Consumer Behavior
Case Analysis: L’Oreal of Paris, Plénitude

July 12, 2014
Summer Session II

Jeffrey Domanski
Yasmine Galvez
Amy Lee
John Pantina
Sylvia Xie

1. Please describe Plénitude's position in the US in early 1996. Why has it apparently been less successful than in France when the French "success formula" was used in the US?
Despite a fast entrance into the US market in 1988, when the brand quickly rose to the #2 spot in its market trailing Oil of Olay, by 1996, Plénitude lost its rank to Ponds, faced plateaued sales, and remained unprofitable with losses reaching $12.5M. L’Oreal had released Plénitude in the US with the French “success formula” under the assumption that French success would translate to the US market. However, the implementation of Plénitude’s “Class to Mass” marketing strategy in the US did not have the same effect due to the cultural differences in consumer behavior.
First, L’Oreal did not give US consumers the opportunity to experience the first aspect of the French strategy: feature one “star product” at a time, focus a majority of resources on this product, and then create demand for another product. This product system worked in France because products were released one at a time. However, in the US, the full product line was released simultaneously. US Consumers were overwhelmed with the product choices and do not know which to product to use.
Secondly, the US consumers did not care for the product’s modern advances, negating the second aspect of the strategy to provide evidence of the product’s technological superiority. Rather, US consumers made purchases based on word of mouth; they purchased and trusted Oil of Olay and Ponds because of recommendations from friends and family, whereas French consumers made more knowledgeable and sophisticated decisions in selecting products.
The misalignment with US