gju-166,super final
-
Upload
manishpd77 -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of gju-166,super final
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 1/270
Page | 1
A Project on
³A Study on Market Potential Of hp computer: With Reference
to Business to Business and Business to Customer market
Submitted in partial f ulf illment of the requirement of
Master of Business Administration, Distance Education
Gur u Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar
Research Supervisor: Submitted by :
NAME: Ms. Sonali Saxena NAME: Soumya Nath Mondal
DESIGNATION: Lecturer Enrolment no - 08061148633
Specialization- Marketing
Session 2008-10
Directorate of Distance Education
Guru Jambheswar University of Science & Technology Hisar (India)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 2/270
Page | 2
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. SOUMYA NATH MONDAL Enrolment No.08061148633 has proceeded under by super vision his Research Project Report on A Study on Market
Potential Of hp computer:With Reference to Business to Business and Business to
Customer market in the specialization area Marketing.
The work embodied in this report is or iginal and is of the standard expected of an MBA
student and has not been submitted in part or f ull to this or any other university for the
award of any degree or diploma. He/she has completed all requirements of guidelines for
Research Project Report and the work is f it for evaluation.
Signature of Super visor/Guide (with SEAL)
NAME SONALI SAXENA
DESIGNATION LECTURER
ORGANIA TION NSB SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
Centre
NSB SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Forwarded by Head/Director of Study
(with signature, Name & SEAL)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 3/270
Page | 3
DECLARATION
This is to certify that the Project Report entitledA Study on Market Potential Of hp
computer: With Reference to Business to Business and Business to Customer market is an
or iginal work and has not been submitted is part or f ull to this or any other
university/institution the award of any degree or diploma.
Signature of candidate
NAME: SOUMYA NATH MONDAL
ENROLMENT NO.:08061148633
SPEC
ILIZA
TION: MARKETINGSESSION:JULY2008-10
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 4/270
Page | 4
Index
S. no. Content Page
no.1 Title of the Project 5
2 Introduction and Rationale of The Topic 6
3 (a)Industry Prof ile 10
(b)Company Prof ile 18
3 Literature Review And Problem For mulation 50
4 Objectives 51
5 Research Design 52
6 Theoretical Framework 57
7 Data Analysis And Interpretation 74
8 Findings 108
9 Recommendations 111
Conclusion 114
9 Bibliography 116
10 Appendix 118
a. Questionnaire
b. List of Companies 119
c. Raw Data 120
d. Annual Report 125
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 5/270
Page | 5
Title of the Project:
A Study on Market Potential Of hp computer: With Reference
to Business to Business and Business to Customer market
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 6/270
Page | 6
INTRODUCTION AND R ATIONALE OF THE TOPIC
Every business moto is prof it maximization.
Study of market potential is not just important in the short-ter m. Suff icient prof it must be
maintained in order to ensure the sur vival of the business in the long-ter m as well.
Even a prof itable business may fail if it does not have adequate market knowledge as they fall
due.
Therefore, when business make investment decision they must not only consider the f inancial
outlay involved with acquir ing the new machine or the new building, etc, but must also take
account of the additional current assets that are usually involved with any expansion of
activity.
Increased production tends to engender a need to hold additional stocks of raw mater ials and
work in progress. An increased sale usually means that the level of prof it will increase. A
general increase in the f ir m¶s scale of operations tends to imply a need for greater levels of
cash.
The Study of market potential assumes great importance because shortage of f unds is
perhaps the biggest possible cause of failure of many business units in recent times. There it
is of great importance on the part of management to pay particular attention to the planning
and control for market.
The goal of Study of market potential is to ensure that the f ir m is able to continue its
operations and that it has suff icient money flow to satisfy both matur ing short-ter m debt and
upcoming operational expenses.
Thus the Study of market potential is a for midable one, since it depends upon several
var iables such as character of the business, the lengths of the merchandising cycle, rapidity of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 7/270
Page | 7
turnover, scale of operations, volume and ter ms of purchase & sales and seasonal and other
var iations.
The goal of Study of market potential is to ensure that the f ir m is able to continue its
operation and that it has suff icient cash flow to satisfy both matur ing short ter m debt and
upcoming operational expenses.
If there is anything that the Indian computer hardware industry has to offer
to the various Indian and Multinational Hardware Manufacturing companies, it is
growth. Recent MAIT study, conducted jointly with Big Five firm Ernst & Young,
concluded that the Indian hardware industry had the potential to reach a size of
$62 billion by 2010.
For a country whose economy is so heavily dependent on agriculture, a
vibrant hardware industry has the potential to generate three million jobs,
especially for Indians who come from economically underprivileged sections, who
aren·t very highly educated.
So, in the words of Deshpande, the hardware industry can be some sort of a
panacea for India·s unemployment problem. Also, with the size of the contract
manufacturing industry expected to be over $500 billion by the year 2010, Indian
firms could grab a significant chunk of the pie in a manner pretty similar to India·s
emergence as a key player in the global BPO stakes. And, with a potentially huge
market in embedded systems emerging, Indian firms with the right mix of hardware
and software can be big players here. For the record, of all the high-end processors
produced in the world, only 6 percent are used in PCs and the remaining 94
percent are used in entertainment electronics, non-PC devices, communication
products and embedded electronics.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 8/270
Page | 8
The hardware revolution is also essential for the continued high growth of
the software industry. As Vinnie Mehta, director of MAIT, puts it: ´India can loseout on the software advantage it has already built up, and the future potential, if it
does not concentrate on the hardware front. For example, the estimated domestic
hardware requirement by 2008 to meet the software target of $87 billion is $160
million.µ
With such given potential, the major players in the market like Hewlett
Packard, Sony, Lenovo, Dell etc can expect to gain a lot. At the same time, the
competition is bound to grow and get intense. Therefore these manufacturers have
to take measures to counter competition efficiently.
In order to establish the brand in the minds of the consumer, the
manufacturers should ensure that the consumers have a positive perception about
the product, product features, quality level, look, design and appearance etc.
This study revolves around studying the various perceptions prospective
customers of Hewlett Packard Laptop hold against the brand, its quality, price,
correlation between the price and quality etc. The study conducted in Bangalore
intends to throw light on the above mentioned parameters such that Hewlett
Packard can make necessary decisions based on the findings and suggestions.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 9/270
Page | 9
Categories:
Terms sometimes used for subtypes of laptop computers include:
Ultra portables:
Laptops with screens typically less than 12 inches diagonally and a weight of
less than 1.7kg. Their keyboards are usually not full-size. Their primary audience
is usually business travelers, who need small, light laptops. Ultraportables are
often very expensive, have extended battery and/or battery life, house power-saving
CPUs and almost always have integrated graphics.
Thin-and-lights:
Laptops usually weighing in between 1.8kg and 2.8kg with a screen size of
between 12 and 14 inches diagonally. Examples of this variety: the Sony VAIO FJ,
Apple MacBook and Dell XPS M1210.
Medium-sized laptops:
These usually have screens of 14 ² 15.4 inches diagonally and a weight of around 3-3.5kg. They usually sacrifice a little computing power for smaller
dimensions and longer battery life, although the length and width are usually
determined by the screen size.
Desktop replacement computers:
Powerful laptops meant to be mainly used in a fixed location and
infrequently carried out due to their weight and size; the latter provides more space
for powerful components and a big screen, usually measuring 17-20 inches.
Desktop replacements tend to have limited battery life, rarely exceeding three
hours, because the hardware is not optimized for efficient power usage.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 10/270
Page | 10
INDUSTRY PROFILE
The laptop, also known as a notebook PC, is no longer a luxury item
as against the `wow' effect it had a few years ago. Much like other
commodities, it is being displayed on the shelves of big supermarkets and
retail shops, moving from the exclusive confines o f exotic showrooms.
Earlier, when the word `laptop' was uttered, one could visualise only
executives carrying it. Today all segments, including students and
households, are buying these `notebooks'. For people on the move, the
laptop has become an indispensable tool. What with overcrowded roads andtraffic snarls, the average travelling time in metros such as Mumbai and
Bangalore has only gone up. Here, the laptop is a cool tool that helps
professionals to keep working and thus save time.
This also helps companies to keep their employees more productive.
Industry sources say that desktops which was the "symbol of corporate
vanity till the other day are slowly becoming passé with notebooks now the
mainstream."
The numbers too capture the growing appeal of the laptop. In the first
half of the current financial year, Indians bought nearly 153,000 notebooks,
compared to 36,000 units in the same period two years ago, said a recently
released performance review of MAIT. It added that the momentum in the
Indian notebook market is finally in sync with the global trend, where for
the first time in 2005 notebook sales surpassed desktops sales.
This performance was led by the small and medium enterprises (SME)
which, in turn, is supplemented by bulk purchases by lar ge enterprises.
Consumption by small enterprises grew 118 percent accounting for 17
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 11/270
Page | 11
percent of the total notebook sales to the business segment; sales to
medium-sized enterprises grew by 136 percent accounting for 21 percent,
MAIT said.
Compared to the first-half of the last fiscal year, sales to large
enterprises grew by 102 percent accounting for 61 percent of the total sales
in the business segment.
During the period, the desktop personal computer (PC) market
grossed 2.34 million units registering a growth of 36 percent over the
previous year. During April-September 2005, the ratio of desktop-to-
notebook sales declined to 15 from 22 a year ago.
"Clearly, notebooks are competing with desktops with convenience
and productivity scoring high", said MAIT adding that notebook sales have
also found their way into homes. In first half of 2005 -06, about 16,000
notebooks were sold to the household segment accounting for 13 percent of
the total market.
"Notebook sales recorded a high growth of 94 per cent and also foundtheir way into homes. In the first half of 2005-06, about 16,000 notebooks
were sold to the household segment accounting for 13 per cent of the total
market," MAIT has said, releasing the findings of Industry Performance
Review conducted jointly with IMRB.
Piyush Pushkal, Senior Analyst, Computing Products & Channels
Research, IDC India, has said in a release, "The momentum in the Indian
notebook PC market is in sync with the worldwide trend of acceptance in the
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 12/270
Page | 12
small and medium-size business segment, supplemented by bulk purchases
by large enterprises. Clearly, notebook PCs are providing tough competition
to the desktop segment due to the attributes of convenience and
productivity."
Hewlett-Packard continues to lead this category with a market share
of 42 per cent in unit shipments. Lenovo and Acer are at second and third
slots with market shares of 18 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively
(market share in terms of unit shipments). HP, along with Lenovo, Acer and
Toshiba, grew rapidly in this space mainly due to falling price points,
according to IDC.Data for Lenovo includes shipments for IBM PCD
(including Desktop and Notebook PCs but excluding x86 Servers and
Personal Workstations) starting Q2 of 2005. This reflects the legal status of
the companies, which merged during the second quarter of 2005, says IDC.
Spurs that helped:
So what's driving this sudden awareness of notebooks? After all
neither notebooks nor laptops are new to the Indian IT users, and just like
the desktops, computer makers were trying hard for years to push sales of notebooks too.
Affordability, the increasing demand for mobile computing in a fast
growing economy, the growth of wireless telephony in India and adoption of
technologies such as wireless, are some of the key reasons for the increase
in laptop sales.
"One of the biggest factor pushing sales for notebooks is the
affordability factor or reduction in prices" says Rajiev Grover, country
category manager, Hewlett-Packard India. "India's personal computer
market is undergoing a major transition as premium notebook computers
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 13/270
Page | 13
are being brought to the mainstream, with almost half the prices, compared
with a year ago."
On average, the prices of entry-level notebook computers now range
between $800 to a little over $1000 compared to $1500 to over $2000 that
prevailed about 12 to 18 months back. Moreover, notebooks now cost only
around $200 more than a high-end desktop personal computer, which is
also driving many desktop buyers to opt for notebooks.
The Government's step to deregulate the wireless spectrum and de -
license wireless technologies such as 802.11b and 802.11g standards has
helped too. And the price competitiveness of laptops vis -à-vis desktops has
also played a major role, says Dinesh Pai, General Manager, Dell India.
Another important development was the coming in of the zero -duty
regime in April last year ³ this has made laptops more accessible for the
common man. The Indian customer is benefiting from the latest technology
at the lowest price possible. Educational institutions and corporations are
opting for laptops with wireless in a big way, says Pai.
However, according to Vinnie Mehta, the executive director of MAIT,
another key driver has been the growth of newer professions, that not only
require different working styles but also mobile devices for anytime-
anywhere computing.
"For instance many type the IT-enabled workers or back office workers
like medical transcription workers) need not work out of an old fashioned
office anymore. Similarly many financial and marketing sector professionalsneed to be one the move always," says Mehta.
"The progression actually came from mobile phones, where people in
Indiastarted to engage in mobility as a part of their business," he added.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 14/270
Page | 14
Falling prices:
Rajendra Kumar, Executive Vice-President, HCL Infosystems Ltd, the
domestic PC manufacturer, says the starting price for a laptop now is
around Rs 35,000 and it goes up to Rs 1.75 lakh, appealing to a wide
spectrum of customers.With laptops being brought into the mainstream at
almost half the prices as compared to a year ago, India's computer market is
seeing exponential growth. A year ago, an entry -level laptop was at about Rs
45,000. Now it is available for under Rs 30,000. Next year, the laptop
market is set for a larger pie of the household share as well, up from 12 per
cent in 2005, says Rajiev Grover, Country Category Manager, Consumer
Portables, Hewlett-Packard (HP).
India is a price-sensitive market, thus cost is certainly a key buying
parameter. Zenith has launched Intel Centrino notebooks priced at Rs
39,990 with DVD combo optical drives, says Devita Saraf, Executive
Director, Zenith Computers. Low-cost offerings will be a good catch for first-
time laptop users, as a desktop replacement. But, any decision to buy
notebooks should be made after considering various parameters.
In August 2004, Zenith launched laptops with the `Power of Seven'.
Zenith has 450 dedicated retail stores and plans to grow to 1,000 stores by
the end of 2006, says Saraf. Laptops vs desktops
Laptops will not take away the desktop PC. The usage of the two
depends on the user profile. Both will co -exist with their own benefits. A
desktop has a higher probability of upgrades to increase its life with low
maintenance costs, whereas laptop maintenance is higher than the desktop
PC's. Even though laptops allow more mobility, they invite more physical
security-related issues compared to desktops, he says.While the trend
towards mobility will continue to grow, "we believe the PC will never die."
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 15/270
Page | 15
The future of the PC, as we know it, is in smaller, more compact, lighter
designs. The notebook of today is probably the best example of what the
home PC will look like in the future, except that it will not cost as much. The
other factor at play here is the effect of convergence and information
appliances, says Dinesh Pai, General Manager, Dell India.
And all this means that its party time for notebook vendors. But yet
another important trend that is emerging from this shift is that while the
multinationals notebook vendors are experiencing burgeoning sales, local
notebook makers' cash registers aren't really ringing that loud.
"We don't expect notebook sales to match our desktops for quite some
time," says Raj Saraf, chairman and MD, Zenith Computers, a biggish local
personal computer manufacturer that claims to sell "MNC computers and
local prices."
And the reason why MNC brand names are outselling local ones is
that "we have been scoring one up on the utility factor," said the localspokesperson of Fujitsu PC Asia Pacific. "They (MNC brands) are growing
and gaining the choice of the user not just because of the narrowing of the
prices between desktop and notebooks but also because we have
amalgamated next generation technologies like bluetooth and Wi -Fi with
mobile computing to bring more utility to notebooks."
But it is also true that MNCV brands have been more aggressive
sellers. "The last couple of years have seen intense price wars, with leading
brands including Acer, HP and IBM forever racing to slash the price of their
notebooks," says Mehta of MAIT.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 16/270
Page | 16
The PC of tomorrow will cease to be a be-all-do-all machine. The home
PC would probably morph into a hub for `intelligent' home devices
performing very specialised tasks. Add to this the capability brought on by
the Internet and you have a laptop-like machine connecting various points
around the house with the added element of mobility. However, this will take
place over a few decades considering the high -low mix of technology around
the world and within boundaries, he says.
Adoption of broadband, wireless and gaming are likely to drive
demand for mobility products. Many customers may switch from desktops
to notebooks due to better price propositions and the inherent advantages of
mobility products, he says. Increasing consumer awareness, combined with
the availability of wireless hotspots in educational institutions, offices and
hotels, will create an increasingly favourable environment for notebooks, he
says.
Spotlight on security:
As more computer users transition to sleek notebooks/ultra sleek
notebooks and access networks from remote locations and public wirelessnetworks, user and system security have become a top priority. There will be
more demands from customers to protect their data, access, and network,
he says.
HP plans:
HP is looking at the media and entertainment space in a big way. To
address this market requirement, "we recently launched our premium range
of Pavilion notebooks. Priced between Rs 50,000 and Rs 70,000, the HP
Pavilion notebooks come with a remote control , a neon backlit keyboard and
a quick play option (entertainment-related software) to help users switch
straight to, say, a movie, without waiting for the laptop to boot up." The
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 17/270
Page | 17
downside is that the battery offers a low two-and-a-half-hours to three
hours backup, says Grover of HP.
The threat of the unorganised sector is miniscule. Laptops are a high -
involvement product and the consumer places a lot of emphasis on after -
sales service and brand, which the unorganised market is unable to offer.
With price cuts boosting the laptop market, companies do not see local PC
assemblers as a threat.
Choose with care
DINESH Pai, General Manager, Dell India, offers some insight into
making the right choice.It is critical to understand one's own specific needs
while choosing a notebook. The priorities for mobile computing are weight,
wireless performance and battery life. Weight is undoubtedly the most
critical factor. One should also pay attention to the average run time of the
notebook's battery as also built -in wireless functions.
Moreover, the processor, the memory capacity, scalability in anetworked environment, the quality and size of display, the optical drives
and pointing devices, power consumption, costs of usage, maintenance and
a host of other factors determined by the specific set of needs of each
customer should also to be taken into account while choosing a laptop.
As more computer users transition to sleek notebooks and access networks
from remote locations and public wireless networks, user and system security will
become a top priority, he says.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 18/270
Page | 18
COMPANY PROFILE
ABOU
T HEWLE
TT PACKARD
The Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE: HPQ), commonly known as
HP, is currently the world's largest information technology corporation and
is known worldwide for its printers and personal computers. Headquartered
in Palo Alto, California, United States, it has a global presence in the fields
of computing, printing, and digital imaging, and also provides software and
services. The company which once catered to engineering and medical
markets now markets to households with products such as cameras and ink
cartridges found in grocery and department stores.
HP posted US$91.7 billion in annual revenue in 2006 compared to
US$91.4 for IBM, making it the world's largest technology vendor in terms of
sales. HP is now the No. 1 ranking company in worldwide personal computershipments, surpassing rival Dell, market research firms Gartner and IDC
reported in October 2006; per Gartner [2], the gap between HP and Dell
widened substantially at the end of 2006, with HP taking a near 3.5%
market share lead.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 19/270
Page | 19
Company History:
Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard both graduated from Stanford
University in 1934. The company originated in a garage in nearby Palo Alto
while they were post-grad students at Stanford during the Great Depression.
The partnership was formalized on January 1, 1939 with an
investment of US$538.[1] Bill won the coin toss and named their electronics
manufacturing enterprise the "Hewlett-Packard Company."
Of the many projects they worked on, their first financially successful
product was a precision audio oscillator, the Model 200A. Their innovation
was the use of a small light bulb as a temperature dependent resistor in a
critical portion of the circuit. This allowed them to sell the Model 200A for
$54.40 when competitors were selling less stable oscillators for over $200.
The Model 200 series of generators continued until at least 1972 as the
200AB, still tube-based but improved in design through the years. At 33
years, it was perhaps the longest-selling basic electronic design of all time.
One of the company's earliest customers was The Walt Disney
Company, who bought eight Model 200B oscillators (at $71.50 each) for use
in certifying the Fantasound surround sound systems installed in theaters
for the movie Fantasia.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 20/270
Page | 20
Focus:
The company was originally rather unfocused, working on a wide range of
electronic products for industry and even agriculture. Eventually they elected to
focus on high-quality electronic test and measurement equipment. Throughout the
1940s to well into the 1990s the company focused on making signal generators,
voltmeters, oscilloscopes, counters, and other test equipment. Their distinguishing
feature was pushing the limits of measurement range and accuracy. For instance,
almost every HP voltmeter or signal generator has one or more extra clicks of its
knobs than its competitors. HP volt- or ammeters would measure down and up an
extra 10 to 100 times the units of other meters. Although there were good reasons
why competing meters stopped at 1 volt full scale, HP engineers figured out ways of
extending the range of their equipment by a considerable amount. They also
focused on extreme accuracy and stability, leading to a wide range of very accurate,
precise, and stable frequency counters, voltmeters, thermometers, and time
standards.
The Sixties and the Seventies:
HP is recognized as the symbolic founder of Silicon Valley, although it
did not actively investigate semiconductor devices until a few years after the
"Traitorous Eight" had abandoned William Shockley to create Fairchild
Semiconductor in 1957. Hewlett-Packard's HP Associates division,
established around 1960, developed semiconductor devices primarily for
internal use. Instruments and calculators were some of the products using
these devices.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 21/270
Page | 21
HP experimented with using Digital Equipment Corporation
minicomputers with its instruments. But after deciding that it would be
easier to buy another small design team than deal with DEC, HP entered the
computer market in 1966 with the HP 2100 / HP 1000 series of
minicomputers. A simple accumulator-based design, with registers arranged
somewhat similarly to the Intel x86 architecture still used today, it would
last 20 years and several attempts to replace it. It would give birth to the HP
9800 and HP 250 series of desktop and business computers, which predated
the PCs by nearly a decade. The HP 3000 was an advanced stack based
design for business computing server later redesigned with RISC technology
that has only recently been retired from the market.
The HP 2640 series of smart and intelligent terminals introduced
forms-based interfaces to ASCII terminals, and screen labeled function keys
now commonly used on gas pumps and bank ATMs. Although scoffed at in
the formative days of computing, HP would eventually surpass even IBM as
the world's largest technology vendor in sales.
HP is acknowledged by Wired magazine as the producer of the world's
first personal computer, in 1968, the Hewlett-Packard 9100A.[2] HP called it
a desktop calculator because, as Bill Hewlett said, "If we had called it a
computer, it would have been rejected by our customers' computer gurus
because it didn't look like an IBM. We therefore decided to call it a
calculator, and all such nonsense disappeared." An engineering triumph at
the time, the logic circuit was produced without any integrated circuits; the
assembly of the CPU having been entirely executed in discrete components.
With CRT readout, magnetic card storage, and printer the price was around
$5000.
The company earned global respect for a variety of products. They
introduced the world's first handheld scientific electronic calculator in 1972
(the HP-35), the first handheld programmable in 1974 (the HP-65), the first
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 22/270
Page | 22
alphanumeric, programmable, expandable in 1979 (the HP-41C), and the first
symbolic and graphing calculator HP-28C. Like their scientific and business
calculators, their oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, and other measurement
instruments have a reputation for sturdiness and usability (the latter
products are now part of spin-off Agilent's product line). The company's
design philosophy in this period was summarized as "design for the guy at
the next bench".
The Eighties and Beyond:
In 1984, HP introduced both inkjet and laser printers for the desktop.
Along with its scanner product line, these have later been developed into
successful multifunction products, the most significant being single-unit
printer/scanner/copier/fax machines. The print mechanisms in HP's
tremendously popular LaserJet line of laser printers depend almost entirely
on Canon's components (print engines), which in turn use technology
developed by Xerox. HP develops the hardware, firmware, and software that
convert data into dots for the mechanism to print.
In the 1990s, HP expanded their computer product line, which
initially had been targeted at university, research, and business customers,
to reach consumers. Later in the decade HP opened hpshopping.com as an
independent subsidiary to sell online, direct to consumers; t he store was
rebranded "HP Home & Home Office Store" in 2005.
HP also grew through acquisitions, buying Apollo Computer in 1989,Convex Computer in 1995, and Compaq in 2002. Compaq itself had bought
Tandem Computers in 1997 (which had been started by ex-HP employees),
and Digital Equipment Corporation in 1998. Following this strategy HP
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 23/270
Page | 23
became a major player in desktops, laptops, and servers for many different
markets.
In 1987, the Palo Alto garage where Hewlett and Packard started their
business was designated as a California State historical landmark.
In 1999, all of the businesses not related to computers, storage, and
imaging were spun off from HP to form Agilent. Agilent's spin-off was the
largest initial public offering in the history of Silicon Valley. The spin-off
created an $8 billion company with about 30,000 employees, manufacturing
scientific instruments, semiconductors, optical networking devices, and
electronic test equipment for telecom and wireless R&D and production.
Also in July 1999, HP appointed Carly Fiorina as CEO. Fiorina was the firstwoman ever to serve as CEO of a company included in the Dow Jones
Industrial Average. Fiorina was forced to resign on February 9, 2005.
TECHNOL OGY AND PRODUCTS
HP has a successful line of laptops,printers, scanners, digital
cameras, calculators, PDAs, servers, workstations, and home-small
business computers. HP today promotes itself as not just being a hardware
and software company, but also one that offers a full range of services to
architect, implement and support today's IT infrastructure.
L aptops:
Pavilion Media Center dv2630ea Entertainment - Core 2
Duo T5250 / 1.5 GHz - Centrino Duo - RAM 2 GB - HDD 160
GB - DVD±RW (+R double layer) / DVD-RAM - GF 8400M GS -
WLAN : Bluetooth, 802.11a/b/g - Vista Home Premium -
14.1 Widescreen TFT 1280 x 800 ( WXGA )
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 25/270
Page | 25
HP TX1150EA Laptop Main Specifications
AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual Core TL-60
1.8GHz HyperTransport
1MB Cache 2048MB RAM
160GB Hard Drive
Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium
Digital TV Tuner
128MB NVIDIA GeForce GO 6150 Graphics
Dual Layer DVD ReWriter MultiDrive
Wireless Enabled
12.1 HD Brightview Touchscreen
Fingerprint Reader
Imaging and Printing Group:
According to HP's 2005 U.S. SEC 10-K filing, HP's Imaging and
Printing Group is "the leading imaging and printing systems provider in the
world for printer hardware, printing supplies and scanning devices,
providing solutions across customer segments from individual consumers to
small and medium businesses to large enterprises." This division is
currently headed by Vyomesh Joshi.
Products and technology associated with the Imaging and Printing
Group include:
y Inkjet and LaserJet printers, consumables and related products.
y the Indigo Digital Press.
y the HP Web Jetadmin printer management software.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 26/270
Page | 26
y the HP Output Management suite of software, including HP Output Server.
y the LightScribe optical recording technology that laser-etches labels on
disks.
Personal Systems Group:
HP's Personal Systems Group is "one of the leading vendors of personal computers ("PCs") in the world based on unit volume shipped andannual revenue."
Personal Systems Group products/technology include:
y Consumer PCs including the HP Pavilion, Compaq Presario and VoodooPC series.
y Workstations for Unix, Windows and Linux systems.y Handheld Computing including iPAQ Pocket PC handheld computing devicesy Digital Entertainment including DVD+RW drives, HP Movie Writer and HP
Digital Entertainment Center. HP resold the Apple iPod from HP untilNovember 2005.
Technology Solutions Group:
In HP's financial reporting, HP groups its Enterprise Storage and
Servers, HP Services and Software under Technology Solutions Group.
HP's Enterprise Storage and Servers Group has product/technology
including:
y the ProLiant entry line of x86 based servers (from Compaq)
y the BladeSystem x86 based blade servers
y the Integrity line using the Itanium processor architecture (with Intel)
running on several operating systems including HP-UX (a UNIX
implementation)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 27/270
Page | 27
y the HP AlphaServer productline using the Alpha processor (from DEC) and
running on both:
o Tru64 operating system (from DEC)
o The OpenVMS large-scale, highly available server operating system
(from DEC)y the NonStop high-reliability architecture and operating system (from
Tandem Computers)
y MIPs based Nonstop fault-tolerant server products
y the PA-RISC processor architecture
y the HP 9000 "Superdome" line of Servers and workstations
y the StorageWorks product line, which includes business class and enterprise
class data storage and protection products.
y the ProCurve family of network switches, wireless access points, and
routers.
HP's Software division has products/technologies:
y the OpenView family of management software
y the OpenCall family of telecom software
HP L abs:
HP Labs (or HP Laboratories) is the research arm of HP. Founded in
1966, HP Labs' function is to deliver breakthrough technologies and to
create business opportunities that go beyond HP's current strategies. An
example of recent HP Lab technology includes the Memory spot chip.
Partnerships:
HP is a supporter of FOSS and Linux. Some HP employees, such as
Linux CTO and former Debian Project Leader Bdale Garbee actively
contribute and have Open Source job responsibilities. Many others
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 28/270
Page | 28
participate in the Open Source community as volunteers. HP is also known
in the (GNU/)Linux community for releasing drivers for many of their
printers under the GNU GPL .
Hewlett-Packard also works extensively with Microsoft and uses
technology from most major software and hardware vendors.
Until November 2005, HP offered a re -branded version of the Apple
iPod. Hewlett-Packard partners with many application software companies,
for example SAP AG.
Sponsorships:
HP has many sponsorships. One well known sponsorship is Walt Disney
World's EPCOT Park's Mission: Space. Others can be found on Hewlett-Packards
Website [3] From 1995 to 1999 they were the shirt sponsor of English Premier
League club Tottenham Hotspur.
Product L egacy:
Agilent Technologies, not HP, retains the direct product legacy of the original
company founded in 1939. Agilent's current portfolio of electronic instruments are
descended from HP's very earliest products. HP entered the computer business onlyafter its instrumentation competencies were well-established. Agilent was spun off
from HP in 1999.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 29/270
Page | 29
Culture:
The founders, known to friends and employees alike as Bill and Dave,
developed a unique management style that has come to be known as the HP
Way. In Bill's words, the HP Way is "a core ideology . . . [that] includes adeep respect for the individual, a dedication to affordable quality and
reliability, a commitment to community responsibility, and a view that the
company exists to make technical contributions for the adv ancement and
welfare of humanity."[6]
The HP Alumni Association maintains a tribute to Bill and Dave's
version of the HP Way, circa 1992.
Trivia:
Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard tossed a coin to de cide whether the
company they founded would be called Hewlett-Packard or Packard-Hewlett.
Packard lost.
HP spun off a small company, Dynec, to specialize in digital
equipment. The name was picked so that the HP logo "hp" could be turned
upside down to be the logo "dy" of the new company. Eventually Dynec
changed to Dymec, then was folded back into HP.
HP partnered in the 1960s with Sony and the Yokogawa Electric
companies in Japan to develop several high-quality products. The products
were not a huge success, as there were high costs in building HP-looking
products in Japan.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 30/270
Page | 30
Just about every HP product in the test equipment line was labeled
with three to five digits followed by the letter "A". Improved versions went to
suffixes "B" through "D". A small handful of products somehow got bizarre
model numbers, such as the "H201-20" microwave signal generator.
Steve Wozniak originally designed the Apple I computer while working
at HP, but they turned down his offer of licensing the design to HP.
HP products were usually very rugged, with clean styling, top notch
components, and with conservative specifications, so customers were
usually pleasantly surprised when the equipment looked and worked better
than expected. There were a few missteps, however:
y In the 1960s they briefly went to painting their equipment a light lavender
color.
y In the early 1970s they started a line of "lower cost" test equipment with
atrociously ugly and flimsy plastic cases. The cases also got a bad case of
1970s colors, coming out in dark shag rug green and burnt orange.
y On test equipment made in the 1980s a common problem was flimsy knobs
that easily broke off.
y A very few innovative but malfunctioning products, such as the original HP
3000 computers, had to be recalled for extensive reworking.
Management:
y Chairman of the Board, CEO, and President: Mark Hurd (March 29, 2005 -
current, appointed Chairman September 22, 2006)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 31/270
Page | 31
History:
y Co-founder and CEO: David Packard (CEO: 1964²1969)
y Co-founder and CEO: William Hewlett (CEO: 1969²1978)
y
CEO: John A. Young (1978³ October 31, 1992)y CEO: Lewis Platt (November 1, 1992³ July 18, 1999)
y Chairman and CEO: Carly Fiorina (July 19, 1999³ February 9, 2005,
appointed chairman in 2000)
y Interim CEO: Robert Wayman (February 10, 2005³ March 28, 2005)
y CEO: Mark Hurd (CEO: April 1, 2005³; Chairman: September 22, 2006³)
y Chairman: Patricia C. Dunn (February 2005³ September 22, 2006).
Diversity:
Hewlett-Packard received a 100% rating on the Corporate Equality
Index released by the Human Rights Campaign starting in 2003, the second
year of the report. In addition, the company was named one of the 100 Best
Companies for Working Mothers in 2004 by Working Mothers magazine.
Hewlett-Packard is also involved in the NEPAD e-school program to
provide all schools in Africa with computers and internet access.
Ad Campaigns:
Hewlett-Packard has used a number of innovative commercials to sell
its products.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 32/270
Page | 32
The Computer is Personal Again:
In May 2006, the company launched a new campaign designed to
bring back the fact that the PC (Personal Computer) is a personal product.
The campaign utilized viral marketing, sophisticated visuals, and its ownweb site.[8] Some of the ads featured well-known personalities - Pharrell,
Mark Burnett, Mark Cuban, Jay-Z, Shaun White, and Santa Claus (voiced
by Tim Allen, who plays him in T he Santa Clause film trilogy). Rather than
show a bunch of talking heads, each advertisement showed a neck -down
view in which the endorser, aided greatly by graphics, visually showed how
they used HP products. All these personalities weren't paid millions o f
dollars but brought a deal with HP to sponsor their or a selected charity
group.
Two months after having created The Computer Is Personal Again,
Dell followed up with its own campaign entitled "Purely You", which seems
to piggyback off the HP idea.
You + HP: digital photography:
A television ad campaign for Hewlett -Packard's digital photography
(titled "You + HP: digital photography") has been noted for its simple special
effects and choice of music. It won "Campaign of the Year" from A dweek
magazine in 2004.[9]
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 33/270
Page | 33
Songs used in "You + HP" Campaign:
y "Picture Book" by The Kinks
y "Out of the Picture" by The Robins
y "Pictures of You" by The Cure
y "The Rainbow" by The Apples in Stereo
y "Across the Universe" by The Beatles
Competitors:
Major competitors of HP in the computer business include Apple Inc., Dell,
Gateway, Lenovo (Purchased IBM's Non-server Personal Computer Business), Sony
and Toshiba. Major competitors of HP in the server business include Sun
Microsystems, IBM and Dell. Major competitors of HP in the printer business
include Brother, Canon, Epson, Lexmark and Dell (who rebrands and repackages
Lexmark products). Upon acquiring Voodoo PC, HP and its newest subdivision will
compete in the enthusiast market against Falcon Northwest, Alienware (A division
of Dell), WidowPC and other manufacturers.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 34/270
Page | 34
So mor about hp
Hewlett-Packard Company
Type Public (NYSE: HPQ)
Dow Jones Indust
ial Aver age Component
Industry Computer Systems
Computer Per ipher als
Computer Sof tware
IT consulting
IT Services
Founded Palo Alto, California (1939)
Founder(s) Bill Hewlett
David Packard
Headquarters 3000 Hanover Street,[1] Palo Alto, California, USA
Area served Wor ldwide
Key people Raymond Lan
(Chairman)
Léo Apotheker
(President and CEO)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 35/270
Page | 35
Products Computer Monitors
Digital Camer as
Enterpr ise Sof tware
Indigo Digital Press
Mobile Phones
Networ king
Personal Computers andLaptops
Personal Digital Assistants
Pr inters
Scanners
Servers
Stor age
Televisions
Telecommunications hardware and sof tware
List of HP products
Revenue $126.033 billion(2010)
Operating income $11.479 billion(2010)
Net income $8.761 billion(2010)
Total assets $124.503 billion(2010)
Total equity $40.449 billion(2010)
Employees 310,000 (af ter 3Comacquisition)(2009)
Subsidiaries Compaq
Snapf ish
HP Labs
ProCurve
HP Enterpr ise Services
VoodooPC
Palm, Inc.
HP CDS
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 36/270
Page | 36
List of acquisitions by HP
Website
HP.com
Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE: HPQ), commonly referred to as HP, is an American
multinational information technologycorporation headquartered in Palo Alto, California, USA. The company
was founded in a one-car garage in Palo Alto by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, and is now one of
the world's largest information technology companies, operating in nearly every country. HP specializes in
developing and manufacturing computing, data storage, and networking hardware, designing software and
delivering services. Major product lines include personal computing devices, enterprise servers, related
storage devices, as well as a diverse range of printers and other imaging products. HP markets its products
to households, small- to medium-sized businesses and enterprises directly as well as via online
distribution, consumer-electronics and office-supply retailers, software partners and major technology
vendors.
HP's posted net revenue in 2009 was $115 billion, with approximately $40 billion coming from services. In
2006, the intense competition between HP and IBM tipped in HP's favor, with HP posting revenue of
US$91.7 billion, compared to $91.4 billion for IBM; the gap between the companies widened to $21 billion
in 2009. In 2007, HP's revenue was $104 billion, making HP the first IT company in history to report
revenues exceeding $100 billion. In 2008 HP retained its global leadership position in inkjet, laser, large
format and multi-function printers market, and its leadership position in the hardware industry.[ Also HP
became #2 globally in IT services as reported by IDC & Gartner.
Major company changes include a spin-off of part of its business as Agilent Technologies in 1999,its merger with Compaq in 2002, and the acquisition of EDS in 2008, which led to combined revenues of
$118.4 billion in 2008 and a Fortune 500 ranking of 9 in 2009. In November 2009, HP announced the
acquisition of 3Com; with the deal closing on April 12, 2010. On April 28, 2010, HP announced the buyout
of Palm for $1.2 billion. On September 2, 2010 won its bidding war for 3PAR with a $33 a share offer ($2.07
billion) which Dell declined to match.
On August 6, 2010 CEO Mark Hurd resigned. Cathie Lesjak assumed the role of interim CEO, and on
September 30, 2010, Léo Apotheker became HP's new permanent CEO and Ray Lane, Managing Partner
at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, was elected to the position of non-executive Chairman. Both
appointments were effective November 1, 2010.
Company history
Further information: List of Hewlett-Packard executive leadership
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 37/270
Page | 37
Founding
Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard graduated in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1935. The
company originated in a garage in nearby Palo Alto during a fellowship they had with a past
professor, Frederick Terman at Stanford during the Great Depression. Terman was considered a mentor to
them in forming Hewlett-Packard. In 1939, Packard and Hewlett established Hewlett-Packard (HP) in
Packard's garage with an initial capital investment of US$538. Hewlett and Packard tossed a coin to decide
whether the company they founded would be called Hewlett-Packard or Packard-Hewlett Packard won the
coin toss but named their electronics manufacturing enterprise the "Hewlett-Packard Company". HP
incorporated on August 18, 1947, and went public on November 6, 1957.
Of the many projects they worked on, their very first financially successful product was a precision
audio oscillator , the Model HP200A. Their innovation was the use of a small light bulb as a temperature
dependent resistor in a critical portion of the circuit. This allowed them to sell the Model 200A for $54.40
when competitors were selling less stable oscillators for over $200. The Model200 series of generators
continued until at least 1972 as the 200AB, still tube-based but improved in design through the years. At 33
years, it was perhaps the longest-selling basic electronic design of all time.
One of the company's earliest customers was The Walt Disney Company, which bought eight Model 200B
oscillators (at $71.50 each) for use in certifying the Fantasound surround sound systems installed in
theaters for the movie Fantasia.
Early years
The company was originally rather unfocused, working on a wide range of electronic products for industry
and even agriculture. Eventually they elected to focus on high-quality electronic test and measurement
equipment.
From the 1940s until well into the 1990s the company concentrated on making electronic test
equipment: signal generators, voltmeters, oscilloscopes, frequency counters,thermometers, time standards,
wave analyzers, and many other instruments. A distinguishing feature was pushing the limits of
measurement range and accuracy; many HP instruments were more sensitive, accurate, and precise than
other comparable equipment.
Following the pattern set by the company's first product, the 200A, test instruments were labelled with three
to five digits followed by the letter "A". Improved versions went to suffixes "B" through "E". As the product
range grew wider HP started using product designators starting with a letter for accessories, supplies,software, and components.
The 1960s
HP is recognized as the symbolic founder of Silicon Valley, although it did not actively investigate
semiconductor devices until a few years after the "Traitorous Eight" had abandonedWilliam Shockley to
create Fairchild Semiconductor in 1957. Hewlett-Packard's HP Associates division, established around
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 38/270
Page | 38
1960, developed semiconductor devices primarily for internal use. Instruments and calculators were some
of the products using these devices.
HP partnered in the 1960s with Sony and the Yokogawa Electric companies in Japan to develop several
high-quality products. The products were not a huge success, as there were high costs in building HP-
looking products in Japan. HP and Yokogawa formed a joint venture (Yokogawa-Hewlett-Packard) in 1963
to market HP products in Japan. HP bought Yokogawa Electric's share of Hewlett-Packard Japan in 1999.
HP spun off a small company, Dynac, to specialize in digital equipment. The name was picked so that the
HP logo "hp" could be turned upside down to be a reverse reflect image of the logo "dy" of the new
company. Eventually Dynac changed to Dymec, then was folded back into HP in 1959. HP experimented
with using Digital Equipment Corporation minicomputers with its instruments, but after deciding that it would
be easier to build another small design team than deal with DEC, HP entered the computer market in 1966
with the HP 2100 / HP 1000 series of minicomputers. These had a simple accumulator -based design, with
registers arranged somewhat similarly to the Intel x86 architecture still used today. The series was
produced for 20 years, in spite of several attempts to replace it, and was a forerunner of the HP
9800 and HP 250 series of desktop and business computers.
The 1970s
The HP 3000 was an advanced stack-based design for a business computing server, later redesigned
with RISC technology, that has only recently been retired from the market. The HP 2640 series of smart
and intelligent terminals introduced forms-based interfaces to ASCII terminals, and also introduced screen
labeled function keys, now commonly used on gas pumps and bank ATMs. The HP 2640 series included
one of the first bit mapped graphics displays that when combined with the HP 2100 21MX F-Series
microcoded Scientific Instruction Set enabled the first commercial WYSIWYG Presentation
Program, BRUNO that later became the program HP-Draw on the HP 3000. Although scoffed at in the
formative days of computing, HP would eventually surpass even IBM as the world's largest technology
vendor, in terms of sales.
"The new Hewlett-Packard 9100A personal computer is ready, willing, and able ... to relieve you of waiting to get on the
big computer."
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 39/270
Page | 39
HP is identified by W ired magazine as the producer of the world's first marketed, mass-produced personal
computer , the Hewlett-Packard 9100A, introduced in 1968. HP called it a desktop calculator, because, as
Bill Hewlett said, "If we had called it a computer, it would have been rejected by our customers' computer
gurus because it didn't look like an IBM. We therefore decided to call it a calculator, and all such nonsense
disappeared." An engineering triumph at the time, the logic circuit was produced without anyintegratedcircuits; the assembly of the CPU having been entirely executed in discrete components. With CRT display,
magnetic-card storage, and printer, the price was around $5000. The machine's keyboard was a cross
between that of a scientific calculator and an adding machine. There was no alphabetic keyboard.
Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, originally designed the Apple I computer while working at HP and
offered it to them under their right of first refusal to his work, but they did not take it up as the company
wanted to stay in scientific, business, and industrial markets.[citation needed ]
The company earned global respect for a variety of products. They introduced the world's firsthandheld
scientific electronic calculator in 1972 (the HP-35), the first handheld programmable in 1974 (the HP-65),
the first alphanumeric, programmable, expandable in 1979 (the HP-41C), and the first symbolic and
graphing calculator, the HP-28C. Like their scientific and business calculators, their oscilloscopes, logic
analyzers, and other measurement instruments have a reputation for sturdiness and usability (the latter
products are now part of spin-off Agilent's product line). The company's design philosophy in this period
was summarized as "design for the guy at the next bench".
The 98x5 series of technical desktop computers started in 1975 with the 9815, and the cheaper 80 series,
again of technical computers, started in 1979 with the 85. These machines used a version of the BASIC
programming languagewhich was available immediately after they were switched on, and used a
proprietary magnetic tape for storage. HP computers were similar in capabilities to the much later IBM
Personal Computer , although the limitations of available technology forced prices to be high.
The 1980s
The garage in Palo Alto where Hewlett and Packard began their company
In 1984, HP introduced both inkjet and laser printers for the desktop. Along with its scanner product line,
these have later been developed into successfulmultifunction products, the most significant being single-
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 40/270
Page | 40
unit¡ ¢
int£ ¢
/¤ ¥ ¦
nner /¥ § ¡
ier /f ¦ ̈
© ¦ ¥
ines.
e ¡ r int © echanisms in P s tremendousl
¡ opular aserJet line
of laser pr inters depend almost entirel
on anon's components pr int engines),
hich in turn use
technology developed y Xerox. P develops the hardware, firmware, and software that conver t data into
dots f or the mechanism to pr int.[c it ti ! " " # # $ # $ ]
% n & arch ' , ( ) 0 1 , 2 P registered the 2 P.com domain name, making it the ninth Internet .com domain ever
to 3 e registered.
