Recent orders
Cost Accounting
Cost Accounting
Cost-Volume-Profit analysis also abbreviated as CVP refers to a model in cost accounting usually very useful when it comes to the making of short run decisions as well as in the provision of elementary instruction. The model is especially important as it allows for the estimation of future costs, revenues and profits, therefore allowing for planning and effective monitoring of operations. The model itself entails examination of changes in profits as a result of changes in the prices, costs and sales volumes. This not only allows for planning on levels of operating activity to be used in future, but also helps in providing information on products to be emphasized on, revenues required to avoid making losses, budgets for discretionary expenditures that may arise, whether fixed costs need to be increased, the volumes of sales that would enable the organization realize its target profit margins as well as whether or not the fixed costs currently being utilized expose the organization to a level of risk that may be unacceptable (“Cost Volume Profit Analysis,” n.d).
CVP can be used for the tablet simulation in order to determine the relationship between volumes of sales and the profits, as well as the costs involved in the making of each model. For instance, making the X6 costs less than making an X5 by 27,674,418, and yet the profit differences are just 6,411458, a meager profit difference, considering the cost and volumes of sales for the two products. The best product to concentrate on therefore based on Cost-Volume-Profit analysis would therefore be X6 tablets, as they cost less to produce, require lesser sales volumes to create the target profit margins, making them the ideal product out of the three.
Utilizing this information when it comes to the break even analysis definitely helps, as it means that concentrating on the production of X6 will allow for an earlier break even point, due to the fact that it requires less costs to produce and realizes the required profits at lower volumes of sales a definite advantage if one considers the need to break even. The risk associated with losses is also lower, meaning that breaking even would come sooner if the X6 tablet was the only product being produced by the company. Using CVP in break even analysis is therefore of tremendous value, as it would help the company reduce the number of units required to be sold in order to break even by encouraging adoption of the best and most prudent market strategy.
CVP can help in determining pricing, by allowing for projections on future sales and their relation to pricing. This can therefore help determine whether the best market strategy is to target huge sales volumes, or lower sales volumes with higher profit margins. CVP would also help determine the probability of a new product performing well and therefore the need for more research and development, while at the same time allowing for projections on potential costs.
The other financial technique that might be of help in the simulation data is the differential cost analysis, as this would only focus on the costs that are associated with each product, as well as the differences ion income associated with each product, and a decision on the best course of action made based on this information (Rajasekaran, 2010).
References
Rajasekaran, V. (2010). Cost Accounting. Pearson.
n.a, (n.d). Cost Volume Profit Analysis. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://www.wiley.com/college/sc/eldenburg/ch03.pdf” http://www.wiley.com/college/sc/eldenburg/ch03.pdf
HYPERLINK “http://forio.com/simulate/jelson/tablet-development-sim-1/simulation/#p=page1” http://forio.com/simulate/jelson/tablet-development-sim-1/simulation/#p=page1
Cosmological Proof Of The Existence Of God
Cosmological Proof Of The Existence Of God
Thomas Aquinas proposed the cosmological proof of the existence of God, which was founded on the concept of the ‘first cause’ (Mosser 1). As Aquinas explains everything that exists today has been created by a person, and for that reason, because human beings are also creations of another, then there must be a supreme being that was responsible for the creation of humanity. Using his observation on the complexity and sophisticated engineering that characterizes the human and animal body, Aquinas argues that there must exist another being that is involved in the creation of humanity (Mosser 1). The primary principle of this theory is that something must have caused humanity and the rest of the universe to exist, and for that reason, God must exist. Without the existence of a being to create humanity and the rest of the animals on earth, then it would be impossible to explain where humanity originated from. In essence, Aquinas’ theory of the existence of God argues that human beings are too complex to have formed on their own.
A closer and critical examination of the ideas presented by Aquinas as compared to the works of other philosophers, the cosmological proof of God’s existence seems as the most viable explanation with regards to the existence of God. This is because of various reasons such as the fact that the theory recognizes God as a supreme being. According to the cosmological theory of God’s existence God is referred to as being supreme since he is responsible for the creation of humanity. Most opposers argue that this theory contradicts itself because it argues for the first cause but does not explain where God came from or who created this being called “God”. The argument here is that if indeed everything must have been caused by something, then it is only logical that God must have also been caused by another being. However, though such arguments may appear to have a concrete case, they fail to realize that God is a supreme being and cannot be compared to human beings and animals. This theory is also closely associated with the traditional religious theories regarding the existence of God, thus making it the most viable explanation regarding the existence of God. The theory carries both philosophical and religious connotations, thus can easily be understood by individuals. It allows people to critically think about God and his existence and does not fall short of illustrating his supremacy above the rest of the universe. It allows people to critically think about the well-famed question “What Came First, The Chicken or The Egg”, and because no one can find a logical answer for this question, the only explanation is the existence of a God (Mosser 1).
Philosophy is centered on finding answers to questions that human beings have been trouble with throughout history. By trying to prove the existence of God, philosophers assist human beings to make sense of the world and the existence of everything in the universe. Without providing proof of the existence of God, human beings would lose meaning in their lives and they will not live in the fear of God hence causing a considerable amount of chaos. It is, therefore necessary for philosophers to provide such proofs as it assures a balance in the world and inhibits chaos and destruction.
Work Cited
Mosser K. A concise Introduction to Philosophy. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education Inc, 2001.
Print.
