Subject category:
Case Method and Specialist Management Disciplines
Published by:
Harvard Business Publishing
Version: 21 April 1995
Length: 12 pages
Data source: Field research
Share a link:
https://casecent.re/p/45274
Write a review
|
No reviews for this item
This product has not been used yet
Abstract
Minnetonka Corporation which was founded in 1964, began as a niche player in the gift soap and novelty toiletries markets. In 1980, it entered - and managed to capture a piece of - the mass bar-soap market with pump-dispensed Softsoap liquid soap. In 1984, the company took on the toothpaste market with plaque-fighting, pump-dispensed Check-Up. This time, success was more fleeting. Minnetonka launched the hugely successful Obsession fragrance in 1985, following up with Eternity in 1988. Minnetonka''s various businesses were sold over the period 1987 to 1989. Analysis suggests that the key is the use of scope - starting a new game linked to an existing game in which rival players are already established. Analysis indicates that rivals may then deliberately choose to delay imitating the innovator if they view the innovation as: (1) sufficiently unlikely to succeed in the marketplace; and (2) sufficiently close a substitute to their existing products. A rewritten version of an earlier case.
Location:
Industry:
About
Abstract
Minnetonka Corporation which was founded in 1964, began as a niche player in the gift soap and novelty toiletries markets. In 1980, it entered - and managed to capture a piece of - the mass bar-soap market with pump-dispensed Softsoap liquid soap. In 1984, the company took on the toothpaste market with plaque-fighting, pump-dispensed Check-Up. This time, success was more fleeting. Minnetonka launched the hugely successful Obsession fragrance in 1985, following up with Eternity in 1988. Minnetonka''s various businesses were sold over the period 1987 to 1989. Analysis suggests that the key is the use of scope - starting a new game linked to an existing game in which rival players are already established. Analysis indicates that rivals may then deliberately choose to delay imitating the innovator if they view the innovation as: (1) sufficiently unlikely to succeed in the marketplace; and (2) sufficiently close a substitute to their existing products. A rewritten version of an earlier case.
Settings
Location:
Industry: