harvard business case cadbury & schweppes
DESCRIPTION
IntroductionSWOTPLCPorter’s Five Forces AnalysisBCG MatrixAnsoff’s MatrixFinancial RatiosRecommendationsTRANSCRIPT
CAPTURING CONFECTIONERY
CADBURY SCHWEPPES
UNG PAULMBA INSTITUTE
OUTLINE
• Introduction
• SWOT
• PLC
• Porter’s Five Forces Analysis
• BCG Matrix
• Ansoff’s Matrix
• Financial Ratios
• Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
• Formed by a merger in 1969
• Between a chocolate company and a beverage company.
• £4,960 billion of sales in 2001
• Now it wants is to acquire Adams which is positioned in the gum business.
ISSUES
• Should Cadbury Schweppes buy Adams for $ 4 billions?
• Is their strategy sound enough to create value?
• Do they have the necessary experienced manager to success in the integration of Adams?
SWOT (CADBURY SCHWEPPES)
• 3rd largest beverage company in the world
• 4th largest confectionary companies in the world
• Wide range of products sold over 200 countries
• Already own two gums brand : Hollywood & Dandy
• Strong experience in brands’ acquisitions
• Huge manufacturing and bottling plants (98 factories)
SWOT (ADAMS)
• Facilities configured to take advantage of economies of scale
• Strong mind-set: “Think global, act local”
• Pioneer in the sugar-free gums
• Present in more than 70 countries
• The leading gum brand with Trident
• 116 leadership positions in 33 countries
SWOT (CADBURY AND ADAMS)
• Both Cadbury & Adams faced, since 1999, a decrease in their operating margin
• Cadbury has the lowest P/E ratio of this peer group
• Most of Cadbury production facilities are in Europe, Americas, UK.
• Adams’ sugared gums know a deterioration higher than the market's competitors ones
• Adams needed 24 to 36 months to bring innovations developed in R&D to the market
• Factory costs are 4% higher than its competitors
SWOT (CADBURY TO BUY ADAMS)
• Take possession of the large pattern and knowledge of Adams
• Reach the Latin American market thanks to the well implanted Adams products there
• Take control of the sugar free gum market which has an important margin and market growth (7%)
• Geographic and product range are complementary
• Strong cultural fit between the two company
SWOT (CADBURY & ADAMS)
• Both face really strong competitors
• Inherent risk in the acquisition of a company with huge financial targets to justify the price
• Potential risk of failure in the bid (25% chance to win)
• Adams Brazil had gone from a high margin to a break-even operation
• Cadbury might not have anyone to represent Adams
• Bid is overvalued
• If they lose the bid possibility of being destroyed by the leader-to-come
• Capital cost is higher for gums (6-7% of revenue) than for chocolate (3-4%)
PLC CURVE Adams' sugar gum
Adams' free sugar gum
PORTER’S FIVE FORCES (ADAMS)
• RIVALRY AMONG COMPETITION
- Low switching cost
- Wrigley strong leader
- Fragmented market
HIGH PRESSURE
PORTER’S FIVE FORCES (ADAMS)
• THREAT OF NEW ENTRANTS
- Necessary knowledge and experience- Expenses in R&D are high- Cost of entry is high ( Production facility cost $120M )- Gum is High margin
MEDIUM PRESSURE
• THREAT OF SUBSTITUTES
- Wide range of product such as candy, chocolate…
- But not real substitute
PORTER’S FIVE FORCES (ADAMS)
LOW PRESSURE
• Bargaining power of suppliers
- Sugar is not a standard commodity, difficult to purchase with all the policy (quota…)
- Sugar substitute much easier to purchase
PORTER’S FIVE FORCES (ADAMS)
MEDIUM PRESSURE
• Bargaining power of buyers
• Wide range of product
• Consumers have the choice
• Switching cost is non-existent
PORTER’S FIVE FORCES (ADAMS)
HIGH PRESSURE
THEREFORE THE PORTER’S FIVE FORCES IS:
MEDIUM PRESSURE
BCG MATRIX (CS)
ANSOFF’S MATRIX
FINANCIAL RATIOS
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001D/E
0.36253164556962
0.257476635514019
0.137957317073171
0.1723044397463
0.459000942507069
0.03
0.08
0.13
0.18
0.23
0.28
0.33
0.38
0.43
0.48
D/E
Axis Title
UK Interest rate
• D/E
D/E increase but below 0.5
Good health company
Leverage increase
• Interest
Interest decrease
Leverage increase
- ROE
ROE Increase
ROE 2001= Net income/Equity= 18%
good return on investment
• ROA
Net income/assets= 7.7%
VALUE CREATED (%OF PURCHASE PRICE)
4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.50%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
39% 36% 33% 29% 27% 24%
Value created
THE BID
Pro• Will catch Wrigley in the gum
segment• Distribution channel
opportunities• Cultural Fit • Good relationship with Pfizer• Adams has the same cost
structure than the typical confectionery company
Con• Lack of experience in C-S
management team• Do not succeed with their
existing brands• Adams products have no
margin improvement• U.S market is declining
RECOMMENDATIONS• Buy Adams for $4 billion
• The strategy is sound but the team leadership may not be enough experienced to succeed in this acquisition.
• Unique opportunity to be a market leader
• Finance the acquisition with debt:
Tax benefit
Lower floatation costs
Gives a posit signal to the market
CS is a strong cash generating business
CS is a healthy company
• Keep innovating
• 17 December 2002 : Cadbury Schweppes became the biggest confectionery business in the world.
• March 2008: Demerger between Schweppes and Cadbury Cost £1,2 billion
• February 2010 : Kraft acquired Cadbury
CADBURY SCHWEPPES SINCE 2002