P&G also outlined $12 billion to $13 billion in overall
savings that are "risk adjusted" down to $10 billion in case some
aren't realized. And some savings in other areas – including
$7 billion in material, packaging, production and transportations
costs -- will likely be reinvested in marketing. So there are many
moving parts.
"We see over $2 billion in savings opportunities in marketing
spending, with half or more coming from media rates or eliminating
supply-chain waste," said P&G Chief Financial Officer Jon
Moeller on the company's earnings call Wednesday. "We're targeting
up to half a billion more from reducing agency fees and
ad-production costs. And we see about half a billion in sales from
in-store materials, direct-to-consumer programs, and improved
efficiencies in trial and sampling programs."
As with agency fees, the company isn't projecting exactly what
media spending will be five years out – just that it can
squeeze $1 billion or more out of the system. That will come at
least partly through the tougher stand Chief Brand Officer Marc
Pritchard outlined in January on reforming the digital media supply
chain.
The cuts come with P&G in the midst of a comprehensive
review of agency contracts and compensation, including reducing
duplication of staffing and services on the client and agency
sides.
Despite those longer-term cuts, P&G hiked reported
advertising spending last quarter – which includes media and
outside agency fees -- to $1.8 billion from $1.7 billion a year
ago, Moeller said on a call with media this morning. All-in
marketing spending, which includes some costs of in-store
activities and consumer promotion, held steady at $2.6 billion, he
said. So that $2 billion in savings comes out of a pot likely of
around $10 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30.
Second, activist investor Nelson Peltz, as expected
wasn't mentioned, yet still loomed large. Adding missing
details from P&G's cost-cutting strategy may helped blunt
whatever Peltz will describe in an anticipated white paper.
![]()
But P&G didn't help its case by missing on the revenue line,
with organic sales growth up 1% vs. the 1.8% expected by analysts.
Moeller outlined a litany of issues holding down market growth
– including late tax refunds in the U.S., retailers paring
inventories and competitive promotion in advance of the 12% cut in
razor and blade prices that took effect this month.
P&G's grooming business, including razors, was largely
responsible for the miss, with sales down 6% organically. But there
may be less to this miss than meets the eye. The price cut was
announced in February but didn't take effect until April, likely
leading some retailers to cut razor orders last quarter to take
delivery instead this quarter. That could actually spring-load
P&G's sales numbers for this all-important business in the
fiscal fourth quarter during the key Father's Day period for
razors.
Third, P&G has what sounds like a new brand name for
P&G branding: Irresistible Superiority. It begs for
P&G-style acroynym IS. And Moeller gave considerable detail on
what the meaning of IS is.
"This is what will be required in a slow-growth environment in
order to grow markets and market share," he said. "When a consumer
has an Irresistibly Superior experience with our products and
packages, it raises their expectations for performance in the
category. It makes it hard for them to go back to what they were
using before."