.
In the case of P&G vs. Unilever the subjects, mentioned above, is lacking. The problem of the two companies is that they have almost all the market space. The problem in that is that instead of focusing on the costumers and their happiness toward the product, the two companies, because of their superior placements in the market space, gets bored and begins to compete between each other. This gives a bad impression, and even though the costumers maybe not switch to other products, the problem stands. The costumers will after some time realize the lacking of customer relations and then change over to other brands. The implications of that are shown in the case where low price brands acquire more and more market space in the beginning of the European Soap War.
By using fig. 4.3 , Unilever and P&G could have avoided the "war" and instead using their powers in retrieving the costumers and improve the brand reputation. .
In conclusion we think that the losers of the European Soap War are actually both Unilever and P&G, and the winner is the low cost products which is produced for the supermarkets. .
COMPETITION.
To analyze the competition issue in the soap-industry, we will look into following aspects:.
1. Industry profitability (porters five forces).
2. Competitive strategies.
2. Industry profitability .
To analyze this aspect, Porters five forces are very suitable because it gives a good all-round picture of the terms of competition in the industry and to determine the intrinsic long-run profit attractiveness of the market. .
The middle of the figure illustrates the terms of competition. .
Product definition: The industry provides clean clothes to people. .
Industry structure type: Oligopoly, where a small number of large firms produce products that range from highly differentiated to standardized products. .
Threat of new entrants.
There are two major companies in the industry; Unilever and P&G, they have both the advantage of economies of scale.
