CASE: E382-A

DATE: 08/02/10

MARY SIMMONS (A)

INTRODUCTION
In late September 1999, Mary Simmons was anxious as she awaited the results of a market test
that had recently run at Tar-Mart, a large discount retail chain. As a brand manager for the
DustAway brand at Procter & Gamble (P&G), Mary was responsible for the planning, oversight,
and analysis of market tests for new product introductions in the retail channel. P&G expected
to receive a national distribution deal from Tar-Mart for DustAways debut product, the Magic
Duster, a hard floor sweeping system designed to trap and lock fine dirt and dust particles.
DustAway was a promising new brand within P&Gs household portfolio, and a considerable
amount of time and investment had gone into developing the product. Although Mary had
worked on numerous product introductions for P&G involving successful market tests, she
nonetheless felt anxious given Tar-Marts stringent requirements in order to get a product on its
shelves.
Mary joined P&G in 1997 as an assistant brand manager after graduating from the University of
North Carolina with a BA in Communications. Over the years, she had worked on a number of
different brands within P&Gs health and wellness and household divisions, and had worked on
several product launches. Working at P&G had given Mary great insight into effectively
marketing, advertising, and merchandising new consumer brands.
LAUNCHING A NEW PRODUCT
Tar-Mart was the gold standard of product distribution, representing the greatest single channel
to the end customer. Mary had worked with Tar-Mart in the past and was familiar with the
process of securing distribution through the retailer.
Jocelyn Hornblower and Lecturer Mark Leslie prepared this case as the basis for class discussion rather than to
illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation.
Information in this case was fictionalized for illustrative purposes.
Copyright 2010 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. To order
copies or request permission to reproduce materials, e-mail the Case Writing Office at: cwo@gsb.stanford.edu or
write: Case Writing Office, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 518 Memorial Way, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305-5015. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a
spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise without the permission of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

ecch the case for learning

Distributed by ecch, UK and USA

www.ecch.com
All rights reserved

North America
t +1 781 239 5884
e ecchusa@ecch.com

Rest of the world

t +44 (0)1234 750903
e ecch@ecch.com

Mary Simmons (A) E382-A

p. 2

Securing a distribution deal and then selling a product through Tar-Mart was anything but
simple. Before Tar-Mart would stock a product on its shelves, it required proof of success in a
multi-region trial, typically about 600 stores. Tar-Mart was notorious for its poor execution of
these market tests. For example, although Tar-Mart employees were responsible for setting up,
restocking, and maintaining product displays, it was not uncommon for the employees to neglect
the displays during the trial or locate them in the wrong department.
Companies that did not pass these tests due to lack of execution on the part of TarMart
employees had no appeal. Even if the cognizant merchandising manager was a strong supporter
of the new product and was aware of the poor execution of their own employees, Tar-Marts
rules on this were very firm and the product was simply dropped.
However, big companies with deep pockets and ample resources like P&G always passed the
obligatory market tests, even with products that subsequently failed in the market. They used
their marketing muscle to support product sales during the trial period with a blitz of coupons,
local radio advertising, and they assigned local P & G field reps to assure that in-store displays
were set up, located properly, and refreshed daily. In addition, these reps often distributed
additional coupons at the entrance to the store or at the floor display during the actual test period.
Ever since the DustAway trial began in Tar-Mart stores during the second week of September,
Mary had been in constant contact with members of her extended team who were scattered
across the country, visiting all of the stores participating in the trial. So far they had reported
back positive news the DustAway displays were fully stocked and located prominently in the
stores (thanks to their help), and they had been very successful in stimulating local demand.
Mary was relieved given the amount of pressure she was under from her boss for a successful
launch and attractive distribution deal with Tar-Mart.

Question:
Is it ethical for a company like P&G to use its considerable financial resources to manipulate
sales during a market trial in order to pass the test and secure a retail distribution deal?