By: Kara LaFrancis

-Bustling families/start-up families member household -Children ages Female head under 35 to 44 years old

-Income not as large of a factor as expected -Main determinate is size of household, having highest dollar volume index in households with 5 or more members -Largest dollar volume index for PL in reference to education are those families with a female head that is a college graduate

-48% Penetration -Sales as of 12/29/07 were $714,103,900 with 33,893,000 raw buyers! -Private Label brands accounts for $80,641,900 - Lots of Private Labels mixed in with dominant brands such as Cascade, Finish, and Palmolive - Categorized as a “Maintain” product

 5 Stores Audited  Total of 66 SKUs  Most SKUs found at Target (total of 28)

 Total of 10 Competing Brands (6 being Private Label Brands)  Leading brand in all stores was Proctor & Gamble’s Cascade, having more than double the facings of all other brands

 WalMart- 26 SKUs  Harps- 26 SKUs  WalGreens- 5 SKUs  IGA- 23 SKUs  Target- 28 SKUs (deepest)

 Reckitt Benckisner  Procter & Gamble  CP  Sun Station  Private Label (Best Choice, Always Save, Seventh Generation, Up & Up, Great Value, Method)

 Looking at Facings vs. GM, it is clear that in most cases the more facings there are the higher the GM% is.

 GM determined by # of loads  All liquids are assumed to be 50 grams/load  Powder was determined to have a slightly higher cost than Gel, but not as high as the “powerball” formulation detergents  Private label costs were determined to be roughly ½ of the leading brands

 WalGreens would be wise to deepen their category selection by at least a few SKUs, 5 is very small  All stores should look at trying to lessen their dependence on Proctor & Gamble, as they account for roughly 50% of SKUs in each store

 Retailer commitment to private label or leveraging tactic?  IGA & Target with 5 and 6 SKUs, not clear about the gross margins  Classic example where it is difficult to compare P/L to national brands.