Major Case: Procter & Gamble, Inc. Scope
             Procter & Gamble, Inc. (P&G) has long sustained a large market share in the mouthwash market. With the Scope brand that P&G had it positioned itself as giving the benefit of providing fresh breathe to the user. Until the entry of Plax, Scope was confident that its line was good enough and did not need any altering. With the entry of Plax, a pre-mouthwash product, P&G felt that it needed to look into its product line and determine if they should expand into a new area that the business had not been in yet.
             Scope determined it had three options to choose from when it came to making a decision on what to do in the market. Scope first could produce a line extension of Scope by adding new ingredients that included the addition of plaque control. This would position itself to compete more along the lines of Plax in addition to its current line. The second option that Scope could choose one would be to add a new product under a different label. This option would give Scope the chance to diverse its products and hopefully compete more with Plax. The final option that Scope could choose would be to stay put with the product it already had. By staying put, Scope would not introduce a new product into the market.
             Each option had its positives and it's negative in each. To begin, the introduction of a line extension of Scope proved to be a decent idea. From market calculations, it was estimated that through the line extension approximately 88,270 units would be sold. This number was derived from taking the projected market of 1,358,000 multiplied by the projected 6.5 percent share of the mouthwash market that the new line extension would have. The number was later used to calculate the total costs endure by P&G if both products were sold simultaneously.
             The line extension would also increase the cost of goods sold. This was determined because through the addition of a new p...