Why I Selected Procter & Gamble

For my marketing research project, I selected Procter & Gamble (P&G), a consumer goods company with brands serving household cleaning, personal care, and health needs. Its portfolio includes familiar names such as Tide, Pampers, and Febreze (Procter & Gamble, n.d.). As an aspiring entrepreneur, I am interested in how businesses identify everyday frustrations and decide whether a solution is worth bringing to market.

P&G emphasizes quality, performance, and value in describing its brands (Procter & Gamble, n.d.). Based on that positioning, I would expect customers to want a product that works reliably and justifies its price. An odor-control product would fit the Febreze brand, but research would need to establish whether customers would accept this fragrance-free hanging format and find its features useful.

My Proposed Product: Febreze FreshCheck

My proposed concept is Febreze FreshCheck, a fragrance-free, hanging closet odor absorber with a visible replacement indicator. It would be one slim, self-contained product designed for enclosed storage spaces, including closets and gym lockers.

The product would contain a sealed, solid odor-absorbing insert with no added perfume. Its proposed indicator would change appearance as the absorber approaches the end of its useful life. The intended indicator would reflect remaining effectiveness rather than elapsed time alone. Developing and verifying that function would require technical testing.

The intended benefits are odor reduction without added fragrance, convenient placement, and less uncertainty about replacement. The target audience is U.S. adults who prefer fragrance-free products and manage odors in small storage spaces. Potential users include apartment residents, gym members, and households storing shoes or athletic equipment.

I chose this concept because shoppers may want odor control without a noticeable scent. However, that potential unmet need and frustration about replacement timing must be verified through research.

Research Objectives and Competition

The main research objective is to determine whether FreshCheck should move toward a U.S. launch. Secondary research would estimate the target segment’s size, recent growth, and projected growth rate where reliable data are available.

Primary research would investigate shoppers’ current odor-control products, buying frequency, shopping channels, selection criteria, and willingness to pay. I would ask what customers like and dislike about existing options, what improvements they want, and whether the Febreze name creates expectations about fragrance. Participants would also identify which products they consider alternatives and explain why.

One direct competitor is airBOSS Closet Odor Neutralizing Gel–Fragrance Free (airBOSS, n.d.). Its fragrance-free closet positioning overlaps with FreshCheck’s intended audience. The proposed distinction would be FreshCheck’s hanging solid format and effectiveness-based replacement indicator, rather than fragrance-free odor control alone.

Competitive research would compare features, strengths, weaknesses, target audiences, positioning, price, distribution, and promotion. Available revenue, sales, market share, awards, patents, and lawsuit information would provide additional context. Missing figures would be identified as limitations rather than estimated without evidence.

Proposed Research Design

I would begin with exploratory secondary research, reviewing company websites, retailer listings, industry reports, library databases, and customer reviews. These sources would help assess competitors and external market conditions. Reviews could suggest customer frustrations, but they would not represent all shoppers.

Next, approximately 12–15 qualitative interviews with household odor-control shoppers would explore fragrance preferences, replacement habits, and reactions to a concept illustration. These conversations would help refine the concept and survey questions.

A descriptive quantitative survey of approximately 200 qualified U.S. adults would measure purchase interest, preferred features, price sensitivity, and trust in the indicator. Recruitment would include different ages, incomes, and household types. A convenience sample would provide directional findings rather than nationally representative results.

Finally, technical testing would examine odor reduction and indicator accuracy under different conditions. A small home-use study could evaluate placement, instructions, and whether users understand the replacement signal.

External Factors and the Launch Decision

Legal research would examine applicable labeling requirements and evidence needed to support performance claims. Economic research would explore whether household budgets allow shoppers to pay more for an indicator. Environmental analysis would consider disposal and packaging waste, while technical research would examine whether humidity affects indicator reliability.

Social attitudes toward fragrance-free spaces could influence acceptance. EPA offers a fragrance-free Safer Choice designation for qualifying products; FreshCheck would not automatically qualify (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).

I would recommend proceeding only if research confirms customer demand, workable pricing, effective odor reduction, and a dependable indicator. The research should establish whether the extra feature solves a problem shoppers care enough about to pay for.

References

airBOSS. (n.d.). Closet odor neutralizing gel–fragrance free. https://airboss-aircare.com/product/closet-odor-neutralizing-gel-fragrance-free/

Procter & Gamble. (n.d.). Brands. https://us.pg.com/brands/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions on Safer Choice. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/frequently-asked-questions-safer-choice