Nestle – BCG Matrix and Brand Divestment

Nestle is a multinational food and beverage producer, based in Switzerland.  The firm currently has the 69th highest revenue in the world, generating $98,484m worth of sales in 2012.  Nestle sell over 8,000 brands, ranging from bottled water to pet food, of which 29 brands have sales of approximately $1 billion.  However, Nestle’s CEO, Paul Baulk, recently announced plans to divest (sell-off) under-performing brands due to poor sales.  It is highly likely that the marketers at Nestle have used the Boston Consulting Group Matrix (BCG Matrix) to identify which brands to sell off.  This post will look at what Nestle’s BCG Matrix is likely to look like and critique how useful the matrix is.

Based on recent news sources and Nestle’s 2012 Annual Report (PDF), here is Nestle’s current BCG Matrix for a slection of their brands:

Question Marks – these strategic business units (SBUs) have a low market share of a high growth market.  Magi 2-minute Noodles currently require lots of investment in order to capitalize on the growing culinary segment, which may not offer the highest return on investment in Nestle’s brand portfolio.

Stars – SBUs with a high share of a high growth market.  Nestle’s wide range of mineral water has benefited from the combination of healthier lifestyle trends and emerging markets.  These products require large amounts of investments in order to differentiate the bottled water brands from competitors in mature markets and grow brand awareness in emerging markets.

Dogs – SBUs in this category have a low market share in a low growth market. Sales of Jenny Craig and Lean Cuisine, weight loss management brands, have failed to expand outside of the USA – these two brands are tipped to be divested in the future.  Sports performance and nutrition brand, PowerBar, is confirmed to be divested.  This is most likely because of poor sales in a saturated market. SBUs in this classification may generate enough profit to be self-sufficient, be are considered to never be major sources of revenue.

Cash Cows – perhaps the most important SBU, Cash Cows have a high share of a low growth market.  They require very little investment to generate revenue, which allows funds generated from such SBUs to be reinvested into Stars or Question Marks.

Although Nestle appear to have taken the recommendations from the BCG Matrix, there is no such thing as a fool-proof strategic tool.  As such, Nestle should be aware of the following drawbacks of using this analysis:

Multi-industry comparisons  – Nestle have 8,000 brands across a whole range of industries.  This can make it difficult to compare different SBUs in the same matrix.  For instance, sales of gluten-free food may be growing more quickly than water but it would not be wise to allocate more budget to the former at the expense of the latter as the market for mineral water is obviously much more lucrative.

Market growth may be directly influenced by the firm – Nestle is the world-leader of milkshake products, with a huge market share.  Consequently, an increase in investment in Nestle’s milkshakes would be very likely to lead to a growth of the overall milkshake market.  This would give the impression that Nesquik is actually a Star SBU, which is not accurate.  The exact opposite of this is true: perhaps the reason why the growth of weight-loss management market has slowed is because major firms like Nestle have stopped investing in their products. The result of this is that consumer demand may be there, but not visible in sales revenue because it is highly influenced by the amount of marketing consumers are exposed to.

No consideration of future trends – a major weakness of the BCG matrix is that is focused purely on the present and not on the future.  Hence, divesting PowerBar would be a very bad decision if the sports nutrition market undergoes a resurgence.

Time consuming – given the above weaknesses, is the BCG matrix worth Nestle’s marketers time?  This is a very important question Nestle should have asked themselves before analyzing 8,000 brands!

In summary, the principles of investing different amounts of money into different SBUs is a good practice;  however, the BCG Matrix should not be wholly relied upon.

© Josh Blatchford, author of Manifested Marketing, 4th October 2013

Nestle – Market Penetration

Nestle is one of the world’s largest confectionary manufacturers.  Although this may at first appear to be a good position to be in, it in fact means that Nestle’s marketing strategy has to be particularly competitive.  Thus it must be proactive to external change, formulated and – last but not least – it must support the wider corporate strategy, a critical success factor for large, multinational corporations.  This is necessary just to maintain the company’s global competitive position as a market leader, let-a-lone increase sales.  Nestle’s latest move to consolidate its position – and compete with Cadbury, McVities and Mars – involves a market penetration strategy using its popular ‘Aero’ chocolate bar.

Market penetration involves trying to boost, or maintain, sales of an existing product to the current market.  This often involves minor product tweaks; this strategy, thus, offers minimal risk albeit the pay-off is limited.  Hence, this strategy is ideal for large firms with maturing products how need to simply maintain their competitiveness, like Nestle.  It should come as no surprise then to see that the Aero chocolate bar has already been modified numerous times – different sizes (targeting different occasional uses), different flavours and even brand extension  into hot beverages and ice creams.

The latest ‘enhancement’ to the Aero bar is to extend the brand further; this Easter a new ‘Aero Biscuit’ will be launched.  Although this sound like product development, rather than penetrating a current market, it is still a relatively low-risk strategy.  This is because the fundamental differentiation strategy used by Nestle to position Aero as a ‘lighter’ and ‘healthier’ chocolate bar remain as part of the actual product – the core and augmented product benefits are also relatively similar to the traditional bar.  Hence, Aero Biscuits will contain fewer than 100 calories a pack and continue to target young women by emphasising the brand’s association with bubbles and air, both of which have light-weight and weight-loss connotations.

All of these past strategies must, however, be viewed in the long-term.  And by that I mean consider how this fits into Nestle’s wider strategy.  Firstly,  it maintains sales of Aero by generating new interest in the brand and generate short-term sales.  This is called an extension strategy, which aims to prolong the life span of a mature product to prevent a decline in sales – thus, the product can continue to fit in the firm’s wider product portfolio as a Cash Cow.  While this appears to be a  short-termist tactic, it does actually work in the long-term: variety seeking consumers will notice and try the new Aero variation and then return to become a habitual customer of the original Aero chocolate bar.

Furthermore, market penetration aids Nestle’s competitive strategy.  Does hearing of a light-weight chocolate snack with a crispy biscuit centre sound familiar? If so you may be thinking of Maltesers.  Not only is the core product fundamentally the same, the actual and augmented features are strikingly similar: they both offer a ‘light’ chocolate snack that appeals fundamentally to women consumers.  Moreover, Cadbury’s’ Whisper chocolate bar makes use of the connotations of bubbles to create a very similar offering to Aero.  This highlights just how ruthlessly competitive Nestle’s market is; although it is a market leader, it still needs to defend its brands from market challengers.

I appreciate that Nestle’s latest move is nothing out of the ordinary or particularly innovative, but it highlights the fact that the best strategies used by the best firms are those that are tried, tested and proven.  Some may call this bureaucratic or inflexible marketing, but I think it is refreshing to hear a company going back to basics.  Perhaps more firms need to focus on traditional marketing, as opposed to devoting too much time to social media?

© Joshua Blatchford, author of Manifested Marketing, 19/04/2011

  • Join 198 other followers

  • Blog Visits

  • Twitter Updates

  • Archive

%d bloggers like this: