Good morning, and welcome to Procter & Gamble’s Quarter End Conference Call. Today’s discussion will include a number of forward-looking statements. If you will refer to P&G’s most recent 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K reports, you will see a discussion of factors that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from these projections. As required by Regulation G, P&G needs to make you aware that during the call, the Company will make a number of references to non-GAAP and other financial measures. Management believes these measures provide investors valuable information on the underlying growth trends of the business. Organic refers to reported results, excluding the impacts of acquisitions and divestitures and foreign exchange, where applicable. Free cash flow represents operating cash flow less capital expenditures. Adjusted free cash flow productivity is the ratio of free cash flow to net earnings adjusted for impairment charges. Any measure described as core refers to the equivalent GAAP measure, adjusted for certain items. Currency neutral refers to the equivalent GAAP measure excluding the impact of foreign exchange rate changes. P&G has posted on its Web site, www.pg.com, a full reconciliation of non-GAAP and other financial measures. Now, I will turn the call over to P&G’s Chief Financial Officer, Jon Moeller.

Good morning. July to September was a challenging quarter from a macro standpoint with slowing market growth in both developed and developing regions. Strong foreign exchange headwinds, market level challenges in the Ukraine, Russia and the Middle East, Venezuela, Argentina, and Hong Kong, and increased consumption taxes in several large markets including Japan and Mexico. Despite this we were able to deliver top and bottom-line results for the July-September quarter, which were in line with our going-in expectations. Organic sales grew 2% and were in line or ahead of year ago in all reporting segments. Organic volume was in line with the prior year, pricing added more than a point to sales growth and sales mix was positive. All-in sales were roughly equal to prior year including more than a point of headwind from foreign exchange and the impact of brand divestitures. Core earnings per share were $1.07, up 2% versus the prior year. Excluding FX, core earnings per share grew 9%. Core gross margin was up 20 basis points, cost savings up approximately 140 basis points and benefits from pricing were partially offset by foreign exchange, higher commodity costs, innovation and capacity investments and negative margin mix. Core SG&A cost as a percentage of sales increased 30 basis points, 70 basis points of overhead savings and 50 basis points of marketing savings were more than offset by foreign exchange impacts and investments in R&D and selling capabilities. Total productivity savings in cost of goods sold and SG&A were 260 basis points. Core operating margin was down 20 basis points versus the prior year. The effective tax rate on core earnings was about 23% nearly 2 points higher than the fiscal year guidance of about 21%. September quarter all-in GAAP earnings per share were $0.69, which includes approximately $0.03 per…

and:

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Olivia Tong from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Thank you. Good morning, Jon. You walked through a lot of new innovation in your prepared remarks and it’s notable considering that this is the first time in a few years that mix has actually contributed to top-line growth, but meanwhile volume continues to be flattish again, so perhaps can you talk through how you think about the contributors to top-line growth going forward? And then following on that can you tell us what the breakout was in U.S. growth versus emerging markets and given slowing macros can you talk about how growth progressed through the quarter? Thank you very much. Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Thank you. Good morning, Jon. You walked through a lot of new innovation in your prepared remarks and it’s notable considering that this is the first time in a few years that mix has actually contributed to top-line growth, but meanwhile volume continues to be flattish again, so perhaps can you talk through how you think about the contributors to top-line growth going forward? And then following on that can you tell us what the breakout was in U.S. growth versus emerging markets and given slowing macros can you talk about how growth progressed through the quarter? Thank you very much.

So that’s kind of without getting really specific how we’re thinking about driving growth forward. And I think it’s important that we just step back a minute in the midst of some of the macro difficulties and reflect on opportunities for growth. Developing markets are still growing mid to high single-digits depending on the market, so while growth rates in our view are 1 to 2 points lower than they were a year ago, there is still a lot of opportunity there. And there are significant opportunities in developed markets. It’s very early but we’re starting to see a little bit of uptick in the market growth rates in North America, presumably driven by lower unemployment, wage rates just beginning to increase and lower gasoline prices and hopefully that continues. But even if that doesn’t, there are still significant opportunities for growth in developed markets. Just one example, think about the Asian demographic there are 10,000 Americans everyday crossing the 65 years old line and we talked in our prepared remarks about the adult incontinence opportunity. The tooth sensitivity opportunity with Crest Sensi-Stop Strips is also should benefit from that demographic shift and even things like Tide PODS which are more convenient from a carrying and handling standpoint for older body’s enhance, will help us benefit from that demographic change. So we continue to be very aware of the challenges we face but very hopeful about the opportunities that are in front of us. In terms of the split developed and developing, both North America and developed market’s total were essentially flat on the quarter in terms of organic sales growth with developing up 4%. So that’s kind of without getting really specific how we’re thinking about driving growth forward. And I think it’s important that we just step back…

Your next question comes from the line of Dara Mohsenian with Morgan Stanley.

Gross margin performance clearly improved in the quarter it was up for the first in a year and a half year-over-year. And I am guessing it was probably better or ahead of what you guys expected. Can you discuss the key drivers behind that in terms of the sequential gross margin improvement? And if you think that’s sustainable going forward. And then also just wanted to get an update on the drag you are experiencing from emerging markets growth in terms of gross margin mix, and the progress you expect to make in emerging markets over the next couple of years on gross margins with more localized manufacturing? Morgan Stanley: Gross margin performance clearly improved in the quarter it was up for the first in a year and a half year-over-year. And I am guessing it was probably better or ahead of what you guys expected. Can you discuss the key drivers behind that in terms of the sequential gross margin improvement? And if you think that’s sustainable going forward. And then also just wanted to get an update on the drag you are experiencing from emerging markets growth in terms of gross margin mix, and the progress you expect to make in emerging markets over the next couple of years on gross margins with more localized manufacturing?

The biggest driver as you would expect of the gross margin improvement was the productivity savings, which were about 140 basis points. There was also less difference if you will between developing market growth rates and developed market growth rates. So part of the answer going forward depends on that dynamic. And there was also an offset from foreign exchange. So the dynamics going forward also depend on that dynamic. We continue to focus on improving the profitability in developing markets, so that growth there becomes less of a gross margin drag. If you look the last two years and then what we are projecting this year, two years ago we grew constant currency profits in developing markets 2 times faster than sales. Last year we grew them 4 times faster than sales. This year we are forecasting again to be about double the rate of sales growth. So we are very intentional and very deliberate in our efforts to improve developing market margins to a point where they are not as much of a drag on mix. But we are very happy with the gross margin performance. We delivered I think on a fiscal year basis while we will continue to be volatile by quarter. We should continue to see progress.

Your next question comes from the line of Wendy Nicholson with Citigroup.

When you announced in August that you were going through this portfolio rationalization process, you said that you wouldn’t be selling billion dollar brands basically and yet now we are getting the divestiture of the spin of Duracell. So my question is, does the target for the 10% number of sales that you are going to be exiting now go up to kind of 12% to 13% when you include Duracell or has there been some change in how you build off to that 10? Thanks. Citigroup: When you announced in August that you were going through this portfolio rationalization process, you said that you wouldn’t be selling billion dollar brands basically and yet now we are getting the divestiture of the spin of Duracell. So my question is, does the target for the 10% number of sales that you are going to be exiting now go up to kind of 12% to 13% when you include Duracell or has there been some change in how you build off to that 10? Thanks.

You are right Wendy in referring to the Pareto of brands that we talked about that we have been re-divesting and we said there were many that were much smaller than they were those that were bigger. But we didn’t say that there wouldn’t be any large ones, if we did that was a misstatement. But in terms of taking the number up, no this is part of the plan and as I said we are about 25% of the way through the plan through the end of the quarter this is additive to that. So we continue to make progress against that originally articulated plan. There will be some larger businesses but the majority will be small. And I apologize if we miss-communicated that previously.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Stipe with Credit Suisse.

Just following on Duracell, why even though you have taken a decision to exit this business now, is it still included in the ongoing operations? And then related to that, at what point you are going to sort of tell us what level of operating profit you are essentially loosing by exiting that business? And then secondly, are there significant stranded overhead costs that you are expecting in that disposal process? Credit Suisse: Just following on Duracell, why even though you have taken a decision to exit this business now, is it still included in the ongoing operations? And then related to that, at what point you are going to sort of tell us what level of operating profit you are essentially loosing by exiting that business? And then secondly, are there significant stranded overhead costs that you are expecting in that disposal process?

U.S. GAAP accounting requirements require that we account for something in a split-off context in continuing operations until a split-off is executed. And that’s why it remains in continuing operations. But as we execute the split-off or as we were to sign any other agreement the business would move into discontinued operations at that time. In terms of stranded overhead there is some overhead that this business is absorbing. As we talked in the last quarter we are going to do our best to offset that to help minimize dilution. And in terms of what the dilution will ultimately be, it’s really too early to give you helpful guidance on that, because a lot of that’s going to depend on what form the transaction ultimately takes. It will depend on the amount of shares that are exchanged and that exchange ratio which won’t be said until closer to the transaction itself. So we will try to keep you updated as we have information. But right now it would be a pretty wide range. But again I think the takeaway is that we are committed both through the form of the transaction and through our efforts to reduce standard overhead to minimize that dilution number.

Your next question comes from the line of Bill Chappell with SunTrust.

Jon can you talk a little bit more about the kind of the commodity basket and what you see over the next remainder of fiscal ’15 and clearly with oil coming down and diesel trades other than should be a tailwind, but you kind of allude to there are some other headwinds so just trying to see what’s you’re seeing and what the next inflation will be this year? SunTrust Robinson Humphrey: Jon can you talk a little bit more about the kind of the commodity basket and what you see over the next remainder of fiscal ’15 and clearly with oil coming down and diesel trades other than should be a tailwind, but you kind of allude to there are some other headwinds so just trying to see what’s you’re seeing and what the next inflation will be this year?

Yes, we’re certainly hopeful that this becomes a tailwind overtime, but it takes awhile for instance crude reductions to work their way through the refineries and there is a bit of a bottleneck right now in refining capacity in parts of the world, which is why we’re not seeing the immediate flow through into our commodity cost base. So our commodities currently are about a 2 to 3 point headwind versus last year and we’re seeing some moderation in a small decline for instance in diesel prices and hopefully that continues, but we still have resins and polypropylenes due to the dynamic I mentioned earlier, up fairly significantly versus year ago. So hopefully that 2 to 3 point headwind is a worse case number and hopefully we get some help as things continue to evolve.

Your next question comes from the line of John Faucher with JPMorgan.

Two quick questions, well one quick one probably a little bit longer. First off can you talk a little bit about the sustainability of the working capital improvement that you saw this quarter, there was a nice benefit year-over-year? And then the second question relates to the mix from a margin standpoint obviously it was better this quarter because emerging markets got worse let’s say, you know, but can you talk about some of the margin improvements you can make outside the U.S. and outside of developed markets that will create a little less margin pressure particularly on the operating profit line as we look out over the next couple of years? Thanks. JPMorgan: Two quick questions, well one quick one probably a little bit longer. First off can you talk a little bit about the sustainability of the working capital improvement that you saw this quarter, there was a nice benefit year-over-year? And then the second question relates to the mix from a margin standpoint obviously it was better this quarter because emerging markets got worse let’s say, you know, but can you talk about some of the margin improvements you can make outside the U.S. and outside of developed markets that will create a little less margin pressure particularly on the operating profit line as we look out over the next couple of years? Thanks.

Thanks John. On the sustainability of working capital improvement side, I view them as very sustainable. Cash is one of our clear focus areas and we have some strong plans that are continuing to make progress. The progress that we made in the quarter that we just reported was driven primarily by the supply chain financing program which has future benefits associated with it. We’re not all of our way through that yet and those benefits are sustainable going forward. On top of that, as we execute our portfolio focusing program, there is a significant opportunity that we’re committed to go after once we have rationalized the category and brand portfolio at the skew level and that also presents a significant inventory and working capital opportunity the bottom 5% of our skews in terms of movement not surprisingly account for a much greater percentage of our inventory, so as we get after that, there should be a benefit. And third as I mentioned in our supply chain redesign efforts, we’re hopeful we can take significant levels of inventory out of the total system and at the same time decrease shelf out-of-stocks, improve customer service. So there are a number of big drivers that we should have available to us to continue to make progress in that area, which we’re committed to do impart to offset the impact of some of the capital spending that we’re doing in the supply chain redesign on a global basis. In terms of what we can do in developing markets to reduce the margin mix impact, as I mentioned in an answer to a prior question, we’re making significant progress in this area on a constant currency basis. 2x the rate of organic sales growth, two years ago 4x last year at least 2x again this year, also some of the developing market investments that we made for instance the Oral Care investments, those are beginning to accrete and that should be a source of help going forward. The productivity savings are not simply a developed market dynamic. They are equally a developing market dynamic on items like TDC, items like marketing even in the non-manufacturing overhead arena. And then as you know we’re also increasingly localizing our production. We’ll be bringing some of the same redesign to parts of the developing world that we’re doing in the developed world today at least from a distribution center standpoint. And so I see no reason why longer term developing markets margin should be a significant drag on earning though they will continue to be a negative drag in the near-term.