In ( ) 0 4 , the Palo Alto garage where 2 ewlett and Packard star ted their 3 usiness was designated as a
5 alif ornia State histor ical landmark.
The
6 ewlett7 Packard logo used until 8
9 9 @
In the A B B C s,
D P expanded their computer product line, which initially had
E een targeted at university,
research, and E usiness users, to reach consumers.
D P also grew through acquisitions, E uying Apollo F omputer in A B G B and F onvex F omputer in A B B H .
I ater in the decade, D P opened hpshopping.com as an independent subsidiary to sellonline, direct to
consumers; in P C C H , the store was renamed Q D
P D ome & D ome R ffice Store. Q
S rom A B B H
to A B B G
,D ewlett
T Packard were sponsors of the English f ootball team
U
ottenham D otspur .
In A B B B , all of the businesses not related to computers, storage, and imaging were spun off f rom D P to
f orm Agilent. Agilent's spin-off was the largest initial public off er ing in the history of Silicon Valley.U
he spin-
off created an V G
billion company with aboutW C
,C C C
employees, manuf actur ing scientific
instruments, semiconductors, optical networking devices, and electronic test equipment f or telecom and
wireless X & Y and production.
In July A B B B , D P appointed F ar ly S ior ina as F E R , the first f emale F E R of a company in the Y ow Jones
Industr ial Average. S ior ina served as F E R dur ing the tech downturn of the ear ly P C C C s. Y ur ing her tenure,
the market value of D
P halved and the company incurred heavy job losses.
U
he D
P Board of Y
irectors
asked S ior ina to step down in P C C H , and she resigned on S ebruary B , P C C H .
The 2
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 41/270
Page | 41
̀ he current two dimensional a P logo used on corporate documents, letterheads, etc.
a P's recent campaign,The C b c d
e t er i f
P ersonal Ag
ai n, f eatures several celebr ity endorsements, including a h V
commercial with i wen Stef ani.
p n September q , r s s t , u P announced that an agreement had been reached with v ompaq to merge the
two companies. In w ay, r s s r , after passing a shareholder vote, u P officially merged with v ompaq. Pr ior to
this, plans had been in place to consolidate the companies' product teams and product lines.
x
he merger occurred after a proxy fight with Bill u ewlett's son y
alter ,who objected to the merger . v ompaq
itself had boughtx
andem v omputers in t � � � � which had been star ted by ex-HP employees), and � igital
Equipment v orporation in t � � � . � ollowing this strategy, HP became a major player in desktops, laptops,
and servers f or many diff erent markets. After the merger with v
ompaq, the new ticker symbol became � HP
� � , a combination of the two previous symbols, � HWP � and
� v P
� � , to show the significance of the
alliance and also key letters f rom the two companies Hewlett-Packard and � ompaq
� the latter company
being f amous f or its � � �
logo on all of its products.)
In the year � � �
�
HP released the � V � � � � Ser ies, including the HP Pavilion dv � � � � and � �
�
� two years
later in ay � � � � , HP began its campaign,The C omput er i s P ersonal A ai n.
he campaign was designed
to br ing back the f act that the P is a personal product.
he campaign utili
ed viral marketing,
sophisticated visuals, and its own web site www.hp.com/personal). Some of the ads f eatured well-known
personalities, including Pharrell, Petra j emcova, k ark Burnett, k ark uban, Jay-Z, l wen Stef ani,
and Shaun White.
m n k ay n o , , HP and Electronic ata Systems announced that they had signed a definitive agreement
under which HP would purchase E S. m n June o
, HP announced that the waiting per iod under the Har t-
Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of n had expired.
he transaction still requires E S
stockholder approval and regulatory clearance f rom the European ommission and other non-U.S.
jur isdictions and is subject to the satisf action or waiver of the other closing conditions specified in the
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 42/270
Page | 42
merger agreement." The agreement was finalized on August 26, 2008, and it was publicly announced that
EDS would be re-branded "EDS an HP company." As of September 23, 2009, EDS is known as HP
Enterprise Services.
On November 11, 2009, 3Com and Hewlett-Packard announced that Hewlett-Packard would be acquiring
3Com for $2.7 billion in cash. The acquisition is one of the biggest in size among a series of takeovers and
acquisitions by technology giants to push their way to become one-stop shops. Since the beginning of the
financial crisis in 2007, tech giants have constantly felt the pressure to expand beyond their current market
niches. Dell purchased Perot Systems recently to invade into the technology consulting business area
previously dominated by IBM. Hewlett-Packard's latest move marked its incursion into enterprise
networking gear market dominated by Cisco.
The 010s
On April 28, 2010, Palm, Inc. and Hewlett-Packard announced that HP would be acquiring Palm for 1.2
billion in cash and debt the deal officially closed on July 1, 2010. In the months leading up to the buyout it
was rumored that Palm was going to be purchased by either HTC, Dell, RIM or HP. The addition of Palm
handsets to the HP product line provides some overlap with the current iPAQ mobile products but will
significantly increase their mobile presence as those devices have not been selling well. The addition of
Palm brings HP a library of valuable patents as well the mobile operating platform known as webOS. On
July 1, 2010, the acquisition of Palm was final. On September 2, 2010 won its bidding war for 3PARwith a
$33 a share offer ($2.07 billion) which Dell declined to match.
On August 6, 2010 CEO Mark Hurd resigned amid controversy and CFO Cathie Lesjak assumed the role of
interim CEO. On September 30, 2010, Léo Apotheker was named as HP's new CEO and President.
Apotheker¶s appointment sparked a strong reaction from Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison, who
complained that Apotheker had been in charge of SAP when one of its subsidiaries was systematically
stealing software from Oracle. SAP accepted that its subsidiary, which has now closed, illegally accessed
Oracle intellectual property.
Facilities
The a sign marking the entrance to the HP corporate headquarters in Palo Alto, California
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 43/270
Page | 43
HP's global operations are directed from its headquarters in Palo Alto, California, USA. Its U.S. operations
are directed from its facility inunincorporated Harris County, Texas. Its Latin America offices in
unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S., near Miami. Its Europe offices in Meyrin, Switzerland,
near Geneva. Its Asia-Pacific offices are in Singapore.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45] It also has large operations inBoise,
Idaho, Roseville, California, San Diego, California, and Plano, Texas (the former headquarters of EDS,which HP acquired). In the UK, HP is based at a large site in Bracknell, Berkshire with offices in various UK
locations, including a landmark office tower in London,88 Wood Street. Its recent acquisition of 3Com will
expand its employee base to Marlborough, Massachusetts.[46]
Products and organizational structure
HP has successful lines of printers, scanners, digital cameras, calculators, PDAs, servers, workstation
computers, and computers for home and small business use; many of the computers came from the 2002
merger with Compaq. HP today promotes itself as supplying not just hardware and software, but also a full
range of services to design, implement, and support IT infrastructure.
HP's Imaging and Printing Group (IPG) is "the leading imaging and printing systems provider in the world
for printer hardware, printing supplies and scanning devices, providing solutions across customer segments
from individual consumers to small and medium businesses to large enterprises." Products and technology
associated with IPG include Inkjet and LaserJet printers, consumables and related products, Officejet all-in-
one multifunction printer/scanner/faxes, Large Format Printers, Indigo Digital Press, HP Web Jetadmin
printer management software, HP Output Management suite of software, LightScribeoptical recording
technology, HP Photosmart digital cameras and photo printers, HP SPaM, and Snapfish by HP, a photo
sharing and photo products service. On December 23, 2008, HP released iPrint Photo for iPhone a free
downloadable software application that allows the printing of 4" x 6" photos.
HP's Personal Systems Group (PSG) claims to be "one of the leading vendors of personal computers
("PCs") in the world based on unit volume shipped and annual revenue." PSG includes business PCs and
accessories, consumer PCs and accessories, (e.g., HP Pavilion, Compaq Presario, VoodooPC), handheld
computing (e.g., iPAQ Pocket PC), and digital "connected" entertainment (e.g., HP MediaSmart TVs, HP
MediaSmart Servers, HP MediaVaults, DVD+RW drives). HP resold the Apple iPod until November 2005.
HP Enterprise Business (EB) incorporates Technical services, Enterprise Services (formerly known
as EDS), HP Software Division, and Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking Group (ESSN). The
Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking Group (ESSN) oversees "back end" products like storage and
servers. HP's networking business unit ProCurve is responsible for the family of network switches,
wireless access points, and routers. They are currently a business unit of ESSN.
HP Software Division is the company's enterprise software unit. For years, HP has produced and marketed
its brand of enterprise management software, HP OpenView. From September 2005 through 2010, HP
purchased a total of 15 software companies between as part of a publicized, deliberate strategy to augment
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 44/270
Page | 44
its software offerings for large business customers. The division markets its software in four categories: HP
IT Management Software (also known as business technology optimization software),HP Information
Management Software, business intelligence solutions, and communications and media software and
solutions.
An HP camera with an SDIO interface
HP's Office of Strategy and Technology has four main functions: (1) steering the company's $3.6 billion
research and development investment, (2) fostering the development of the company's global technical
community, (3) leading the company's strategy and corporate development efforts, and (4) performing
worldwide corporate marketing activities. Under this office is HP Labs, the research arm of HP. Founded in
1966, HP Labs's function is to deliver new technologies and to create business opportunities that go
beyond HP's current strategies. An example of recent HP Lab technology includes the Memory spot
chip. HP IdeaLab further provides a web forum on early-state innovations to encourage open feedback
from consumers and the development community.
HP also offers managed services where they provide complete IT-support solutions for other companies
and organisations. Some examples of these are: A large activity is HP offering "Professional Support" and
desktop "Premier Support" for Microsoft in the EMEA marketplace. This is done from the Clonskeagh office
in Dublin, Sofia and Israel. Support is offered on the line of Microsoft operation systems, Exchange,
Sharepoint and some office-applications. But HP also offers outsourced services for companies like Bank
of Ireland, some UK banks, the U.S. defense forces, etc.
Culture
The founders, known to friends and employees alike as Bill and Dave, developed a unique managementstyle that came to be known as The HP W ay . In Bill's words, the HP Way is "a core ideology ... which
includes a deep respect for the individual, a dedication to affordable quality and reliability, a commitment to
community responsibility, and a view that the company exists to make technical contributions for the
advancement and welfare of humanity." The following are the tenets of The HP Way:
1. We have trust and respect for individuals.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 46/270
Page | 46
of nominations in more than 100 countries and 35 industries to create the 2010 list. HP was one of only 100
companies to earn the distinction of top winner and was the only computer hardware vendor to be
recognized. Ethisphere honors firms that promote ethical business standards and practices by going
beyond legal minimums, introducing innovative ideas that benefit the public.
HP is listed in Greenpeace¶s Guide to Greener Electronics that ranks electronics manufacturers according
to their policies on toxic chemicals, recycling and climate change. In October 2010, HP secured the 4th
place (out of 18) in this ranking (climbing up 4 places) with an increased score of 5.5 (up from 4.9). This
improvement was mainly caused by the progress in bringing products that are free from PVC and BFRs
onto the market and a new commitment to phase out beryllium and compounds by July 2011. Moreover,
HP aims to complete its phase out of toxic vinyl plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardands (BFRs) in
2011. Greenpeace gives HP credit for having many PVC and BFR-free products on the market, including a
desktop PC with PVC-free power supply, several series of notebooks, another desktop and two LCD
monitors. It has also recently launched the first PVC free printer.
Brand and legacy
According to a Business Week Study, HP is currently the world's 11th most valuable brand. Since its
creation, the HP Logo has remained largely the same. Because of its extreme simplicity, the logo is
recognized all over the world.
A Hewlett-Packard sponsored Porsche 997 GT3 Cup
The company sponsors the HP Pavilion at San Jose, home to the NHL's San Jose Sharks.
HP has many sponsorships. One well known sponsorship is of Walt Disney World's EpcotPark's Mission:
SPACE. Others can be found on Hewlett-Packard's website. From 1995 to 1999 they were the shirt
sponsor of Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur . They also sponsored the BMW Williams Formula 1
team until 2006 (a sponsorship formerly held by Compaq), and as of 2010 sponsor Renault F1. Hewlett-
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 47/270
Page | 47
Packard also has the naming rights arrangement for theHP Pavilion at San Jose, home of the San Jose
Sharks NHL hockey team.
Agilent Technologies, not HP, retains the direct product legacy of the original company founded in 1939.
Agilent's current portfolio of electronic instruments are descended from HP's very earliest products. HP
entered the computer business only after its instrumentation competencies were well-established. When
Agilent was spun off, items in the Corporate Archives were split-up along product lines, with Agilent
retaining almost all of the original HP archives - only where there was duplication of material, was HP given
early Test and Measurement material. Both companies retained an original 200A Audio Oscillator.
After the acquisition of Compaq in 2002, HP has maintained the "Compaq Presario" brand on low-end
home desktops and laptops, the "HP Compaq" brand on business desktops and laptops, and the "HP
ProLiant" brand on Intel-architecture servers. (The "HP Pavilion" brand is used on home entertainment
laptops and all home desktops.)
HP uses DEC's "StorageWorks" brand on storage systems; Tandem's "NonStop" servers are now branded
as "HP Integrity NonStop".
Controversy
Main article: Hewlett-Packard spying scandal
On September 5, 2006, N ewsweek revealed that HP's general counsel, at the behest of
chairwoman Patricia Dunn, contracted a team of independent security experts to investigate board
members and several journalists in order to identify the source of an information leak. In turn, those
security experts recruited private investigators who used a spying technique known as pretexting. The
pretexting involved investigators impersonating HP board members and nine journalists (including reportersfor CNET, the N ew York Times and the W all Street Journal ) in order to obtain their phone records. The
information leaked related to HP's long-term strategy and was published as part of a CNET article in
January 2006. Most HP employees accused of criminal acts have since been acquitted.
Hewlett-Packard has also been at the center of a fiasco in recent years. In November 2007, Hewlett-
Packard released a BIOS update covering a wide range of laptops with the intent to speed up the computer
fan as well as have it run constantly, whether the computer was on or off The reason was to prevent the
overheating of defective NVIDIA graphics processing units (GPUs) that had been shipped to many of the
original equipment manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and Apple. In July 2008, HP revealed
an extension to the initial one-year warranty covering a few of the affected computers, but leaving many
more without the protection, despite research showing that these computers were also affected. Since this
point, several websites have been documenting the issue, most notably www.hplies.com, a forums
dedicated to what they refer to as Hewlett-Packard's "multi-million dollar cover up" of the issue. There have
been several small claims lawsuits filed in several states, as well as suits being filed in other countries.
Hewlett-Packard also faced a class action lawsuit in 2009 over their i7 processor computers. The
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 48/270
Page | 48
complainants stated that their systems locked up within 30 minutes of powering on, consistently. Even after
being replaced with newer i7 systems, the lockups continued.
SWOT Analysis of aluminium industry in India
It will help the company to the strength and weaknesses present in it. It help in deter mining
the f uture actions plan, get r id of the problem and weaknesses. A company producing
computer in India can found out its character istics by the help of this. Because any industry is
totally depend upon its country for the production. And in India the following analysis helps
to deter mine the company str ucture and life.
This helps hp to grow fast and capture larger market share.
It can be by going out by following steps, which are:
Strengths
*Good customer relation
*Huge investmentof f unds in the expansion project
*Good inventory is maintained
*Weaknesses
*Some technical faults
*High cost product
*Do not have balance perfor mance
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 49/270
Page | 49
Opportunities
*Growing economy: Rapid growth in building, constr uction, transportation and packaging
sectors
T hreats
*Over capacity in China leading to cheap pr ice
*Uncertain regulatory environment
*Pr ice volatility at the London Metal Exchange (LME)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 50/270
Page | 50
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND PROBLEM STATEMENT
This report highlights that¶s steps which is very important to customer research study of hp
computer in India. This report will be br iefly explained about market of computer. Which isvery important to every level of organization.
The students who are the main user of computer they are happy to use new hp pravelion
laptop.The many news Indian paper(The times of India, The Dainik Bhaskar ) declared that
ph computer market in India is Biggest than others computer. The 70% market share
occupied in hp computer in the Indian market.
For more success of hp this research will very help, no management can succeed without the
uses of marketing research. Identif ication of problem of customer of hp is the very important
step to the research. It will be very help f ull to understand to customers need and satisfaction.
This report has also presented var ious frameworks for analyzing certain problems in the f ield
of marketing, which were also effectively used in this research work.
Lot of teknik like pie and bar chat help to understand the market condition very quickly. I
have very elaborately examined the var ious issues in designing the marketing strategies for
var ious companies, tactical marketing and also the hurdles that ar ises in the administrative
side of marketing which were all very much usef ul in analyzing the var ious problems of this
research study and f inally it also putting forth var ious feasible recommendations and
suggestions for this research work.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 51/270
Page | 51
OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT:
Main Objectives;
To f ind out the at tr ibutes that enhance the cust omer value by providing
betterser vi ce to them and know how to mot ivate the more people towards
IT. TheProject required carrying out the comparat ive s tudy of pr ices across
Brands andModels also to carry out another comparat ive s tudy of Margins
of Dealers andWholesalers. This wou ld be done by f inding out the Market
Operat ing Pr ice atwhich they are mak ing deals and the vol ume of discount s
offered by them.
Then apart from s tudying the dealers a study of consumer buying beh avi or s
wasalso required for the spec if ic brands. This was done by mak ing
comparat ives tudy of HP along w ith other brands, in ter ms of consumer
preference. Alsodealer ¶s perspect ives about the brand are also to be
cons idered along with thisthe effect of pr ices on brand preference of the
models.
In the research we also tr ied to study consumer beh avior for al l the brands
andalso the dealer ¶s percept ion about the market of Home PCs, Laptops,
Pr inters ,PSC, Scanner, and TFT. For this Segmentat ion, Target ing and
Pos it ioning of var ious brands on recall, bel ievability , associat ion, f ina l
purchase.
Other Objectives:
� To know the brand recall by cust omers.
� To know the reason why people prefer HP (Hewlett-Packard) brand.
� To increase the sales vol ume.
� To give the cus t omer sat isfact ion and also get t he references from t hem.
� To know which factor is important for customer before buying any IT
product .
� To ill icit suggest ion for better pos it ioning for HP product .
The Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE: HPQ, NASDAQ: HPQ), commonly known
asHP,
is one of the world's largest information technology corporations. Headquartered in Palo
Alto,
y To check the income, Improvement in customer ¶s ser vice.
y To keep alive the goodwill & conf idence created amongst suppliers, customers &
other govt. agencies.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 52/270
Page | 52
RESEARCH DESIGN
Title of the Study:
´A study on the Consumer Perception with reference to HP laptopsµ
Statement of the problem:
Hp is one of the leading PC manufactures in the world and is one of the
leading seller of Computer Hardware in India. It is currently facing cut throat
competition from PC manufactures in the market. So to tackle this problem we
have taken a survey on customer perception towards the laptops manufactured by
Hewlett Packard. It also studies the buyers profile in the demographic and
psychographic. The study applied is descriptive in nature and it also tends to find
the customers view about the important aspects of the product and to determine
the competition market share of HP.
Scope of the Study:
The aim of the study is to provide the Management of Hewlett Packard India
with the information which would help it understand the perceptions customers in
Bangalore have about the Laptops manufactured by Hewlett Packard, any negative
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 53/270
Page | 53
perception about their product, the reasons for such perceptions and
recommendations and suggestions to overcome these problems.
Research Objectives:
y To study the level of awareness of Hewlett Packard Laptops.
y Find customer perceptions about the quality, price and design of their
products.
y Reasons for dissatisfaction / negative perception about any aspect of HP
Laptops.
y To assess the demographics of the prospective customers of Hewlett Packard
Laptops.
y To offer subjective recommendations based on the above study.
L imitations of the study:
y The study is limited to the users of laptops within Bangalore city only,
y All the responses of the respondents are assumed to be true,
y Sample size selected has to be restricted due to time and budget
constraints.
y Respondents were either vague or incomplete at times which makes
the answers of the interpretation difficult.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 54/270
Page | 54
Research Methodology:
Sources of Data Collection:
y Primary Data
y Secondary Data
Primary Data:
Primary Data for this research has been exclusively collected from the
following sources
y Questionnaire conducted with a sample size of 100 respondents.
y Information collected from the employees working in the authorized dealer·s
stores of Hewlett Packard.
y Informal interview was conducted with the Marketing Head of Hewlett
Packard.
Secondary Data:
Information for the purpose of the study was collected from the newspapers,
magazines, company journals, company reports, standard textbooks, and
appropriate information from the Internet has been acquired wherever necessary.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 55/270
Page | 55
Research Approach:
The study was conducted using survey method.
Survey approach:
Surveys are the best suited for descriptive research, company advised
me to undertake the survey to learn the brand awareness and customer
satisfaction.
Research Instrument:
The information was gathered using structured questionnaire .
Questionnaire:
A Questionnaire consists of a set of questions presented to
respondents, in order to get their feedback regarding the product.
Place of study:
The study was conducted in various areas of Bangalore city only, with
the help of 100 respondents to carry on the survey, an extensive field work
was undertaken.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 56/270
Page | 56
Sampling Design:
y Types of universe:
The universe in the study is an infinite number of items taken into
account
y Sampling unit:
The sampling unit is limited to the users of laptop computers within
Bangalore city.
y Sampling size:
Number of respondents taken into consideration is 100.
y Sampling technique:
The Sampling technique used in the study is conducted among the
users of the HP laptop.
Plan of Analysis:
The objectives are drafted and a projective quantitative questionnaire is
constructed for the research. The data thus obtained is tabulated through the
construction of tables and graphs and finally the findings are interpreted.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 57/270
Page | 57
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Introduction to Marketing:
Evolution of Marketing:
Marketing has evolved from the time man existed on earth. Following are the
phases of development of marketing
Social Orientation
Production Orientation
Sales Orientation
Marketing Orientation
Consumer Orientation
Management Orientation
Barter system
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 58/270
Page | 58
Barter system: The goods are exchanged against goods without any other medium
of exchange like money.
Production orientation: This was the stage where producers, instead of buyingconcerned with customer preference concentrating on the mass production of
goods for the purchase of profit.
Sales orientation: This stage witness major changes in all the spheres of economic
life. The selling activity becomes the dominating factor without any efforts for the
satisfaction of the consumer needs.
Marketing orientation: Customer·s importance was satisfied but only as a means
of disposing of goods produced competition become more stiffer.
Consumer orientation: Under this stage only such products are bought forward to
the markets which are capable of satisfying of taste and expectation of consumer
satisfaction.
Management orientation: The marketing function assumes the managerial role to
co-ordinate all the interacting business with the objectives of planning, promotion
and distribution.
