The Wall Street Journal today reported that Procter & Gamble’s new CEO, Robert McDonald, had put a number of brands on notice that they had to improve results or risk being sold off.
Many of the brands reviewed, such as Duracell, IAMS and Braun electric appliances, “have long been considered extraneous to P&G’s focus on beauty, health and nonfood household staples,” according to the Journal.
If that’s the case, why is McDonald threatening to sell the brands if they don’t improve results? Why isn’t he just going ahead and selling the brands?
“This business segment is extraneous to our focus, but if it is profitable enough we will keep it,” is not a strategy. It is an anti-strategy. And I would doubt, given the many strategic threats that McDonald is facing, coaxing incremental improvements out of Duracell or IAMS is a place he should be spending any of his management time.
Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thorne-enterprises/292021767/
Original Post: http://caddellinsightgroup.com/blog2/2009/10/pgs-strategic-review-of-brands-isnt-really-strategic/