Your next question comes from the line of Chris Ferrara with Wells Fargo.

Jon, I guess, can you talk a little bit about beauty, I guess in particular can you go through Pantene U.S. which the scanner data looks a little better recently and then also Olay U.S. your skincare in general U.S. skincare in China? And then I guess maybe elaborate on the Prestige comments you made in the press release that’d be great? Wells Fargo Securities: Jon, I guess, can you talk a little bit about beauty, I guess in particular can you go through Pantene U.S. which the scanner data looks a little better recently and then also Olay U.S. your skincare in general U.S. skincare in China? And then I guess maybe elaborate on the Prestige comments you made in the press release that’d be great?

So if you look at beauty parts of that business are doing a fairly well. We grew antiperspirant and deodorant mid single-digits, cosmetics grew organic sales mid single-digits in the quarter with Max Factor growing shipments on a double-digit basis globally. Safeguard was growing mid single-digits globally with double-digit growth in parts of the developing world. And we had a pretty strong quarter on Hugo Boss which is largest Prestige fragrance. Hair Care grew about 2% in the quarter. We were very encouraged by the developments that you point out on Pantene in the U.S. where volume was up 11% on the quarter. As I have cautioned before this will be not be a straight line and competitive intensity in this category is significant, but still forward progress is encouraging. Olay remains work in progress. We are making some good progress in addressing some of the consumer benefit segments that we had neglected and that are important in the category with items like Luminous with the items like Fresh Effects. But we still have work to do both in North America and in China. But sequentially quarter-on-quarter better results in beauty from a top-line standpoint and we are hopeful we can continue that.

Your next question comes from the line of Bill Schmitz with Deutsche Bank.

A couple of questions, just to sort of drill down more in the U.S. can you just talk about some of the price interventions you discussed last quarter if they are done yet and kind of where they happened. And then some of the personnel changes in the U.S. and your views on the sustainability of the U.S. recovery. I know it’s like very nascent but curious why you think things are improving and then maybe how long you think it will last? And then lastly just urgency on some of the share losses in China and if you saw any material distributor destocking in any of the major emerging markets? Sorry for the long question. Deutsche Bank: A couple of questions, just to sort of drill down more in the U.S. can you just talk about some of the price interventions you discussed last quarter if they are done yet and kind of where they happened. And then some of the personnel changes in the U.S. and your views on the sustainability of the U.S. recovery. I know it’s like very nascent but curious why you think things are improving and then maybe how long you think it will last? And then lastly just urgency on some of the share losses in China and if you saw any material distributor destocking in any of the major emerging markets? Sorry for the long question.

Obviously pricing is a sensitive topic, so I don’t want to get into really granular specifics. But we did mention that we had made value equation interventions in both the laundry and the paper products businesses specifically tissue towel and toilet paper. And those appear to have been going pretty well. As I mentioned in the prepared remarks we have built share on a almost in a period of time you can look at it in the last 52 weeks on both Gain and Tide. Tide was up 2 points in the quarter. And so we will continue. We need to be competitive on pricing, we will continue to be competitive. But I think we are pretty much where we need to be. I don’t see, of course this changes on a daily basis. But as we sit here today, I don’t see any additional significant moves that need to be made. In terms of personnel, look we are just taking advantage of normal retirement and normal attrition to design the organization that’s going to lead this more focused more strategically-oriented company for a balanced growth and value creation. And that’s what we are doing. We are going to have a management team that’s going to manage this company that would be the same size as the team that existed in 2000 managing a company that’s 2x or actually more than 2x the size of the company in 2000. And that’s the design intent. In terms of China, China continues to be an attractive market in our view it’s market where we’ve grown over 50% in the last four years. Market growth continues, the last quarter based on our look at our categories market growth was up was about 6%. Our inventories are pretty much inline throughout the trade chain. So we really have not I would view those destocking dynamics as company specific rather than systemic.

Your next question comes from the line of Steve Powers with UBS.

