Unilever has experienced a roller coaster of marketing successes and failures over the last 5 years. Initially, its new five-year strategic plan entitled “Path to Growth” was particularly promising and predicted success. The main objective of this plan was to eliminate Unilever's "tail" brands and place more emphasis on those that were market leaders. Niail Fitzgerald believes that too many brands often confuse the customer and thus lead to poor purchasing decisions. The paradox of choosing between Unilever products had to be resolved. This resulted in a dramatic reduction of more than 1,200 small brands, the closure of 138 production facilities and the loss of 51,800 jobs. The main financial objectives of this plan were to improve the sales growth of premium brands (which represented 90% of their annual turnover) by 5 to 6% per year, to achieve an operating margin of more than 16% per year and achieve double-digit annual earnings per share growth. Unilever wanted to change its operations and follow a more differentiated and dynamic strategy of offering a service rather than a selection of products. This aligns with PIMS which shows that sales and market share growth for brands is directly linked to innovation and that without a comprehensive customer focus, market share and ROI will suffer. Unilever also believes that by taking an innovative approach to its brands, it will experience continued sales growth. Unilever is also reportedly restructuring its organization and seeking to cut many of its suppliers in a bid to cut costs and simplify the supply chain. This tactic, accompanied by factory and job cuts, would allow them to use the extra money for the promotion of high-end brands and move to middle of paper ......e for development and marketing of their new drug against osteoporosis. , Actonel. However, feedback was initially poor as patients complained about the size and requirements of taking the pill. Once again responding to consumer desires and demands, P&G developed a weekly form of the drug that was just as effective under the treatment conditions but also more convenient. The outlook looks very positive for P&G. They have created a comprehensive brand portfolio that appeals to a broad consumer base and have invested capital in developing markets. Financial forecasts are excellent and sales growth reached 19% in the beauty market last year. They have a clear strategy and structure in which to apply their market knowledge. Unlike Unilever, it's P&G's innovation and consumer engagement that keeps them ahead, not brand elimination, cost cutting, and market uncertainty.'.