Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out

9-508-009
OCTOBER 23, 2007
JOHN A. QUELCH
JACQUIE LABATT-RANDLE
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
In February 2005, Nigel Burton, in his third year as president of global oral care at ColgatePalmolive Company (CP), had every reason to feel optimistic. Worldwide market shares were strong
and Colgate Max Fresh (CMF), a new toothpaste that had helped drive Colgate to a record 34.8%1
value share in the important U.S. market, was in the global pipeline for 2005. Burton had on his desk
the proposed marketing launch plans for CMF in China and Mexico. Each plan sought to maximize
the business potential in the local market. Burton had to assess the plans from a global perspective.
He wondered if the costs of adapting the CMF marketing programs in each country would generate
sufficient incremental sales and profits to justify the added complexity.
Company Background
The Business
By January 2005, CP was a $10.6 billion global company2 operating in 200 countries worldwide.
The company focused on two core product segments: Oral, Personal, and Home Care; and Pet
Nutrition. Some of CP’s well-known brands included Colgate, Palmolive, Speed Stick, Ajax, and
Hill’s Science Diet. Colgate was the world’s leading toothpaste and toothbrush brand; Palmolive was
the world’s third largest soap brand.3 CP derived 70% of its sales outside of the U.S.4
CP had enjoyed a strong year in 2004, reporting +6.5% unit volume growth, +7% sales dollar
growth, and +0.1% point growth in gross profit margin to 55.1%. Operating profit and net income
were negatively affected (-2% and -7%, respectively, versus 2003) by the combined effect of increased
marketing spending and increases in raw material and packing material costs.5
To drive growth, CP focused on its higher margin core businesses. Advertising spending was
carefully targeted at new high margin products and at high potential markets, notably the U.S.,
China, Russia, India, Mexico, and Brazil.6 In 2004, approximately 40% of total company sales were
from products launched within the past five years. These new products drove market share growth
and market leadership in key categories.7
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Professor John A. Quelch and Research Associate Jacquie Labatt-Randle prepared this case. Certain details have been disguised. HBS cases are
developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of
effective or ineffective management.
Copyright © 2007 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685,
write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School.
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Organizational Structure
CP was organized along geographic lines with management teams responsible for the financial
results of their respective regions: North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia/Africa. Each
region had a president with profit-and-loss responsibility who reported to the chief operating officer.
Each region oversaw local country managements. Consumer Innovation Centers (CICs) including
marketers, “insighters,” and product developers were set up to develop shorter term (2–3 years)
innovations for each region. They meshed local market knowledge with global protocols and knowhow. CICs evaluated ideas against “action standards,” an assessment tool measuring an initiative’s
ability to meet pre-determined financial, product quality, consumer acceptance, and timing
objectives. Once a marketing or product idea was qualified for a region, it was handed over to the Go
To Market (GTM) team in each CP country organization for launch planning and execution.
Separate from the geographic divisions were global business development groups organized
along category lines. Located at the corporate headquarters in New York City, global category
presidents also reported to the chief operating officer and were measured on global market share
rather than profit-and-loss. Each global group was responsible for the global category strategy,
resource allocation, and best-practices idea transfer across regions. (See Exhibit 1 for the marketing
roles and responsibilities of different parts of the CP organization.) Success in a global business
development role depended on previous credible line management experience and on an ability to
work well with regional management in the absence of any formal reporting relationships. Burton,
formerly vice president and general manager in Spain, and then later in the U.K., explained the key
challenge of his global role: “All responsibility, no accountability.”
2004 Restructuring Activity
In December 2004, CP announced the beginning of a new four-year restructuring and businessbuilding plan. The objective was to enhance CP’s global leadership position in its core businesses.
As part of this plan, CP planned to streamline its global supply chain by closing one-third of its
manufacturing facilities.8 Plans were also developed to centralize purchasing and other business
support functions. Finally, CP aimed to better concentrate its marketing resources against key
category opportunities and high potential emerging markets while consolidating organization
structures in certain mature markets.
Evolution of the Toothpaste Market
With sales of $5.2 billion,9 oral care was CP’s largest business and included products such as
toothpaste, electric and manual toothbrushes, and mouthwash. CP held a 39.7% global value share10
in toothpaste, more than double that of its nearest competitor, Procter & Gamble (P&G), at 14.7%.11
Colgate was the world’s first commercial toothpaste; Colgate Dental Cream was launched in 1873
in tins. In those days, dental creams provided little more than a superficial cleaning and had few, if
any, lasting therapeutic benefits, such as cavity or gum-disease prevention. This remained the case
until 1955 when P&G launched Crest, the first fluoride toothpaste. Field research on toothpaste with
fluoride conducted in 1950 by Procter & Gamble and Indiana University found a 50% reduction in
cavities.12 P&G patented this technology, then obtained the American Dental Association’s seal of
approval. The patent prevented competitors including Colgate from launching a fluoride toothpaste
in the U.S. until 1967. As a result, CP largely had to concede the therapeutic market to Crest and
instead promise a cosmetic “fresh breath” benefit with its toothpaste brand. During this time, CP
2
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
508-009
focused on developing its business internationally and quickly established dominance in most global
markets while Crest continued to dominate in the U.S. (See Table A.)
Table A
Global Toothpaste Market—Value Share
Colgate-Palmolive
Procter & Gamble
Source:
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
39.7%
12.2
40.6%
12.5
39.8%
13.8
38.8%
13.9
39.7%a
14.7
Company records.
aIncludes 1.1 share points from GABA acquisition, a Swiss-based company with brands marketed in Switzerland, France, Italy,
and Germany.
By the 1990s, virtually all toothpastes in the U.S. offered fluoride protection and consumers had
evolved to additional oral care concerns including stained teeth, sensitive gums, and bad breath.13 In
December 1997, CP launched Colgate Total in the U.S. as a premium product that promised 12-hour
protection against a full range of oral health problems including gum disease, gingivitis, and
plaque.14 Colgate Total threatened Crest’s dominance of the therapeutic toothpaste market.
Launched with a $100 million marketing campaign, Colgate Total enabled Colgate to soon become
the leading U.S. toothpaste brand with a 30% value share,15 upsetting Crest’s 30-year reign. Colgate
still retained its share lead in the U.S. in February 2005.
