More from these Authors

• Case | HBS Case Collection | February 2019

  Zhejiang Geely Holding Group: Acquisition of Volvo Cars

  Felix Oberholzer-Gee, Willy Shih and Nancy Dai

  Zhejiang Geely Holding Company's acquisition of Volvo cars was widely viewed with skepticism because of the poor track record of cross-border auto industry acquisitons. This case looks at the acquisition and post-acquisition integration from the point of view of Chinese managers at Geely. A companion case, 613-042 Volvo Cars: Acquisition by Geely looks at the acquisition from the point of view of Swedish managers at Volvo.

  Keywords: merger integration; organization culture; Organization Behavior; organizational alignment; Mergers and Acquisitions; Integration; Alignment; Organizational Culture; Cross-Cultural and Cross-Border Issues; Auto Industry; China; Sweden;

  Citation:

  Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, Willy Shih, and Nancy Dai. "Zhejiang Geely Holding Group: Acquisition of Volvo Cars." Harvard Business School Case 619-041, February 2019.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | December 2005 (Revised February 2019)

  Brighter Smiles for the Masses--Colgate vs. P&G

  Felix Oberholzer-Gee, Dennis Yao, Filipa Azevedo Jorge, Felix Oberholzer-Gee, Dennis Yao and Filipa Azevedo Jorge

  In 2000, Procter & Gamble Co. introduced Crest Whitestrips, a new, revolutionary product that allowed consumers to whiten their teeth at home. With Whitestrips, P&G created an entire new category in oral care, worth $460 million in 2002. Whitestrips sent P&G's main competitor in oral care, Colgate Palmolive Co., scrambling because several patents protected the strips, making it difficult for Colgate to copy the invention. But in September 2002, the tables turned. Colgate introduced Simply White, a favorably priced whitening product that consumers could simply paint on their teeth. One month after its introduction, Simply White had captured one half of the market, and Crest Whitestrips lost more than 50% of its share. However, P&G's tests of Simply White indicated that Colgate's new product was largely ineffective. Had Colgate just committed a major strategic blunder by introducing a product that did not work? And, if so, how could P&G best take advantage of the situation?

  Keywords: Competitive Advantage; Competitive Strategy; Advertising; Product Launch; Patents; Price; Performance Effectiveness; Consumer Products Industry;

  Citation:

  Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, Dennis Yao, and Filipa Azevedo Jorge. "Brighter Smiles for the Masses--Colgate vs. P&G." Harvard Business School Case 706-435, December 2005. (Revised February 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | December 2005 (Revised February 2019)

  Brighter Smiles for the Masses--Colgate vs. P&G

  Felix Oberholzer-Gee, Dennis Yao, Filipa Azevedo Jorge, Felix Oberholzer-Gee, Dennis Yao and Filipa Azevedo Jorge

  In 2000, Procter & Gamble Co. introduced Crest Whitestrips, a new, revolutionary product that allowed consumers to whiten their teeth at home. With Whitestrips, P&G created an entire new category in oral care, worth $460 million in 2002. Whitestrips sent P&G's main competitor in oral care, Colgate Palmolive Co., scrambling because several patents protected the strips, making it difficult for Colgate to copy the invention. But in September 2002, the tables turned. Colgate introduced Simply White, a favorably priced whitening product that consumers could simply paint on their teeth. One month after its introduction, Simply White had captured one half of the market, and Crest Whitestrips lost more than 50% of its share. However, P&G's tests of Simply White indicated that Colgate's new product was largely ineffective. Had Colgate just committed a major strategic blunder by introducing a product that did not work? And, if so, how could P&G best take advantage of the situation?

  Keywords: Competitive Advantage; Competitive Strategy; Advertising; Product Launch; Patents; Price; Performance Effectiveness; Consumer Products Industry;

  Citation:

  Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, Dennis Yao, and Filipa Azevedo Jorge. "Brighter Smiles for the Masses--Colgate vs. P&G." Harvard Business School Case 706-435, December 2005. (Revised February 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related