A PSDA

On
Statistical Techniques (STAT223)
Submitted to

AMI
AMITY
UNIVERSITY

Amity University Uttar Pradesh

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Technology (Computer Science and Business Systems)
By
AASHI DHUSIA (A023165822028)
KHUSHI JOON(A023165822002)
ASHWIN KUMAR SAHAY (A023165822003)
YASHASHWI KUMAR JAIN (A023165822007)
AASHMMAN GROVER (A023165822026)

Under the guidance of

DR. PRIYANK SRIVASTAVA

Amity School of Engineering and Technology

Department of Information and Technology
Amity University Uttar Pradesh
 CASE DESCRIPTION
SOAPCOMPANY
Procter & Gamble has been the leading soap manufacturer in the United States since 1879, when
it introduced Ivory soap. However, late in 1991, its major rival, Lever Bros. (Unilever), overtook
it by grabbing 31.5% of the $1.6 billion (about $5 per person in the US)personal soap market, of
which Procter & Gamble had a 30.5% share. Lever Bros. had trailed Procter & Gamble since it
entered the soap market with Lifebuoy in 1895. In 1990, Lever Bros. introduced a new soap,
Lever 2000, into its product mix as a soap for the entire family. A niche for such a soap had been
created because of the segmentation of the soap market into specialty soaps for children, women,
and men. Lever Bros. felt that it could sell a soap for everyone in the family. Consumer response
was strong: Lever 2000 rolledup $I13 million in sales in 1991, putting Lever Bros. ahead of
Procter & Gamble for the first time in the personal-soap revenue contest. Procter & Gamble still
sells more soap, but Lever's brands cost more, thereby resulting in greater overall sales. Procter
& Gamble was quick to search for a response to the success of Lever 2000. Procter & Gamble
looked at several possible strategies, including repositioning Safeguard, which has been seen as a
male soap. Ultimately, Procter &Gamble responded to the challenge by introducing its Oilof
Olay Moisturizing Bath Bar. In its first year of national distribution, this product was backed by
a $24 million media effort. The new bath bar was quite successful and helped Procter & Gamble
regain market share. These two major companies continue to battle it out for domination in the
personal soap market, along with the Dial Corporation and Colgate-Palmolive. Shown below are
sales figures in a recent year for personal soaps in the United States. Each of these soaps is
produced by one of four soap manufacturers: Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Dial, and Colgate
Palmolive. In 1983, the market shares for soap were Procter &Gamble with 37.1%,Lever Bros.
(Unilever) with 24%, Dial with 15%, Colgate-Palmolive with 6.5%, and all others with 17.4%.
By 1991,the market shares for soap were Lever Bros. (Unilever) with 31.5%, Procter & Gamble
with 30.5%, Dial with 19%, Colgate-Palmolive with 8%, and all others with 11%.
Sales
Soap Manufacturer (Smillions)
Dove Unilever 271
Dial Dial 193
Lever 2000 Unilever 138
Irish Spring Colgate-Palmolive 121
Zest Procter 8& Gamble 115
Ivory Procter 8& Gamble 94
Caress Unilever 93
Olay Procter & Gamble 69
Safeguard Procter & Gamble 48
Coast Dial 44