Social orientation: The companies are not only cares for consumers but also for
social welfare. Thus, social welfare becomes the added dimension to the companies.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 59/270
Page | 59
Definition of Marketing:
Philip Kotler
The marketing guru has said ´Marketing is a social and managerial process
by which individuals and group obtain what they need and want through creating,
offering and changing products of value with othersµ.
American marketing association
Addressed ´marketing is the performance of business activities that direct
the flow of goods and services from producer to consumer to userµ.
Cundiff and still
´Marketing is the business process by which products are matched with
market and through which transfers of ownership are affectedµ.
I n the words of Hansen
´Marketing is the process of discovering and translating consumers needs
and wants into product and services and specifications, creating demand for these
products and services and then in term expanding demand.
By all these definitions we can derive that marketing is compressive term
that includes all resource and set of activities necessary to direct and facilitate flow
of goods and services from producer to consumer in the process of distribution.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 60/270
Page | 60
Objectives of Marketing:
At the end of all marketing activities is the satisfaction of human wants and
derive profits from them.
The following are the most significant objectives of marketing.
y Intelligent and effective application of modern marketing: Today economic
changing growth rate, relatively high inflation, high interest rates, rapid
technological change and new aggressive rivals challenge marketing firm to
adopt and respond to change for survival and prosperity.
y To develop the market field: Marketing is the most dynamic field where
change rules the roost. Change is continuing pre occupation among
marketers.
y To develop and implement guiding policies for better results: Innovative
marketing guiding policies and their effective implementation to assure
better results.
y To find sources for further information concerning the market problems: The
world of business in moving on the basis of countless decisions, marketing
decisions are more complex and intricate having impinging impact on the
very fortune of a company.
y To take appropriate and opportune action in the course of working. The
marketing information system designed by the marketing organization helps
in identifying the problem, investigating analyzing it and interpreting the
problem for the final decision.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 61/270
Page | 61
Functions of Marketing:
Marketing involves certain activities to make the goods from producers to
consumers. It consist of operations and an operation may be performed several
times either by a producer, middleman, till the commodity finally reaches in the
hand of consumers.
1. Functions of exchange
Exchange implies the transfer of goods and services money or money·s
worth. Exchange brings about change in the ownership of goods. It is a two-way
process invading two separate but supporting activities viz, buying and selling.
y Selling: Selling is the sum total of all those activities that push the
commodities to the buyers or consumers at a profitable price. It is the
process that involves personal and impersonal efforts made in persuading
the prospective customers to buy a commodity or service.
y Product planning and development: Product ² planning is the planning or
forecasting what consumers want in terms of quantity, quality, time, place,
price, where as, product development refers to making available such goods
to meet the requirement of consumers as demanded by them.
y Demand Creation: It includes such special efforts to induce and persuade
the prospective users to purchase the products of the seller only.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 62/270
Page | 62
y Negotiation: Negotiation as to terms of quality, quantity, price of the
product time and mode of transport payment etc« are to be made with
prospective buyers.
y Contractual: Once the terms and conditions are settled between buyers and
sellers a final contract would be entered into, where legally, ownership of
goods passes on from seller to buyer.
y Buying: Buying is another function of exchange that refers to all such
activities involves in the assembling of goods under a single ownership and
control. Its immediate purpose is to bring commodities together where theyare wanted for use in production for final consumption.
This buying function has following four elements:
y Planning Assortments: Buyers are to study their own market condition in
order know the types quantity and quality of goods that are required by final
users.
y Contractual: It is clothed with the selection of various sources of supply,
keeping in touch with them, to get the goods quickly reasonably and
regularly.
y Negotiation: Buyers and sellers negotiate the terms and condition of price
quantity, quality and time of delivery, transport & payment.
y Contractual: It is the last phase that binds the parties of exchange by
means of a contract where the titles to the goods more from seller to buyers.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 63/270
Page | 63
2. Functions of Physical supply
These are the functions that are related with creation of place and time
utilities, they are:
y Transportation: Transportation is the physical means to move the goods
and people from a place to another. It is essential spoke in the wheel of
market. It is responsible for the creation of time utility
y Storage: Storage is equally important that is creates time utility. The
products are to be preserved from time of production to the time of consumption. It is the base of consumers to get the goods as and when
required.
3. Facilitating Functions
These are the function that facilitates the process of exchange.
y Financing: Finance is the base for all marketing activities. It makes the
exchange process smooth and acts as lubricating oil to the wheel of
marketing.
y Risk-bearing: Market risk are inherent so long the process of exchange
continues many risks are involved in marketing which brings about changes
in ownership, place etc«
y Market information: The much desired success of marketing depends on
correct and timely decisions. These decisions are based on market
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 64/270
Page | 64
information. It includes all facts, estimates, opinion, views, regarding the
market
y Standardization: Standardization helps on tackle certain major problems of
marketing. It is related with the division of commodities into distinct groups
standardization involves establishment of certain criteria to which the goods
must confirm.
4P·s of Marketing:
In popular usage, "marketing" is the promotion of products, especially
advertising and branding. However, in professional usage the term has a
wider meaning which recognizes that marketing is customer centered.
Products are often developed to meet the desires of groups of customers or
even, in some cases, for specific customers. E. Jerome McCarthy divided
marketing into four general sets of activities. His typology has become so
universally recognized that his four activity sets, the Four Ps, have passed
into the language.
The four Ps are:
y Product : The Product management and Product marketing aspects of
marketing deal with the specifications of the actual goods or services, and
how it relates to the end-user's needs and wants.
y Pricing : This refers to the process of setting a price for a product, including
discounts. The price need not be monetary - it can simply be what is
exchanged for the product or service, e.g. time, or attention.
y Promotion : This includes advertising, sales promotion, publicity, andpersonal selling, and refers to the various methods of promoting the product,
brand, or company.
y Physical distribution refers to how the product gets to the customer; for
example, point of sale placement or retailing. This fourth P has also
sometimes been called P lace , referring to the channel by which a product or
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 65/270
Page | 65
service is sold (e.g. online vs. retail), which geographic region or industry, to
which segment (young adults, families, business people), etc.
These four elements are often referred to a s the marketing mix. A
marketer can use these variables to craft a marketing plan. The four Ps
model is most useful when marketing low value consumer products.
Industrial products, services, high value consumer products require
adjustments to this model.
Services marketing must account for the unique nature of services.
Industrial or B2B marketing must account for the long term contractual
agreements that are typical in supply chain transactions. Relationship
marketing attempts to do this by looking at marketing from a long term
relationship perspective rather than individual transactions.
As a counter to this, Morgan, in R iding the Waves of Change (Jossey-
Bass, 1988), adds "Perhaps the most significant criticism of the 4 Ps
approach, which you should be aware of, is that it unconsciously
emphasizes the inside²out view (looking from the company outwards),
whereas the essence of marketing should be the outside²in approach". Even
so, having made this important caveat, the 4 Ps offer a memorable and quite
workable guide to the major categories of marketing activity, as well as a
framework within which these can be used.
Market:
A market is a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to
discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or
services. It is one of the two key institutions that organize trade, along with
the right to own property. Allowing markets to arrive at a Pareto efficient
outcome is one of the key components of capitalism.
In everyday usage, the word "market" may refer to the location where goods
are traded, sometimes known as a marketplace, or to a street market.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 66/270
Page | 66
Functions of a Market:
The function of a market requires, at a minimum, that both parties
expect to become better off as a result of the transaction. Markets generally
rely on price adjustments to provide information to parties engaging in atransaction, so that each may accurately gauge the subsequent change of
their welfare. In less sophisticated markets, such as those involving barter,
individual buyers and sellers must engage in a more lengthy process of
haggling in order to gain the same information. Markets are efficient when
the price of a goods or services attracts exactly as much demand as the
market can currently supply. The chief function of a market, then, is to
adjust prices to accommodate fluctuations in supply and demand in order to
achieve allocative efficiency. An economic system in which goods and
services are exchanged by market functions is called a market economy. An
alternative economic system in which non-market forces (often government
mandates) determine prices are called planned economies or command
economies. The attempt to combine socialist ideals with the incentive system
of a market is known as market socialism.
Types of Market:
Although many markets exist in the traditional sense--such as a flea
market--there are various other types of them and various organizational
structures to assist their functions.
A market can be organized as an auction, as a shopping center, as a
complex institution such as a stock market, and as an informal discussion
between two individuals.
In economics, a market that runs under laissez-faire policies is a free
market. It is "free" in the sense that the government makes no attempt to
intervene through taxes, subsidies, minimum wages, price ceilings, etc.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 67/270
Page | 67
Markets may be distorted by a seller or sellers with monopoly power, or a
buyer with monopsony power. Also, the level of organization or negotiation
power of buyers, markedly affects the functioning of the market. Markets
where price negotiations do not arrive at efficient outcomes for both sides
are said to experience market failure.
Most markets are regulated by state wide laws and regulations. While
barter markets exist, most markets use currency or some other form of
money.
Markets of varying types can spontan eously arise whenever a party
has interest in goods or services that some other party can provide. Hence
there can be a market for cigarettes in correctional facilities, another forchewing gum in a playground, and yet another for contracts for the future
delivery of a commodity. There can be black markets, where a good is
exchanged illegally and virtual markets, such as eBay in which buyers and
sellers do not physically interact.
PERCEPTION:
Meaning of Perception:
´Perception is the process of electing, organizing and interpreting or
attaching meaning to events happening in environmentµ.
Perception is something more than sensation. It co-relates ,
integrates comprehends the various sensation and information received
from different organs of the body by means of which a person develops hissensitivity to various things and objects. Perception is determined by both
physiological and psychological factors. This is because perception is
developed based on previous experience (learning), feeling and motives.
Whereas sensation only activates the sensory organs of the body. Simply
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 68/270
Page | 68
stated, activation of the ears to hear what another person is saying is
sensation and the inference of what is heard is perception.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 69/270
Page | 69
Selective Attention:
There is a tendency among people to consciously see and hear only certain
aspects of the advertising message which is being communicated.
EXTERNAL FACTORS INTERNAL FACTORS
Selective Exposure
Selective Attention
Intensity and size Reception, comprehension
and Retention
Position
Perceptual vigilance
Contrast
Expectation
Novelty
Repetition Subliminal
Perception
Movement
Perception is a selective process. Usually, people are able to sense and
receive only limited information from the environment and hence are
characteristically selective. During this process of selection, certain as pects
P
E
R
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 70/270
Page | 70
of stimuli are screened out and others admitted. These aspects of the stimuli
which are admitted remain and fall within the threshold of the person, while
those which are screened out fall out or below the threshold limit.
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL FACTORS
The manner in which either a production or service is perceived will
depend upon both internal and external factors. This is to say that both
external reality and internal reality are intertwined. As human being wecarry all of our experience in our mind and have our own selfish interests,
needs, motives, and expectations into the way which we could like ¶reality· to
exist in the world.
EXTERNAL FACTORS INFL UENCING ATTENTION
Intensity and size: The brighter the sound (intensity) or more louderthe sound , the more likely the person·s attention is drawn to it. For
instance, advertisers use this characteristic to draw the attention of the
readers or viewers. Large sized advertisement in a newspaper or magazine
will be noticed and also read more often than a small insertion given
although the increase in size may not be linear.
y Position: The position of display of the product or advertisement also
is determining factors of attracting the attention. An advertisement
placed next to a compatible editorial column of magazines, and
newspaper is thought to attract more readership response.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 71/270
Page | 71
y Contrast: Human beings have the ability to adapt to sound, odors,
pain, bright lights, neon signs and movements. That is, human beings
are able to use sensory organs to adapt themselves to various stimuli.
This is where contrast will help in the perception process.
y Novelty : It has been observed by marketers that anything which is
different from what are normally expect tend to attract attention like
an unusual bottle shape or a perfume strips in a magazine and so on.
y Repetition: Advertisements are repeated more often to enable
consumers for brand recall as well as stimulate them and create a
strong desire for interest in the purchase of the product.
y Movement: Advertisers have also started using billboards or
hoardings with movement. Mobile vans etc. so as to inject a feeling of
movement into it. Many marketers are finding out smarter ways to
reach out too to the consumer by organizing some movementful
activities like holdings free trails. Demonstrations, exhibitions, mobile
vans etc. such exercise could also result in creating excitement and
reinforce top of mind recall.
INTERNAL FACTORS:
Customers may not receive the messages passively. Usually customers may
take the message given to them by the marketers and then use it so that is
may fit into their own internal world and then try to work out in their mind
about clues to determine the brands capability. Marketers are interested in
knowing what is the impact of their usage of marketing mix elements on the
minds of the consumers. The marketer has to constantly understand ´what
is going on in the consumers mind thereµ.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 72/270
Page | 72
Selective Exposure:
Through selective exposure people try to avoid coming into contact with
or avoid any message that may go against or be contradictory to the strongly
held beliefs and attitudes. A person·s beliefs very strongly influence his
perception about people or things. Because of this, a fact is conceived not on
what it is but on what a person believes it to be. Thus the individual
normally puts a censorship on the stimulus (inputs) to avoid disturbance of
this existing beliefs and value. This is also known as maintains of cognitive
consistency.
y Selective Reception, Comprehension and Retention: There is a
natural tendency among people to notice the sti muli such that the
information received will fit into his or his existing mindset. People are
selective in their tendency to receive certain information and retain it
in such a way that will support their preconceptions.
y Perceptual Vigilance Or Defence: Perceptual defence refers to the
individual being vigilant and screening out of those stimuli or
elements which create conflict or may give rise to a threatening
situation. The consumers may subconsciously screen out the
stimulus which is found to be psychological threatening, even if the
exposure has taken place. They may even perceive other factors to be
present, which may not be a part of the stimulus situation.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 73/270
Page | 73
y Expectation: Expectation affects what a person perceives.
Expectation refers to the state of anticipation of a particular behavior
from a person. Even in marketing, people often perceive what they
expect to perceive rather than the message they actually receive.
y Subliminal Perception: Subliminal perception is used to describe
something that is below the level of perception. People can get
stimulated below their conscious awareness level. Such persons can
perceive stimuli without being consciously aware that they are doing
so.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 74/270
Page | 74
DATA ANAL YSIS & INTERPRETATION
Table 1
No of respondents aware of HP range of L aptops
VariablesNo of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Yes 83 83%
No 17 17%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 75/270
Page | 75
Graph 1
Source : Field Survey
Concept
This question is asked in the very beginning of the questionnaire in order to
assess if the respondent is aware of Hewlett Packard·s Range of Laptops. This also
helps us to understand the responses better as individuals who are aware about
Hewlett Packard laptops would be able to form better and accurate perceptions.
This would also thereby help us to analyze and give recommendations accurately.
Analysis
The above graph shows that a majority 83% of the respondents are aware of
Hewlett Packard·s Range of Laptops. The remaining 17% are unaware of Hewlett
Packard·s Range of Laptops.
Respondant's awareness about P Laptops
83
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Variables
Percentage of Respondant
s
Yes
No
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 76/270
Page | 76
Interpretation
From the graph it is clear that a majority of respondents are aware of
Hewlett Packard·s range of laptops. This is a favorable condition as the number of
people who are unaware of their range of laptops are 17%.
Table 2
No of Respondents owning a Hewlett Packard L aptop
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Yes 26 26%
No 74 74%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 77/270
Page | 77
Graph 2
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question intends to find out whether the respondents own or previously
owned a Hewlett Packard laptop. This question allows us to know, how many
among the respondents are using a Hewlett Packard Laptop now or previously.
Analysis
From the graph we come to know that 26% of the respondents are not using
HP laptops. The remaining 74% of respondents do not own a HP Laptop.
Respondents O ner ship of P ptop
26%
74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
V
ri
z les
P
er
{
ent
|
}
e of Respondents
Yes
No
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 78/270
Page | 78
Interpretation
A majority of the respondents were not owning a Hewlett Laptop. This could
also include a majority of users not owning a laptop at all. The remaining 26% of
respondents have used a Hewlett Packard Laptop. This includes both, the people
who currently own a HP laptop and also those who have used it in the past.
Table 3
Respondents responses to whether HP Manufactures the best
range of laptops
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Strongly Agree 12 12%
Agree 56 56%
Disagree 21 21%
Strongly Disagree 4 4%
Don·t Know / Can't
Say 7 7%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 79/270
Page | 79
Graph 3
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question was asked in the form of a statement as to whether therespondents would agree that Hewlett Packard manufactures the best range of
laptops. This question was asked to measure the level to which the respondents
perceived that the laptops manufactured by Hewlett Packard was the best available
in the market.
Analysis
From the graph it can be observed that 12% of the respondents strongly
agree that Hewlett Packard manufactures the best range of laptops. 56% of the
respondents agree with the statement. 21% of the respondents perceive that HP
doesn·t manufacture the best range of laptops. Another 4% of the respondents
strongly disagree that HP manufacture the best range of laptops. 7% of the
Responses to hether P m nufactur es
Best aptops
12%
56%
21%
4%7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Variables
Percentage of
Respondents
Str ongly Agr ee
Agr ee
Disagr ee
Str ongly Disagr ee
Don¶t Kno~
/ Can't Say
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 80/270
Page | 80
respondents do not have any perceptions as they don·t know or cannot tell their
opinion about whether HP Laptops manufactures the best range of laptops in the
market.
Interpretation
The responses got for this question has been favorable to an extent to
Hewlett Packard. A majority of respondents fall in the category of ´Strongly Agreeµ
and ´Agreeµ. Which in turn means that they hold a positive perception about HP·s
ability to manufacture the best range of laptops. At the same time, more than 30%
of the respondents question the ability of HP to manufacture the best range of
laptop. Among these, 21% of the people disagree with the statement. Another 4%
strongly disagree with the statement.
Table 4
Respondents perception about the prices quoted for Hewlett
Packard L aptops
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
High Priced 18 18%
Same as Competition 53 53%
Value for Money 21 21%
Low Priced 8 8%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 81/270
Page | 81
Graph 4
Source: Field Survey
Concept
The question asks the respondents what they perceive the price of Hewlett
Packard laptop is. This question will help us understand what the customers feel
about the price of the laptop when compared to other laptops available in the
market.
Analysis
From the graph, we can see that 18% of the respondents feel that Hewlett
Packard Laptops are highly priced. 53% of the respondents feel that the pricing of
Hewlett Packard Laptops are the same as the prices quoted on competing brands.
Out of the remaining respondents, 21% of them feel that they are value for money.
The remaining 8% feel that Hewlett Packard·s laptops are low priced.
Respondents perception about the pricing of
ewlett Packard Laptops
18%
53%
21%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Variables
Percentage of
Respondents Hi P i ed
Same as ompetition
Val e f or Money
Low Pr i ed
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 82/270
Page | 82
Interpretation
From the graph we can infer that majority of respondents feel that the
pricing of Hewlett Packard Laptops are the same as the competing laptops. This
might work against the interests of HP if customers don·t find any difference in the
product offering of HP laptops. 18% of the respondents who feel that HP laptops are
high priced are also a cause for concern. These respondents feel that they do not
derive an equal or more than equal level of satisfaction from the laptops for the
money they pay for it.
It is important for HP to increase the percentage of people who feel that HP
laptops are value for money as only 21% of customers feel that they are value for
money laptops. The remaining 8% feel that Hewlett Packard laptops are low priced,
which means that they find the competing laptop prices more than the prices
quoted for Hewlett Packard laptops.
Table 5
Respondent·s perception about the quality of
Hewlett Packard L aptops
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
High Quality 39 39%
Medium Quality 58 58%
Low Quality 3 3%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 83/270
Page | 83
Graph 5
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question tries to find out the respondents perceptions about the quality
level of Hewlett Packard Laptops. Quality plays a key role in helping the customers
to choose a laptop.
Therefore this question would asses the level of quality which the
respondents would like to assign for the Hewlett Packard range of laptops.
Respondents perception about the Quality of
ewlett Packard Laptops
39%
58%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Variables
Percentage of
Respondents
Hi Q ality
Medi m Q ality
Low Q
ality
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 84/270
Page | 84
Analysis
From the graph we can say that 39% people feel that Hewlett Packard
laptops are of high quality and a majority of 58% people perceive Hewlett Packard
laptops as a medium quality laptop. The remaining mere 3% people perceive it as a
maker of low quality laptops.
Interpretation
From the table and graph, we can interpret that the responses given by the
respondents regarding their perceptions about Hewlett Packard Laptops are neithertoo favorable to HP nor too unfavorable to HP. 58% of the respondents feel that
Hewlett Packard manufactures laptops which are of medium quality. 39% of people
feel that Hewlett Packard are of high quality. Only 3% people perceive Hewlett
Packard as a maker of low quality laptops.
In competition, it is necessary for Hewlett Packard to ensure that a majority
of customers feel that it makes high quality laptops.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 85/270
Page | 85
Table 6
Respondent·s Ranks to Various Brands
HP
Sony
Vaio IBM Compaq Acer Dell Toshiba
Rank 1 10 32 14 4 1 17 13
Rank 2 29 21 11 12 1 17 5
Rank 3 20 15 17 13 2 18 8
Rank 4 16 11 24 14 5 16 5
Rank 5 8 3 15 28 15 11 9
Rank 6 3 6 5 12 39 9 17
Rank 7 4 2 4 8 28 4 38
Graph 6
Respondent's Ranks to various brands
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HP
SonyV
oIBM
Com
paq
Acer
Dell
Toshiba
Brands
P
ercentage of Respondants
Rank 7
Rank 6
Rank 5
Rank 4
Rank 3
Rank 2
Rank 1
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 86/270
Page | 86
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question was asked with the intention of finding out how the
respondents rank the quality of the Hewlett Packard laptop against other major
brands available in the market. This would help us understand the customer
perceptions about Hewlett Packard laptops in a much better way than if we had
studied the quality of HP in independence.
Analysis
From the graph we can make out that the brand which scores the highest in
rank 1 is Sony Vaio. The next brand is Hewlett Packard which come the highest in
the second rank. The brand which most people perceive as rank 3 is also Hewlett
Packard. A majority of people feel IBM is the brand which comes fourth in terms of
quality. Compaq comes fifth in terms of quality. Acer comes sixth in terms of
quality and the brand with the least rank is Toshiba.
Interpretation
From the graph, we can make various observations. Though Hewlett Packard
has performed extremely well in this question, there are certain important
observations which is of concern. Firstly, a majority of the customers feel that Sony
Vaio is a better brand than Hewlett Packard. Therefore Sony Vaio qualifies as one
of the major competitor for Hewlett Packard. But Hewlett Packard leads in the rank
two and rank three positions which infact out numbers Sony Vaio.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 87/270
Page | 87
Table 7
Exlusivity of HP laptops
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Strongly Agree 11 11%
Agree 54 54%
Disagree 20 20%
Strongly Disagree 8 8%
Don·t Know / Can't
Say 7 7%
Total 100 100%
Graph 7
Respondents perception about the Exclusivity of
ewlett Packard's Range of Laptops
11%
54%
20%
8% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Variables
Percen
tage of
Respo
ndents
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Don¶t Know / an't Say
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 88/270
Page | 88
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question was asked to find out the respondent·s perception about
whether Hewlett Packard·s range of laptops are exclusive or not. This would helpful
in our analysis as the brands that have a exclusive range of laptops would benefit
in the long run.