I was hoping maybe just to step back and put this quarter in a better context of all the improvement efforts that you are doing, clearly there is lots of things that you have done internally over the 12 months that you summarized and that you view as positive in the re-org the supply chain restructuring. Overall productivity focus you build the brand refocusing initiative et cetera. I think all that’s good. But despite that and despite the innovation successes and the brand strength that you ran through organic growth is still only rounding up to 2%. Only two of the divisions grew this quarter. And I guess that improved focus overtime an easier compares going forward should help but even many of the core brands you attempt to retain remain pretty sluggish and have been so for some time. So I guess in that context what are you planning to do to change that paradigm. Is it truly all about the better execution that you mentioned or they are things that consumers currently want from P&G in certain areas that you are not delivering? Because I am trying to discern how much you can do to reaccelerate growth on your own versus how much such improvement is just more dependent on macro improvement? Thanks. UBS: I was hoping maybe just to step back and put this quarter in a better context of all the improvement efforts that you are doing, clearly there is lots of things that you have done internally over the 12 months that you summarized and that you view as positive in the re-org the supply chain restructuring. Overall productivity focus you build the brand refocusing initiative et cetera. I think all that’s good. But despite that and despite the innovation successes and the brand strength that you ran through organic growth is still only rounding up to 2%. Only two of the divisions grew this quarter. And I guess that improved focus overtime an easier compares going forward should help but even many of the core brands you attempt to retain remain pretty sluggish and have been so for some time. So I guess in that context what are you planning to do to change that paradigm. Is it truly all about the better execution that you mentioned or they are things that consumers currently want from P&G in certain areas that you are not delivering? Because I am trying to discern how much you can do to reaccelerate growth on your own versus how much such improvement is just more dependent on macro improvement? Thanks.

There is a lot that we can do on our own. And that’s why I talked about the whole brand building and selling execution opportunity, that’s completely within our control. And I mentioned the sampling opportunities. We have opportunities to continue to improve the quality and clarity of our communication with consumers. We have significant opportunities which the supply chain redesign will help us address at the first moment of truth just in terms of out-of-stocks. And generally while market growths have slowed, consumers continue to be very responsive to innovation that increases the value of the product that they are purchasing. If we’d look at the segments of our business that are growing the fastest, and I’ve talked about some of them in the opening remarks, many of those are premium priced items but come with product superiority and consumer benefit that more than justifies that price. And put simply, we believe that the antidote to relatively slow overall market sales or market growth is threefold, it’s innovation, it’s productivity, and it’s execution. And I would be remised if I didn't mention in this context that to the point of the prior question we still have work to do on our beauty business and on couple of other pockets of the business, and that should also as we improve that make a significant different in our ability to grow not just at but ahead of -- slightly ahead of market growth rates.

Your next question comes from the line of Lauren Lieberman with Barclays Capital.

May be just buck up on that a bit and let’s maybe focus on grooming because when you talk about some of the sampling opportunities some of them sounded familiar like things you’ve always done, the babies in the hospital get Pampers, you’ve got incredible reach there, sending razors to boys when they turn 18, that dynamic so that’s not necessarily new, so we focus a bit on grooming, right, that’s the trial opportunity. You had massive innovation with FlexBall, you gave some really positive statistics on the impact on the market yet few organic sales growth of the business was flat and it was all pricing and volume was down, so just maybe focus on a particular business what was missing, if FlexBall has been so successful thus far what’s missing that these numbers are numbers still so weak? Thanks. Barclays Capital: May be just buck up on that a bit and let’s maybe focus on grooming because when you talk about some of the sampling opportunities some of them sounded familiar like things you’ve always done, the babies in the hospital get Pampers, you’ve got incredible reach there, sending razors to boys when they turn 18, that dynamic so that’s not necessarily new, so we focus a bit on grooming, right, that’s the trial opportunity. You had massive innovation with FlexBall, you gave some really positive statistics on the impact on the market yet few organic sales growth of the business was flat and it was all pricing and volume was down, so just maybe focus on a particular business what was missing, if FlexBall has been so successful thus far what’s missing that these numbers are numbers still so weak? Thanks.

