Garland Pollard from his always-interesting BrandlandUSA:

If you run a five-year chart comparing P&G, Clorox (CLX) and Colgate Palmolive (CL), P&G is the also ran, its stock down around 4 percent compared to Clorox (up about 12 percent) and Colgate (up 35 percent). ...

At its best, P&G stands for simple, clear declarative brands (Tide, Sure, Crest) that deliver superior value at a slightly premium price. Right now, I am confused by the number of sub-brand “portfolios” at P&G. Is the Charmin the good Charmin, or the cheap version? Which Tide is best? And how many types of Crest do we need?

Each of these product decisions might work to sell more of a particular product at a particular time. But overall, it becomes confusing to consumers, and far more expensive to sustain.

All of this not to say that P&G is not a worthwhile company. The cash it produces each month is formidable. Each time I use Dawn or Cascade, I am stunned at how well it works, for such a price. But if P&G is to be the company that it was, it needs to go back to selling the highest quality brands with a minimum of fuss. And it needs to stay away from trashy marketing with Gillette.

Comments

[barefoot shoes]

******Have you ever seen somebody lick the chutney spoon in an Indian Restaurant and put it back?
This would never have happened under the Tories.***

[christian shoes]

waaa...it will make you feel confident and stylish.very nice...