Cosmetics Product Characteristics
Cosmetics
Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u HYPERLINK l “_Toc378044512” Product Characteristics PAGEREF _Toc378044512 h 1
HYPERLINK l “_Toc378044513” Key Products PAGEREF _Toc378044513 h 1
HYPERLINK l “_Toc378044514” How do the competitors differentiate? PAGEREF _Toc378044514 h 2
HYPERLINK l “_Toc378044515” Pricing Characteristics PAGEREF _Toc378044515 h 2
HYPERLINK l “_Toc378044516” Promotional Characteristics PAGEREF _Toc378044516 h 2
HYPERLINK l “_Toc378044517” Competitive Rivalry PAGEREF _Toc378044517 h 3
HYPERLINK l “_Toc378044518” References PAGEREF _Toc378044518 h 4
Competitive analysis for beauty products that target skin and face markets as operated by three main players namely; Procter and Gamble, Unilever and L’Oreal USA Incorporated.
Product CharacteristicsProcter and Gamble face and skin products stand out in the market with a strong brand name that captures both the male and female market segments in a separate perspective. The higher market end that the Company has been able to colonize attracts very competitive product prices with a wide variety of products.
Unilever has fewer face and skin products that the company has concentrated on, mainly advocating for its skin food and natural appeal on its skin products. Both the middle end and lower end market features for skin products are captured at Unilever.
L’Oreal USA Incorporated has the least of the market presence in terms of brand varieties. However, its concentration in “Active Cosmetics” only clearly defines an accurately manageable scope that taps both beauty and pharmacy client ends.
Key Products
Procter and Gamble key skin and face product varieties include; Braun, Covergirl, DDF, Fusion, Gillette, Mach3, Olay, Old Spice, about 9 Prestige fragrance products, Prestobarba/Blue, SK-II and Venus (Procter and Gamble, 2011).
Unilever key products in skin and face market include Pond’s creams, Pond’s Cleanser, Brut, Dove, Impulse, Lynx brands, Lux shampoos, Lux body washes, Lux soaps, Eye Masks and Lotions such as Vaseline among many others (Unilever, 2011).
L’Oreal USA has four distinct key brands for the skin and face markets which include Dermablend, La Roche-Posay, Skinceuticals and Vichay that retail in various product packages (L’Oreal, 2011).
How do the competitors differentiate?
All the three competitors differentiate their market share through marketing and product design as well as branding. Some of them have a global market strategy that has clearly been set out regarding the market features. However, the brand name stands out in all the other differentiation elements.
Pricing CharacteristicsCompetitive pricing strategy differences that the three companies have exhibited are largely driven by the type of a particular brand that they compete in. For instance, different product appeal levels for aftershave products are created by the market popularity that the company has been able to achieve. This attracts certain pricing benefits if a strong brand name exists. L’Oreal USA products attract a higher market pricing due to the technology involved in marketing (Nanocolors, 2009). Procter and Gamble products have a pricing approach that taps on both innovation and strong market presence and brand loyalty. Competitive intelligence that tracks performance and market operation of the competitor to inner operations
Promotional CharacteristicsDifferences in advertising and promotional strategies have enabled the companies to reach their specified market segments. For the local market for instance, Unilever utilizes different marketing strategy to handle competition from Procter and Gamble and L’Oreal USA when compared with the international market across the globe. L’Oreal USA has been able to target the specific Northern America market through localized strategy unlike Unilever that has a global outlook in marketing.
Competitive Rivalry
Degree of rivalry between Procter and Gamble and Unilever has been very strong and bitter as manifested by an espionage program that Procter and Gamble instigated against Unilever. Procter and Gamble has had stiffer competition with L’Oreal USA in the market control, particularly in nano patenting and marketing (Nanocolors, 2009). Price wars are also frequent in the market segment, with various varieties from each of the companies posting vary competitive price tags. Frequent product innovation also characterizes the market segment for instance in the nano patenting that L’Oreal USA and Procter and Gamble seems to control.
The most significant competition that these companies face indirectly comes from other market products that characterize the various market segments. For instance, besides dealing in cosmetics, Unilever and Procter and Gamble also participate in other product lines such as home care and food. Other industries such as food industries that advocate for natural cosmetics for beauty management are also on the rise (Organic Monitor, 2006). In such a perspective, the threat of the cosmetic industry is mainly in the nature of ingredients that the companies use to produce the products.
ReferencesNanocolors (2009) “ HYPERLINK “http://nanocolors.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/nano-the-top-10-big-cosmetics-companies-loreal-procter-gamble-and-henkel/” o “Nano & the top 10 big cosmetics companies : L’Oréal, Procter & Gamble and Henkel on the podium for patents” Nano & the Top 10 Big Cosmetics Companies: L’Oréal, Procter & Gamble and Henkel on the Podium for Patents” Retrieved from: HYPERLINK “http://nanocolors.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/nano-the-top-10-big-cosmetics-companies-loreal-procter-gamble-and-henkel/” http://nanocolors.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/nano-the-top-10-big-cosmetics-companies-loreal-procter-gamble-and-henkel/
L’Oreal USA (2011) “Active Cosmetics,” Retrieved from: HYPERLINK “http://www.lorealusa.com/_en/_us/index.aspx?direct1=00003&direct2=00003/00005” http://www.lorealusa.com/_en/_us/index.aspx?direct1=00003&direct2=00003/00005
Unilever (2011) “Health and Hygiene: Beauty and Style,” Retrieved from: HYPERLINK “http://www.unilever.com/brands/hygieneandwelbeing/beautyandstyle/?WT.LHNAV=Beauty_&_style” http://www.unilever.com/brands/hygieneandwelbeing/beautyandstyle/?WT.LHNAV=Beauty_&_style
P&G (2011) “Beauty and Grooming” Retrieved from: HYPERLINK “http://www.pg.com/en_US/brands/beauty_grooming/index.shtml” http://www.pg.com/en_US/brands/beauty_grooming/index.shtml
Organic Monitor (2006) “European Sales of Natural Cosmetics Surge,” Retrieved from: HYPERLINK “http://www.organicmonitor.com/100160.htm” http://www.organicmonitor.com/100160.htm