Know-How Exchange : Student Questions

My vote goes to P&G based on longevity and diversity of succesfull brands.

Microsoft is certainly a contendor, but they seem to focus on cornering markets versus diversity.

Just my 2 cents.

If you think of marketing as the marketing mix (product, price, place, promotion), then P&G wins by far.

But if you think of marketing as anything which helps your product sell, then Microsquash is the winner. Their growth rate, market penetration, etc. are all huge.

Now, we may be against the methods Microsoft uses to try to monopolize their markets, but these methods are used by others (MS just pushed it to the limits). P&G often pays placement fees for their products to get better positioning (end caps at stores, etc.), and probably has channels which they 'own' because of steps they took. I am not a consumer marketer, so don't know P&G specifically, but think of sodas. When you go to many restuarants, sports stadiums, and even snack machines ats chools, you will find that one brand is all that is sold in that channel.

I’ve got to go with P&G. Marketing is a process. P&G helped define the process and they are still a leader in marketing innovation.

Whereas, Microsoft’s story is a business anomaly. IBM came knocking at their door (Twice). Microsoft’s deal of the century was IBM’s fumble of the century. Microsoft then created its own Fort Knox using great aggressive business strategies. Today, with Microsoft’s brand monopoly (an the anti-trust lawsuits to show for it) plus its overwhelming financial position, MS appears to be brilliant at marketing. But ASK yourself – If I were to start a new business today would I use P&G or MS marketing talent? I already voted.

Thanks for this question