I. INTRODUCTION Company Vision To have a Lamoiyan product in every home. Company Mission Improve the quality of life by bringing essential products within the reach of the common people. Corporate Values Pursuit of Excellence Doing things better than before and better than competitors. Respect for the Individual Values individuality by treating each other with fairness. Social Responsibility Making our presence a blessing to society. Teamwork Reaching collectively goals that we cannot reach separately. Integrity Doing things right Company Background
In late 1970’s Cecilio Kwok Pedro’s Aluminum Container Incorporated became the major supplier of alluminum collapsible toothpaste tubes to Colgate-Palmolive, Procter and Gamble, and Philippine Refining Company (Unilever). However, in 1985, these companies started using plastic laminated tubes. Dr. Pedro closed his company but was able to realize that his equipments can still be put to good use. Two years later (1988), Dr. Pedro opened the doors to Lamoiyan. That time, the toothpaste industry was dominated by multinational companies namely Colgate-Palmolive and Unilever.
Lamoiyan’s strategy was to target the weak point of these companies which is price. The company did not choose to compete head-on with Colgate-Palmolive and Unilever, hence it did a niche strategy. Dr. Pedro was able to develop multi-flavoured toothpaste for children. The company also introduced Hapee Gold for consumers in their 40s and 50s. Red and Green Sparkling Gel was developed to target the teenagers. With perseverance and effective advertising, and by selling his product at a price 30% lower than the leading brands, Dr. Pedro succeeded in making Hapee the No. toothpaste brand in the country. The company engaged itself in community outreach sponsoring schools and sports teams as a way of giving back to the community. Dr. Pedro also employed many hearing-impaired graduates of the school founded by the Deaf Evangelistic Allience Foundation Inc. (DEAF). He know that these community efforts made it harder for the multinationals to attack his company aggressively. With the entry of Zest-O Corporation’s BEAM toothpaste which is priced cheaper that Hapee, Lamoiyan decided to introduce Kutitap as the new, lowest priced toothpaste available.
While Kutitap had achieved only 1. 1% market share by 2002, the new product was growing rapidly and as a consequence, BEAM’s market share had fallen to 6. 6% in 2002. The company also diversified its product line to include Dazz Dishwashing Paste, Dazz Dishwashing Liquid, Dazz All-Purpose Kitchen Cleaner, Tenderly fabric softener, and Fresher feminine wash. In November of 2004, Lamoiyan has earmarked P100 million to expand its business and establish presence in neighboring countries such as Vietnam, China, and Indonesia. II. Analysis of Macroenvironment Political
The political system contained an executive, legislative, and judicial branch and functioned as a democratic state under President Macapagal-Arroyo. Ms. Macapagal Arroyo took office in January 2011 after Former President Joseph Estrada was impeached on charges of nepotism and corruption. The transition from Estrada, who was considered “president of the poor,” to Macapagal-Arroyo, who desired to strengthen competition and liberalize trade, unleashed considerable political uncertainty and a recession threat in late 2000 but, by 2002, the instability had mostly subsided. Economic
The 1997 Asian financial crisis, the political instability, and the 2001 global economic downswing all adversely affected the Philippine economy, however growth in recent years suggested a modest recovery. The 2002 real GDP reached US$77. 1 billion, reflecting an 8% increase from 2001, and export revenues in 2000 totaled US$35 billion, more than four times the amount in 1990. In 2002, however, the Philippines fell 13 places to 61st out of 80 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, an index based on countries’ expected five year capita GDP growth
As the country modernized throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the agricultural sector shrank, the services sector grew, and the manufacturing sector remained fairly constant. In 2002, GDP was distributed as follows: 45% services, 35% industrial, and 20% agricultural. Inequitable distribution of wealth plagued the Philippines, as the average income of the richest 10% was fourteen times that of the poorest 10%. Forty percent of the population lived in poverty. Socio-cultural Although the national language is tagalong, with over 80 distinct dialects,
English was widely spoken and was the medium of communication in business and higher education. At 94%, the Philippines boasted one of the highest literacy rates in the world, and the highest in South-east Asia, including Hong Kong and Taiwan. Technological In 2002, 66% of toothpaste sold in the Philippines was packed in plastic tubes while 10% was in aluminium tubes, with sizes ranging from 25 ml to 150 ml. The remaining 24% of toothpaste sales consisted of 10 ml sachets. Labor Over 90% of the business in the Philippines employed fewer than ten people each, and in 2002 approximately 11% of the labor force was unemployed
Demographic The Philippines, located off the south-eastern coast of mainland Asia, consisted of 7,100 islands covering a total land area of 115,830 square miles. The Philippine population exceeded 80 million in 2002, and was expected to grow at 2% annually through 2007. The islands were divided into three geographic areas: The southern island of Mindanao, the central islands of the Visayas, and the northern and largest island of Luzon, which contained the country’s capital, Manila.
Almost half of the population lived in urban areas, and over 10 million resided in Metro Manila, which covered only 245 sq. mi. III. Analysis of the Task Environment The task environment is usually the environment that companies focus on. It helps the company to specifically identify environmental factors that are important in the company’s success. It typically includes the competitors, customers, suppliers, and strategic partners. Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School has developed a framework for industry analysis and business strategy which he called the Porter’s Five Forces Analysis.
Porter’s five forces include three forces from the ‘horizontal competition’: Threat of substitute products, threat of established rivals, and the threat of new entrants; and two forces from the ‘vertical competition’: the bargaining power of suppliers and bargaining power of customers. To help the company become more profitable, this section shall provide an industry analysis using Porter’s Five Forces Analysis. BARGAINING POWER OF SUPPLIER IS LOW The Bargaining power of the supplier is also described as the market of inputs.
A company needs raw materials for them to offer products or services. Such raw materials include labor, components, and other supplies. These requirements lead to buyer-supplier relationship between the industry and the firm that provides the raw materials used to create the product or to deliver the service. Suppliers, if powerful, can exert an influence on the industry, such as selling raw materials at a high price to capture some of the industry’s profits. The following table is an analysis of the factors that determine the power of supplier.
DETERMINANTS OF COMPETITIVE FORCEANALYSIS OF DETERMINANTIMPACT TO COMPETITIVE FORCE Dominated by a few companiesLowDecrease Not obliged to contend with other substitute products for sale in the industryLowDecrease Industry is not an important customer of the supplier groupLowDecrease Suppliers’ product is an important input to buyer’s businessHighIncrease Supplier group’s product are differentiated or it has built up switching costLowDecrease Buyers pose a credible threat of forward integrationHighIncrease BARGAINING POWER OF CUSTOMERS IS HIGH
The power of buyers is the impact that customers have on a producing industry. In general, when buyer power is strong, the relationship to the producing industry is near to what an economist terms a monopsony – a market in which there are many suppliers and one buyer. Under such market conditions, the buyer sets the price. In reality few pure monopsonies exist, but frequently there is some asymmetry between a producing industry and buyers. The following is an analysis of the factors affecting buyer’s power.
DETERMINANTS OF COMPETITIVE FORCEANALYSIS OF DETERMINANTIMPACT TO COMPETITIVE FORCE Purchases large volumes relative to seller salesHighIncrease Products purchased from the industry represent a significant fraction of the buyer’s cost or purchaseHighIncrease Products purchased from the industry are standard or undifferentiatedHighIncrease Faces few switching costLowIncrease Earns low profitsHighIncrease Buyers pose a credible threat of backward integrationLowDecrease THREAT OF NEW ENTRANTS IS LOW
It is not only incumbent rivals that pose a threat to firms in an industry; the possibility that new firms may enter the industry also affects competition. In theory, any firm should be able to enter and exit a market, and if free entry and exit exists, then profits always should be nominal. In reality, however, industries possess characteristics that protect the high profit levels of firms in the market and inhibit additional rivals from entering the market. These are barriers to entry. Barriers to entry are more than the normal equilibrium adjustments that markets typically make.
For example, when industry profits increase, we would expect additional firms to enter the market to take advantage of the high profit levels, over time driving down profits for all firms in the industry. When profits decrease, we would expect some firms to exit the market thus restoring market equilibrium. Falling prices, or the expectation that future prices will fall, deters rivals from entering a market. Firms also may be reluctant to enter markets that are extremely uncertain, especially if entering involves expensive start-up costs. These are normal accommodations to market conditions.