Discussion
 CASE DESCRIPTION
SOAP COMPANY

Procter & Gamble has been the leading soap manufacturer in the United States since 1879, when
itintroduced Ivory soap. However, late in 1991, its major rival, ILever Bros. (Unilever), overtook
it by grabbing 31.5% of the$1.6 billion (about $5 per person in the US) personal soap market, of
which Procter &Gamble had a 30.5% share. Lever Bros. had trailed Procter &Gamble since it
entered the soap market with Lifebuoy in 1895. In 1990, Lever Bros. introduced a new soap.
Lever 2000, into its product mix as a soap for the entire family. Aniche for such a soap had been
created because of the segmentation of the soap market into specialty soaps for children, women,
and men. Lever Bros. felt that it could sell a soap for everyone in the family. Consumer response
was strong; Lever 2000 rolled up $113 million in sales in 1991, putting Lever Bros. ahead of
Procter & Gamble for the first time in the personal-soap revenue contest. Procter &Gamble still
sells more soap, but Lever's brands cost more, thereby resulting in greater overall sales. Procter
&Gamble was quick to search for aresponse to the success of Lever 2000. Procter &Gamble
looked at several possible strategies, including repositioning Safeguard, which has been seen as a
male soap. Ultimately, Procter &Gamble responded to the challenge by introducing its Oilof
Olay Moisturizing Bath Bar. In its first year of national distribution, this product was backed by
a $24 million media effort. The new bath bar was quite successful and helped Procter & Gamble
regain market share. These two major companies continue to battle it out for domination in the
personal soap market, along with the Dial Corporation and Colgate-Palmolive. Shown below are
sales figures in a recent year for personal soaps in the United States. Each of these soaps is
produced by one of four soap manu facturers: Unilever, Procter &Gamble, Dial, and Colgate
Palmolive. In 1983.the market shares for soap were Procter &Gamble with 37.1%, Lever Bros.
(Unilever) with 24%, Dial with 15%, Colgate-Palmolive with 6.5%, and all others with 17.4%.
By 1991, the market shares for soap were Lever Bros. (Unilever) with 31.5%, Procter & Gamble
with 30.5%, Dial with 19%, Colgate-Palmolive with 8%, and allothers with 11%.
Sales
Soap Manufacturer (S millions)
Dove Unilever 271
Dial Dial 193
Lever 2000 Unilever 138
Irish Spring Colgate- Paimolive 121
Zest Procter & Gamble 115
Ivory Procter & Gamble 94
Caress Unilever 93
Olay Procter & Gamble 69

Safeguard Procter & Gamble 48

Coast Dial 44

Discussion
 Questions For Discussion
Discussion 1. Suppose you are making areport for Procter &Gamble displaying their share of
the market along with the share of other companies for the years 1983. 1991, and the latest
figures. Using either Excel or Minitab, produce graphs for the market shares of personal soap for
each of these years. For the latest figures data, assume that the all others total is about $|19
million. What do you observe about the market shares of the various companies by studying the
graphs? How is Procter &Gamble doing relative toprevious years?
Discussion 2. Suppose Procter & Gamble sells about 20 million bars of soap per week, but the
demand is not constant and production management would like to get a better handle on how
sales are distributed over the year. Let the following sales figures given in units of million bars
represent the sales of bars per week over one year. Construct a histogram to represent these data.
What do you see in the graph that might be helpful to the production (and sales) people?

17.1 19.6 15.4 17.4 15.0 18.5 20.6 18.4

20.0 20.9 19.3 18.2 14.7 17.1 12.2 19.9
18.7 20.4 20.3 15.5 16.8 19.1 20.4 15.4
20.3 17.5 17.0 18.3 13.6 39.8 20.7 21.3
22.5 21.4 23.4 23.1 22.8 21.4 24.0 25.2
26.3 23.9 30.6 25.2 26.2 26.9 32.8 26.3
26.6 24.3 26.2 23.8

Discussion 3.Arandom sample of finished soap bars in their packaging is tested for quality. All
defective bars are examined for problem causes. Among the problems found were improper
packaging, poor labeling, bad seal, shape of bar wrong, bar surface marred, wrong color in bar,
wrong bar fragrance, wrong soap consistency, and others. Some of the leading problem causes
andthe number of each are given here. Use a Pareto chart to analyze these problem causes.
Based on your findings, what would you recommend to the company?
Problem Cause Frequency
Bar surface 89
Color 17
Fragrance
Label 32
Shape
Seal 47
Labeling 5
Soap consistency 3
 SOLUTION
DISCUSSION 1:

Row Labels PERCENTAGE

COLGATE PALMOLIVE 6.5
DIAL 15
OTHERS 17.4
PROCTER&GAMBIE 37.1
UNILEVER 24
Grand Totel 100

PORCEKTAGE

Total(1983)

25

15
10
Total

EVER
P R O C T
&GE R
A
. M B L E

o L G APTAEL. U M o u V E

tHERS
N E L

MANUF ACTURER

Row Labels Sum of PERCENTAGE

COL GATE-PALMO|VE 8
DIAL 19
OTHERS 11
PROCTER & GAMBLE 30.5
UNILEVER 31.5
Grand Total 100

Sum of PERCENTAGE

Total(1991)
33
20

2:

