Matthew,
Thanks for post. Last time I checked with company, they were in progress with national rollout and were expecting to be completed by March/April. (Rather vague timing.) Also check out this press release:
biz.yahoo.com
As for display activity: first there needs to be a peer-review of the pilot clinical studies this next month. After that, then this marketing blitz presumably goes into high gear. Even then, I am not looking for much display activity because consumers in store will probably not make an ENML decision at toothpaste aisle, unless the display offers an eye-catching discount proposition.
As for the changing packaging, I no longer have the box but a tube. On the tube is the diagram with the calcium, phosphate, and fluoride ENTERING the tooth, and the statement: "Enamelon enhances tooth remineralization and strengthens weakened tooth enamel to help keep teeth cavity free." Do these remain on the tube?
As for an explanation, I suspect that FDA monograph has something to do with it, since this is a labeling issue. But remember Dr. Stookey's quote in the Barron's article, "As a fluoride toothpaste, Enamelon is as good as the best of fluorides". Now, in the Lehman report, Dr. Stookey is quoted as saying ENML performed 10-15% better than other fluoride toothpastes. I really didn't expect an all out fluoride war. Perhaps the other pilot studies (not focused on proving enhanced remineralization) had something to do in comparing the fluoride toothpastes, such as the one that indicates ENML performed 10-15% better?
Needless to say, I can't wait to find out what those other studies pertain to. All along, I only expected one battle, with respect to strengthening of teeth, which would quietly take place in the sensitive segment (while it would be positioned as a fluoride toothpaste per the monograph).
Greg B.
|