Well I think there and it’s very early and you can imagine that most men have an inventory of blades at home that they have to work through before the real driver of growth in that market which is cartridge consumption takes place, but we’re beginning to see an increase now in cartridge market share. We’re up about 1.4 points in the quarter. We’re also beginning to see a reduction in the rate of market decline in the grooming segment. It was down as much as 6% to 7%. Previously, it’s down about 3% on a more recent basis and as low as past 1% in a couple of the recent months. And remember as well that the FlexBall innovation is not only new to market it’s only in one country serving one gender. And as I mentioned in my remarks, we’ll begin globalizing this over the balance of, starting in calendar year 2015. We’ll bring the truly superior benefit of this product to women as well, and so we’re early days in that whole dynamic. Also remember that when we sell an initiative which we did with FlexBall in the last quarter, there is an inherent acceleration of sales into the quarter as we work to stock the shelves and fill the supply chain. So grooming organic growth last quarter was 7%. If you look at it on a two quarter average basis, which I think is a more representative way to look at it given the initiative dynamics it’s in pretty good shape.

Your next question comes from the line of Connie Maneaty with BMO Capital.

How many more businesses are there in your portfolio like the one in China that led to almost billion dollar non-cash impairment charge? BMO Capital Markets: How many more businesses are there in your portfolio like the one in China that led to almost billion dollar non-cash impairment charge?

As you can imagine, we do impairment testing on a routine basis. We disclosed in our last K that that there was some risk on the Duracell evaluation that we had very cushion. And then the selling price that we generated and the impacts of decision to sell, which frankly changed some of the impairment testing criteria led to that impairment. You will notice in our disclosures that there are no other businesses that we’re disclosing a similar risk on it doesn’t mean there will never be one, but as we sit here today actually that is very low risk.

Your next question comes from the line of Nik Modi with RBC Capital Markets.

So I just wanted to tack onto Bill Schmitz’s question regarding the personnel changes, and if you could just talk about just along two vectors, one is just near-term disruption and how we should be thinking about that as you have new folks kind of getting into new roles and getting up the learning curve? And then the second question is as you streamline P&G’s decision makers and operating model, have you thought about changing incentive structures and anyway, shape or form just to kind of get people focused on the right behaviors and the right geographies and the right product categories? Thanks. RBC Capital Markets: So I just wanted to tack onto Bill Schmitz’s question regarding the personnel changes, and if you could just talk about just along two vectors, one is just near-term disruption and how we should be thinking about that as you have new folks kind of getting into new roles and getting up the learning curve? And then the second question is as you streamline P&G’s decision makers and operating model, have you thought about changing incentive structures and anyway, shape or form just to kind of get people focused on the right behaviors and the right geographies and the right product categories? Thanks.

So I am not terribly concerned about near-term disruption. I think it’s a fair question Nick, but there are many more people continuing to do their jobs and people changing jobs. And the people that are changing jobs are better and experienced pros in almost every case. So it’s something that we need to stay deliberate and intentional on, not dropping any balls. But I am really that concerned about that. Again it’s, I meant no way to dismiss the question I think it’s a very fair question. But I think we are in a good shape. In terms of rewards and incentives that’s something that we are always looking at, that’s something that the Compensation Committee at the Board is always looking at. I don’t have a specific change to announce today, but it’s something that continues to receive the appropriate levels of attention.

Your next question comes from the line of Jason English with Goldman Sachs.

I would like to circle back on an earlier question on beauty. Specifically Prestige I don’t think I heard you discuss the drivers of weakness there. And I was hopeful you could elaborate. And then more broadly based on your 10-K disclosures this has been a business with pretty inconsistent performance in the past and obviously it serves a non-core retail customer for you. So in that context can you walk us through the rational and maybe the puts and takes of why either should or shouldn’t be considered in your portfolio rationalization initiatives? Goldman Sachs: I would like to circle back on an earlier question on beauty. Specifically Prestige I don’t think I heard you discuss the drivers of weakness there. And I was hopeful you could elaborate. And then more broadly based on your 10-K disclosures this has been a business with pretty inconsistent performance in the past and obviously it serves a non-core retail customer for you. So in that context can you walk us through the rational and maybe the puts and takes of why either should or shouldn’t be considered in your portfolio rationalization initiatives?

Thanks for re-asking the question on the trends in the quarter. Jason I appreciate that I, Bill asked such a long question I’d forgotten that part. And that is not a dig on you Bill. The biggest driver frankly is a base period dynamic where we had a strong innovation on both Gucci and Lacoste in the year ago quarter and there was less of that this quarter. As you can understand maybe not appreciate, I really don’t want to spend a lot of time talking about specific businesses and their role in the portfolio as we are going through all that changes that we are going through. We will announce moves and decisions as they occur and we will try to be very clear as to what the rationale is. And I will leave it there.

