Question

Coral Drugs

Shirley Black glanced at her watch. It was 1 p.m. on January the 25th, and only two hours remained before her meeting about Coral Dandruff Shampoo with the vice president of purchasing. As merchandise group coordinator at Coral’s head office in Columbus, Ohio, Shirley was trying to decide whether to recommend switching from a large shampoo manufacturer to a small local supplier.

CORAL DRUGS
Coral Drugs was founded in 1962. Since that time, the company had steadily expanded its chain of retail drug stores throughout the state. Currently, Coral operated 114 stores and planned to add an additional 8 to 10 stores over the next five years. Coral’s retail outlets sold both prescribed and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products as well as other drugstore items. This private company’s strategy was focused on the further expansion of its suc- cessful retail operations. Coral had a strong financial posi- tion and intended to pursue any opportunity that had po- tential to increase its bottom line and was related to its retail operations.

CORAL PRIVATE-LABEL PRODUCTS
One such opportunity was the development of Coral private-label products. Since 1980, the company had ag- gressively developed a line of products carrying the Coral name. Currently, Coral stocked over 200 different private- label products. Coral was proud of its ability to bring a product to its shelves that was comparable in quality to the national brands, but offered at least a 25 percent price savings to the consumer. The company was able to sell at a better price than the national brands because it was buying directly from the manufacturer and its advertising expen- ditures were significantly lower. Examples of successful products included Coral Acetaminophen Tablets and Coral Vitamin Supplements.
Coral private-label products were attractive to the company for several reasons. First, the margin on these products averaged 40 percent as compared with 25 per- cent on national brands. Also, the product line was virtu- ally hassle-free. Apart from the initial supplier approval, the sourcing agreement left the manufacturer responsible for all aspects of product development and investment. Consequently, Coral intended to pursue any growth op- portunities this private labeling offered in the future.

SOURCE SELECTION FOR PRIVATE- LABEL PRODUCTS
Coral private-label products were purchased from 26 dif- ferent suppliers. Several sourcing agreements were in contract form, while others were simply an understand- ing between Coral and the manufacturer. The process for developing a sourcing agreement began with an internally generated idea for a potential private-label product. Once the product idea was approved, Coral announced that it was accepting bids from manufacturing operations that wanted to produce the product. Coral carefully analyzed the potential suppliers to ensure that they were able to pro- vide a consistent product that was comparable in quality to the leading national brands and at a price that would provide satisfactory margins. When the bid was accepted, Coral and the manufacturing company worked together to develop the final product.

Sourcing agreements left the manufacturer responsi- ble for almost all aspects of product development. Based on specifications provided by Coral, these manufactur- ers generated the artwork for the product, designed the packaging, invested in any necessary equipment, and performed quality assurance. Once the product received final approval from Coral, the company simply placed an order for the product when stock was required. The order was then delivered FOB to Coral’s central warehouse and shipped from there to the retail stores. Consequently, this high level of supplier autonomy made annual reevaluation of the sourcing arrangements necessary.

SWITCHING THE SOURCING AGREEMENT FOR CORAL DANDRUFF SHAMPOO
In December, Shirley had reviewed the performance of the company that produced Coral Dandruff Shampoo— Twinney Inc. After several requests from Coral to improve delivery terms, Twinney had indicated that it would not alter the terms originally agreed upon. Many of Coral’s concerns were directly related to the location of Twinney’s manufacturing plant 600 miles to the east. Consequently, in early January, Coral announced that it was accepting bids on the future production of the product. A product specification document was sent to manufacturers that were known to have the capability to produce similar products. Twinney was notified prior to the announcement and was asked to submit a bid along with the others.

TWINNEY INCORPORATED
Under the current sourcing agreement, Coral had to order full skids when purchasing its private-label dandruff sham- poo from Twinney. Each skid held 4,000 units. Although the shampoo was considered an excellent product, vol- umes for the regular, fragranced, and trial-sized products averaged only about 20,000 units each annually. Shirley knew that the inventory carrying cost at Coral was around 2 percent a month, and felt that the company had too much
money tied up in such a low-volume product. Furthermore, the three- to four-week lead time required when placing an order had been causing problems. On several occasions, the Coral central warehouse had been stocked out of the products while waiting for a skid to arrive.
Shirley could not understand why a large company like Twinney would be so unwilling to accommodate Coral’s requests for improved shipping terms. Although there had never been any problems with the consistency or quality of the shampoo Coral received, Shirley Black felt that perhaps more beneficial terms could be offered by a manufacturer located closer to Coral’s warehouse. It seemed like a perfect opportunity because Twinney’s in- jection mold for the product had just broken down and the artwork was due for revision soon. The Twinney sourcing agreement was not in contract form and, therefore, Shirley Black believed Coral was not legally obligated to continue purchasing from Twinney.

GORMAN AND IRIZAWA LTD
Out of the many bids received, the most attractive terms were offered by a young local company, Gorman and Irizawa Ltd. (G & I). The bidder agreed to similar responsibilities as those in the existing Twinney agreement, as well as the same pay- ment terms of 2 percent/10, net 30, FOB Coral’s warehouse. G & I also offered several additional advantages.
The first benefit was the cost of the product. As illus- trated in Exhibit 1, G & I undercut the price Twinney was offering on all three products. This cost differential was made even more attractive by the fact that the prices quoted were for 7-ounce bottles of regular and fragranced product and 3-ounce trial-sized bottles. The leading national brand was offered in similar sizes. The existing agreement with Twinney called for the production of smaller 6-ounce and 2-ounce bottles. Coral’s retail selling price was $1.49 for the regular and fragranced shampoo and $0.89 for a trial- size bottle. Shirley believed this was an excellent opportu- nity to pass on more value to the consumer.
The second advantage was G & I’s shipping flexibility. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the company offered next-day delivery service with no minimum order quantity. G & I was able to offer such favorable terms be- cause its manufacturing facility was located near Coral’s central warehouse.

Shirley believed this was an opportunity to support a small local company. If Coral agreed to source its dandruff shampoo from G & I, the account would be one of G & I’s largest. In a recent tour of the G & I plant, Shirley was impressed by the cleanliness of its manufacturing facilities; however, she could not help comparing the relatively small- scale operation to Twinney’s large shampoo factory.

EXHIBIT 1 Coral Drugs Price and Size Comparison for Coral Dandruff Shampoo

Size: Twinney: Size: Growman &Irazawa:
Regular 6oz. 0.72 7oz. 0.70

Fragrance 6oz. 0.85 7oz. 0.75

Trial 2oz. 0.47 3oz. 0.35

Question: Should the company switch from a large distant shampoo manufacturer to a small low-cost local producer? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The company should definitely switch from the large distant shampoo manufacturer to a small low cost local producer.One of the major purpose for this change will be that the company cost in the obtainment of item will lessen considerably. Besides the company didn't have any control on the creation procedure selected by huge inaccessible producer.There was a significant level of provider independence. Managing the little minimal effort neighborhood maker, Coral will have a high ground.Thus the company will have the option to apply explicit control on the acquisition standards just as quality standards of the cleanser created by the nearby maker. The cash spared in the acquisition procedure can be utilized in bundling and showcasing system of the cleanser, which will make the item progressively alluring to the buyers. . This will be a success win circumstance for Coral Drugs. Consequently the company must change to the little ease neighborhood maker.