Brand Market position has become a hot commodity these days. In the case of the battle between Procter & Gamble and Unilever, both are competing to see who will hold the position to save the world first. Both find themselves reposition their brands accordingly to fulfill these new strategies and the battle endures.
Surprisingly, Bill Gates shares his endorsement for the Unilever brand, satisfied with his candidate’s stance on sustainability issues. Closing in, Procter & Gamble focuses on research & development department in order to surpass, innovate and outsmart its main competitor. At what cost and more importantly, do their consumers care?
When Pur Water-Purification packet was created originally, it responded to a targeted market, Africa, to suppress sanitary problems mainly, but price-wise, it did not correspond to the African wallet. Not such a good move. A perfect example of the inadequacy between the offer and fullfillment, or meeting the demand! Switch strategies: Finally leading their product oriented to the more exclusive a “camper and disaster-preparedness kit” segment for the US market!!!!!!!
What can we learn from these public struggles otherwise known as strategic marketing disasters? Good ideas gone wrong? Where to draw the line between the waste and the result? Picking up the pieces? (I’m sure there are a few more expressions we could pop in here…) Was it a mis-judgement of the market and its needs or simply a rush to polish one’s image to the eyes of their asserted audience, their consumers?
That’s marketing folks…
In spite of their “good will”, from a $ 2 million program to purify 2 billion liters of water in Africa, to the Dove self-esteem “Campaign for Real Beauty”, the real motivations are to conquer markets and acquire substantial gains. Isn’t it Gates who looks at the third world as a potential market?
Then, no, no ethics for thick revenues.