Analysis
From the graph, we can analyze that 11% of the people strongly agree thatHP laptops are exclusive in terms of quality and features when compared to the
laptops of the competition. Another 54% of the respondents agree that HP laptops
are exclusive. Apart from these people, another 20% of the people disagree with the
fact that HP manufactures exclusive range of laptops. Another 8% people strongly
disagree with the fact that HP manufactures exclusive range of laptops. 7% of the
respondents do not have perception about this as they are unaware and cannot tell
their response.
Interpretation
From the graph, we can interpret that 11% of the people strongly agree that
HP Laptops are exclusive. These segment of people might be those who have used
the laptops and are very happy with the performance. Another 54% of the
respondents also agree with this statement. These are again people who have either
used the laptop in the past or are currently using it. Apart from the above two
responses, the rest didn·t have a positive response to the question. 20% of people
disagree with the statement. These could be people could be users of HP Laptops
who are not satisfied with the product or people who use a different range of laptop
and are happy with its performance.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 89/270
Page | 89
Table 8
Awareness about product features
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Lightscribe Tech 17 17%
Quick Play 40 40%
Brightview Screen 43 43%
Total 100 100%
Graph 8
Source: Field Survey
Respondents awar eness about the pr oduct
featur es available exclusively on P aptops
17%
40%43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Variables
Percentage of
Respondents
Lightsc r ibe Technology
uick Play
Br ightview Scr een
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 90/270
Page | 90
Concept
This question checks how many people are aware of the some of the most
well known features of Hewlett Packard. This question asks the respondents their
awareness of respondents about three major features of HP Laptops being
Lightscribe Technology for labeling discs by etching on them, Quickplay option
which allows the user to access multimedia without switching the computer on,
and Brightview screen which provides extra contrast and brightness to the LCD
screen.
Analysis
From the 100 respondents who were surveyed, only 17% people were aware
of Lightscribe technology, 40% were aware of Quickplay feature and 43% of the
respondents were aware of Brightview Screen.
Interpretation
From the graph, we can infer that a majority of people are unaware of theexclusive features available on Hewlett Packard Laptops. This is not a good sign for
Hewlett Packard which invests millions of dollars in developing new technology.
From the above graph, we notice that only 17% people are aware of Lightscribe
technology, which is pioneered by HP. Also a 40% of the respondents are aware of
Quickplay and 43% of the respondents aware of Brightview screen which is again
not a good sign for Hewlett Packard. This could be because of people·s lack of
proper knowledge about HP Laptops, Poor advertising and communication from
Hewlett Packard in educating the people about its product features etc.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 91/270
Page | 91
Table 9
Respondent·s perception about the style and appearance of
Hewlett Packard L aptops
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
V.Good 20 20%
Good 62 62%
Bad 7 7%
Very Bad 8 8%
Don·t Know / Can't
Say 3 3%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 92/270
Page | 92
Graph 9
Source: Field Survey
Concept
The style and appearance is one of the most important feature which a
prospective buyer of Hewlett Packard Laptop will look for in a laptop before making
a purchase. This question intends to analyze the respondents perception aboutwhat they feel about the style and appearance of Hewlett Packard Laptops. The
options range from Very good to Very bad. This question will help us to understand
customer perception about Hewlett Packard laptops in a better way.
Analysis
From the graph, we can see that 20% of the respondents feel that the style
and appearance of the laptop is very good. A majority of 62% of respondents feel
that the style and appearance of the laptop is good, though not very good. 7% of the
respondents feel the it is bad, another 8% feel it is very bad and 3% of the people
have reserved their response as they don·t know or cannot say.
Respondents per ceptions about the style and
appear ance of P aptops
20%
62%
7% 8%3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Variables
Percentage of
Respondents
V.Good
Good
Bad
Ver y Bad
Don¶t Know / Can't Say
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 93/270
Page | 93
Interpretation
From the graph we can infer that majority of respondents have a positive
image about the style and performance of Hewlett Packard Laptops. Almost 80% of
the respondents feel that the style and design is either very good or good. This also
explains why Hewlett Packard is also one of the leading brands in laptop market in
India and the world.
Table 10
Respondent·s perception about the relationship between the
price and quality of Hewlett Packard L aptops
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
High Quality, Low
Price 11 11%
High Quality, High
Price28 28%
High Quality, Value
for Money44 44%
Low Quality, High
Price17 17%
Low Qulaity, Low
Price 0 0%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 94/270
Page | 94
Graph 10
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question is asked in order to find out respondent·s perception about the
relationship between the price and quality of Hewlett Packard laptops. It is very
important to understand the relationship between the two as customers tend to
relate the two of these before they make a purchase.
Analysis
From the graph, we can see that 11% of the people feel of High quality and
low price, 28% feel it·s of high quality, high price. A majority of 44% feel that HPlaptops are value for money and have high quality. Another 17% feel Hewlett
Packard Laptops are having low quality and high price. None of the respondents felt
that HP Laptops are of low quality and low price.
Respondents per ceptions about the r elationship
between the price and quality of P aptops
11%
28%
44%
17%
0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Variables
Percentage of
Respondents
High � uality, Low Pr ice
High � uality, High Pr ice
High � uality, Value for Money
Low � uality, High Pr ice
Low � ulaity, Low Pr ice
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 95/270
Page | 95
Interpretation
From the graph we can find that a majority 44% of them feel that HP laptops
are of high quality and value for money laptops. This is very favorable to the
customer as they generally expect laptops to be of this kind while making a
purchase. 28% of people feel that HP Laptops are of high quality and high price.
This could be attractive to niche customers who look for high quality and do not
bother about the price. 17% people feel that HP laptops are of low quality, but
highly priced. This is unfavourable to the company. Overall we can infer that
respondents have a positive image about Hewlett Packard Laptops in terms of their
perceived relationship between quality and price.
Table 11
Respondent·s opinion about the Ad campaigns of
Hewlett Packard L aptops
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Good 24 24%
Average 55 55%
Not Good 8 8%
Haven·t Seen / Not
Noticed 13 13%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 97/270
Page | 97
Interpretation
From the above graph and analysis, we can infer that a majority of people
feel that the advertising campaign of Hewlett Packard Laptops are average. Which
means that they do not think they are very good. 24% people feel that the ad
campaigns are good which is favourable to HP. The remaining 8% of the people feel
that they are not good and 13% of the people haven·t seen or not noticed the ads.
This could mean that almost 20% of the people are either not satisfied with the ads
or that the ads are not catchy enough for them to take notice. HP has to do a
further analysis to find the specific profile of this 20% respondents and check if
they are prospective customers or not.
Table 12
Factors which would induce a customer to buy a
HP L aptop
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Brand Name 14 14%
Quality 43 43%
Price 23 23%
After Sale Service 17 17%
Don·t Know / Can't
Say 2 2%
Other 1 1%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 98/270
Page | 98
Graph 12
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question tries to find out the parameters which would induce thecustomer to buy a HP Laptop. This would give a clear understanding of what the
customer look for in a laptop and would therefore help Hewlett Packard with the
information which could help them increase the sales of their l aptops.
Analysis
From the graph, we can see that 14% people feel brand name is the most
important parameter in choosing a HP Laptop. A majority 43% feel quality alone is
the most important parameter which would help them decide. 23% feel it is price,
and 17% feel its after sales service. 2% people don·t know or cannot say and 1%
have other reasons.
Factor s which would induce a customer to buy a
P aptop
14%
43%
23%
17%
2% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Variables
Percentage of
Respondents
Br and Name
� uality
Pr ice
Af ter Sale Ser vice
Don¶t Know / Can't Say
Other
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 99/270
Page | 99
Interpretation
From the graph, it is clear that majority of customer feel quality is the most
important aspect which would induce them to buy a Hewlett Packard Laptop. After
quality, feel give price of the laptop and the after sales service provided the most
important. One interesting observation here is that people say the brand name is
not the most important thing which would induce them to buy. 1% people had
other reasons like free gifts, exchange offer, combo offers etc which would induce
them to buy a Hewlett Packard laptop.
Table 13
Respondent·s Choice of brand while buying a new laptop.
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
IBM 15 15%
Sony Vaio 31 31%
Compaq 5 5%
Hewlett Packard 26 26%
Dell 14 14%
Acer 1 1%
Other 8 8%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 100/270
Page | 100
Graph 13
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question intends to ask the final question to the respondent·s as to
which brand they would like to buy if they were to buy a new laptop. Even though a
customer might rank a brand higher in individual parameters like quality andprice, his final choice of laptop might differ. Therefore this would give a clear
picture of choice of laptop as against the competitors.
Analysis
From the graph we can find out that 15% people prefer to buy IBM laptops,
as against 31% for Sony Vaio, 5% for Compaq and 26% for Hewlett Packard. Apart
from that, 14% people feel that they would like to purchase a Dell Laptop. 1%
people want to buy an Acer laptop and 8% people would prefer other brands
Respondent's hoice of Br and while buying a
new laptop
15%
31%
5%
26%
14%
1%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Variables
Percentage of
Respondents
IBM
Sony Vaio
Compaq
Hewlett Packar d
Dell
Acer
Other
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 101/270
Page | 101
Interpretation
We can hereby infer that majority of people prefer to buy Sony Vaio range of
Laptops. This is followed by Hewlett Packard. We can therefore conclude that Sony
Vaio is one of the major competitor for HP Laptops. IBM with 16% of the people·s
choice also is a strong competitor for HP range of Laptops.
Table 14
Gender of the Respondents
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Male 64 64%
Female 36 36%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 102/270
Page | 102
Graph 14
Source: Field Survey
Concept
The reason behind asking this question is to get to know the gender of the
respondents.
Analysis
From the graph we can see that 64% of the respondents who were surveyed
are male and 36% of them are female.
Gender of Respondents
64%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Variables
Percenta
ge of Respondents
Male
Female
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 103/270
Page | 103
Interpretation
We can see that a majority of users of HP laptops are Male when compared
to females.
Table 15
Age Group of the Respondents
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
15-20 18 18%
21-25 58 58%
26-35 12 12%
36-45 7 7%
> 45 5 5%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 104/270
Page | 104
Graph 15
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question intends to find out the age group of respondents. The age
group is also one of the factors which would help us assess the perceptions about
the customers have about Hewlett Packard in a better way.
Analysis
From the graph we can note that 18% of the respondents fall in the 15-20
Age Category. 58% of the respondents age between 21-25. Apart from them, 12%
fall in the age category 26 ² 35. 7% of the respondents are in the age group of 36 ²
45. The remaining 5% are above the age group of 45.
Age Gr oup of Respondents
18%
58%
12%7% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Variables
P
ercentage of Respondents
15-20
21-25
26-35
36-45
> 45
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 105/270
Page | 105
Interpretation
We can hereby conclude that a majority of users of laptops are in the age
group of 21-25 when compared to other age groups
Table 16
Occupation of the respondents
Variables
No of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Student 65 65%
Working Professional 22 22%
Business 7 7%
Teaching Academic 6 6%
Total 100 100%
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 106/270
Page | 106
Graph 16
Source: Field Survey
Concept
This question intends to find out occupation of the respondents. This will
help us to segment the customers as the occupation of the respondents would give
us a clear picture of what purpose a laptop is being used by the respondents.
Analysis
From the above graph we notice that 65% of the respondents are students
and 22% of the respondents are working professionals. The remaining 7% are
business men and 6% of them being in academic and teaching professions.
Occupation of the Respondents
65%
22%
7% 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Variables
P
ercentage of Respondents
Student
Wor king Pr ofessional
Business
Teaching Academic
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 107/270
Page | 107
Interpretation
From the graph, we can infer that majority of users of laptops are students,
which in this case are students studying business management compared to other
types of users. The next type of users is primarily working professionals.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 108/270
Page | 108
FINDINGS
y It is known that globally Hewlett Packard is a leading brand in the PC and
Laptop business having a unassailable market share. The sales of Hewlett
Packard laptops are a whisker higher than IBM as on 2006. It is seen from
the analysis that a majority of people are aware of Hewlett Packard·s range of
laptop. This can be attributed the global presence of the brand, availability
across major cities in the country, product range and their quality levels.
Also as we saw from the survey, majority of people found the ads good and
around average. This also has led to better awareness of the brand in the
minds of the consumer.
y Hewlett Packard is perceived as a maker of the best range of laptops by the
people. A majority of the respondents agreed that Hewlett Packard makes
the best range of laptop. The people·s perception about Hewlett Packard
laptop·s performance is based on various factors like quality, price and
service provided. Also, since HP is a market leader people have a good
perception about the brand.
y Quality plays a very important role when customers form perceptions about
a brand. In the case of Hewlett Packard laptops, a majority of people don·t
look at Hewlett Packard laptops as having the best quality. Majority of
people feel it has medium quality. This could be because they feel its not as
great as another brand, unsatisfied with the performance, faced technical
problem with the laptop etc.
y Majority of people feel that in terms of quality Sony Vaio is better than
Hewlett Packard laptops. When asked to assign ranks to seven well know
brands in the market, Sony Vaio got maximum number of Rank 1. Followed
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 109/270
Page | 109
by this Hewlett Packard secured maximum number of Rank 2 and Rank 3.
This put together is more than the rank obtained by Sony Vaio in Rank 2
and Rank 3.
y The main competitor for Hewlett Packard in terms of Quality is Sony Vaio.
As majority of people ranked Sony Vaio higher than HP in terms of quality.
This is closely followed by brands like Dell, IBM and Compaq etc.
y People agree that Hewlett Packard Laptops include a lot of features which
are exclusive to its laptops alone. But at the same time people were not
aware of the major technologies and product features which are exclusively
available on Hewlett Packard Laptops like Lightscribe, Quickplay and
Brightview screens. This could be because HP hasn·t communicated these
technologies to the customers through their adversitements, POPs etc well.
y The advantage Hewlett Packard has is its product·s style and appearance.
People feel that the design, style and appearance of the laptops are good. The
new laptop ranges launched by HP like DV9000 and DV6000 series are
testimonies for these. Again, this is a reinforcement of the fact that Hewlett
Packard Laptops are considered as the manufacturer of the best range of
laptops.
y Hewlett Packard even though has a very good presence in the minds of the
people, the advertising campaigns were not very much appreciated by the
people. They feel that that the advertising campaigns are average. A lot of
respondents feel that HP ads are filled with a lot of words and pictures and
is difficult to read.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 110/270
Page | 110
y When asked about which brand to buy, most of the people preferred Sony
Vaio over Hewlett Packard Laptop. This is also a reinforcement of the
previous finding that people perceive Sony Vaio as a better quality laptop in
comparison to Hewlett Packard.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 111/270
Page | 111
RECOMMENDATIONS
y In today·s cut throat competition, the quality levels between companies are
bridging and the gap closing in. Therefore companies have to maintain their
levels of quality to the highest order. In the case of Hewlett Packard, since
people feel that Hewlett Packard laptops are of medium quality, it should
take enough steps to ensure that people feel its of high quality. The reality
could be that Hewlett Packard could be a manufacturer of high quality
laptops. But it is necessary to ensure that people perceive the brand in the
same way. This could be done through communication through
advertisement, better customer service, training the salesmen to
communicate about the quality to the customer at the time of purchase etc.
y Hewlett Packard·s advertising campaign has been seen as average and not
very attractive. The advertising campaigns of Hewlett Packard are
characterized by international ads, with a lot of words and pictures. People
responded that the ads are difficult to understand and lack Indian taste.
Therefore it has to improve the ads, try to ad an Indian touch and make it
more attractive.
y A lot of customers feel that the pricing of laptops of Hewlett Packard as the
same as competition. In a country like India, it is important to price lesser
than the competition to survive and to cater to a larger category of people.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 112/270
Page | 112
y Hewlett Packard has been setting industry standard features which are
exclusive to its range or laptops. But even then, the awareness about their
product features is not very high. This again is due to lack of proper
communication. Hewlett Packard should give more importance to these
product features and increase awareness about them as it will help them toget more sales.
y Customers have a very good perception about the style and appearance of
the laptops. Hewlett Packard should ensure that they use it to their
advantage. And also Hewlett Packard should ensure that their future
products also maintain the same look and design. To convince customers
that their laptop designs are the best, they can use the various awards and
recognitions that they have received for their laptops on theiradvertisements.
y From the current project survey, we could clearly make out that there exists
severe competition in the market. This can be proved with reference to two
distinct points. Firstly when asked about which brand ranks the highest in
terms of quality, most of the respondents chose Sony Vaio. Secondly, when
asked about the brand they would like to buy in the future, majority of
customers again chose Sony Vaio. This clearly shows that Sony Vaio is a
clear competitor atleast in the minds of the consumer for HP. It has to tackle
this competition well inorder to derive long term results.
It can tackle competition, by cutting costs, increasing market share,
reducing price below the competition etc.
y From the survey we found that the majority of users of laptops are students.
These students are primarily students of management, art, interior design
etc where a laptop is of much use. Also the second largest users of laptops
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 113/270
Page | 113
are working professionals primarily from computer field. Therefore Hewlett
Packard should focus on these group of customers
y The major users of laptops are in the age group of 21-35 years of age. These
groups of customers include students, working professionals, businessmen,
housewives etc. Hewlett Packard has to focus on these group of customers
and possibly create a separate product line for each of these customers to
help satisfy their needs in a better way.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 114/270
Page | 114
CONCL USION
Hewlett Packard today is a technology company operating in more than 170
countries. This phenomenal growth was achieved over the years with a lot of hard
work, determination, calculated risks and year after year of splendid performance.
In our survey we found that customers are satisfied and feel that Hewlett
Packard is a maker of quality laptops. Such positive perceptions about Hewlett
Packard could not have been built without the support and work of each and every
employee of Hewlett Packard. And with all their efforts put together, Hewlett
Packard is helping explore how technology and services can help people and
companies address their problems and challenges, and realize their possibilities,
aspirations and dreams. HP applies new thinking and ideas to create more simple,
valuable and trusted experiences with technology, continuously improving the way
our customers live and work.
Hewlett Packard has become synonymous with Laptops and PersonalComputers India today and with the industry bound to grow more and more for the
years to come, the things only look brighter. Along with HP, the opportunities and
the space to operate will be available to other manufacturers of laptops as well.
Thus, there are a lot of opportunities to harbor clean and healthy competition
among the PC Manufacturers.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 115/270
Page | 115
BIBILI
OGAPHY
Books:
y C.R. Kothari (1998), Research Methodology (2nd edition) Vishwa
Prakashan, 4835/24, Ansari Road, Durgaganj, New Delhi ² 110002.
y S.L . Gupta (1999), Marketing Research, Am Excel Publishers Pvt. Ltd., A-
45, Naraina, Phase-1, New Delhi ² 110028.
y Philip Kotler & Gary Armstrong (2005), Principles of Marketing (4th
Indian Edition) Pearson Education, Inc, Indian Branch, 482, F.I.E
Patparganj, Delhi 110092, India
Websites:
y www.google.co.in
y www.wikipedia.org
y http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/
y http://welcome.hp.com/country/in/en/prodserv.html
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 116/270
Page | 116
Others:Business line-smart buy-April 21,2010
Business line-smart buy April 28, 2010
Hindustan times- ³BRUNCH´-April 25,2010
Marketing Research-4th
edition-Naresh k. malhotra.
Marketing Research- TATA Megraw-Hill
Marketing research- G.C
. Beri
Marketing Reasearch-3rd edition-paul hague
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 117/270
Page | 117
APPENDIX
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 118/270
Page | 118
Q UESTIONNAIRE
1) Project name
.
2) Location
3) Customers Name & Mo.No.
.
4) E-mail ID-..
5) Age.
6) Preference of the hp model
7) Before they use the hp product
(a) Yes
(b) No
8) Where from they collect the news about hp computer
(a) friends(b) Newspaper
(c) Others
9) Computers name which are in use
.
10) When will he/she buy the new computer
(A) Within 1 month
(B) Within 3 months(C) After 6 months
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 119/270
Page | 119
LIST OF THE COMPANIES SURVEYED
1. hp India.
2. Dell India.
3. Samsung India.
4. Toshiba India.
5. Sony India.
6. Lenove India.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 120/270
Page | 120
R AW DATA
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 121/270
Page | 121
INDIAN COMPUTER(HP) INDUSTRY
Import Liberalisation and Development
of Indian Computer Industry:
The Indian computer industry has come a long way since its total reliance on imports from a few
multinationals in the 1960s. However, the current round of import liberalisation is producing an
increasing number of features redolent of that earlier period. This article investigates the
relationship between import liberalisation and development of industrial production, exports and
technological capabilities. It concludes that import liberalism cannot be regarded as the optimum
strategy for any country wishing to develop local production capabilities, and that some measure of
import protection has to be in place for this development to lake place. However, the case is made
fora reactive government policy which can apply varying degrees of protectionor liberalisation as the circumstances of external change and industrial development demand.
Therefore, both the timing and phasing ofpolicx changes will be important. Technical change and
other factors are shown to have mediated some outcomes and to have constrained policy choices.
1
Introduction
THIS article considers the impact of import liberalisation on India's computer industry.
This industry is chosen because of its increasing importance to the Indian economy, because of the
long history of both industry and related government policies, and because of the different types of policy it has been subject to during that history. Broadly speaking, six historical phases can be
delineated.
(i)Multinational imports (1950s-1972). Th
e
first computer was introduced into India in
1956 for use at the Indian Statistical Institute.
Multinational corporations (MNCs) were
allowed virtually free rein in the Indian
computer market with the result that the
market was supplied with outdated equipment
that was all imported. Because India had no
local base of computing skills, the Indian
government had little choice but to agree to
this situation.
(ii) Public sector production (1972-1978).
As familiarity with the use and maintenance
of computers grew and as skills developed
in complementary areas of electronics, the
government felt confident to alter policy and
severely restrict imports in order to encourage
indigenous production. As a result, IBM
decided to pull out of India. Productionrelated
capabilities including design and
manufacture were built up within the country
but these remained confined to one public
sector firm (Electronics Corporation of India
- EC1L).
(in) Private sector competition (1978-1983/
84). Import protection was maintained but
industrial licensing was liberalised, with
several private sector firms being granted
licences for the manufacture and sale of
small computers. EClL's market share fell
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 122/270
Page | 122
to 10 per cent by 1980, but overall demand
was boosted by an increase ia government
and public sector purchasing.
