Case Study: Church And Dwight

1827 Words4 Pages

Current Performance Church & Dwight is a largely known household domestic product brand; however, many users are not even aware that they are using an item made and distributed by Church & Dwight. The brands that Church & Dwight own include: Arm & Hammer, First Response, Lil Critters, Nair, Oragel, OxiClean, Spinbrush, Trojan, vitafusion, and Xtra (churchdwight.com, 2010). Church & Dwight own so many brands that many people are not even aware they are using a Church & Dwight brand. Because Church & Dwight own such a large spectrum of brands, it would not be unreasonable to think that the company makes a lot of money, corporately. Church & Dwight have four mega brands and these brands include: ARM & HAMMER, Trojan, OxiClean, and Lil Critters. …show more content…

186). The corporate growth strategy of Church & Dwight is acquisition. According to the Church & Dwight corporate strategy analysis (2015), Church & Dwight have strict guidelines for acquiring accretive acquisitions. These guideline include: “Primarily number 1 or number 2 share brands, higher growth and higher margin brands, asset light, leverage Church & Dwight capital base in manufacturing, logistics, and purchasing, and deliver sustainable competitive advantage” (pg. 60). The author would say that this growth strategy is probably best for the company seeing as how they have survived as a company for decades with this type of strategy. The mission statement of Church & Dwight, as stated above, is something that is not easy to find and the author would say that this would be one thing that would be in the favor of no having a mission statement. The favorable thing would be that every strategy fits with the mission statement, because there is not …show more content…

Building mega brands is simply a snapshot of the company’s four market leading brands which include: Arm & Hammer, Trojan, Oxiclean, and Vitamins. When Church & Dwight ferociously defend their brand they are saying that they will not back down to a larger more competitive brand. “We have defended and will continue to aggressively defend our brand when they are challenged by larger competitors” (Farrell, 2015, pg. 5). The company also says they drive international growth and expand gross margin. Church & Dwight does this by implementing six fully functions subsidiaries in foreign countries and they are currently exporting to over 100 other foreign countries. Church & Dwight also claim to have superior overhead management by “maintaining tight controls on our overhead costs which have been a hallmark of Church & Dwight. Since 2006, we have increase revenues by 70% or 1.4 billion and lowered our overhead costs as a percentage of revenue form 15.0% to 12.1%” (Farrell, 2015, pg.5). Church & Dwight also claim to have an expert management team which they say is a key factor in having the ability to defend their brand, as well as, build their brand. The proven track record of acquisitions include, “quickly integrating acquisitions to leverage our existing capital based in manufacturing, logistics, and

Open Document