• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

However, increased choice equalled increased confusion. As a result, Crest lost market share. Indeed, true to the law of diminishing returns the more products Crest had on offer, the lower its overall share of the market. When Crest had one product, its share soared above 50 per cent. By the time Crest had 38 products it was down to 36 per cent of the market. As soon as there were 50 Crest toothpastes, its market share dipped to 25 per cent and fell behind Colgate.

These problems were not unique to the Crest brand. For instance, Procter & Gamble had seen the same thing happen with its Head & Shoulders brand. Did consumers really need 31 varieties of anti-dandruff shampoo?

When the marketing strategy firm Ries & Ries went to work for Crest, it identified this problem. In The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding Al and Laura Ries recount the experience:

When we worked for Crest, the marketing manager asked us, ‘Crest has thirty-eight stock-keeping units. Do you think that’s too many or too few?’

‘How many teeth do you have in your mouth?’ we asked.

‘Thirty-two.’

‘No toothpaste should have more stock-keeping units than teeth in one’s mouth,’ we responded.

Although for some time Procter & Gamble kept on repeating the misguided Crest strategy – launch more brands, lose more market share – the company eventually decided to tackle the problem it had created.

An article entitled, ‘Make it Simple’ in Business Week magazine (9 September 1996) summed up the decisive shift within Procter & Gamble: ‘After decades of spinning out new-and-improved this, lemon-freshened that, and extra-jumbo-size the other thing, Procter & Gamble has decided that it sells too many different kinds of stuff. Now it has started to do the unthinkable: it’s cutting back. Procter’s product roster is a third shorter today than it was at the start of the decade.’

Before it cut the number of Crest products, Procter & Gamble trimmed back on hair care. Having slashed the number of its hair care items in half it saw an increase in sales. However, according to Procter & Gamble’s chief executive of hair care Robert S Matteucci, the strategy was unpopular at first: ‘The moves met some resistance from Procter & Gamble’s brand honchos who thought, “Oh my God, we’re going to lose sales because we’re going to have fewer items”.’ he said at the time the decision to trim back was made. ‘There’s a huge scepticism that this is the right thing to do, and that it’s do-able.’

As well as reducing the number of Crest toothpaste varieties, Procter & Gamble also altered the Crest package design to make it simpler to find your favourite version of the product. The move was considered an intelligent one among marketing experts. In a 1998 Ithaca American Demographics survey, Marcia Mogelonsky applauded the new strategy: ‘This reduces the number of extraneous sizes, flavours, and other variants, making it easier for consumers to find what they want. At the same time, the manufacturer can have more of its allotted space in the store filled with its best-selling products. Shoppers have less choice, but they are less confused, and the manufacturer makes more money’

However, competition remains tough. Not only from Colgate, but also Aquafresh, Mentadent, Arm and Hammer, Sensodyne and own-brand ranges such as those produced by the UK chemist Boots.

Although Procter & Gamble has simplified the Crest range to some degree, and although sales have improved, some believe it isn’t enough to usurp Colgate. Furthermore, although Procter & Gamble has honed its range, some critics claim that Crest’s brand identity is still not sharp enough and that it has neglected its scientific origins. For instance, in his book Big Brands, Big Trouble, Jack Trout makes the following observation:

First and foremost, Crest should always be on the serious, therapeutic side of the toothpaste market. That’s where they are in the minds of their prospects. No mouthwash, no whitening, only serious tooth care technology. The