(iv) Liberalising supply, boosting demand
(1983/84-1987). Slight import liberalisation
in 1983 was succeeded by the true emergence
of India into the computer age throughthree events. Firstly, the arrival in India of
IBM-compatible personal computers
(PCs),' and secondly, the arrival of Rajiv
Gandhi as prime minister, with his great
interest in computers. Thirdly, the 1984 New
Computer Policy, which signalled a
substantial liberalisation of import policy on
complete computers, computer kits and
components (though policy was never
completely liberal).
(v) Reversing import liberalisation (1987-
1990). Most computer industry-related policyremained stable during this period. However,
import policy did changebecause of concerns
about the impact of earlier liberalisations,
some backlash from local firms adversely
affected by liberalisation, and changes in the
political economy of the state. As a result,
there was a steady reversal of some earlier
import liberalisations, so that policy at the
end of this period was a compromise between
the relative extremes of mid-1970s
protectionism and mid-1980s liberalisation.
(vi) Renewed liberalisation (1991-1995).Following the crisis of 1991, computer
industry policy was subject to a familiar set
of liberalisations: raised foreign equity limits
with automatic approval; Exim scrips and
easier-to-obtain advance licences followed
by partial rupee flotation and then
convertibility; automatic approval for many
types of technology transfer; removal of
licences for all new, expanding and merging
units; industrial registration largely removed;
locational constraints removed; new
companies exempted from the requirement
fcr steadily increasing levels of local
component use (the phased manufacturing
programme); reduced control of companies
covered under the Monopolies and Restricted
Trade Practices (MRTP) Act; increasing use
of unlicensed (Open General Licence-OGL)
import; and reductions in import duty, import
bureaucracy and excise duty.
Nevertheless, policy was not completely
liberalised. Licences were required for i mport
of some types of computer, particularly those
under Rs 0.15m (US$5,000), and overall
import tariffs were still quite high.
Government/public sector purchasing alsocontinued to form the major part ot demand,
with a number of very large investments
from 1993-94. Hardware exports were also
promoted through the initiation of the
Electronics and Hardware Technology Park
(EHTP) scheme.
This article will focus on the impacts
associated with policy liberalisation in the
period since liberalisation of computer
industry licensing in 1978. Amongst other
things, it will seek to ask whether the
computer industry is in danger of going "fullcircle' back to the state that prevailed in the
1960s.
Section II analyses the production and
export performance of this industry over the
past 15 or so years. Section HI looks in detail
at the different types of firms operating in
the Indian computer industry and discusses
their capabilities. Section IV draws detailed
conclusions about the relationship between
policy and industrial development.
Firstly, though, one needs to consider the
indicators of industrial performance used tomeasure the impact of policy and other
changes.
MEASURING INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
Many industrial development commentators rely
on quantitative indicators, and two
used here will be level of overall production
and level of exports. However, it is always
M-82 Economic and Political Weekly August 26,
1995useful to look behind such measures at
more qualitative data. Lall (1987) identifies
'technologicdl capability' as a crucial
determinani of industrialisation, yet one
which is ignored by many quantitativelyoriented
researchers. Although this indicator
does not lend itself to outright measurement,
some kind of scale can be drawn up for the
technological capability of producers, as
shown in Table 1.
Following Lall (1987), one may define
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 123/270
Page | 123
technological capability as the general
ability to undertake the broad range of
tasks outl ined in the table, and technological
development as growth in the capability as
defined by movement up the categories
and regardless of whether or not the final
stage is attained.These capabilities are actually embodied
in ihe skills and experience of individual
workers, often seen as the most critical
resource for information technology (IT)
industries [O'Connor 1985. Kumar 19881.
In this case, technological development will
be the accumulation of increasingly skilled
workers.
II
Quantitative Changes
in Hardware ProductionTable 2 . shows the rapid
growth olcomputer production in India over recent
years. The strength of local production can
also be measured relative to imports of
compute)s. Table 3 shows the proportion ol
the Indian market taken by local producers
as opposed to imports.
In the early 1980s, local producers
serviced llie major part of the local market
and growth rates were moderate In the
mid 1980s, local production grew rapidlv
hui imports grew even faster so that the large
growth in denumd was at first inel largelyby imports, which took the major share of
the market in 1985. In 19X7. there were falls
in both imports and production growth as.
government investments and foreign
exchange were diverted into higher priority
areas because of the drought.
There were similar problems 'vitl:
government spending, foreign exchange
and industrial growth in the 1990s. But,
by the mid-1990s, thanks particularly to a
rally in government IT investments, the
local industry was stiil crowing in volume
terms and once again growing strongly in
value terms. Given the rise in OGL imports,
local production was slipping againstoverall
imports but, compared with the mid-1980s
it had re-asserted itself as the prime source
of computers for Indian consumers, making
up the majority of domestic consumption.
Indian computer industry growth has been
dependent on a number of factors including
industrial licensing, overall demand, access
to inputs, marketing, prices, technological
lag, technological standardisation, and
attitudes towards computers in the private
sector. Market share is determined by therelative attributes of price, technological
lag, quality, accessibility and desirability
of either imports or domestically-produced
computers.
Import liberalisation has had a partial
impact on some of these factors. To
summarise this impact, while import
liberalisation of kits, peripherals and
components has favoured the growth in local
computer production, any liberalisation of
imports of complete computers has reduced
the market share of local producers, assuggested by the figures above.
The rise and fall of market share
corresponds to changes in import policy
The market share for local production
dropped following liberalisation in the mid-
1980s but rose from the late 1980s as import
duties and the threshold tor minimum
configuration of imports were raised. With
Indian firms unable to address a large market
and so achieve large-scale economies,
continuing tariff protection allowed them to
compete with imports and achieve increasingimport substitution until the liberalisations
of the 1990s.
Of course, import policy has not been the
only instrument o!" the Indian government
to affect the industry. For example,
government helped to engineer the strong
growth in India s computer industry through
its demand policies. Policies on foreign
investmen* and collaboration have also been
key. with most 'local production in the
1990s involving multinationals.
In other ways, loo, a lot of computer
production within India has not been as
'local' as it might appear. Figures from Gol
(1987b), IDC (1987) and Shekhar (1988)
suggest that the import content of Indian
computers fell by more than 20 per cent
between 1982 and 1984, but then rose by
over 40 per cent between 1984 and 1987.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 124/270
Page | 124
By this point, about 80 per cent of the cost
(including duties) of components and
materials for Indian computers was made up
from direct imports. Much of the remaining
20 per cent of components were bought from
Indian suppliers but themselves had a high
import content. There was some recoveryafter 1987,' with the component industry
registering a much higher growth rate and
with the overall import content falling to
around 60 per cent in the early 1990s
[Tandon e't al 1991. Raman 1993], before
rising again.
Some explanation for this rise and fall of
imports can be found in government policy
which, in 1984, helped fuel a large increase
in demand for computers. Coupled with
import liberalisation of complete computers,
this led to a large proportion of that demandbeing met by imports. However, one type
of computer, the microcomputer, remained
protected, so that companies wishing to
respond to demand had to produce them
locally and they therefore sought components
for these PCs A number of factors led to
the growth in local demand for components
being met largelv from imports.Firstly, import liberalisation allowed
i datively quick and cheap access to imported
components.
There were also technical factcs ,
particularly the emergence of the IBMcompatible
PC as a copyable global
standard, which Jaikumar and Krishna
TAHI.I: 1: S.'AI.H OP PRODCCI* TKCHNOLOGICAI.
CAI'AHIIJIY
(I) Choice and use
- Choosing ihe technology
- Setting the environment for use of thetechnology
Annual Report:
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 125/270
Page | 125
Hewlett-Packard Company
Chairman of the Board 3000 Hanover Street
L´eo Apotheker Palo Alto, CA 94304
President and Chief Executive Officer www.hp.com
To our Stockholders:
We are pleased to invite you to attend the annual meeting of stockholders of Hewlett-Packard
Company to be held on March 23, 2011 at 2:00 p.m., local time, at the Sheraton National Hotel,
900 South Orme Street, Arlington, Virginia.
Details regarding admission to the meeting and the business to be conducted are more fully
described
in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement.
This year, we are pleased to be again using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule that
allows companies to furnish their proxy materials over the Internet. As a result, we are mailing to
many
of our stockholders a notice instead of a paper copy of this proxy statement and our 2010 Annual
Report. The notice contains instructions on how to access those documents over the Internet. The
notice also contains instructions on how each of those stockholders can receive a paper copy of our
proxy materials, including this proxy statement, our 2010 Annual Report and a form of proxy card or
voting instruction card. All stockholders who do not receive a notice, including stockholders who
have
previously requested to receive paper copies of proxy materials, will receive a paper copy of the
proxy
materials by mail unless they have previously requested delivery of proxy materials electronically.
Continuing to employ this distribution process will conserve natural resources and reduce the costs
of
printing and distributing our proxy materials.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 126/270
Page | 126
Your vote is important. Regardless of whether you plan to attend the annual meeting, we hope you
will
vote as soon as possible. You may vote by proxy over the Internet or by telephone, or, if you
received
paper copies of the proxy materials by mail, you can also vote by mail by following the instructionson
the proxy card or voting instruction card. Voting over the Internet, by telephone or by written proxy
or
voting instruction card will ensure your representation at the annual meeting regardless of whether
you
attend in person.
Thank you for your ongoing support of, and continued interest in, Hewlett-Packard Company.
Sincerely,
Raymond J. Lane L´eo Apotheker
Chairman of the Board President and Chief Executive Officer2011 ANNUAL MEETING OF
STOCKHOLDERS
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING AND PROXY STATEMENT
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
Time and Date 2:00 p.m., local time, on Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Place Sheraton National Hotel, 900 South Orme Street, Arlington, Virginia
Items of Business (1) To elect directors
(2) To ratify the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm for
the fiscal year ending October 31, 2011
(3) To conduct an advisory vote on executive compensation
(4) To conduct an advisory vote on the frequency of holding future advisory votes on
executive compensation
(5) To approve the Hewlett-Packard Company 2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(6) To approve an amendment to the Hewlett-Packard Company 2005 Pay-for-Results
Plan to extend the term of the plan
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 127/270
Page | 127
(7) To consider such other business as may properly come before the meeting
Adjournments and Any action on the items of business described above may be considered at the
annual
Postponements meeting at the time and on the date specified above or at any time and date to
which
the annual meeting may be properly adjourned or postponed.
Record Date You are entitled to vote only if you were an HP stockholder as of the close of business
on January 24, 2011.
Meeting Admission You are entitled to attend the annual meeting only if you were an HP
stockholder as of
the close of business on January 24, 2011 or hold a valid proxy for the annual meeting.
You should be prepared to present photo identification for admittance. In addition, if
you are a stockholder of record or hold your shares through the Hewlett-Packard
Company 401(k) Plan or the Hewlett-Packard Company 2000 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, also known as the Share Ownership Plan, your ownership as of the record date
will be verified prior to admittance into the meeting. If you are not a stockholder of
record but hold shares through a broker, trustee or nominee, you must provide proof of
beneficial ownership as of the record date, such as your most recent account statement
prior to January 24, 2011 or similar evidence of ownership. If you do not provide photo
identification and comply with the other procedures outlined above, you will not be
admitted to the annual meeting.
The annual meeting will begin promptly at 2:00 p.m., local time. Check-in will begin at
12:30 p.m., local time, and you should allow ample time for the check-in procedures.
Voting Your vote is very important. Whether or not you plan to attend the annual meeting, we
hope you will vote as soon as possible. You may vote your shares via a toll-free
telephone number or over the Internet. If you received a paper copy of a proxy or
voting instruction card by mail, you may submit your proxy or voting instruction card
for the annual meeting by completing, signing, dating and returning your proxy or
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 128/270
Page | 128
voting instruction card in the pre-addressed envelope provided. For specific
instructions on how to vote your shares, please refer to the section entitled Questions
and AnswersVoting Information beginning on page 4 of this proxy statement.
By order of the Board of Directors,
MICHAEL J. HOLSTON
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
This notice of annual meeting and proxy statement and form of proxy are being distributed and
made available
on or about February 1, 2011.QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Proxy Materials
1. Why am I receiving these materials?
The Hewlett-Packard Company Board of Directors (the Board) has made these materials
available to you over the Internet or delivered paper copies of these materials to you by mail in
connection with HPs annual meeting of stockholders, which will take place on Wednesday, March
23,
2011. As a stockholder, you are invited to attend the annual meeting and vote on the items of
business
described in this proxy statement. This proxy statement includes information that we are required to
provide to you under the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and that is designed
to
assist you in voting your shares.
2. What is included in the proxy materials?
The proxy materials include:
Our proxy statement for the annual meeting of stockholders; and
Our 2010 Annual Report, which includes our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2010.
If you received a paper copy of these materials by mail, the proxy materials also include a proxy card
or a voting instruction card for the annual meeting.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 129/270
Page | 129
3. What information is contained in this proxy statement?
The information in this proxy statement relates to the proposals to be voted on at the annual
meeting, the voting process, the Board and Board committees, the compensation of HPs directors
and
certain executive officers for fiscal 2010 and other required information.
4. Why did I receive a notice in the mail regarding the Internet availability of the proxy materials
instead of a paper copy of the proxy materials?
This year, we are pleased to be again using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule that
allows companies to furnish their proxy materials over the Internet. As a result, we are mailing to
many
of our stockholders a notice about the Internet availability of the proxy materials instead of a paper
copy of the proxy materials. All stockholders receiving the notice will have the ability to access the
proxy materials over the Internet and request to receive a paper copy of the proxy materials by mail.
Instructions on how to access the proxy materials over the Internet or to request a paper copy may
be
found in the notice. In addition, the notice contains instructions on how you may request to access
proxy materials in printed form by mail or electronically on an ongoing basis.
5. Why didnt I receive a notice in the mail about the Internet availability of the proxy materials?
We are providing some of our stockholders, including stockholders who have previously requested
to receive paper copies of the proxy materials and some of our stockholders who are living outside
of
the United States, with paper copies of the proxy materials instead of a notice about the Internet
availability of the proxy materials.
In addition, we are providing notice of the availability of the proxy materials by e-mail to those
stockholders who have previously elected delivery of the proxy materials electronically. Those
stockholders should have received an e-mail containing a link to the website where those materials
are
available and a link to the proxy voting website.
26. How can I access the proxy materials over the Internet?
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 130/270
Page | 130
Your notice about the Internet availability of the proxy materials, proxy card or voting instruction
card will contain instructions on how to:
View our proxy materials for the annual meeting on the Internet; and
Instruct us to send our future proxy materials to you electronically by e-mail.
Our proxy materials are also available on our website at
www.hp.com/investor/stockholdermeeting2011.
Your notice of Internet availability of proxy materials, proxy card or voting instruction card will
contain instructions on how you may request to access proxy materials electronically on an ongoing
basis. Choosing to access your future proxy materials electronically will help us conserve natural
resources and reduce the costs of distributing our proxy materials. If you choose to access future
proxy
materials electronically, you will receive an e-mail with instructions containing a link to the website
where those materials are available and a link to the proxy voting website. Your election to access
proxy materials by e-mail will remain in effect until you terminate it.
7. How may I obtain a paper copy of the proxy materials?
Stockholders receiving a notice about the Internet availability of the proxy materials will find
instructions about how to obtain a paper copy of the proxy materials on their notice. Stockholders
receiving notice of the availability of the proxy materials by e-mail will find instructions about how to
obtain a paper copy of the proxy materials as part of that e-mail. All stockholders who do not receive
a
notice or an e-mail will receive a paper copy of the proxy materials by mail.
8. I share an address with another stockholder, and we received only one paper copy of the proxy
materials. How may I obtain an additional copy of the proxy materials?
If you share an address with another stockholder, you may receive only one set of proxy materials
unless you have provided contrary instructions. If you wish to receive a separate set of proxy
materials
now, please request the additional copy by contacting Innisfree M&A Incorporated (Innisfree) at:
(877) 750-5838 (U.S. and Canada)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 131/270
Page | 131
(412) 232-3651 (International)
E-mail: [email protected]
A separate set of proxy materials will be sent promptly following receipt of your request.
If you are a stockholder of record and wish to receive a separate set of proxy materials in the
future, please contact HPs transfer agent. See Question 27 below.
If you are the beneficial owner of shares held through a broker, trustee or other nominee and you
wish to receive a separate set of proxy materials in the future, please call Broadridge Financial
Solutions, Inc. at:
(800) 542-1061
All stockholders also may write to us at the address below to request a separate copy of these
materials:
Hewlett-Packard Company
Attn: Investor Relations
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
39. What should I do if I receive more than one notice or e-mail about the Internet availability of the
proxy materials or more than one paper copy of the proxy materials?
You may receive more than one notice, more than one e-mail or more than one paper copy of the
proxy materials, including multiple paper copies of this proxy statement and multiple proxy cards or
voting instruction cards. For example, if you hold your shares in more than one brokerage account,
you
may receive a separate notice, a separate e-mail or a separate voting instruction card for each
brokerage account in which you hold shares. If you are a stockholder of record and your shares are
registered in more than one name, you may receive more than one notice, more than one e-mail or
more than one proxy card. To vote all of your shares by proxy, you must complete, sign, date and
return each proxy card and voting instruction card that you receive and vote over the Internet the
shares represented by each notice and e-mail that you receive (unless you have requested and
received
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 132/270
Page | 132
a proxy card or voting instruction card for the shares represented by one or more of those notices or
e-mails).
10. How may I obtain a copy of HPs 2010 Form 10-K and other financial information?
Stockholders may request a free copy of our 2010 Annual Report, which includes our 2010
Form 10-K, from:
Hewlett-Packard Company
Attn: Investor Relations
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
(866) 869-5335
www.hp.com/investor/informationrequest
Alternatively, stockholders can access the 2010 Annual Report, which includes our 2010 Form 10-K
and other financial information, on HPs Investor Relations website at:
www.hp.com/investor/home
HP also will furnish any exhibit to the 2010 Form 10-K if specifically requested.
Voting Information
11. What items of business will be voted on at the annual meeting?
The items of business scheduled to be voted on at the annual meeting are:
The election of directors;
The ratification of the appointment of HPs independent registered public accounting firm for
the 2011 fiscal year;
The advisory vote on executive compensation;
The advisory vote on the frequency of holding future advisory votes on executive compensation;
The approval of the Hewlett-Packard Company 2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; and
The approval of an amendment to the Hewlett-Packard Company 2005 Pay-for-Results Plan to
extend the term of the plan.
We also will consider any other business that properly comes before the annual meeting. See
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 133/270
Page | 133
Question 23 below.
412. How does the Board recommend that I vote?
Our Board recommends that you vote your shares FOR each of the nominees for election to the
Board, FOR the ratification of the appointment of HPs independent registered public accounting
firm,
FOR the approval of the compensation of HPs named executive officers, FOR the approval of an
annual advisory vote on executive compensation, FOR the approval of the Hewlett-Packard
Company
2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and FOR the approval of an amendment to the Hewlett-
Packard
Company 2005 Pay-for-Results Plan to extend the term of the plan.
13. What is the difference between holding shares as a stockholder of record and as a beneficial
owner?
Most HP stockholders hold their shares through a broker, trustee or other nominee rather than
directly in their own name. As summarized below, there are some distinctions between shares held
of
record and those owned beneficially.
Stockholder of RecordIf your shares are registered directly in your name with HPs transfer
agent, you are considered, with respect to those shares, the stockholder of record. As the
stockholder of record, you have the right to grant your voting proxy directly to HP or to a third
party, or to vote in person at the meeting.
Beneficial OwnerIf your shares are held in a brokerage account, by a trustee or by another
nominee, you are considered the beneficial owner of those shares. As the beneficial owner of
those shares, you have the right to direct your broker, trustee or nominee how to vote and you
also are invited to attend the annual meeting. However, because a beneficial owner is not the
stockholder of record, you may not vote these shares in person at the meeting unless you obtain
a legal proxy from the broker, trustee or nominee that holds your shares, giving you the right
to vote the shares at the meeting.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 134/270
Page | 134
14. What shares can I vote?
Each holder of shares of HP common stock issued and outstanding as of the close of business on
January 24, 2011, the record date for the annual meeting, is entitled to cast one vote per share on all
items being voted upon at the annual meeting. You may vote all shares owned by you as of this time,
including (1) shares held directly in your name as the stockholder of record, including shares
purchased
through HPs Dividend Reinvestment Plan and HPs employee stock purchase plans and shares held
through HPs Direct Registration Service, and (2) shares held for you as the beneficial owner through
a
broker, trustee or other nominee. On the record date, HP had approximately 2,174,546,309 shares
of
common stock issued and outstanding.
15. How can I vote my shares in person at the annual meeting?
Shares held in your name as the stockholder of record may be voted in person at the annual
meeting. Shares for which you are the beneficial owner but not the stockholder of record may be
voted
in person at the annual meeting only if you obtain a legal proxy from the broker, trustee or nominee
that holds your shares giving you the right to vote the shares. Even if you plan to attend the annual
meeting, we recommend that you also vote by proxy as described below so that your vote will be
counted if you later decide not to attend the meeting.
516. How can I vote my shares without attending the annual meeting?
Whether you hold shares directly as the stockholder of record or through a broker, trustee or
other nominee as the beneficial owner, you may direct how your shares are voted without attending
the
annual meeting. There are three ways to vote by proxy:
By InternetStockholders who have received a notice of the availability of the proxy materials
by mail may submit proxies over the Internet by following the instructions on the notice.
Stockholders who have received notice of the availability of the proxy materials by e-mail may
submit proxies over the Internet by following the instructions included in the e-mail.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 135/270
Page | 135
Stockholders who have received a paper copy of a proxy card or voting instruction card by mail
may submit proxies over the Internet by following the instructions on the proxy card or voting
instruction card.
By TelephoneStockholders of record who live in the United States or Canada may submit
proxies by telephone by calling 1-866-209-1711 and following the instructions. Stockholders of
record who have received a notice of availability of the proxy materials by mail must have the
control number that appears on their notice available when voting. Stockholders of record who
received notice of the availability of the proxy materials by e-mail must have the control number
included in the e-mail available when voting. Stockholders of record who have received a proxy
card by mail must have the control number that appears on their proxy card available when
voting. Most stockholders who are beneficial owners of their shares living in the United States
or Canada and who have received a voting instruction card by mail may vote by phone by calling
the number specified on the voting instruction card provided by their broker, trustee or
nominee. Those stockholders should check the voting instruction card for telephone voting
availability.
By MailStockholders who have received a paper copy of a proxy card or voting instruction
card by mail may submit proxies by completing, signing and dating their proxy card or voting
instruction card and mailing it in the accompanying pre-addressed envelope.