Colgate Max Fresh Product Development
Global Research and Development (R&D) worked with the CICs to develop new products. Once
a promising technology was identified, discussions between R&D and the CICs were held to agree on
the product formula, particularly the sourcing of ingredients and selection of flavors in light of local
consumer preferences.
In late 2002, R&D invited the CIC directors to a briefing on a new toothpaste formula, a sensorialdriven, breath-freshening product that was later launched as Colgate Max Fresh. This product
utilized its patented technology of dissolvable mini breath strips as a point of differentiation. The
breath strip category, which had been introduced to the consumer in 200116 by a leading mouthwash
manufacturer, was developed to provide consumers with a convenient alternative to traditional
mouth fresheners. The product consisted of small pieces of “tape,” packaged in a convenient
carrying case, which dissolved on the tongue releasing a flavor designed to freshen breath. By 2002,17
the product category was estimated to generate $250 million in retail sales globally and was
particularly successful in the U.S. where it obtained strong distribution and impulse sales at retail
check-out counters.
Regional interest in the “breath strip in toothpaste” technology was strong, but high
manufacturing costs were of concern to CP managers from emerging markets because they could not
be easily passed through in higher retail prices. The basic formula contained a high-quality, highcleaning silica with an expensive but effective whitening ingredient. To address margin concerns, a
cost-optimized formula was created for emerging markets.
3
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Initiatives and Cannibalization
When evaluating any project’s viability, CP looked at total franchise growth, net of
“cannibalization,”18 in addition to the individual product’s volume and profit potential. Experience
showed that four factors most influenced franchise growth: consumer substitution, marketing
spending, distribution penetration, and transaction size.19 Consumer substitution with the parent
brand usually equated to “fair share” or higher.20 If marketing dollars were diverted from the longestablished parent brand to support a new product, the result was often a decline in parent brand
share. Though the parent brand did not lose shelf space, its low-performing stock keeping units
(SKUs) were often delisted to find room for the new product. A final challenge was that average
transaction size was typically lower for a new product than the parent brand because consumers
experimented first with smaller sizes.
U.S. Toothpaste Market
In 2004, the $2,438 million U.S. retail toothpaste market had grown in dollar value by 8% since
2000 and was dominated by four manufacturers.21 (See Table B.)
Table B
Value Shares of Leading U.S. Toothpaste Manufacturers
Manufacturer
Brands
Colgate-Palmolive
Procter & Gamble
GlaxoSmithKline
Church & Dwight
All Other
Colgate
Crest
Aquafresh, Sensodyne
Arm & Hammer, Close-Up, Mentadent, Aim, Pepsodent
Source:
2004 Value Share of
Toothpaste Market
34.8%
31.6
14.5
10.2
8.9
Company records.
Since 2001, Crest’s value share of the retail toothpaste market had been growing, thanks to new
product initiatives such as Crest + Scope (C+S), launched in the U.S. in January 2002, and Crest
Whitening Expressions (CWE), launched in September 2004.
C+S was positioned as a toothpaste and mouthwash product that also whitened teeth. Results
were strong with C+S achieving a 5.4% retail value share in 2004.22 CWE was positioned as a “flavorbased experiential toothpaste that also whitens teeth.”23 CWE was supported by heavy advertising to
drive awareness and trial, and achieved a 5.2% share by the end of 2004 behind an 18.8% media
advertising share of voice.24 Adding to the competition in the cosmetic segment of the toothpaste
market was Aquafresh Extreme Clean, launched in September 2004, which promised to “go beyond
clean and fresh breath.”
Market Segments
Consumer research (see Exhibit 2A) indicated that cavity/fluoride protection was the key benefit
sought, followed by reduction in plaque build-up, breath-freshening, and tartar control. The
importance of the whitening segment was growing yet was considered by CP to be the “price of
entry” with any premium-priced product launch.
4
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
508-009
In 2004, the U.S. toothpaste market was split evenly between toothpastes that emphasized
therapeutic (cavity/fluoride protection, sensitivity relief) benefits and those that stressed cosmetic
benefits (freshening, whitening). (See Exhibit 2B for market segment trends by benefit.) Historically,
Crest had dominated the therapeutic segment with its patented fluoride anti-cavity formula until
Colgate launched Colgate Total in 1998. To offset losses in the therapeutic market, Crest turned to
the cosmetic segment, historically Colgate’s stronghold, with the launch of C+S and CWE, which
appealed to consumers’ concerns about personal appearance. Between 2000 and the end of 2004, the
cosmetic segment had nearly doubled its value share of the toothpaste category.
The toothpaste category could also be segmented into four retail pricing tiers: super premium
($3.49+), premium ($2.49–$2.99), mid-tier ($1.99–$2.49), and value (<$1.99). The premium segment
represented more than half of category value sales (55.3% in 2004) but growth was strongest in the
super premium segment driven by Crest’s recent cosmetic offerings (see Exhibit 2C for trends by
retail price segment).
Colgate Max Fresh
The CMF launch in the U.S. in August 2004 contributed to Colgate’s record share of 34.8% that
year.25 CMF cannibalized other CP toothpaste brands less than expected (48% of CMF volume was
sourced from Colgate brands) and successfully traded many existing Colgate consumers up to
higher-priced variants.26 Six months after launch, consumer trial of CMF was at 5.1%, second only to
Colgate Total and on par with C+S. In addition, the “repeat purchase” rate of 19.5% was considered
strong, exceeding BASES market test projections and ahead of C+S.27 These early results gave Burton
confidence to pursue a global roll-out of CMF as fast as possible.
Positioning CMF was positioned as a premium brand, parity priced with CWE. The concept
promised consumers freshness with a whitening reassurance, using mini breath strips as the
distinctive reason to believe (see Exhibit 3 for the U.S. concept statement). Concept test results were
strong with CMF scoring in the top 20% of new products on all measures except uniqueness, for
which the score was in the top 40% (see Exhibit 4 for U.S. concept results).