Your next question comes from the line of Javier Escalante with Consumer Edge Research.

Jon a question on the savings and your decision of having double-digit earnings growth in this environment, okay currency neutral, could you tell us how much savings you striked at this quarter. And remind us what is the target for the year? And to what extent there is reinvestment allocated in these double-digit earnings growth target at this stage of the turnaround. My peers are alluding to the very low top-line growth the 2%? Okay, thank you. Consumer Edge Research: Jon a question on the savings and your decision of having double-digit earnings growth in this environment, okay currency neutral, could you tell us how much savings you striked at this quarter. And remind us what is the target for the year? And to what extent there is reinvestment allocated in these double-digit earnings growth target at this stage of the turnaround. My peers are alluding to the very low top-line growth the 2%? Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Javier. In the quarter there were about 250 basis points of savings across cost of goods and SG&A. And a not insignificant portion of that was reinvested. I talked about the investment levels that we have increased behind Tide when we have strong innovation. We are going to invest behind it. We did the same on Pampers and have continued spending to drive that business increase consumer awareness, increase household penetration. I also mentioned that I didn’t give it a lot of time so I understand how we could have crossed over it. But we are being very intentional in reinvesting in two areas. One in the SRA area, one is in R&D to bring even more innovation to market that’s more relevant for consumers and it improves realize in an even stronger way and in our selling execution assuring that we have got sufficient channel coverage in the channels that are growing in that matter ensuring that we have an appropriate level of category knowledge and dedication. So we will reinvest when there are good opportunities and which we feel we can drive a strong return.

Your next question comes from the line of Mark Astrachan, from Stifel.

I wanted to follow-up on an earlier question on beauty and Prestige in particular. Curious about the recently announced decision to consolidate leadership of the salon and global Prestige units under one person, is there a change to how the company is thinking about managing one or both of those units? And then also just quickly anything to read into in the change in the name of that beauty hair and now personal care segment from beauty previously? Stifel Nicolaus: I wanted to follow-up on an earlier question on beauty and Prestige in particular. Curious about the recently announced decision to consolidate leadership of the salon and global Prestige units under one person, is there a change to how the company is thinking about managing one or both of those units? And then also just quickly anything to read into in the change in the name of that beauty hair and now personal care segment from beauty previously?

I am not in any way trying to back hand the answer to that question. But there is really not a lot of significance in either of those. This is Patrice Louvet that you are referring to will be managing those three businesses. He has a strong track-record within the Company. He has managed our fragrance business our Prestige business previously. And he is going to be great going forward.

Your next question comes from the line of Alice Longley with Buckingham Research.

Hi good morning. My question is about what you think your category growth rate was globally in the quarter. I am trying to figure out if you gained or lost share in this quarter? And then are still holding the category growth rate of 2% to 3% for fiscal ’15? And has there been any change in your outlook for category growth rate in the U.S. versus emerging regions for this year? Thank you. Buckingham Research: Hi good morning. My question is about what you think your category growth rate was globally in the quarter. I am trying to figure out if you gained or lost share in this quarter? And then are still holding the category growth rate of 2% to 3% for fiscal ’15? And has there been any change in your outlook for category growth rate in the U.S. versus emerging regions for this year? Thank you.

Okay, so overall category growth rate was 2.5% and that’s kind what we’re expecting. As I mentioned in the prepared remarks, we’re basing our guidance on the current market growth rates we see which are those. I also mention that we are -- sorry I might have not mentioned, but we’re seeing a slight uptick in growth rates in North America which is encouraging. We’re talking share fairly modest and as I have said in other calls, this is tended to be choppy in the past so it’s up one quarter down the next, we’ll see, but that’s a reason to have a degree of hope there. And in terms of where we’re gaining and losing share, generally we’re doing we’re about flat in North America, we’re up a little bit in Europe, we’re down a little bit in a couple of the developing markets and that gets you back to even.

Your next question comes from the line of Caroline Levy with CLSA.

