None

As for the case of sales, the sales people had noticed that Plax sales were increasing in the market place, and believed Scope should respond quickly, so they suggested that a brand must be unique and different enough from the competitors in order to be listed in the store shelves, or otherwise the category sales volume would spread over more units.

Also the market research department had worked extensively with Hearst to the options with the consumers, and the results were as following: 1- The Plaque reassurance on current Scope (adding claim) for ex. “Now Scope fights plaque” was unlikely to increase volume of sales, but it could prevent current users from switching. 2- “A better tasting pre-brushing dental rinse” product if launched on this positioning would likely result in approximately 6.5% of the total mouthwash market share, but Hearst supposed that this product might cannibalize somewhere between 2 and 9% of Scope sales. Another problem was that if the product was launched should it be under the name of Scope or not, if the new product was launched under the name of Scope it would confuse the loyal users of Scope and turn them off, since they saw in it a breath refreshment product. So the market researchers suggested that Hearst look at other benefits or alternatives beyond just a “plaque reassurance on scope” or a “a better tasting pre-brushing rinse”

Whereas the point of view from finance, on one hand Plax had a high price so a new rinse might be a profitable option, on the other hand they were concerned about the capital and marketing costs which would increase.

Also the purchasing manager estimated that the cost of the new ingredients of a line extension would increase by $ 2.55 and the packaging would cost $ 0.30.