It seems that Church and Dwight have tried to exploit the Arm & Hammer name by putting it on many different products. This has diluted the brand name recognition that has made Arm & Hammer synonymous with baking soda.
             Strengths include: Brand name recognition in U. S., variety of uses for product, Davies – CEO experience with company, stock voting requirements, staggered board terms, severance agreements, marketing/consumer products experience on board, environmental policies, environmental friendly product, own consumer research studies, success without advertising.
             Weaknesses include: slow growth attitude, one brand name for many products, weak advertising, weak brand name overseas.
             Opportunities include: Use as a drug for osteoporosis, better advertising, environmental concerns of population/government, dental market, high start up cost of competition, specialty division holding own despite emphasis on consumer division, regulation of solvent based cleaners/paint strippers, pollution control market, foreign markets.
             Threats include: FDA approval on drugs, government regulation on mining, competition/maturity of laundry detergent market.
             Clark & Dwight would seemingly be better off to introduce new products without the brand name of Arm & Hammer. This would dilute the brand name recognition that they enjoy with Arm & Hammer. Perhaps a corner logo of "Arm & Hammer baking soda" would be the tie in. Witness the ease of "Datsun" to "Datsun by Nissan" to "Nissan".
             They also need to study their advertising effectiveness. For example, the toothpaste did well with minimal advertising, what would have happened with even a moderately aggressive ad campaign? Also, the specialty division has held its own despite the emphasis on the consumer division. Perhaps with more emphasis (ads in trade magazines) this could become a growth star.
             ...