The U.S. CMF product line consisted of two product forms (a liquid-bottle and a gel-tube) in two
flavors (blue Cool Mint and green Clean Mint). (See Exhibit 5 for the U.S. CMF product line.) The
visual impact of the liquid-bottle form was considered an important advantage at the retail shelf with
mini breath strips being clearly visible through the clear plastic container.
Advertising Media advertising to generate awareness accounted for 73% of the Year 1
marketing budget.28 Advertising aimed to convince consumers that CMF would provide them with a
whole new dimension of freshness because CMF was infused with mini breath strips packed with
mouthwash freshness. CMF was targeted at adults 18–34, with a female skew. Psychographically,
target consumers were “fresh breath experientialists, active, social, who enjoy interacting with others
and for whom a clean fresh mouth is a top priority.”29 U.S. advertising launched with “Emily
Procter,” a celebrity known for her CSI Miami television character who “looks beyond the obvious.”
(See Exhibit 6 for storyboard.)
Marketing support The CMF launch was supported by a website which incorporated “Emily
Procter,” creative promotions which leveraged package visuals, and program sponsorships on MTV,
AOL Music, AOL First Look and Yahoo Launch. To drive trial, offline consumer plans included instore sampling, merchandising displays offering money-back rebates, and various special packs such
as “buy-one-get-one-free” and two-pack trial packs.
5
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
China
Overall, the CP toothpaste franchise in China, which included the market shares of its local brands
Darlie (owned 50-50 by CP and Hawley Hazel) and San Xiao, was the category leader. (See Table C.)
However, a challenge to CP management was to restore growth to the Colgate Equity franchise while
defending against CWE’s launch in China, which was considered imminent.
Table C
Value Shares in the China Toothpaste Market
Colgate Equitya
Total Colgate-Palmoliveb
Crest
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
19.2%
25.2
11.8
24.7%
31.6
12.9
24.2%
32.7
14.8
23.9%
32.6
18.0
23.6%
32.1
21.2
Source: Company records.
aColgate Equity refers to all toothpaste products carrying the Colgate brand name.
bTotal Colgate-Palmolive includes the 50/50 joint venture Darlie brand and San Xiao brand.
Toothpaste market In 2004, the toothpaste market was an $868 million retail business which
had grown +38% since 2000.30 The market was heavily skewed towards the therapeutic segment (see
Exhibit 7A for benefit preferences of Chinese consumers) as was true in most emerging markets.
However, the freshness segment was growing behind the launch of Crest Tea Fresh which
emphasized whitening, and Darlie, the leading brand in the premium segment, which was positioned
with a cosmetic taste platform: freshness and whiteness. (See Exhibit 7B for Chinese consumer
reasons for buying toothpaste.)
The market was also heavily skewed towards lower-priced local brands, with only 30% of the
market by value in the premium segment. The price difference was significant: a 150g premium
priced product sold at retail for 11–12 RMB versus 4 RMB for a value brand. Both Colgate and Crest
offered products at both price points. (See Exhibit 8 for brand shares by price segment.)
Colgate Max Fresh—Qualifying the Product for Market
In early 2004, Del Levin, CIC director for oral care in Asia, and his team briefed R&D to begin the
technology- and product-qualification processes. Technology qualification typically took four
months. Product validation required an additional four months. The qualification process for
Colgate Max Fresh was easier because the technology for stabilizing the breath strips in the
toothpaste had already been developed and patented.
Regional management looked favorably on CMF because, compared to other developing regions,
Asia had a large freshness segment. CP management in Asia felt, in retrospect, that they would have
preferred to have participated earlier in the CMF development process so that they could have
launched the product sooner.
Communication challenges The biggest challenge in launching CMF was getting the
consumer communication right. First, Levin and his team discovered that Colgate Max Fresh did not
test as well as other names in China, which led to the name being changed to “Icy Fresh.” Second,
the term “breath strips” was meaningless since the niche breath strip category was practically
6
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
508-009
unknown in China. “Cooling crystals” was identified and qualified as the most relevant and
meaningful phrase to describe the breath strips to Chinese consumers. (The modified concept
statement for China, which was qualified in quantitative testing, is presented in Exhibit 9.) The
concept outperformed the norm for new toothpaste products in China on key quantitative measures
of purchase intent, uniqueness, value for money, believability, and the importance of the main
message. The product also outperformed the norm on purchase intent and on meeting expectations.
(See Exhibits 10A and 10B for concept and product test results.)
Freshness was still a relatively new idea for Chinese consumers in the toothpaste category.
Accordingly, communicating freshness in advertising was expected to be challenging. CP’s
advertising agency believed they “needed to connect with youth at an emotional level” and that
rational arguments explaining cooling crystals were not going to work in advertising copy. Further,
Emily Procter’s character and role in CSI were unknown in China. As a result, brand management
advocated developing unique advertising for the Chinese market at considerably more expense
rather than adapting the existing U.S. “Emily Procter” spot. In the end, celebrity advertising was
developed using Jay Chow, the leading rock star in China, who embodied “extreme living.” (See
Exhibit 11 for storyboards.)
There was internal debate about the cost of a celebrity. Shooting a new commercial would cost
around $500,000 and celebrity “talent fees” could reach $1 million.31 This would be in contrast to less
than $50,000 to adapt the existing “Emily Procter” spot for China. In addition, advertising using a
celebrity always ran the risk that consumer advertising “recall” would be of the celebrity at the
expense of the brand and its message.
Go big or go home Levin wanted to create maximum impact with the CMF launch in China.
“Colgate needed a big hit to signal we had strong momentum, both to our competition and to our
sales force,” he stated.
Levin sought to use new flavors, graphics, and aesthetics to create differentiation and appeal. The
Chinese toothpaste market was developing quickly, in part due to the popularity of new flavors. For
example, P&G offered a tea-flavored toothpaste and Colgate a salt-flavored one. Levin’s team
undertook extensive new flavor development to select a third flavor. After “screening” fifteen
options, three flavors were qualified including a new tea flavor. This process lasted 32 weeks and
cost $200,000.
