Drakkar noir myer

W13478 ELIZABETH ARDEN: EXECUTING GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN RE- ENGINEERING Norman Gao wrote this case under the supervision of Professor David Wood solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmission without its written permission. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail cases@ivey.uwo.ca. Copyright © 2013, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2019-01-14 Pierre Pirard, senior vice-president of Global Supply Chain at Elizabeth Arden in New York City, was troubled with the challenges that lay before him. It was mid-2008 and less than a year after joining Elizabeth Arden, he had already made a significant impact in forecasting, inventory control and service performance. However, Pirard knew that the company would need much more. He was hired to make sweeping changes to how the company managed the supply chain and his next move would require a radical consolidation of suppliers, make dramatic changes to inventory management, have a far-reaching impact on product development and require major lead time reductions. Given such a disruptive move, could current suppliers be able to meet his expectations? Could Elizabeth Arden’s current employees keep up with the pace of change expected? And were significant results to shareholders really achievable? Pirard was determined to execute the re-engineering in a manner that would best address all these concerns. COSMETICS INDUSTRY “Cosmetics” are products used to enhance the appearance or odour of the human body. They are generally mixtures of chemical compounds, some derived from natural sources, many synthetic.1 The practice of caring, cleansing and decoration of the skin has been in existence for over a millennium. For instance, castor oil was used several thousand years ago in ancient Egypt as a protective balm. Galen of Pergamon (AD 129-199), a prominent Roman physician, surgeon and philosopher, developed one of the first precursors of modern skin creams from a mixture of beeswax, olive oil and rosewater (Aqua Rosae). Elizabeth Arden, Helena Rubinstein and Max Factor developed the modern cosmetics market in the United States during the 1910s. These firms were joined by Revlon just before World War II and Estée Lauder shortly after.2 In 2007, the worldwide cosmetics and perfume industry generated an estimated

1 Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2012. 2 Company websites, www.revlon.ca/Revlon-Home/Revlon-Corporate/Corporate.aspx and www.esteelauder.com/cms/about/ index.tmpl, accessed July 15, 2013.

For the exclusive use of A. Bregante, 2020.

This document is authorized for use only by Anthony Bregante in SCM 860 - Summer 2020 taught by JOHN LANGLEY, The Pennsylvania State University from Apr 2020 to Oct 2020.

Page 2 9B13D017 annual turnover of $170 billion.3 Europe was the leading market, representing approximately $86 billion.4 In comparison, the U.S. cosmetics revenue for 2007 was $51.52 billion.5 Market volume information by product category for 2005 in the United States, Europe and Japan is available in Exhibit 1. The manufacture of cosmetics is currently dominated by a small number of multinational corporations that were founded in the early twentieth century, but the distribution and sale of cosmetics is spread among a wide range of different businesses. As of 2004, the top 100 cosmetics manufacturing firms worldwide had a combined market share of $124.5 billion of which the five largest—L’Oréal Group ($17.7 billion), Procter & Gamble Company ($16.5 billion), Unilever ($9.3 billion), Shiseido Company Limited ($5.9 billion) and Estée Lauder Companies, Inc. ($5.8 billion)6—accounted for 44 per cent or $55.2 billion. There were many worldwide distribution channels for cosmetics manufacturers to choose from, including department stores, mass merchandisers, drug stores, TV shopping networks, Internet retailers, distributors, supermarkets and salons. Due to a large portion of the cosmetics industry power being concentrated among a few large companies who all possess significant resources, competition among leading cosmetics manufacturers is fierce. A deep understanding of the drivers of consumer demand (fashion trends, demographics and consumer spending) is needed to build successful brand portfolios, engage positively with consumers and manage available inventory. To capture revenue and market share, cosmetics manufacturers must not only have a clear focus on offering products that are valuable to the eyes of the consumer but also strategically decide between numerous channels to deliver their products to these consumers in an effective manner. Since consumer perception heavily impacts revenue generation, it is common to see dominant cosmetics players enter into licensing agreements or conduct acquisitions in order to obtain brands or to gain access to preferred distribution channels. The structure of these agreements and acquisitions can have a direct effect on materials management. For example, in terms of obtaining brands, Elizabeth Arden acquired Liz Claiborne’s fragrance portfolio in 2008, structured as a long-term licensing deal whereby Elizabeth Arden acquired inventory and hard assets and would pay a royalty stream to Liz Claiborne. In terms of obtaining distribution, a U.S. fragrance manufacturer, Inter Parfums Inc., signed a four-year licensing agreement with the clothing company Gap for international distribution of personal care products through Gap and Banana Republic stores in the United States and abroad as well as in select specialty and department stores internationally.7 A ranking of the top 10 personal care brands and their respective brand value is available in Exhibit 2. Unlike cosmetics manufacturers, suppliers in the cosmetic industry are very fragmented. Cosmetics supplies must comply with the standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which defines and regulates the extremely broad category of cosmetics in the United States. Even when considering only the cosmetic chemicals market, hundreds of suppliers provide the broad array of organic and inorganic chemicals that are the essential ingredients of cosmetics and toiletries.8 To be competitive, suppliers focus on the ability to produce exciting and innovative products, to deliver on time and to integrate with their clients’ supply chain preferences. Also as a result of the abundance of competitors, successful suppliers

3 www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/82987005cp.shtml, Eurostaf, May 2007. 4 2007 average Euro to US$ = 1.37, www.oanda.com/currency/average, accessed June 20, 2013. All monetary amounts are in US dollars unless stated otherwise. 5 Inflation adjusted. “Cosmetic Industry,” Statista Dossier 2012; “Cosmetic & Beauty Products Manufacturing in the US,” 2011, IBISWorld, p. 31. 6 “The Beauty—Top 100,” WWD Beauty Report International, www.scribd.com/doc/3027409/Top-100-Cosmetic- Manufacturers, accessed July 8, 2013. 7 International Cosmetics News (ICN), June 1, 2008, p. 8. 8 “Cosmetic Chemicals,” IHS Markit, accessed June 20, 2013,