Gillette India Ltd.

Group A-9
Aniruddha Ghoshal(09p065)
Anshu Sharma(09p067)
Anshul Gupta(09P068)
Anunay Priyesh(09P069)
Arjun M.(09P070)
 Indian Shaving Market

• Large volume-2.4 million annual sales(1984)

• Low Value-250 crores i.e.,Rs 1.04 per piece(Rs 4.18 in U.S.)
• Indian shaving male population-15 to 20 crores
• Hence 13-14 blades per person annually(or once a month)
• Carbon steel blades in bulk-5 to 8 shaves per blade
• Stainless steel new-
– 8 to 12 shaves per blade

– smoother, closer

– available in urban areas

• Twin blades latest, <2% of market

 Present Scenario

• Market leaders-Malhotras
• Wiltech and Gillette having accumulated losses
• Wiltech relatively better in Twin Blade segment; However, segment less than 2%
of market

Company Relative Price

Malhotras 1.0
Wiltech 1.5
Gillette 2.5
 Malhotras’ Strategy

•Huge capacity
•Relatively mediocre quality
•Special trade promos
•Dumping stocks
•Imitation Products
 Disadvantages with existing channel

• Position Place Mismatch-

– Product intended for upper end of market but present at numerous locations

– People in smaller towns unlikely to go for a razor blade 2.5 times costly

• New product, new technology, hence promotions need more controlled efforts
– Focus on durability(product is not 2.5 times but 2.5/1.5=1.67 times expensive)

• Slow sales, hence unwillingness on part of retailers

• Lack of proper feedback mechanism-e.g., about consumer preferences
Semi Captive Distribution Network

DBSR-Distributor Sales Representative

Merch.-Merchandiser
TSI-Territory Sales InCharge
 Semi Captive Distribution Network
• Start with exclusive focus on big towns and cities-target premium shaving segment
• Selective Tier 2 and 3 cities-e.g., those having institutions of higher education
• Advantages
– Build up on the relatively better performance in these cities
– Reduces wastage of efforts-no point keeping a full fledged sales force in towns
where the product currently doesn’t sell
– Better controlled promotions-newly introduced product
– Better feedback mechanism-gauge consumer preferences
– Cost savings-no need to pay the channel where sales not happening
– Relatively lower investments as the company owned distributors present in very
selective locations
– Bulk breaking at warehouses for outlets in Tier 2 and 3
 Captive Distribution Network
• Pitfalls
– New investment
– Loss of sales in Tier 2 and 3 cities
– Adverse effect on reputation among distributors

• Once the sales in major cities and selected Tier 2 and 3 towns pick up
– Push other items like shave gel through existing network

– Link up with a leading FMCG distribution network for further penetration in Tier 2 and 3
cities
– With its help, develop a parallel sales channel for other smaller towns in the vicinity of
those already being served
– However, unsuccessful partnership with Lipton may make the FMCG distributors wary

– Also, demand in smaller towns may still be low to mediocre