Levin also explored new packaging to provide maximum visual impact at point-of-sale. Cost
considerations prevented CP China from using the clear bottles used in the U.S., leaving the
traditional tube-in-carton as the only option. A clear “stand-up tube” was developed. When tested,
its novel shape and modernity proved appealing to the Chinese consumer. The package conveyed
the product’s aesthetics and point-of-differentiation (breath strips). Consumers preferred the clear
stand-up tube over the carton. However, execution of this package required an extra $1.5 million in
capital expenditure for filling machines and a 20% variable cost premium per package. Packaging
costs for the existing tube in carton format accounted for 40% of cost of goods sold. Package
prototype development and testing took 12 weeks and cost $7,000. Unfortunately, Levin discovered
six months prior to launch that the new package prototypes did not meet CP’s rigorous packaging
standards; fixing this problem required a six-month delay in launch timing to February 2006.
Lastly, CP research in Thailand revealed that consumers preferred a lighter shade of green for the
mint-flavored product. The CIC then tested and qualified this color for the Chinese market. Yet, as
one manager acknowledged: “Sometimes we take the need for data too far; we will test ten different
shades of yellow.” Color testing cost $7,000 and took four weeks.
7
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Brand Recommendation
Eventually, the China team recommended an August 2005 launch for CMF. The aim was to
achieve a 2% value share of the toothpaste category in Year 1 and 2.8% in Year 2. The product line
would comprise three flavors (Tea, Citrus, and Mint) in a conventional tube-and-carton in three sizes
priced in the premium segment. The mint variant would be in the light green shade.
The retail pricing objective was parity versus Crest Whiteness Expressions. The 100g size was
expected to account for 38% of CMF toothpaste volume with a manufacturer price (MSP) of RMB 7.19
and a suggested retail price (RSP) of RMB 8.90. The balance of the volume was fairly evenly split
between the 50g and 165g sizes. (Exhibit 12 summarizes projected volumes by size and
manufacturer and retail pricing objectives.) The prices would have been the same if the new package
had been developed.
CMF would be launched with Internet advertising and a dedicated website, a public relations
event, in-store displays, trade support, consumer sampling, and advertising. The advertising
objective was to convince extreme living young adults who wanted the most out of life that Colgate
Icy Fresh would provide “a whole new dimension of freshness” thanks to the product being infused
with cooling crystals that instantly dissolve. Using Jay Chow as a celebrity endorser, the aim was to
achieve 6% share of voice (SOV)32 behind a nearly $13.5 million media investment, representing 24%
of total CP toothpaste media spending, in the first six months after launch. (See Exhibit 13 for
China’s pro forma CMF launch profit-and-loss statement.)
Mexico
Colgate dominated in Mexico with an 82% value share of the $348 million retail toothpaste market
in 2004.33 This, combined with relatively flat toothpaste demand, meant it was hard to secure
incremental shelf space to accommodate new product launches. Crest market share approximated
10%.
The toothpaste market was heavily skewed towards the therapeutic segment (87% of value share)
but growth was slow (+2.6 share points since 2000). (See Exhibit 14 for market segments by benefit.)
As in most developing countries, the vast majority of consumers in Mexico were focused on basic oral
care (cavity prevention). Price sensitivity and sales promotion activity were both high in Mexico,
with average income per capita just over $4,000 per year.34
Colgate Max Fresh Launch
The CMF launch in Mexico would neutralize the anticipated launch of CWE (called Crest Cool
Explosions in Mexico). A testing plan was executed to assess the consumer appeal of the concept preand post-product use, expected sales volume, sources of volume and optimal pricing. Management
commissioned a BASES simulated test market to assess the likelihood of long-term success; the key
performance measures were purchase intent, liking, value, and uniqueness.
Some managers argued that the CMF launch should have been accelerated to pre-empt the Crest
Cool Explosions launch in November 2004. Though CP U.S. launched CMF in August 2004, Mexico
was targeting a launch in May 2005, nine months later. Others argued that adapting the launch
marketing program for Mexico was more important than speed to market. They contended that
Colgate’s share dominance in Mexico meant that Crest would not gain much ground by being first to
market.
8
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
508-009
Concept and product results Concept consumer appeal of CMF was strong, driven by the
extreme freshness benefit promise and the cooling crystals35 as a unique ingredient (see Exhibit 15 for
Mexico concept statement). However, consumers suspected a corresponding lack of cavity
prevention and whitening benefits. Some managers recommended incorporating those benefits in
the brand concept to boost trial. José Torres, group brand manager, oral care, Latin America, argued
for being single-minded and clear in the CMF positioning. He noted that “everyone involved in the
research process for CMF’s launch marketing plan has an idea of how to make it better.” In his view,
incorporating extra benefit messages would dilute the “new dimension of freshness” message.
Product acceptance among consumers was polarized, resulting in net acceptance that was slightly
below par in terms of benchmarks for comparable new personal care products tested in Mexico. CMF
results were below success benchmarks in top box purchase intent (“definitely would buy”) and
liking. Overall consumer responses suggested that the product underperformed versus expectations
established by the concept statement. (See Exhibit 16.)
Finally, a Consumer Viability Index (CVI) was calculated based on product acceptance, product
value perceptions, and concept appeal. A CVI of 62% for CMF suggested that the initiative had an
“average” chance of in-market success, defined as maintaining stable distribution for at least two
years after launch.
Sources of volume Encouragingly, testing suggested that CMF volume sourced from Colgate
would be slightly below fair share whereas Crest would lose more than fair share. In Year 1, 73% of
CMF volume was expected to come from CP brands, notably Colgate Big Red, and 21% from Crest.
Finally, as Torres stated, “the shelf is not elastic” so understanding which Colgate SKUs might be at
risk of delisting was important. (See Exhibit 17 for market share and price points by brand in
Mexico.)
Pricing CMF’s retail pricing objective was to achieve parity with Crest’s Cool Explosions.
Price/value perceptions were above average for CMF. In addition, few consumers mentioned price
as a like or dislike. However, further analysis revealed that volume was maximized at 14.50–15.00
pesos. CMF was tested at a retail price of 15.99 pesos. It was estimated that CMF could increase
volume by +25% if the price was decreased from 15.99 to 14.99.
Advertising As in CP China, concerns over the transferability of the U.S. “Emily Procter”
advertising led the brand group to want to develop new advertising for the Mexican market. The
agency argued for advertising that combined the explosive power to freshen with extreme living.
