1. Introduction: Background, Challenges, Goal
2. Drivers for demand of toothbrush
3. Strategies for demand of toothbrush
4. Segmentation approach
5. Selection and justification of target
6. Position statement
7. Size of TAM in 3 scenarios
8. Income statement: Thailand product mix (2009, 2010), Brinda’s plan (2010)
1. Goal: 30% growth in toothbrush in 2010 in India.
a. 75% of Indians live on 2 dollars per day.
b. Lack of awareness of dental problems with oral care.
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:
d. 50% of Indian population =500 million
...view middle of the document...
Newspapers – 30%
ix. Billboards and outdoor – 15%
x. Radio – 5% (10%)
xi. Mobile – 5%
m. Bonus incentive for distributors to put in front and preference to forward credits to retailers
n. Bonus incentive for sales employees
o. Introduce non users to first time brushes
p. Increase the incidence of brushing
q. Free toothpaste sachet with neem taste
Rural and Semi-urban:
Consumer (unmet needs):
a. Inexpensive modern dental products
b. 64 % of Indian expenditures come from the low income group.
c. Economic value of customer
d. The segment buys from bodegas.
a. Cottle is held at high regard.
b. Cottle toothbrush share is 46% of the market share
c. Strong and extensive distribution networks.
d. Capital already invested for toothbrush
e. Ability to adjust product mix
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
a. IDA, Distributors
a. Low income rates (37% below poverty line…less than 1.25 $ per day)
b. Social conventions – mass migration and increasing mobile technology.
Demographic: Low income, Age group
Psycho: resistant to change, price sensitive
Behavioral: usage rate (incidence), not aware of hygiene
1st time users – neem to toothbrush
Users with low brushing frequency
a. Low income group to move from domestic oral treatments to modern products.
b. Current users with low frequency to increase the brush purchase
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. Dentist’s reco, IDA