17. What is the deadline for voting my shares?
If you hold shares as the stockholder of record, or through the Hewlett-Packard Company 2000
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the Share Ownership Plan), your vote by proxy must be received
before the polls close at the annual meeting.
If you hold shares in the Hewlett-Packard Company 401(k) Plan (the HP 401(k) Plan), your
voting instructions must be received by 11:59 p.m., Eastern time, on March 20, 2011 for the trustee
to
vote your shares.
If you are the beneficial owner of shares held through a broker, trustee or other nominee, please
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 136/270
Page | 136
follow the voting instructions provided by your broker, trustee or nominee.
18. May I change my vote?
You may change your vote at any time prior to the vote at the annual meeting, except that any
change to your voting instructions for the HP 401(k) Plan must be provided by 11:59 p.m., Eastern
time, on March 20, 2011 as described above. If you are the stockholder of record, you may change
your
vote by granting a new proxy bearing a later date (which automatically revokes the earlier proxy), by
providing a written notice of revocation to the Corporate Secretary at the address below in Question
30
prior to your shares being voted, or by attending the annual meeting and voting in person.
Attendance
at the meeting will not cause your previously granted proxy to be revoked unless you specifically
make
that request. For shares you hold beneficially in the name of a broker, trustee or other nominee, you
may change your vote by submitting new voting instructions to your broker, trustee or nominee, or,
if
6you have obtained a legal proxy from your broker or nominee giving you the right to vote your
shares,
by attending the meeting and voting in person.
19. Is my vote confidential?
Proxy instructions, ballots and voting tabulations that identify individual stockholders are handled
in a manner that protects your voting privacy. Your vote will not be disclosed, either within HP or to
third parties, except: (1) as necessary to meet applicable legal requirements; (2) to allow for the
tabulation of votes and certification of the vote; and (3) to facilitate a successful proxy solicitation.
Occasionally, stockholders provide on their proxy card written comments, which are then forwarded
to
HP management.
20. How are votes counted?
In the election of directors, you may vote FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN with respect to
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 137/270
Page | 137
each of the nominees. If you elect to abstain in the election of directors, the abstention will not
impact
the election of directors. In tabulating the voting results for the election of directors, only FOR and
AGAINST votes are counted. You also may cumulate your votes as described in Question 22.
With respect to Proposal No. 4, the advisory vote on the frequency of holding future advisory votes
on executive compensation, you may vote 1 YEAR, 2 YEARS, 3 YEARS or ABSTAIN. If you
abstain from voting on Proposal No. 4, the abstention will not have an effect on the outcome of the
vote.
For the other items of business, you may vote FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN. If you elect to
abstain, the abstention will have the same effect as an AGAINST vote.
If you are the beneficial owner of shares held in the name of a broker, trustee or other nominee
and do not provide that broker, trustee or other nominee with voting instructions, your shares may
constitute broker non-votes. Generally, broker non-votes occur on a matter when a broker is not
permitted to vote on that matter without instructions from the beneficial owner and instructions are
not
given. In tabulating the voting results for any particular proposal, shares that constitute broker
non-votes are not considered entitled to vote on that proposal. Thus, broker non-votes will not
affect
the outcome of any matter being voted on at the meeting, assuming that a quorum is obtained.
Abstentions have the same effect as votes against the matter except in the election of directors, as
described above.
If you provide specific instructions with regard to certain items, your shares will be voted as you
instruct on such items. If you vote by proxy card or voting instruction card and sign the card without
giving specific instructions, your shares will be voted in accordance with the recommendations of
the
Board (FOR all of HPs nominees to the Board, FOR ratification of the appointment of HPs
independent registered public accounting firm, FOR the approval of the compensation of HPs
named
executive officers, FOR the approval of an annual advisory vote on executive compensation, FOR the
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 138/270
Page | 138
Hewlett-Packard Company 2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and FOR the approval of an
amendment to the Hewlett-Packard Company 2005 Pay-for-Results Plan to extend the term of the
plan).
For any shares you hold in the HP 401(k) Plan, if your voting instructions are not received by
11:59 p.m., Eastern time, on March 20, 2011, your shares will be voted in proportion to the way the
shares held by the other HP 401(k) Plan participants are voted, except as may be otherwise required
by
law.
721. What is the voting requirement to approve each of the proposals?
In the election of directors, each director will be elected by the vote of the majority of votes cast
with respect to that director nominee. A majority of votes cast means that the number of votes castfor
a nominees election must exceed the number of votes cast against such nominees election. Each
nominee receiving more votes for his or her election than votes against his or her election will be
elected. Approval of each of the other proposals requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the
shares present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on that proposal at the annual
meeting.
22. Is cumulative voting permitted for the election of directors?
In the election of directors, you may elect to cumulate your vote. Cumulative voting will allow you
to allocate among the director nominees, as you see fit, the total number of votes equal to the
number
of director positions to be filled multiplied by the number of shares you hold. For example, if you
own
100 shares of stock and there are 13 directors to be elected at the annual meeting, you may allocate
1,300 FOR votes (13 times 100) among as few or as many of the 13 nominees to be voted on atthe
annual meeting as you choose. You may not cumulate your votes against a nominee.
If you are a stockholder of record and choose to cumulate your votes, you will need to submit a
proxy card or, if you vote in person at the annual meeting, submit a ballot and make an explicit
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 139/270
Page | 139
statement of your intent to cumulate your votes, either by so indicating in writing on the proxy card
or
by indicating in writing on your ballot when voting at the annual meeting. If you hold shares
beneficially through a broker, trustee or other nominee and wish to cumulate votes, you should
contact
your broker, trustee or nominee.
If you vote by proxy card or voting instruction card and sign your card with no further instructions,
L´eo Apotheker, Michael J. Holston and Paul T. Porrini, as proxy holders, may cumulate and cast your
votes in favor of the election of some or all of the applicable nominees in their sole discretion,
except
that none of your votes will be cast for any nominee as to whom you vote against or abstain from
voting.
Cumulative voting applies only to the election of directors.
23. What happens if additional matters are presented at the annual meeting?
Other than the six items of business described in this proxy statement, we are not aware of any
other business to be acted upon at the annual meeting. If you grant a proxy, the persons named as
proxy holders, L´eo Apotheker, Michael J. Holston and Paul T. Porrini, will have the discretion to vote
your shares on any additional matters properly presented for a vote at the meeting. If for any reason
any of our nominees is not available as a candidate for director, the persons named as proxy holders
will vote your proxy for such other candidate or candidates as may be nominated by the Board.
24. Who will serve as inspector of elections?
The inspector of elections will be a representative from an independent firm, IVS Associates, Inc.
25. Who will bear the cost of soliciting votes for the annual meeting?
HP is making this solicitation and will pay the entire cost of preparing, assembling, printing,
mailing and distributing the notices and these proxy materials and soliciting votes. In addition to the
mailing of the notices and these proxy materials, the solicitation of proxies or votes may be made in
person, by telephone or by electronic communication by our directors, officers and employees, who
will
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 140/270
Page | 140
not receive any additional compensation for such solicitation activities. We also have hired Innisfree
to
assist us in the distribution of proxy materials and the solicitation of votes described above. We will
pay
8Innisfree a base fee of $20,000 plus customary costs and expenses for these services. HP hasagreed to
indemnify Innisfree against certain liabilities arising out of or in connection with its agreement. We
also
will reimburse brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries for forwarding
proxy
and solicitation materials to stockholders.
26. Where can I find the voting results of the annual meeting?
We intend to announce preliminary voting results at the annual meeting and publish final results in
a Current Report on Form 8-K to be filed with the SEC within four business days of the annual
meeting.
27. What if I have questions for HPs transfer agent?
Please contact HPs transfer agent, at the phone number or address listed below, with questions
concerning stock certificates, dividend checks, transfer of ownership or other matters pertaining to
your
stock account.
Please note that on February 12, 2011, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. will begin providing transfer agent
services to HP, and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. will cease serving as HPs transfer agent. For
questions relating to transactions executed or other events occurring prior to February 12, 2011,
please
contact Computershare as follows:
Computershare Trust Company, N.A.
Shareholder Services
250 Royall Street
Canton, Massachusetts 02021
(800) 286-5977 (U.S. and Canada)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 141/270
Page | 141
(312) 360-5138 (International)
For questions relating to transactions executed or other events occurring on or after February 12,
2011,
please contact Wells Fargo as follows:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Shareowner Services
161 North Concord Exchange
South St. Paul, MN 55075
(800) 286-5977 (U.S. and Canada)
(651) 450-4064 (International)
A dividend reinvestment and stock purchase program is also available through HPs transfer agent.
For information about this program, please contact HPs transfer agent as follows:
For inquiries prior to February 12, 2011: For inquiries on or after February 12, 2011:
Computershare Trust Company, N.A. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Dividend Reinvestment Services Shareowner Services
250 Royall Street 161 North Concord Exchange
Canton, Massachusetts 02021 South St. Paul, MN 55075
(800) 286-5977 (U.S. and Canada) (800) 286-5977 (U.S. and Canada)
(312) 360-5138 (International) (651) 450-4064 (International)
9Annual Meeting Information
28. How can I attend the annual meeting?
You are entitled to attend the annual meeting only if you were an HP stockholder or joint holder
as of the close of business on January 24, 2011 or if you hold a valid proxy for the annual meeting.
You
must present photo identification for admittance. If you are a stockholder of record or hold your
shares
through the HP 401(k) Plan or the Share Ownership Plan, your name will be verified against the list
of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 142/270
Page | 142
stockholders of record or plan participants on the record date prior to your admission to the annual
meeting. If you are not a stockholder of record but hold shares through a broker, trustee or
nominee,
you must provide proof of beneficial ownership on the record date, such as your most recent
account
statement prior to January 24, 2011 or other similar evidence of ownership. If you do not provide
photo
identification or comply with the other procedures outlined above, you will not be admitted to the
annual meeting.
The meeting will begin promptly at 2:00 p.m., local time. Check-in will begin at 12:30 p.m., local
time, and you should allow ample time for the check-in procedures.
29. How many shares must be present or represented to conduct business at the annual meeting?
The quorum requirement for holding the annual meeting and transacting business is that holders
of a majority of shares of HP common stock entitled to vote must be present in person or
represented
by proxy. Both abstentions and broker non-votes described previously in Question 21 are counted
for
the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum.
Stockholder Proposals, Director Nominations and Related Bylaw Provisions
30. What is the deadline to propose actions for consideration at next years annual meeting of
stockholders?
You may submit proposals for consideration at future stockholder meetings. For a stockholder
proposal to be considered for inclusion in HPs proxy statement for the annual meeting next year,
the
Corporate Secretary must receive the written proposal at our principal executive offices no later
than
October 4, 2011. Such proposals also must comply with SEC regulations under Rule 14a-8 regarding
the inclusion of stockholder proposals in company sponsored proxy materials. Proposals should be
addressed to:
Corporate Secretary
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 143/270
Page | 143
Hewlett-Packard Company
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
Fax: (650) 857-4837
For a stockholder proposal that is not intended to be included in HPs proxy statement under
Rule 14a-8, the stockholder must provide the information required by HPs Bylaws and give timely
notice to the Corporate Secretary in accordance with HPs Bylaws, which, in general, require that the
notice be received by the Corporate Secretary:
not earlier than the close of business on November 23, 2011, and
not later than the close of business on December 26, 2011.
If the date of the stockholder meeting is moved more than 30 days before or 60 days after the
anniversary of the HP annual meeting for the prior year, then notice of a stockholder proposal that is
not intended to be included in HPs proxy statement under Rule 14a-8 must be received no earlier
than
10the close of business 120 days prior to the meeting and not later than the close of business on the
later
of the following two dates:
90 days prior to the meeting; and
10 days after public announcement of the meeting date.
31. How may I recommend or nominate individuals to serve as directors?
You may propose director candidates for consideration by the Boards Nominating and
Governance Committee. Any such recommendations should include the nominees name and
qualifications for Board membership and should be directed to the Corporate Secretary at the
address
of our principal executive offices set forth in Question 30 above.
In addition, HPs Bylaws permit stockholders to nominate directors for election at an annual
stockholder meeting. To nominate a director, the stockholder must deliver the information required
by
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 144/270
Page | 144
HPs Bylaws.
32. What is the deadline to propose or nominate individuals to serve as directors?
A stockholder may send a proposed director candidates name and information to the Board at
any time. Generally, such proposed candidates are considered at the first or second Board meeting
prior to the issuance of the proxy statement for HPs annual meeting.
To nominate an individual for election at an annual stockholder meeting, the stockholder must give
timely notice to the Corporate Secretary in accordance with HPs Bylaws, which, in general, require
that the notice be received by the Corporate Secretary between the close of business on November
23,
2011 and the close of business on December 26, 2011, unless the annual meeting is moved by more
than 30 days before or 60 days after the anniversary of the prior years annual meeting, in whichcase
the deadline will be as described in Question 30.
33. How may I obtain a copy of HPs Bylaw provisions regarding stockholder proposals and director
nominations?
You may contact the Corporate Secretary at our principal executive offices for a copy of the
relevant Bylaw provisions regarding the requirements for making stockholder proposals and
nominating
director candidates. HPs Bylaws also are available on HPs website at www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/
bylaws.
Further Questions
34. Who can help answer my questions?
If you have any questions about the annual meeting or how to vote or revoke your proxy, you
should contact HPs proxy solicitor:
Innisfree M&A Incorporated
501 Madison Avenue, 20
th
Floor
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 145/270
Page | 145
New York, New York 10022
Stockholders: (877) 750-5838 (U.S. and Canada)
(412) 232-3651 (International)
Banks and brokers (call collect):
(212) 750-5833
11CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
HP is committed to maintaining the highest standards of business conduct and corporate
governance, which we believe are essential to running our business efficiently, serving our
stockholders
well and maintaining HPs integrity in the marketplace. HP maintains a code of business conduct and
ethics for directors, officers (including HPs principal executive officer, principal financial officer and
principal accounting officer) and employees, known as our Standards of Business Conduct. HP also
has
adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, which, in conjunction with the Certificate of
Incorporation,
Bylaws and Board committee charters, form the framework for the governance of HP. All of these
documents are available at www.hp.com/investor/corpgovernance/highlights. HP will post on this
website
any amendments to the Standards of Business Conduct or waivers of the Standards of Business
Conduct for directors and executive officers. Stockholders may request free printed copies of the
Standards of Business Conduct, the Corporate Governance Guidelines and the Board committee
charters from:
Hewlett-Packard Company
Attention: Investor Relations
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
(866) 869-5335
www.hp.com/investor/home
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 146/270
Page | 146
Board Leadership Structure
The Board is currently led by a non-executive Chairman, Raymond J. Lane, who is an independent
director. While the position of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer may be held by the same
person,
as discussed below, the Boards current preferred governance structure is to have an independent
director serve as Chairman. The Board recognizes that there is no single, generally accepted
approach
to providing Board leadership, and the Boards leadership structure may vary in the future as
circumstances warrant. In cases where the Board determines it is in the best interests of HPs
stockholders to combine the positions of Chairman and CEO, the independent directors will
designate
a lead independent director.
The Chairman oversees the planning of the annual Board calendar, and, with the CEO, in
consultation with the other directors, schedules and sets the agenda for meetings of the Board and
leads the discussion at such meetings. The Chairman also presides at executive sessions, serves as a
liaison between the CEO and the independent directors, sees that directors receive appropriate and
timely information, assists the Chairmen of the Board committees in preparing agendas for the
respective committee meetings, chairs HPs annual meetings of stockholders, is available inappropriate
circumstances to speak on behalf of the Board, and performs such other functions and
responsibilities
as set forth in HPs Corporate Governance Guidelines or as requested by the Board from time to
time.
The Chairman also encourages direct dialogue between all directors and management and provides
leadership to the Board in its oversight function.
Board Structure and Committee Composition
As of the date of this proxy statement, the Board has 17 directors and the following six standing
committees: (1) Audit; (2) Finance and Investment; (3) HR and Compensation; (4) Nominating and
Governance; (5) Public Policy; and (6) Technology. The current committee membership, the number
of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 147/270
Page | 147
meetings during the last fiscal year and the function of each of the standing committees are
described
below. Each of the standing committees operates under a written charter adopted by the Board. All
of
the committee charters are available on HPs website at www.hp.com/investor/board_charters. The
12Board and each of the committees has the authority to retain, terminate and receive appropriate
funding from HP for outside advisors as the Board and each committee deems necessary.
During fiscal 2010, the Board held 34 meetings, including 17 executive sessions. Each director
serving during fiscal 2010 attended at least 75% of the aggregate of all Board and applicable
committee
meetings held during the period that he or she served as a director.
Directors are encouraged to attend annual meetings of HP stockholders. Nine of the eleven
then-current directors attended the last annual meeting of stockholders.
Nominating
Finance and HR and and Public
Name of Director Audit Investment Compensation Governance Policy Technology
Non-Employee Directors:
Marc L. Andreessen Chair
Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr. Member Chair Member
Sari M. Baldauf Member Member Member
Shumeet Banerji
(1)
Rajiv L. Gupta Member Member Member
John H. Hammergren Chair Member
Joel Z. Hyatt
(2)
Member Member Chair
John R. Joyce
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 148/270
Page | 148
(2)
Member Member
Raymond J. Lane
(3)
Gary M. Reiner
(1)
Patricia F. Russo
(1)
Robert L. Ryan
(2)
Chair Member Member
Lucille S. Salhany
(2)
Member Member Chair
Dominique Senequier
(1)
G. Kennedy Thompson Member Member Member
Margaret C. Whitman
(1)
Employee Director:
L´eo Apotheker
(3)
Number of Meetings in Fiscal 2010 14 18 11 7 4 7
(1) Mr. Banerji, Mr. Reiner, Ms. Russo, Ms. Senequier and Ms. Whitman were elected to the Board
effective on January 21,
2011.
(2) Mr. Hyatt, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Salhany are not standing for election at the annual
meeting.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 149/270
Page | 149
(3) Mr. Lane and Mr. Apotheker were elected to the Board effective on November 1, 2010.
Audit Committee
HP has a separately designated standing Audit Committee established in accordance with
Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). The
Audit Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities for generally overseeing HPs
financial reporting processes and the audit of HPs financial statements, including the integrity of
HPs
financial statements, HPs compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, the qualifications and
independence of the independent registered public accounting firm and any relationships or services
between the firm and HP or individuals in financial reporting oversight roles at HP which may bear
on
the firms independence, the performance of HPs internal audit function and the independent
registered public accounting firm, and risk assessment and risk management. Among other things,
the
Audit Committee prepares the Audit Committee report for inclusion in the annual proxy statement;
13annually reviews its charter and performance; appoints, evaluates and determines the
compensation of
the independent registered public accounting firm; sets clear hiring policies for employees or former
employees of the independent registered public accounting firm and monitors compliance
therewith;
reviews and approves the scope of the annual audit, the audit fee and the financial statements;
reviews
HPs disclosure controls and procedures, internal controls, information security policies, internal
audit
function, and corporate policies with respect to financial information and earnings guidance; reviews
regulatory and accounting initiatives and off-balance sheet structures; oversees HPs compliance
programs with respect to legal and regulatory requirements; oversees investigations into complaints
concerning financial matters; and reviews other risks that may have a significant impact on HPs
financial statements. The Audit Committee works closely with management as well as the
independent
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 150/270
Page | 150
registered public accounting firm.
The Board determined that each of Mr. Ryan, chair of the Audit Committee, and Audit
Committee members Ms. Baldauf, Mr. Joyce, Ms. Salhany and Mr. Thompson is independent within
the meaning of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) standards of independence for directors and
audit committee members and satisfied the NYSE financial literacy requirements. The Board also
determined that each of Mr. Ryan, Ms. Baldauf, Mr. Joyce and Mr. Thompson is an audit committee
financial expert as defined by SEC rules.
The report of the Audit Committee is included on page 77.
Finance and Investment Committee
The Finance and Investment Committee provides oversight to the finance and investment functions
of HP. The Finance and Investment Committee reviews or oversees significant treasury matters such
as
capital structure, derivative policy, global liquidity, investment policy, borrowings, currency
exposure,
dividend policy, share issuances and repurchases, and capital spending; oversees HPs loans and loan
guarantees of third-party debt and obligations; reviews HP Financial Services capitalization and
operations, including residual and credit management, risk concentration, and return on invested
capital; and reviews the activities of HPs Investor Relations department. The Finance and
Investment
Committee also assists the Board in evaluating investment, acquisition, enterprise services, joint
venture
and divestiture transactions in which HP engages as part of its business strategy from time to time;
reports to the Board and makes recommendations to the Board as to scope, direction, quality,
investment levels and execution of such transactions; evaluates and revises HPs approval policies
with
respect to such transactions; oversees HPs integration planning and execution and the financial
results
of such transactions after integration; evaluates the execution, financial results and integration of
HPs
completed transactions; and oversees and approves HPs strategic alliances.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 151/270
Page | 151
HR and Compensation Committee
The HR and Compensation Committee discharges the Boards responsibilities relating to the
compensation of HPs executives and directors; reviews and approves the Compensation Discussion
and
Analysis required by the SEC for inclusion in the annual proxy statement and takes other related
actions; provides general oversight of HPs total rewards compensation structure; reviews and
provides
guidance on HPs human resources programs; and retains, approves the terms of the retention of
and
oversees the activities of the committees compensation consultants and other compensation
experts.
Other specific duties and responsibilities of the HR and Compensation Committee include reviewing
senior management selection and overseeing succession planning, including reviewing the
leadership
development process; reviewing and approving objectives relevant to executive officer
compensation,
evaluating performance and determining the compensation of executive officers in accordance with
those objectives; approving severance arrangements and other applicable agreements for executive
officers; overseeing HPs equity and incentive compensation plans; overseeing non-equity based
benefit
plans and approving any changes to such plans involving a material financial commitment by HP;
14monitoring workforce management programs; establishing compensation policies and practices
for
service on the Board and its committees, including annually reviewing the appropriate level of
director
compensation and recommending to the Board any changes to that compensation; developing stock
ownership guidelines for directors and executive officers and monitoring compliance with such
guidelines; and annually evaluating its performance and its charter.
The HR and Compensation Committee may create a subcommittee consisting of one or more of
its members and may delegate any of its duties and responsibilities to such subcommittee, unless
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 152/270
Page | 152
otherwise prohibited by applicable laws or listing standards. In addition, the HR and Compensation
Committee may delegate any of its duties and responsibilities, including the administration of equity
incentive or employee benefit plans, to one or more of its members, to one or more other directors,
or
to one or more other persons, unless otherwise prohibited by applicable laws or listing standards.