They proposed an advertising idea, “a joy ride for your mouth,” that was depicted in advertising
entitled “Snowsurfer” (see Exhibit 18 for storyboard). The brand group decided to have it produced.
Incremental production and talent costs combined were $500,000.36
Brand Recommendation
The brand group recommended launching CMF in May 2005. The objective was to achieve a Year
1 CMF value share of 5% and a Year 2 share of 6%. The Mexican product line would include three
flavors (Cool Mint, Clean Mint, and Cinnamint) in two packaging formats (tube in carton and bottle).
Two sizes would be offered (75ml and 100ml) where 100ml was expected to account for 94% of CMF
toothpaste volume because the 75ml size would have limited distribution.
The retail pricing objective was parity versus Crest Cool Explosions. The 100 ml size would be
priced at 13.95 pesos (MSP) and 15.30 pesos (RSP). The 75ml size would be priced at 11.64 pesos
(MSP) and 14.93 pesos (RSP). (See Exhibit 19 for pricing objectives.)
9
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
A media investment of almost two million dollars in the first eight months after the CMF launch
was expected to deliver a 14.7% share of voice. In-store merchandising, sampling, and public
relations would reinforce the “Snowsurfer” advertising and all would communicate single-mindedly
the brand’s core benefit: the new dimension of freshness. (See Exhibit 20 for CMF pro forma profitand-loss statement.)
Conclusion
As Burton reviewed the recommendations from China and Mexico, he noted that the U.S.
marketing plan “as is” had not been tested by either management. Accordingly, it was hard to
evaluate whether the time and cost of the proposed local adaptations would deliver results over and
above what the base U.S. plan would have achieved. Burton wondered how he could add value to
the process at this stage. He considered the following questions:
10
•
Did China and Mexico each do a good job of adapting the launch to meet local consumer
needs? What is the likely profit impact of each plan? Which of the proposed adaptations
were “must haves” versus “nice to haves”?
•
From a global CMF perspective, what is the short- and long-term impact of the complexity
born out of these local adaptations? Is this added complexity good or bad for the global CMF
business?
•
What guidelines could Burton propose going forward to optimize new product introductions
for CP worldwide, for the regions, and for the country subsidiaries?
Latin America (Latam)
Europe/South Pacific
Asia
North America
Africa/Middle East
P&L responsibility
Translates global category strategy to
each region; directs innovation and
marketing investments
Responsible for regional Consumer
Innovation Centers and their new
product development activity
Responsible for advertising development
Oversees development of subsidiary
marketing plans
GBD Oral Care
Develop the Category Strategy
Highlight Major Innovation Needs
Long-Term Planning
Gaps and Opportunities
Acquisition Targets
Cooperation with Technology
Resource Allocation
“Own” the Equity, Including
Communication Strategy
Global Communication and
Activity Coordination
Company document.
Titular head: President
Reports to: Chief Operating Officer
Titular head: President
Reports to: Chief Operating Officer
Source:
Geographic Divisions
Marketing Roles and Responsibilities
Global Business Development
Exhibit 1
Facilitates cross-region sharing of
consumer knowledge and best practices
Responsible for new product
development
Alignment with GBD on Strategy
Titular head: VP/GM
Reports to: Division Marketing VP
Consumer Innovation Centers
-11-
Executes on the ground marketing,
promotion, advertising, and in-store
events
Participates in Regional Go-To-Market
Teams where appropriate
Develops and executes local marketing
plans, including local sales promotion and
media plans
Titular head: GM
Reports to: Geographic Division
President
Subsidiaries
508-009
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 2A
•
U.S. Toothpaste Benefit Importance
Whitening is part of the second tier, up from its tier three position in 1997.
Must Have
Nice
To Have
and
Consider
Nice To Have But Not
A Consideration When
Buying/
Don’t Need
%
%
%
Protects against cavities/contains fluoride
Reduces plaque build-up
Freshens breath
Controls tartar
Whitens teeth
Reduces tooth sensitivity
Has mint flavors
Has baking soda and peroxide
Has unique flavors (e.g., citrus, vanilla)
Has only natural ingredients
72
63
63
62
50
26
19
14
10
10
22
30
29
30
36
36
41
35
28
26
6
7
8
8
14
38
40
51
62
64
Average Number of Mentions:
4.6
Base: Total Respondents (1,216)
Source:
Company documents.
Exhibit 2B
Value Shares of U.S. Toothpaste Segments by Principal Consumer Benefit
2000
Family Anti-Cavity/Tartar
Kids Anti-Cavity
Premium Multi-Benefita
Sensitivity Relief
Herbal/Natural
TOTAL THERAPEUTIC
Whitening
Freshening/Cleaning
TOTAL COSMETIC
TOTAL MARKET
Source:
Company document.
aThree benefits or more such as Colgate Total.
12
2004
Change
41.3%
3.8
17.3
6.6
0.0
18.3%
3.7
18.8
7.7
1.9
-22.7
-0.1
+1.5
+1.0
+1.9
72.7
53.4
-19.3
13.9
13.4
30.3
16.3
+16.4
+2.9
27.3
46.6
+19.3
100.0
100.0
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 2C
508-009
U.S. Toothpaste Segments by Retail Price Point
2003
2004
13.7
55.0
27.2
4.0
16.8
55.3
24.4
3.5
100%
100%
2.4
51.9
43.2
2.5
7.8
54.0
35.9
2.2
100%
100%
Change
% Category Volume Sales
Super Premium ($3.49+)
Premium ($2.49–$2.99)
Mid-Tier ($1.99–$2.49)
Value (<$1.99)
TOTAL
+3.1
+0.3
-2.8
-0.5
% Colgate-Palmolive Volume Sales
Super Premium
Premium
Mid-Tier
Value
TOTAL
Source:
+5.4
+2.1
-7.3
-0.3
Company document.
Exhibit 3
U.S. Colgate Max Fresh Concept Statement
Introducing
Colgate Max Fresh Toothpaste
infused with mini Breath Strips
Experience a whole new dimension of freshness
When you brush your teeth you expect to freshen your breath—now it’s time to raise your
expectations so you can leave the house with that ready-for-anything confidence.
