Scotties: It's what's outside that counts
Section I — Basic information
Business Results Period (Consecutive Months): December 24, 2006 - June 4, 2011
Start of Advertising/Communication Effort: May 2007
Base Period as a Benchmark: 52 weeks ending December 23, 2006
Section II — Situation analysis
a) Overall Assessment
In 2006, Facial Tissue was something of a case study for low involvement categories. Firstly, it was a fragmented market where no branded player had a commanding lead: Puffs was at 5.6% tonnage, Kleenex 12%, Royale 18%, Scotties 21.7% and Private Label 41%. (footnote 1)
Secondly, it suffered from the "Kleenex effect" - which manifested in three ways:
- People say "pass the Kleenex," never "pass a facial tissue." So while Kleenex was not remotely market leader in volume, 46% of people still claimed they used Kleenex most often – almost 4 times the brand's actual market share. (footnote 2)
- Kleenex had 4 times the national Top of Mind awareness that Scotties did (62% VS 14%). (footnote 2) They also owned visibility at shelf with twice the number of items as Scotties and constant news from their global product pipeline.
- Kleenex beat us on every brand image and quality measure including popular, contemporary, up to date, and dependable. (footnote 2) In truth, their manufacturing process did yield tissue that was softer, thicker, and stronger than Scotties.