But if firms individually (collective action would be illegal collusion) keep prices artificially low as a strategy to prevent potential entrants from entering the market, such entry-deterring pricing establishes a barrier. Barriers to entry are unique industry characteristics that define the industry. Barriers reduce the rate of entry of new firms, thus maintaining a level of profits for those already in the industry. From a strategic perspective, barriers can be created or exploited to enhance a firm’s competitive advantage. DETERMINANTS OF COMPETITIVE FORCEANALYSIS OF DETERMINANTIMPACT TO COMPETITIVE FORCE Economies of ScaleHighDecrease
Product DifferentiationLowIncrease Capital RequirementsHighDecrease Switching CostLowIncrease Access to Distribution ChannelsHighDecrease Cost of Disadvantages Independent of ScaleHighDecrease Government PolicyHighDecrease THREAT OF SUBSTITUTE PRODUCT IS LOW In Porter’s model, substitute products refer to products in other industries. To the economist, a threat of substitutes exists when a product’s demand is affected by the price change of a substitute product. A product’s price elasticity is affected by substitute products – as more substitutes become available, the demand becomes more elastic since customers have more alternatives.
A close substitute product constrains the ability of firms in an industry to raise prices. DETERMINANTS OF COMPETITIVE FORCEANALYSIS OF DETERMINANTIMPACT TO COMPETITIVE FORCE Available and priced attractivelyHighIncrease Buyers view the substitute as comparable or betterLowDecrease Cost that the buyer incursHighDecrease COMPETITIVE RIVALRY BETWEEN INDUSTRY IS HIGH With the real estate industry booming here in the Philippines, more and more companies develop strategic plans on how to capture more clients. DETERMINANTS OF COMPETITIVE FORCEANALYSIS OF DETERMINANTIMPACT TO COMPETITIVE FORCE Numerous of Equally Balanced CompetitorsHighIncrease
Industry GrowthHighIncrease Fixed or Storage CostLowIncrease Lack of DifferentiationHighIncrease Capacity Augmented in Large IncrementsLowDecrease Diverse CompetitorsHighIncrease Strategic StakesHighIncrease Exit BarriersHighDecrease IV. PROBLEM How can Lamoiyan Corporation increase its market share without the multinationals attacking the company aggressively? V. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION Strategy A: Tap a different market Explanation: Conduct business-to-business structure by tapping the hotel industry and the airlines.
The company will be the exclusive distributor of toothpaste and other hygienic products of different hotels and airline companies PROSCONS The strategic move will not provoke aggressive attacks by the multinational companiesThe company needs to provide personalized packages for each of the hotel or airline company It will provide a higher income for the company incurring minimal fixed cost due to existing machineries for production Strategy B: Product Improvement Explanation: Improve the existing product in terms of its effect on mouth and breath, which is the top two concern of most users.
It is also the factor that receives most complaints among users. The price, however, will not change. PROSCONS In can address the needs and wants of the target market, thus the possibility of increased sales May lower profit margins since production cost per unit will increase while the price remains the same It serves as a competitive advantage of the product offering the same benefits as that of the multinationals’ products but in a lower price Strategy C: Put up a factory and warehouse in the Vis-Min Area Explanation: Deficit in product availability is one factor that contributes to the growth slowdown of the company.
Hapee toothpaste has low to very love store presence in grocery stores, sari-sari stores, market stalls, and drugstores in the Vis-Min area especially in Mindanao. Having a provincial warehouse and factory in Vis-Min Area will most likely to increase the availability rate of the product in that area. PROSCONS Product will be highly available in the areaThe company needs a large sum of money in capital investment Lower distribution cost due to near warehouses with respect to distribution outletsThere is higher risk because of patronage and loyalty non-assurance VI.
RECOMMENDATION: Employ the combination of strategy A and B. When you know that your competitor is a big company, you do not compete head-on. They will just kill you! You cannot employ big plans as they do for this will trigger them to attack you aggressively. It is best to employ strategies which they can’t notice or if noticed, they wouldn’t mind at all. This way, you can capture their market little by little without them noticing it that much. What is good about strategy A is that multinational companies do not focus much in business-to-business transactions.
They find the consumer market as a more profitable market. Hence, going into business-to-business transaction will not trigger the multinationals to be aggressive on you. On the other hand, product improvement will capture the market’s attention as they primarily purchase products of value. If they see that your product offers the same benefits their current product offers and you sell it in a lower price, they are most likely to switch brands. But due to customer loyalty, not the totality of the market will shift into your brand.
Probably, only a few will due, but the point here is that you were able to capture a portion, may it be small, of their market. Strategy C is not recommended due to a very high capital investment in building up a factory in the Vis-Min Area, moreover, there is no assurance that the sales will compensate the investment easily due to certain factors such as customer loyalty. Thus, employing the combination of strategies A and B is seen as the best move for the company in order for it to increase its market share without triggering an aggressive attack from the multinationals.