Cottle Taylor

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Introduction: Background, Challenges, Goal

Drivers for demand of toothbrush
Strategies for demand of toothbrush
Segmentation approach
Selection and justification of target
Position statement
Size of TAM in 3 scenarios
Income statement: Thailand product mix (2009, 2010), Brindas plan
(2010)

Case:
1. Goal: 30% growth in toothbrush in 2010 in India.
2. Challenges:
a. 75% of Indians live on 2 dollars per day.
b. Lack of awareness of dental problems with oral care.
c. Competitors:
i. Hinda-Daltan 21% market share, French company
ii. SarIndia, Indian consumer, nature-based and holistic process,
11% market share
iii. 22% market low quality, low priced imported from China and
Vietnam
3. Drivers for demand:
a. 50% of Indian population =500 million
b. 64% expenditure comes from low income groups
c. Rising income
d. Influence of Western habits
e. Rising awareness of oral care benefits
f. 10% growth in toothbrush sales
4. Strategy:
a. Awareness:
i. IDA 2 times free dental checkup, dental hygiene
ii. 3 month replacement awareness
b. Distributor network strong network
i. Training in local dialects. Awareness about toothbrush advantage
c. Allocation of ad budget:
i. TV 50% (40%)
ii. Newspapers 30%
iii. Billboards and outdoor 15%
iv. Radio 5% (10%)
v. Mobile 5%
d. Bonus incentive for distributors to put in front and preference to
forward credits to retailers
e. Bonus incentive for sales employees
f. Introduce non users to first time brushes
g. Increase the incidence of brushing
h. Free toothpaste sachet with neem taste

Rural and Semi-urban:

Consumer (unmet needs):
a.
b.
c.
d.

Inexpensive modern dental products

64 % of Indian expenditures come from the low income group.
Economic value of customer
The segment buys from bodegas.

Company:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Cottle is held at high regard.

Cottle toothbrush share is 46% of the market share
Strong and extensive distribution networks.
Capital already invested for toothbrush
Ability to adjust product mix

Competition:
a. Hinda-Daltan 21% market share, French company
b. SarIndia, Indian consumer, nature-based and holistic process, 11% market
share
c. 22% market low quality, low priced imported from China and Vietnam
Collaborators:
a. IDA, Distributors
Context:
a. Low income rates (37% below poverty lineless than 1.25 $ per day)
b. Social conventions mass migration and increasing mobile technology.

Segmentation:
Demographic: Low income, Age group
Psycho: resistant to change, price sensitive
Behavioral: usage rate (incidence), not aware of hygiene
Target Market:
1st time users neem to toothbrush
Users with low brushing frequency
Positioning:
Target segment:
a. Low income group to move from domestic oral treatments to modern
products.
b. Current users with low frequency to increase the brush purchase

POD:
a. Better oral care, high quality, affordable, soft bristles
b. Disadvantages of neem
c. Soft multi height bristles designed to reach the crevices that neem twigs
cant.
d. Kids: cartoon handles, extra soft bristles
Frame of reference:
a. Neem twig users
b. 22% low quality market w/o brand recognition
Reason to believe:
a. Dentists reco, IDA