When you brush with Colgate Max Fresh whitening toothpaste infused with mini Breath Strips you
don’t just get fresh breath, you experience a whole new dimension of freshness.
The mini Breath Strips are packed with mouthwash freshness to enhance the freshening experience.
As you brush, they instantly dissolve, releasing an extra rush of breath freshening power
so you can be confident that you’re ready to take on the day.
New from Colgate, the only whitening toothpaste infused with mini Breath Strips,
experience a whole new dimension of freshness.
Source:
Company document.
13
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 4
U.S. Concept Key Measures
Colgate
Max Fresha
(213)
(N)
Colgate Max Fresh
Results Benchmarked
Versus Other
Product Launchesb
Purchase Intent (%)
Definitely Would Buy and Probably Would Buy
Definitely Would Buy
60
22
Top 20%c
Top 20%
Mean Liking Rating (6-point scale)
Mean Value Rating (5-point scale)
Mean Uniqueness Rating (5-point scale)
4.5
3.7
3.6
Top 20%
Top 20%
Top 40%
Source:
Company document.
aConsumers were exposed to the Colgate Max Fresh concept statement and then presented with a price card
showing flavors and sizes (February 2004).
bOther toothpaste product launches in the BASES database.
cTop 20% is read as follows: CMF Purchase Intent of 60% scores in the top 20% of all new toothpaste product
launch test results in BASES database.
Exhibit 5
U.S. Colgate Max Fresh Product Line by Form and Flavor
Colgate Max Fresh Cool Mint Gel
Colgate Max Fresh Clean Mint Gel
Source:
14
Company document.
Colgate Max Fresh
Cool Mint
Liquid
Colgate Max Fresh
Clean Mint Liquid
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 6
Source:
508-009
“Emily Procter” Storyboard
Company document.
15
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 7A
Value Shares of China Toothpaste Segments by Principal Consumer Benefit
2000
Family Anti-Cavity/Tartar
Kids Anti-Cavity
Premium Multi-Benefita
Sensitivity Relief
Herbal/Natural
TOTAL THERAPEUTIC
Whitening
Freshening/Cleaning
TOTAL COSMETIC
TOTAL MARKET
Source:
2004
Change
58.3%
0.1
3.3
8.9
5.7
28.5%
0.6
2.2
0.4
15.8
89.3
82.9
-6.4
5.1
5.6
8.9
8.2
+3.8
+2.6
10.7
17.1
+6.4
100.0
100.0
Company document.
aThree benefits or more such as Colgate Total.
Exhibit 7B
Consumer Reasons for Using Toothpaste in China
Top Reason (N = 1,660)
Fresh Breath
Anti-Cavity
Gum Protection
Whitening
Reduces Toothache Pain
Cleaning
Strengthening Teeth
Makes teeth stronger and more resistant to pain
Sensitivity Relief
Other
Source:
16
28%
14
11
10
10
10
6
5
3
3
“Category Consumer Usage and Attitude Study,” Colgate-Palmolive, February 2004.
-29.8
+0.5
-1.1
-8.5
+10.1
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 8
508-009
China—Shares by Brand and by Price Point
Value Share
2004
Volume Share
2004
CORPORATE CP
32.1%
29.0%
COLGATE EQUITY (EXCL. JIE YIN)
HI-END SEGMENT
COLGATE CDC PASTE
COLGATE CDC Gel
COLGATE PROPOLIS
COLGATE TOTAL
COLGATE TOTAL PLUS WHITEN
COLGATE WHITENING
COLGATE MAX FRESH
COLGATE SIMPLY WHITE
COLGATE KIDS
LOW-END SEGMENT (EXCL. JIE YIN)
COLGATE LPP
COLGATE VC FRESH
COLGATE TRIPLE ACTION
COLGATE HERBAL
COLGATE HERBAL WHITEN
COLGATE HERBAL SALT
23.6
6.8
2.9
NA
0.1
0.7
0.8
1.9
NA
NA
0.4
16.8
8.8
NA
1.8
4.0
1.6
0.6
23.5
4.3
1.9
NA
0.0
0.4
0.5
1.3
NA
NA
0.2
19.2
9.8
NA
2.0
5.1
1.7
0.6
JIE YIN
0.9
1.0
DARLIE (HI-END)
DARLIE REGULAR
DARLIE WHITENING
DARLIE HYDRO FRESH
DARLIE KIDS
7.4
4.5
1.9
0.6
0.4
4.1
2.6
1.1
0.3
0.1
SAN XIAO
0.2
0.4
CREST
21.2%
17.5%
HI-END SEGMENT
CREST AC REPAIR
CREST WHITENING
CREST REFRESHING WTN
CREST WTN EXP
CREST VIVID WHITE
CREST TEA FRESH
CREST SENSITIVE
CREST MIO
CREST NIGHT CARE
LOW-END SEGMENT
CREST FLUORIDE
CREST STRONG ROOT&TIP
CREST HERBAL
11.2
5.6
1.8
0.4
NA
NA
2.3
0.4
0.7
NA
10.0
2.0
NA
5.1
6.7
3.5
1.0
0.2
NA
NA
1.4
0.3
0.4
NA
10.8
2.5
NA
5.5
17
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Value Share
2004
Volume Share
2004
2.5
0.4
NA
2.4
0.4
NA
11.3%
13.1%
9.9%
12.1%
35.4%
40.4%
CREST SALT WTN
CREST TEA CLEAN
CREST HERBAL SENSITIVE
UNILEVER
ZHONGHUA
ALL OTHERS
Source:
Company documents.
Exhibit 9
China: Colgate Max Fresh Concept Statement
New Colgate Icy Fresh Gel
with Cooling Crystals
Experience a new dimension in freshness
Brushing is a routine to freshen your breath. Now you can expect more than that to kick off the day
with ready-to-conquer confidence.
When you brush with Colgate Icy Fresh gel, infused with cooling crystals, you don’t just get fresh
breath, you experience a new dimension of freshness. As you brush they instantly dissolve, releasing
a cool burst of freshness that will give you the confidence to take on the day.
It also has Colgate’s clinically proven cavity protection.
New Colgate Icy Fresh Gel, with cooling crystals. Experience a whole new dimension of freshness.
