The case revolves around market penetration and positioning. Bristol-Myers aims for Datril to enter Tylenol’s market. There are two positioning options. Personally, I find the first option preferable due to the excessive risk associated with the second approach. The first approach suggests positioning Datril as a substitute for Tylenol at an identical price. I believe this strategy carries less risk than the alternative, as it ensures Datril’s presence in the market.
One way to introduce people to Datril is by leveraging the effects of Bristol-Myers’ other analgesic brands like Bufferin and Excedrin, as those who use these brands would have trust in and be willing to try Datril. However, this method may not have a significant impact on customers, which means the company may not gain a large market share. On the contrary, if the second approach proves successful, it would lead to great success for the company.
Datril is anticipated to rapidly acquire a substantial market share and establish itself firmly. Nevertheless, there exists a notable risk linked to this approach. If Tylenol were to reduce its prices to align with those of Datril, it would forfeit its competitive edge. Furthermore, any promotional endeavors such as magazine advertising and TV commercials would lose their efficacy.
It is necessary for the company to modify its commercial advertisements, develop a new strategy, and provide training to employees regarding the updated strategy. Failing to do so may result in Datril being unable to enter the market successfully and potentially exiting it. Consequently, I believe that the first alternative is a superior strategy with lower risk compared to the second option. By adopting this approach, the company can establish itself in the market and sustain its presence. Additionally, the company can pursue other strategies like a flanking attack or a Guerilla attack to increase its market share in the future.
