Proctor and Gambles Takeover of Gillette Case Study

Proctor and Gambles Takeover of Gillette - Case Study Example Kilts needed to ensure that the long-term profitability of Gillette continued, with three well-known brands in its portfolio it was at a disadvantage to companies like P&G which had approximately 150 major brands. To ensure sustainability and future profitability for the shareholders of Gillette he approached the merger with Lafley and P&G in 2002 originally and then subsequently in 2004. The opportunities resulting from this merger included a solid return for current shareholders as well as future profitability for P&G and Gillette as a singular business under the P&G name. Unfortunately, the problems included public reaction which was seen in media attacks following the merger in 2005 as well as the state of Massachusetts. Additionally, the possibility of losing money for shareholders if the deal turned out badly was an ever-present threat. However, the opportunities for profit and a mutually beneficial future for both companies outweighed the potential problems. Between both compa nies, there were defined market shares; P&G did not really hold a market share in razors, toothbrushes, and batteries though it did maintain a large market share in other similar products that would allow it to combine the three Gillette brands into its portfolio and profit. Gillette was more adept at marketing to men, while P&G was more adept at marketing to women. Additionally were the burgeoning foreign markets and the need for increased market shares in those areas. P&G is skilled in marketing and maintaining a significant presence in China while Gillette maintained large market shares in India and Brazil. With this evidence supporting the net benefit of a merger of interests, there does not seem to be much that could improve that.