Source:
18
Company documents.
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 10A
China: Colgate Max Fresh Concept Test Results
Base: All respondents
Purchase Intention
Definitely would buy
Definitely/Probably would buy
Uniqueness
Extremely new and different
Extremely/Very new and different
Value for Money
Very good value for money
Very good/fairly good value for money
Believability
Completely believable
Somewhat/Completely believable
Importance of Main Message
Very important
Very/Somewhat important
Source:
508-009
Colgate
Max Fresh
New Product
Norma
3,840
NA
28
97
27
92
9
57
7
50
6
64
6
57
13
99
14
94
32
98
41
96
Company document.
aDatabase of New Toothpaste Products Tested in China.
Exhibit 10B
China: Colgate Max Fresh Product Test Resultsa
Colgate
Max Fresh Mint
Base: All respondents
Purchase Intention
Definitely/Probably would buy
Uniqueness
Extremely new and different
Extremely/Very new and different
Comparison Against Brand Used Most Often
Much better
Much/Somewhat better
Value for Money
Very good value for money
Very good/fairly good value for money
Comparison with Expectation
Much better than expected
Much better/Better than expected
Source:
Colgate
Max Fresh Citrus
New Product
Normb
298
298
NA
87
90
83
5
50
6
50
6
4
9
58
5
54
57
5
38
5
40
3
38
Company document.
aConsumers were provided with product for use after reading concept. Results reflect interviews after product usage.
bDatabase of New Toothpaste Products Tested in China.
19
Exhibit 11
“Jay Chow” Television Advertising Storyboard
508-009
-20-
Exhibit 11 (continued)
508-009
-21-
Source: Company document.
Exhibit 11 (continued)
508-009
-22-
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 12
China: Colgate Max Fresh Pricing
Size
Flavors
50 g
100 g
165g
Mint, Citrus Tea
Mint, Citrus, Tea
Mint, Citrus, Tea
Source:
508-009
Manufacturer
Selling Price
Suggested
Retail Price
3.90 RMBa
8.90
11.90
2.93 RMB
7.19
9.64
Expected Volume
Split by Size
32%
38
30
Company document.
aCurrency Conversion: 1 RMB = $0.1211 in 2005.
Exhibit 13
China: Pro-Forma Profit-and-Loss for Colgate Max Fresh Launch
Year 1
SALES (Tons)a
Year 2
3,882
4,370
NET SALES ($000)
20,303
23,773
COST OF GOODS SOLD
% of Sales
10,054
50%
9,745
41%
CONTRIBUTION MARGIN
% of Sales
10,249
50%
14,028
59%
NONVARIABLE OVERHEAD
4,710
23%
5,515
23%
MARKETING EXPENSES
% of Sales
Media Advertising
Promotions and Sampling
15,880
78%
15,000b
800
10,000
42%
9,000
1,000
(10,261)
-51%
(1,487)
-6%
OPERATING PROFIT
% of Sales
Source:
Company document.
aVolume conversion: 1 ton = 1000 kg; 1 case of product = 1.604 kg.
bMedia Advertising in Year 1 includes $1.5 million for TV production and talent fees.
23
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 14
Value Shares of Mexico Toothpaste Segments by Principal Consumer Benefit
2000
Family Anti-Cavity/Tartar
Kids Anti-Cavity
Premium Multi-Benefita
Sensitivity Relief
Herbal/Natural
TOTAL THERAPEUTIC
Whitening
Freshening/Cleaning
TOTAL COSMETIC
TOTAL MARKET
Source:
2004
Change
66.7%
1.1
10.6
4.2
0.0
64.8%
1.2
12.1
3.3
2.0
-1.9
+0.1
+1.5
-0.9
+2.0
84.7
87.3
+2.6
4.9
10.4
2.7
10.0
-2.2
-0.4
15.3
12.7
-2.6
100.0
100.0
Company document.
aThree benefits or more such as Colgate Total.
Exhibit 15
Mexico: Colgate Max Fresh Concept Statement
Introducing
Colgate Max Fresh Toothpaste
infused with Cooling Crystals
Experience a new dimension of freshness
When you brush your teeth, you expect to freshen your breath – now it’s time to raise your
expectations so you can leave the house with that ready-for-anything confidence.
When you brush with Colgate Max Fresh gel, infused with cooling crystals, you don’t just get fresh
breath, you experience a new dimension of freshness.
These mini crystals are packed with the freshening power of mouthwash. As you brush they instantly
dissolve, releasing a cool burst of freshness that will give you the confidence to take on the day.
New Colgate Max Fresh gel with cooling crystals. Experience a whole new dimension of freshness.
Source:
24
Company document.
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 16
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh BASES Product Performance Against Key Benchmarks
(Total Consumers)
Max Fresh
Total Sample
(282)
BASES
Success
Benchmarksa
Purchase Intent (%)
Definitely would buy
65
71
Definitely or probably would buy
95
95
Mean Liking Rating (6-point scale)
4.8
4.9
Mean Value rating (5-point scale)
4.0
4.0
59
6
71
3
Product Expectation (%)
Better than expected
Worse than expected
Source:
Company document.
aBASES Success Benchmarks represent the scores generally achieved by BASES-tested new personal
care products which were subsequently launched in Mexico and then maintained stable distribution
for at least two years.
Exhibit 17
Mexico: Value Shares and Price Points by Brand
Value Share 2004
Average Price Point
per 100 ml. Size
TOTAL COLGATE
Colgate Big Red
Colgate Triple Action
Colgate Total
Colgate Sensitive
All Other Colgate
82.0%
35.6
17.7
11.7
0.3
16.7
13.99 pesos
12.34
19.36
23.95a
TOTAL PROCTER & GAMBLE
Crest + Scope
Calcident
Crest Cool Explosions
All Other Crest
10.2
3.0
3.0
0.3
3.9
13.35
9.92
12.94
ALL OTHER COMPETITORS
Source:
7.8
NA
Company document.
aSensitive only available in 75 ml. size.
25
Source:
Prepare yourself…
Preparate…
Mexico: “Snowsurfer” Television Advertising Storyboard
Company document.