This goes to both Olay and the Baby Care business and you had mentioned you’re looking how to improve your selling execution in the face of new channel development, so in China in particular the explosion of online sales and mummy stores, beauty shops just could you dive into a little deeper how much that has disrupted the business in China, in particular if I look at Baby I think you had flat volume in the quarter and yet you did very well in the U.S. in Baby, so that would be helpful? Thank you. CLSA: This goes to both Olay and the Baby Care business and you had mentioned you’re looking how to improve your selling execution in the face of new channel development, so in China in particular the explosion of online sales and mummy stores, beauty shops just could you dive into a little deeper how much that has disrupted the business in China, in particular if I look at Baby I think you had flat volume in the quarter and yet you did very well in the U.S. in Baby, so that would be helpful? Thank you.

First of all those the channels that you mentioned are very relevant channels and they’re growing very quickly and we have as you can imagine deliberate efforts to participate in that growth. Also e-commerce is growing very-very quickly in China it’s about 40% of the growth in the market and we’re very well represented there as well. In terms of the difference between Baby share development in the U.S. and China, first of all we remain by a wide margin the market leader in Baby Care in China. The competitive sets are different between China and the U.S. and as a result, you would expect some different dynamics. But we continue to be very encouraged about the business in both areas and that’s really what I have to say.

Your next question comes from the line of Ali Dibadj with Bernstein.

So I wanted to get a better understanding of where you think you are versus plan in the turnaround the day you came back. And I think about it along the three dimensions at least one is productivity and I guess I am reacting a little bit to about a fifth of your productivity coming from advertising spend, basis point basis adverting spend this quarter, so one is advertising spend? Two is the pace of divestitures of Duracell happening here very shortly after you said you’re going to do something should we expect as fast or a fast pace for larger divestures like this? And then third is something folks have referred to little bit which is two of your five segments are really driving your growth, now I want to understand within that how much of that is kind of less sensitivity of those particular segments to the macro environment and how of that is actually execution actually innovation actually things you are doing? And so that’s the core question, I just have two follow-up clarity questions on some other things, one is what would your growth have been in beauty without the volumes in Prestige being an issue and what would have your growth have been without Duracell in the Battery segment? Thank you. Sanford Bernstein: So I wanted to get a better understanding of where you think you are versus plan in the turnaround the day you came back. And I think about it along the three dimensions at least one is productivity and I guess I am reacting a little bit to about a fifth of your productivity coming from advertising spend, basis point basis adverting spend this quarter, so one is advertising spend? Two is the pace of divestitures of Duracell happening here very shortly after you said you’re going to do something should we expect as fast or a fast pace for larger divestures like this? And then third is something folks have referred to little bit which is two of your five segments are really driving your growth, now I want to understand within that how much of that is kind of less sensitivity of those particular segments to the macro environment and how of that is actually execution actually innovation actually things you are doing? And so that’s the core question, I just have two follow-up clarity questions on some other things, one is what would your growth have been in beauty without the volumes in Prestige being an issue and what would have your growth have been without Duracell in the Battery segment? Thank you.

In terms of where we are, in innings if you will in the execution of the plan, I think we’re in some of the early innings. I think there is a significant. I know that there is a significant productivity opportunity that still stands in front of us. We’ve talked about the redesign of the supply chains. We’ve talked about the portfolio focus which will give us more opportunity to get even more efficient in our overhead approach. So I think there is -- we will accelerate and we’ll exceed the 10 billion and we won’t stop there. I’d see this being characteristic of our opportunities and environment that we’re operating in for the foreseeable future. In terms of the advertising question within that we have tried to say many times, most of the reduction that’s occurring is in non-media spending. And of the 50 basis points that we referenced in our prepared remarks, 40 basis points of that was non-advertising marketing spending. So it’s lower product cost, it’s lower talent cost, it’s more efficient operation, it’s not less advertising and reaching consumers or in any way less effective advertising in reaching consumers. Our objective here is to continue to strengthen the impact of our marketing and advertising efforts while reducing cost that don’t matter to consumers. In terms of the pace of divestitures as we said as AG said in the call last quarter and as I mentioned today, we will do this over an 18 to 24 month period. Quite frankly we are not going to be time-driven we are going to be value-driven. And so it’s hard for me to sit here today and say exactly how long it will take. But we will continue to pursue that at pace. We’d obviously like to get there as soon as it’s practical, but don’t want to compromise value by focusing overly on timing versus quality of execution. And honestly relative to the last part of the question, I think it’s very hard to look at one quarters of results and come to a big conclusion about what’s driving anything. So I would encourage us to kind of take those segment results over a period of three or four quarters to get a better feel for what’s going on.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today’s conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. Have a great day.