13

s Total

G A M B L E
A G APT A
E U M O v E

&

p R O C T E

coLGA

MANLFACTURER
 Row Labels Sum of SALES(MILLIONS)
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE 121
DIAL 237
OTHERS 119
PROCTER&GAM8LE 326
UNILEVER 502
Grand Total 1305

Sum of SALES(MALIOns)

Total(Recent)
600

300

200

100
Total

A T
P A
EL- M O U V E
P R O C T
& E
G R
A M B L E UNL
VEER

cOLGATE

MAIIUFACTURER

Row Labels PERCENTAGES

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE 9.3
DIAL 18.1
OTHERS 9.1
PROCTER & GAMBLE 25
UNILEVER 38.5
Grand Total 100

PERCENTAGES

Total(Recent)

30
25

5 Total
P R O C T
& E
G RA M B L E

o T H E R S
c O L G A T E . P A L M O L V E
UNIEVER

MANUFACTURER
GRAPH 1- Percentage:
-Shows the proportion of market share each manu facturer holds relative to the total market.
-Helps identify the relative dominance or decline of each company over time.

GRAPH2- Sum of Percentage:

-Provides the total market share accounted for by allmanufacturers.
-Useful for understanding the overalldistribution of market share among competitors.
GRAPH3- Sum of Sales:
-Indicates the total sales revenue generated by the personal soap market.
-Helps assess the size and growth of the market over time.
GRAPH 4- Percentage:
-Represents the market share percentage of each manufacturer.
-Offers a visual comparison of the market shares of different companies across time periods

We observed that Procter &Gamble's performance relative to previous years is notable, showing
fluctuations inmarket share. In carlier years, Procter &Gamble held a dominant position in the
market but faced challenges in maintaining this position due to the emergence of strong
competitors like Unilever and Dial. However, through strategicinitiatives such as introducing
new products like Oilof Olay Moisturizing Bath Bar, Procter &Gamble managed to regain
market share and stabilize its position. The graphs indicate a pattern of resilience and
adaplability on the part of Procter &Gamble, demonstrating its ability to respond effectively to
changes in consumer preferences and competitive pressures. While facing stiff competition,
Procter &Gamble continues to be a key player in the soap market, with its market share showing
fluctuations over time but remaining significant in the industry landscape.
 DISCUSSION 2:
154
15.5
15.5
18.2
18 2 hart ltle
18 4
18 5
18 5
19 1
19 1
193
203
204
209
214
214
214
23 1
23 1
23 4
238
23 8

239
24 3
25 2
25 2
25 2
26 2
26 3
26 9
269
30 6

-The histogram illustrates the distribution of weekly soap sales over the year
-Most weeks fal with1n the range of 18 malion to 24 milion bars of soap. indicating a
relatively consistent demand during these periods
-There are a few weeks with lower sales fiqures (15 malion to 18 million) and a few with
higher sales figures (24 million to 30 million)
-The data is somewhat rnghtly skewed with a tail towards the higher sales figures
 DISCUSSION 3:
problem cause cf
frequency percentage
bar surface 89 89 44%
seal 47 136 679%
label 32 168 836
color 17 185 91%
shape 8 193 956
labeling 5 198 98%
soap consistency 3 201 99%
fragrance 2 203 100%
203

100
120%
90
80 999%100% 100%
70
80%
60
67%
50
60%
44%
30 409%

209%

096
ha
srurtace
grance

Irag

frequency percentage

The Pareto chart would visually demonstrate that most of the

problems are concentrated in a few
areas, notably bar surface. seal. and label issues, which together
account for over 80% of the
defects. Based on these findings:
Focus on Bar Surface Quality: Since bar surface defects are the most
frequent, efforts should
primarily focus on improving theprocess related to bar surface quality.This could involve
reviewing manufacturing procedures, equipment maintenance, and quality control measures to
ensure that bars meet the desired standards.
Address Seal Issues: The next priority should be to address seal-related problems. This may
involve inspecting and maintaining sealing equipment, training staff on proper sealing techniques,
and implementing quality checks to ensure seals are properly applied.
Improve Labeling: Given the significant number of defects related to labeling, attention should
be given toimproving labeling processes. This might include using better labeling materials,
implementing stricter quality control procedures for labeling, and providing training to staff
involved in labeling operations.