Exhibit 18
Cooling crystals…
Cristales
refrescantes…
With…
con…
Colgate Max Fresh
Because its
thousand…
Porque sus miles
To a new
dimension for
freshness.
A una
dimension de
frescura
I t takes you…
Te lleva
508-009
-26-
Source:
Company documents.
Exhibit 18 (continued)
Cooling crystals
For your breath.
Crystales refrescantes
Para tu aliento.
Unleash and
avalanche of
freshness..
Desatan una
avalancha de
frescura
Of cooling
crystals…
De cristales
refrescantes
As the mirror freezes
a pack of MaxFresh
flies through it,
shattering it. We see
cold air and “cooling
crystals” in place of
shattered glass.
The mirror continues to
fog/ freeze up, blocking
our view of the man.
Our perspective
moves behind the
mirror. We see the
man lean in and blow
cool air, fogging up
our view.
We see the man is back
in the bathroom. He
looks into the mirror.
Colgate Max Fresh. A
new dimension of
freshness.
VO: Colgate Max
Fresh. Una nueva
dimension de frescura.
Only in Max Fresh..
Max Fresh…
Solo en
508-009
-27-
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
Exhibit 19
Mexico: Colgate Max Fresh Pricing
Size
Flavor
75 ml
Cool Mint, Clean Mint,
Cinnamint
100 ml
Source:
Manufacturer
Selling Price
Suggested
Retail Sales Price
11.64 pesos b
Cool Mint, Clean Mint,
Cinnamint
14.93 pesos
13.95
15.30
Company document.
a75 ml. had limited distribution.
bCurrency Conversion: 1 Mexican Peso = U.S. $0.09.37
Exhibit 20
Mexico: Pro-Forma Profit-and-Loss for Colgate Max Fresh Launch
Year 1
SALES (Tons)a
NET SALES ($000)
Year 2
1,600
1,850
$10,336
$13,487
COST OF GOODS SOLDb
% of Sales
4,848
47%
5,458
40%
CONTRIBUTION MARGIN
% of Sales
5,488
53%
8,029
60%
NONVARIABLE OVERHEAD
1,406
14%
1,834
14%
MARKETING EXPENSES
% of Sales
Media Advertising
Promotions and Sampling
1,500
15%
1,200b
300
1,400
10%
1,300
100
OPERATING PROFIT
% of Sales
2,582
25%
4,795
36%
Source:
Company document.
aVolume conversion: 1 ton = 1,000 kg = 1,000,000 g; 1 case of product = 1.2 liters = 1.604 kg.
bMedia Advertising in Year 1 includes $500,000 for TV production and talent fees.
28
Expected Volume
Split by Size
6%
94
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
508-009
Endnotes
1
Colgate-Palmolive 2004 Annual Report, p. 1.
2
Ibid., Worldwide Sales, p. 1.
3
Adbrands.net, “Colgate-Palmolive (U.S.),” p. 1, updated January 2007, http://www.adbrands.net/
member/us/colgate_us_p.htm, accessed February 26, 2007.
4
Ibid.
5
Colgate-Palmolive 2004 Annual Report, p. 1.
6
Ibid., p. 2.
7
Ibid., p. 3.
8 Ibid.,
9
p. 21.
Company records.
10
Company records.
11
Company records.
12
“Colgate/Crest: Brand Profiles,” Adbrands.net, http://www.adbrands.net/members/US/Crest_US
_p.htm, accessed February 26, 2007, 12:45 p.m.
13
Ibid.
14
Colgate Total website: http://www.colgate.com/app/ColgateTotal/US/EN/HomePage.cvsp, accessed
July 16, 2007.
15
“Colgate-Palmolive” (U.S.), Adbrands.net, p. 2, updated January 31, 2007, http://www.adbrands.net
member/us/colgate_us_p.htm, accessed February 26, 2007
16 “The Breath Strips Revolution,” Euromonitor Archive, published May 23, 2003, http://www.euromonitor.
com/The_breath_strips_revolution, accessed August 29, 2007.
17
Ibid.
18
Cannibalization in marketing refers to a reduction in the sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of
one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer. http://en.wikipedia.
org.org/wiki/cannibalization, accessed July 16, 2007.
19
Company records, BASES Concept Pre-Bases report and OBIE Analysis (CI&R Auth #50003-410).
20 “Fair Share Loss” due to cannibalization means that an existing Colgate product would lose sales volume
proportionate to its share of the market. For example, if Colgate Total’s share of the market is 5.0% and Colgate
Max Fresh’s new share is expected to be 3.0%, then Colgate Total’s fair share loss to CMF would be 5.0% x 3.0%=
0.15 share points.
21
“Colgate/Crest: Brand Profiles,” Adbrands.net, p. 2, update July 2006, http://www.adbrands.net/
member/us/colgate_us_p.htm, accessed February 26, 2007.
22 Company
records.
23
Company document: Colgate-Palmolive Max Fresh Workshop, 2007.
24
Company document: Colgate-Palmolive Tracking Document—Media: SOV/SOM–U.S.
25
Colgate-Palmolive 2004 Annual Report, p. 1.
29
508-009
Colgate Max Fresh: Global Brand Roll-Out
26
Company records: Max Fresh Key Learnings by Sarah Upbin. “Max Fresh Sources of Volume,” 2006 and
2005 Corporate Mid Year Reviews, 2006 Budget Review.
27
Company records.
28
Ibid.
29
Company documents: Colgate-Palmolive Max Fresh Workshop, January 2007.
30
Company records.
31
Ibid.
32 Share of Voice defined as a brand’s or a group of brands’ advertising weight expressed as a percentage of a
defined total market or market segment in a given time period. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
share_of_voice, accessed July 15. 2007.
33 Ibid.
34
Global Market Information Database for Harvard University by Euromonitor International,
http://www1.gmid.euromonitor.com.ezpl.harvard.edu/statspage.aspx, accessed: May 4, 2007.
35 Similar to China, “cooling crystals” was used as the reason to believe because “breath strips” had no
meaning to the Mexican consumer.
36 Ibid.
37
Source of currency conversion: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/cgi-bin/famecgi_fdps, accessed: July 3,
2007 11:11 a.m. Bank of Canada Rates and Statistics.
30