Pepsodent - Charting Growth in Indian Oral Care Market through Segmentation*



Case Code : CLCB004
Publication date : 2005
Subject : Consumer Behavior
Industry : -
Length : 04 Pages
Price : Rs. 100

To download this case click on the button below, and select the case from the list of available cases:

Consumer Behavior
Short Case Studies

Marketing Case Studies**
Case Studies Collection
ICMR Courseware
View Detailed Pricing Info

Key words:

Pepsodent, Colgate-Palmolive (India) Pvt. Ltd., Colgate Dental Cream, Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL), Close-Up, Dishoom-dishoom, Oral care, Unilever, Advertising campaign and Reposition.


* This caselet is intended for use only in class discussions.
** More comprehensive case studies are priced at Rs.200 to Rs.700 (US $5 to US $16) per copy.


ICMR India ICMR India ICMR India ICMR India RSS Feed

Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL), the Indian arm of Unilever, the multinational FMCG major, tried to increase its market share in the Indian oral care market through the launch of its toothpaste brand Pepsodent. The caselet speaks about the methods the company adopted to position Pepsodent as a toothpaste aimed at providing the oral health benefit. The caselet examines the campaigns undertaken by the company to promote the brand among its target market.


The role of product differentiation in making a consumer try out a new product
How competitive advantages get eroded quickly in a marketplace
The need to align oral care awareness programs with promotional campaigns for developing the market for oral care


Colgate-Palmolive (India) Pvt. Ltd. (CPPL) was the company which introduced toothpaste in India with the launch of Colgate Dental Cream (CDC) in 1937.

Till the 1980s, the company faced very little in the way of competition and enjoyed the position of market leader. The early 1980s saw the launch of Promise by the Balsara Group...

Questions for Discussion:

1. Close-Up was one of the earlier toothpastes to be launched in India. It also had a clear positioning - offering the freshness benefit to the consumer. Yet the market share of the brand came down. What are the possible reasons for the decline in the share of Close-Up over the years?

2. What were the advantages that HLL derived by having two brands targeting two different sections of consumers?