Harvard Case Study - Sealed Air Corporation - Business

11/7/11 8:33 AM

Harvard Case Study - Sealed Air Corporation

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Sealed Air corporation is committed to market leadership through technological innovation. Ten years ago, the company was first to market with a highly successful coated air-bubble packaging protection product, AirCap. However, market trends indicate a rapid displacement of coated bubble by a technologically inferior yet inexpensive uncoated product. Burgeoning demand for uncoated bubble poses a direct threat to the long-term viability of the technologically superior, premium priced AirCap. Thus Sealed Air is situated at a critical standpoint. It can either continue to deal exclusively in the manufacture of high-end coated bubbles emphasizing performance over price, or segment the market by introducing an inferior, inexpensive uncoated bubble. To this end, this report will analyze the industry, competition, and company internal environment to assess the viability of targeting this low-end market segment. A strategic marketing plan for launching an uncoated product will follow. 2.0 SITUATION ANALYSIS 2.1 Industry Analysis ---state growing market. The protective packaging industry can be segmented three ways by use: positioning, block, and bracing; flexible wraps; and void fill. Coated (e.g., AirCap) and uncoated air bubble products serve the flexible wrap and void fill markets (refer to Glossary). The flexible wrap market, which dwarfs void fill as measured by annual sales, is of primary concern to Sealed Air and will thus constitute the focus of this report. Protective packaging is sold to organizational customers through select distributor networks via personal selling. Sales commissions for AirCap are set at 2%. Often, manufacturers must have a regional presence to be successful in a given locale. Distributors aspire to be full-line housescapable of meeting a customers complete packaging needs. As a result, larger distributors typically carry competitive products. Margins on product resale is generally higher than 10%. The proliferation of packaging products and poor product education has caused confusion among end users. US consumers have traditionally viewed packaging supplies
http://www.reviewessays.com/print.html?id=51342 Page 1 of 5

Harvard Case Study - Sealed Air Corporation - Business

11/7/11 8:33 AM

as a cost-saving resource. Consequently, packaging engineers are accorded high status and influence roughly 40% of material purchase decisions. The US market is experiencing strong growth, driven in part by the growth of the coated and uncoated bubbles segment. However, AirCaps market share remains stagnant (Appendix A). It is apparent that a growing segment of end users are willing to forgo product quality for a lower price. European firms, in particular, are price conscious and less technically oriented; many firms view packaging supplies as expendable commodities. This has enabled manufacturers of technically inferior, inexpensive uncoated bubble to coopt AirCap customers with increasing success (Appendix B). 2.2 Competitive Analysisthere are many minor ones.GAFCEL in NY Sealed Air faces both direct and indirect competition in the flexible wrap market. Astro Packaging is the only other producer of coated bubbles in the US; it also serves the low-end of the market with uncoated bubbles. GAFCEL recently began manufacturing uncoated bubbles in the eastern US, and has gained access to several AirCap distributors. In Europe, Sansetsu has substantial ($6 M) sales for its high-quality uncoated product. Despite the lower price of uncoated bubbles, the above competitors each have strategic weakness that leave them vulnerable to a strategic attack by Sealed Air should it enter the uncoated segment. Astro is limited by the fact that it is a Sealed Air licensee and manufacturers an inferior product. As a small producer, GAFCEL lacks a regional presence beyond New York State. Similarly, Sansetsu lacks the financial resources and global reach of Sealed Air. Refer to Appendix C for a complete competitive analysis. Indirect competition stems from paper-based products (e.g., cellulose wadding), and foams (e.g. polyurethane). Yet tests prove AirCap more effective and cheaper. 2.3 Internal Analysis Sealed Airs strengths lie in its technological leadership, which include a number of manufacturing process patents. The company has a strong global presence, and owns SIBCO, the only marketer of uncoated bubbles in France. The company has a consumer orientation, strong sales, loyal distributors, and a knowledgeable
http://www.reviewessays.com/print.html?id=51342 Page 2 of 5

Harvard Case Study - Sealed Air Corporation - Business

11/7/11 8:33 AM

commission-based sales force that specializes in consultative selling. Sealed Airs weakness include a product portfolio that excludes uncoated bubble and is so broad it overburdens its sales personnel. The prime opportunity in the market is for the company to leverage its strengths to enter the uncoated bubble segment. The rapid displacement of coated by uncoated bubble constitutes a salient threat. A detailed SWOT analysis can be found in Appendix D. 3.0 SEGMENT EVALUATION 3.1 Arguments in Favour of Introducing Uncoated Bubble It is of critical importance that Sealed Air address the threat presented by the growth of the uncoated bubble segment, which outstrips that of coated bubble in the US and Europe. Serving the lower end of the market is consistent with the companys customer-focused market leadership and provides distributors with a full-line of product. In addition, there appear to be a number of segments that may be serviced by uncoated bubble (e.g., the in. GAFCEL bubble is comparable to Sealed Air s ST/SD-120 for light loads) . Further, uncoated bubble would require minimal capital as the company possesses the requisite equipment and knowledge. Refer to Appendix E for more detail. 3.1 Arguments Against Introducing Uncoated Bubble Introducing uncoated bubble is contrary to the companys emphasis on technological leadership. With comparable production costs and margins to GAFCEL, Sealed Air possess no unique manufacturing or cost advantages that underlie competitive advantage. A key concern involves negative affect or cannibalization of AirCap sales. Distributors who have already complained about below-par selling efforts of AirCap and too many grades of bubble may be unreceptive to taking yet another product to market. Given the companys selective distribution network, it is important that distributors remain committed to Sealed Air. At the customer level, the manufacture of inexpensive, low-performance bubble may debase the premium image of the company and AirCap. However, market shifts and the growth of the uncoated segment cannot be ignored. Sealed Air must enter this market to sustain long-term leadership of flexible wrap. The following marketing plan will address the above issues to ensure success.

http://www.reviewessays.com/print.html?id=51342

Page 3 of 5

Harvard Case Study - Sealed Air Corporation - Business

11/7/11 8:33 AM

4.0 STRATEGY Sealed Airs objective remains to challenge for market leadership as a follower in a growing market. Sealed Air may pursue five strategic avenues: frontal attack, leapfrog strategy, flanker strategy, encirclement strategy, or guerrilla attack. A largescale frontal attack presents the most harmonious fit with the companys objectives and best leverages its superior distribution, sales, and financial resources to put the competition at a disadvantage. Refer to Appendix E for a detailed evaluation of all strategic alternatives. 5.0 MARKETING PLAN TACTICS 5.1 Product To mitigate cannibalization of AirCap, successful positioning requires that Sealed Air differentiate its uncoated and coated products in eye of the consumer. Uncoated bubble packaging should differ in quality, colour and design, and should signify a bubble of respectable, yet lower class. At the same time, it is important to leverage positive associations with the Sealed Air name. Similar to a flanker strategy, the uncoated bubble should maintain a distant association with Sealed Air (e.g., SoftWrap by Sealed Air). Conversely, this will help maintain AirCaps premium image. Refer to Appendix F for a packaging prototype. To appease distributors and prevent , the company must remain cognizant of the size of its product portfolio. Three lower grades of uncoated bubble (e.g., SC, ST and SD) should be manufactured in the short-term. The company should eliminate its two lightest grades (i.e., A-100 and SB-110) which are likely to be cannibalized in the longterm due to the similar performance of uncoated grades for light loads. 5.2 Place A successful frontal attack requires large-scale market introduction, wide scale distribution, and increased levels of service. SIBCO should be the hub of production for uncoated European product; established relations must be leveraged to widen European distribution. Sealed Air should provide these distributors with a full line of productincluding AirCapto limit the distribution of competitive products. . 5.3 Price would be able to withstand price drop due to financial stability.
http://www.reviewessays.com/print.html?id=51342 Page 4 of 5

Harvard Case Study - Sealed Air Corporation - Business

11/7/11 8:33 AM

Distributor and retail prices should initially be set slightly below competition in the European market to induce switching among price-sensitive consumers. In the longterm, prices should be set at par. US prices should be set at par in the short-term. To increase sales across the entire product portfolio and prevent cannibalization, purchasers should be afforded truckload discounts for any order above 50,000 sq. ft., regardless of grade or coating. A competitive pricing scheme can be found in Appendix G. 5.4 Promotion A frontal attack requires increased promotional spending. The focus must remain on consultative personal selling through company sales representatives. In the shortterm, the overburdened sales force headcount should be increased by 15% to 71 persons. To eliminate confusion among end users, selling must also be educational in nature, outlining product line differences to ensure inexpensive SoftWrap is not used on heavy loads for which it is inappropriate. To successfully launch SoftWrap and appease distributors calls for a more concerted selling effort for AirCap, a reallocation of representatives time should be as follows: 30% to SoftWrap, 40% to AirCap, and 30% to Instapak and other peripheral products. SoftWrap sales commissions should be set at 4% net to reflect its lower retail price. This will provide commissions equal to AirCap. In particular, promotions should target consumer who use paper-products and foams. Leveraging the companys highly trained sales personnel, relative benefits and long-term cost savings afforded by superior bubble product should be stressed. Additional promotional efforts should include direct mailings to potential clients in the US and Europe. Importantly, all promotional efforts must target packaging engineers. 6.0 CONCLUSION The apparent market trends cannot be ignored. Sealed Air must enter the uncoated market to maintain its leadership position. Using a frontal attack, it can achieve its objective and minimize associated issues by differentiating its product, leveraging its international ties, undercutting prices, and improving its promotional efforts.

http://www.reviewessays.com/print.html?id=51342

Page 5 of 5