Nominating and Governance Committee
The Nominating and Governance Committee identifies and recommends candidates to be
nominated for election as directors at HPs annual meeting, consistent with criteria approved by the
Board; develops and regularly reviews corporate governance principles, including HPs Corporate
Governance Guidelines and related policies, for approval by the Board; oversees the organization of
the Board to discharge the Boards duties and responsibilities properly and efficiently; and sees that
proper attention is given and effective responses are made to stockholder concerns regarding
corporate
governance matters. Other specific duties and responsibilities of the Nominating and Governance
Committee include: annually assessing the size and composition of the Board in consultation with
the
Chairman, including developing and reviewing director qualifications for approval by the Board;
identifying and recruiting new directors and considering candidates proposed by stockholders;
recommending assignments of directors to committees to ensure that committee membership
complies
with applicable laws and listing standards; conducting a preliminary review of director independence
and financial literacy and expertise of Audit Committee members; and overseeing director
orientation
and continuing education. The Nominating and Governance Committee also reviews proposed
changes
to HPs Certificate of Incorporation, Bylaws, Board committee charters and Corporate Governance
Guidelines and related policies; assesses and makes recommendations regarding stockholder rights
plans or other stockholder protections, as appropriate; establishes policies and procedures for the
review and approval of related person transactions and conflicts of interest, including the review and
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 153/270
Page | 153
approval of all potential related person transactions as defined under SEC rules; reviews and
approves the designation of any employee directors or executive officers for purposes of Section 16
of
the Exchange Act (the Section 16 officers) standing for election for outside for-profit boards of
directors; reviews stockholder proposals in conjunction with the CEO and recommends Board
responses; working with the Chairman, oversees the self-evaluation of the Board and its
committees;
oversees the annual evaluation of the CEO conducted by the Chairman and the HR and
Compensation
Committee, with input from all Board members; and reviews requests for indemnification under
HPs
Bylaws.
Public Policy Committee
The Public Policy Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities for generally
overseeing HPs policies and processes relating to HPs public policy, government affairs and global
citizenship activities. In so doing, the Public Policy Committee may identify, evaluate and monitor
the
social, political and environmental trends, issues, concerns, legislative proposals and regulatory
developments, domestic and foreign, which could significantly affect the business and affairs of HP,
including relating to its performance, customers, stockholders and employees. In addition, from time
to
time, the Public Policy Committee may report and make recommendations to the Board relating to
activities, policies and programs with respect to matters of local, national and international public
15policy affecting HPs business, including trade policy and major legislative and regulatory
developments;
relations with regulators, governmental agencies, public interest groups, other stakeholders and
countries in which HP does business; HPs policies with respect to corporate social responsibility and
global corporate citizenship; and general guidelines for charitable and political contributions,
volunteerism and pro bono outreach to community service and charitable organizations and
activities.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 154/270
Page | 154
The Public Policy Committee also oversees HPs policies relating to, and the manner in which HP
conducts, its government affairs activities.
Technology Committee
The Technology Committee assesses HPs technology development strategies and the scope and
quality of HPs intellectual property. The Technology Committee makes recommendations to the
Board
as to scope, direction, quality, investment levels and execution of HPs technology strategies;
oversees
the execution of technology strategies formulated by management; provides guidance on
technology as
it may pertain to, among other things, market entry and exit, investments, mergers, acquisitions and
divestitures, new business divisions and spin-offs, research and development investments, and key
competitor and partnership strategies; and reviews and makes recommendations on proposed
investment, acquisition, joint venture and divestiture transactions with a value of at least $200
million
that involve technology prior to any review by other Board Committees or the Board pursuant to
HPs
M&A approval policies.
Board Risk Oversight
The Board, with the assistance of the Audit Committee and other Board committees as discussed
below, reviews and oversees our enterprise risk management (ERM) program, which is an
enterprise-wide program designed to enable effective and efficient identification and management
of
critical enterprise risks and to facilitate the incorporation of risk considerations into decision making.
The ERM program was established to clearly define risk management roles and responsibilities, bring
together senior management to discuss risk, promote visibility and constructive dialogue around risk
at
the senior management and Board levels, and facilitate and drive appropriate risk response
strategies.
Under the ERM program, management develops a holistic portfolio of HP enterprise risks by
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 155/270
Page | 155
facilitating business and function risk assessments, performing targeted risk assessments, and
incorporating information regarding specific categories of risk gathered from various internal HP
organizations. Management then develops risk response plans for risks categorized as needing
management focus and response and monitors other identified risk focus areas. Management
provides
regular reports on the risk portfolio and risk response and monitoring efforts to senior management
and to the Audit Committee.
The Audit Committee oversees managements implementation of the ERM program, including
reviewing HPs enterprise risk portfolio and evaluating managements approach to addressing
identified
risks. While the Audit Committee has primary oversight responsibility for the risk assessment and
management process, various other committees of the Board also have responsibility for oversight
of
risk management. For example, the HR and Compensation Committee considers the risks associated
with our compensation policies and practices as discussed below. In addition, the Finance and
Investment Committee is responsible for overseeing financial risks. Further, the Nominating and
Governance Committee oversees risks associated with HPs governance structure and processes. The
Board is kept informed of its committees risk oversight and related activities primarily throughreports
of the committee Chairmen to the full Board. In addition, the Audit Committee escalates issues
relating to risk oversight to the full Board as appropriate to provide that the Board is appropriately
informed of developments that could affect HPs risk profile or other aspects of HPs business. The
Board also considers specific risk topics in connection with strategic planning and other matters.
16Compensation Risk Assessment
From time to time, HP and the HR and Compensation Committee have reviewed the potential
risks associated with the structure and design of its various compensation plans. During fiscal 2010,
HP
undertook a more comprehensive review of its material compensation plans and programs for all
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 156/270
Page | 156
employees and determined that none of its compensation policies and practices is reasonably likely
to
have a material adverse effect on the company. In conducting this assessment, HP inventoried its
material plans and programs, with particular emphasis on incentive compensation plans, including
sales
compensation, and presented a summary of its findings to the HR and Compensation Committee.
Overall, HP believes that its programs generally contain a balance of fixed and variable features, as
well as complementary metrics, reasonable goals and linear payout curves, all of which operate to
mitigate risk and reduce the likelihood of employees engaging in excessive risk-taking behavior with
respect to the compensation-related aspects of their jobs. In addition, the material plans and
programs
operate within a strong governance and review structure that serves and supports risk mitigation.
Director Independence
HPs Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that a substantial majority of the Board will consist
of
independent directors and that the Board can include no more than three directors who are not
independent
directors. These standards are available on our website at
www.hp.com/investor/director_standards. HPs
director independence standards reflect the NYSE corporate governance listing standards. In
addition, each
member of the Audit Committee meets the heightened independence standards required for audit
committee
members under the applicable listing standards.
Under HPs Corporate Governance Guidelines, a director will not be considered independent in
the following circumstances:
(1) The director is, or has been within the last three years, an employee of HP, or an immediate
family member of the director is, or has been within the last three years, an executive officer
of HP.
(2) The director has been employed as an executive officer of HP, its subsidiaries or affiliates
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 157/270
Page | 157
within the last five years.
(3) The director has received, or has an immediate family member who has received, during any
twelve-month period within the last three years, more than $100,000 in direct compensation
from HP, other than compensation for Board service, compensation received by a directors
immediate family member for service as a non-executive employee of HP, and pension or
other forms of deferred compensation for prior service with HP that is not contingent on
continued service.
(4) (A) The director or an immediate family member is a current partner of the firm that is HPs
internal or external auditor; (B) the director is a current employee of such a firm; (C) the
director has an immediate family member who is a current employee of such a firm and who
participates in the firms audit, assurance or tax compliance (but not tax planning) practice; or
(D) the director or an immediate family member was within the last three years (but is no
longer) a partner or employee of such a firm and personally worked on HPs audit within that
time.
(5) The director or an immediate family member is, or has been in the past three years, employed
as an executive officer of another company where any of HPs present executive officers at the
same time serves or has served on that companys compensation committee.
(6) The director is a current employee, or an immediate family member is a current executive
officer, of a company that has made payments to, or received payments from, HP for property
17or services in an amount which, in any of the last three fiscal years, exceeds the greater of
$1 million, or 2% of such other companys consolidated gross revenues.
(7) The director is affiliated with a charitable organization that receives significant contributions
from HP.
(8) The director has a personal services contract with HP or an executive officer of HP.
For these purposes, an immediate family member includes a persons spouse, parents,
step-parents, children, step-children, siblings, mother and father-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law,
brothers and sisters-in-law, and anyone (other than tenants or employees) who shares the directors
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 158/270
Page | 158
home.
In determining independence, the Board reviews whether directors have any material relationship
with HP. An independent director must not have any material relationship with HP, either directly or
as
a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with HP, or any
relationship
that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities
of a
director. In assessing the materiality of a directors relationship to HP, the Board considers the issues
from the directors standpoint and from the perspective of the persons or organizations with which
the
director has an affiliation and is guided by the standards set forth above.
In making its independence determinations, the Board considered transactions occurring since the
beginning of 2007 between HP and entities associated with the independent directors or their
immediate family members. The Boards independence determinations included reviewing the
following
transactions:
Each of Mr. Andreessen, Mr. Banerji, Mr. Hammergren, Mr. Hyatt and Ms. Senequier is an
executive officer of a company with which HP enters into transactions for the purchase and sale
of goods and services in the ordinary course of its business. The amount that HP paid in each of
the last three fiscal years to each of these companies, and the amount received in each fiscal
year by HP from each company, did not, in any of the previous three fiscal years, exceed the
greater of $1 million or 2% of such other companys consolidated gross revenues.
Mr. Andreessen, Mr. Babbio, Ms. Baldauf, Mr. Gupta, Mr. Lane, Ms. Russo, Mr. Ryan,
Ms. Senequier and Mr. Thompson, or one of their immediate family members, each is a
non-employee director, trustee or advisory board member of another company that did business
with HP at some time during the past three fiscal years. These business relationships were as a
supplier or purchaser of goods or services in the ordinary course of business.
Each of Mr. Andreessen, Mr. Banerji, Mr. Hyatt, Ms. Salhany and Ms. Whitman, or one of their
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 159/270
Page | 159
immediate family members, serves as a non-employee director, trustee or advisory board
member for one or more charitable institutions to which HP has made charitable contributions
during the previous three fiscal years. Contributions by HP (including employee matching
contributions and discretionary contributions by HP) to each charitable institution other than
Stanford Hospital and Clinics did not exceed $100,000 in any of the previous three fiscal years.
During fiscal 2010, contributions by HP (including employee matching contributions and
discretionary contributions by HP) to Stanford Hospital and Clinics totaled approximately
$7,509,000. No such contributions were made to Stanford Hospital and Clinics during fiscal 2009
or fiscal 2008. Mr. Andreessen and Mr. Hyatt are members of the board of directors of Stanford
Hospital and Clinics.
As a result of this review, the Board has determined that each current non-employee director and
each of the non-employee director nominees standing for election, including Mr. Andreessen,
Mr. Babbio, Ms. Baldauf, Mr. Banerji, Mr. Gupta, Mr. Hammergren, Mr. Hyatt, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Lane,
Mr. Reiner, Ms. Russo, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Senequier, Ms. Salhany, Mr. Thompson and Ms. Whitman, and
18each of the members of each standing Board committee, has no material relationship with HP
(either
directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with HP) and
is independent within the meaning of HPs director independence standards. Mr. Apotheker is not
independent because of his status as President and Chief Executive Officer of HP.
Executive Sessions
During fiscal 2010, the independent directors met in executive session 17 times. Those sessions
were scheduled and chaired by the lead independent director. Beginning in fiscal 2011, the sessions
are
scheduled and chaired by the Chairman. Any independent director may request that an additional
executive session be scheduled.
Director Nominees
Stockholder Recommendations
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 160/270
Page | 160
The policy of the Nominating and Governance Committee is to consider properly submitted
stockholder recommendations of candidates for membership on the Board as described below
under
Identifying and Evaluating Candidates for Directors. In evaluating such recommendations, the
Nominating and Governance Committee seeks to achieve a balance of knowledge, experience and
capability on the Board and to address the membership criteria set forth below under Proposals to
be
Voted onElection of DirectorsDirector Nominee Experience and Qualifications. Any stockholder
recommendations proposed for consideration by the Nominating and Governance Committee
should
include the candidates name and qualifications for Board membership and should be addressed to:
Corporate Secretary
Hewlett-Packard Company
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
Fax: (650) 857-4837
Stockholder Nominations
In addition, HPs Bylaws permit stockholders to nominate directors for consideration at an annual
stockholder meeting and to solicit proxies in favor of such nominees. For a description of the process
for nominating directors in accordance with HPs Bylaws, see Questions and AnswersStockholder
Proposals, Director Nominations and Related Bylaw ProvisionsHow may I recommend or nominate
individuals to serve as directors?
Identifying and Evaluating Candidates for Directors
The Nominating and Governance Committee uses a variety of methods for identifying and
evaluating nominees for director. The Nominating and Governance Committee, with the input of the
Chairman, regularly assesses the appropriate size of the Board and whether any vacancies on the
Board
are expected due to retirement or otherwise. In the event that vacancies are anticipated, or
otherwise
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 161/270
Page | 161
arise, the Nominating and Governance Committee considers various potential candidates for
director.
Candidates may come to the attention of the Nominating and Governance Committee through
current
Board members, professional search firms, stockholders or other persons. Identified candidates are
evaluated at regular or special meetings of the Nominating and Governance Committee and may be
considered at any point during the year. As described above, the Nominating and Governance
Committee considers properly submitted stockholder recommendations for candidates for the
Board to
be included in HPs proxy statement. Following verification of the stockholder status of people
proposing candidates, recommendations are considered together by the Nominating and
Governance
Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting, which is generally the first or second meeting prior to
the
19issuance of the proxy statement for HPs annual meeting. If any materials are provided by a
stockholder in connection with the nomination of a director candidate, such materials are forwarded
to
the Nominating and Governance Committee. The Nominating and Governance Committee also
reviews
materials provided by professional search firms and other parties in connection with a nominee who
is
not proposed by a stockholder. In evaluating such nominations, the Nominating and Governance
Committee seeks to achieve a balance of knowledge, experience and capability on the Board.
HP engages a professional search firm on an ongoing basis to identify and assist the Nominating
and Governance Committee in identifying, evaluating and conducting due diligence on potential
director nominees. Two of the seven directors who joined the Board since the last annual meeting of
stockholders, Mr. Apotheker and Mr. Lane, were identified by the professional search firm. The
other
five directors, Mr. Banerji, Mr. Reiner, Ms. Russo, Ms. Senequier and Ms. Whitman, were identified
by
an ad hoc committee of directors consisting of the Chief Executive Officer and three non-employee
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 162/270
Page | 162
directors, which was formed in November 2010 to assist in the identification of new director
candidates
and to facilitate the process of evaluating those candidates as potential directors.
Board Policy Regarding Voting for Directors
HP has implemented a majority vote standard in the election of directors. In addition, HP has
adopted a policy whereby any incumbent director nominee who receives a greater number of votes
against his or her election than votes for such election will tender his or her resignation for
consideration by the Nominating and Governance Committee. The Nominating and Governance
Committee will recommend to the Board the action to be taken with respect to such offer of
resignation.
Communications with the Board
Individuals may communicate with the Board by contacting:
Secretary to the Board of Directors
3000 Hanover Street, MS 1050
Palo Alto, California 94304
e-mail: [email protected]
All directors have access to this correspondence. In accordance with instructions from the Board,
the Secretary to the Board reviews all correspondence, organizes the communications for review by
the
Board and posts communications to the full Board or individual directors, as appropriate. HPs
independent directors have requested that certain items that are unrelated to the Boards duties,
such
as spam, junk mail, mass mailings, solicitations, resumes and job inquiries, not be posted.
Communications that are intended specifically for the Chairman, the independent directors or
non-management directors should be sent to the e-mail address or street address noted above, to
the
attention of the Chairman.
20DIRECTOR COMPENSATION AND STOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 163/270
Page | 163
Employee directors do not receive any separate compensation for their Board activities. In fiscal
2010, non-employee directors received the compensation described below.
Each non-employee director serving during fiscal 2010 was entitled to receive an annual cash
retainer of $100,000 but could elect to receive an equivalent amount of securities in lieu of the cash
retainer. Each non-employee director was also entitled to receive an annual equity retainer of
$150,000,
which was increased to $175,000 effective in March 2010. The equity retainer is paid at the election
of
the director either entirely in restricted stock units or half in restricted stock units and half in stock
options. Under special circumstances, the securities portion of the annual retainer may be paid in
cash,
but no such exceptions were made during fiscal 2010. The number of shares subject to the restricted
stock unit awards is determined based on the fair market value of HP common stock on the grant
date,
and the number of shares subject to the stock option awards is determined based on a Black-Scholes
option valuation model. Non-employee directors are entitled to receive dividend equivalent units
with
respect to unvested restricted stock units. The restricted stock units and stock options generally vest
after one year from the date of grant. Non-employee directors may elect to defer any portion of their
annual retainer.
In addition to the annual retainer, non-employee directors who served as chairs of standing
committees during fiscal 2010 received a retainer for such service in the amount of $20,000 for the
chair of the Audit Committee, $15,000 for the chair of the HR and Compensation Committee, and
$10,000 for the chair of the other Board committees. In addition, the director who served as lead
independent director during fiscal 2010 received an additional retainer of $75,000 per year. Each
non-employee director also received $2,000 for designated Board meetings attended in excess of six
per
year and $2,000 for each committee meeting attended in excess of six per year.
Non-employee directors are reimbursed for their expenses in connection with attending Board
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 164/270
Page | 164
meetings (including expenses related to spouses when spouses are invited to attend Board events),
and
non-employee directors may use the company aircraft for travel to and from HP events. Each
non-employee director also is eligible to contribute up to $100,000 worth of HP products each year
to a
school or qualified charity by paying 25% of the list price of those products, with HP contributing the
remaining cost.
On September 30, 2010, the Board elected Mr. Lane to serve as a director of HP and designated
Mr. Lane as non-executive Chairman of the Board effective November 1, 2010, the first day of HPs
2011 fiscal year. In connection therewith, the Board approved an equity retainer that was awarded
to
Mr. Lane following the end of fiscal 2010 consisting of 45,000 restricted stock units, one-third of
which
will vest on the first anniversary of the date of grant and two-thirds of which will vest on the third
anniversary of the date of grant, with any unvested units to be forfeited in the event that Mr. Lanes
service as non-executive Chairman terminates prior to the full vesting of the award. No other
compensation will be paid to Mr. Lane for his service on the Board from November 1, 2010 until the
annual meeting. If Mr. Lane is re-elected to the Board at that meeting, his compensation for service
as
a director and as non-executive Chairman thereafter will be established as part of the Boards
regular
annual review of director compensation.
21Fiscal 2010 Non-Employee Director Compensation
The following table provides information on compensation for non-employee directors who served
during fiscal 2010:
Fees Earned or Option All Other
Paid in Cash
(1)
Stock Awards
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 165/270
Page | 165
(2)
Awards
(2)
Compensation
(3)
Total
Name ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
Marc L. Andreessen . . . . . . 36,000 389,633 8,677 434,310
Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr. . . . . 203,333 87,540 87,250 378,123
Sari M. Baldauf . . . . . . . . . 168,000 87,540 87,250 342,790
Rajiv L. Gupta . . . . . . . . . . 156,000 175,027 29,926 360,953
John H. Hammergren . . . . . 82,000 137,533 137,094 29,981 386,608
Joel Z. Hyatt . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,667 275,012 19,723 385,402
John R. Joyce . . . . . . . . . . . 146,000 175,027 321,027
Robert L. Ryan
(4)
255,333 175,027 28,389 458,749 . . . . . . . . .
Lucille S. Salhany . . . . . . . . 184,000 87,540 87,250 16,113 374,903
G. Kennedy Thompson . . . . . 96,000 275,012 371,012
(1) For purposes of determining director compensation, the term of office for directors begins in
March and ends the following February, which does not coincide with HPs November through
October fiscal year. Cash amounts included in the table above represent the portion of the
annual retainers, committee chair fees, lead independent director fees and additional meeting
fees earned with respect to service during HPs 2010 fiscal year. See Additional Information
about Fees Earned or Paid in Cash in Fiscal 2010 below.
(2) Represents the grant date fair value of stock options and stock awards granted in fiscal 2010
calculated in accordance with applicable financial accounting standards relating to share based
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 166/270
Page | 166
payment awards. For awards of restricted stock units, that amount is calculated by multiplying
the closing price of HPs common stock on the date of grant by the number of units awarded.
For option awards, that number is calculated by multiplying the Black-Scholes value determined
as of the date of grant by the number of options awarded. See Additional Information about
Non-Employee Director Equity Awards below.
(3) Amounts in this column represent the cost to HP of product donations made on behalf of
non-employee directors as described above.
(4) Mr. Ryan elected to defer the stock award that he received as his equity retainer for the March
2010 through February 2011 Board term. That deferred compensation will be paid in the form of
restricted stock units.
22Additional Information about Fees Earned or Paid in Cash in Fiscal 2010
The following table provides additional information about fees earned or paid in cash to
non-employee directors in fiscal 2010:
Committee
Chair/Lead
Annual Independent Additional
Retainers
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 167/270
Page | 167
(1)(2)
Director Fees
(3)
Meeting Fees
(4)
Total
Name ($) ($) ($) ($)
Marc L. Andreessen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 26,000 36,000
Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 13,333 90,000 203,333
Sari M. Baldauf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 68,000 168,000
Rajiv L. Gupta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 56,000 156,000
John H. Hammergren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 72,000 82,000
Joel Z. Hyatt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,667 84,000 90,667
John R. Joyce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 46,000 146,000
Robert L. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 93,333 62,000 255,333
Lucille S. Salhany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 10,000 74,000 184,000
G. Kennedy Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96,000 96,000
(1) The term of office for directors begins in March and ends the following February, which does not
coincide with HPs November through October fiscal year. The dollar amounts shown include cash
annual retainers earned for service during the last four months of the March 2009 through
February 2010 Board term and cash annual retainers earned for service during the first eight
months of the March 2010 through February 2011 Board term.
(2) Excludes $100,000 to be paid in equity in lieu of cash for each of Mr. Andreessen,
Mr. Hammergren, Mr. Hyatt and Mr. Thompson.
(3) Committee chair and lead independent director fees are calculated based on service during each
Board term. The dollar amounts shown include such fees earned for service during the last four
months of the March 2009 through February 2010 Board term and fees earned for service during
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 168/270
Page | 168
the first eight months of the March 2010 through February 2011 Board term.
(4) Additional meeting fees are calculated based on the number of designated Board meetings and
the
number of committee meetings attended during each Board term. The dollar amounts shown
include additional meeting fees earned for meetings attended during the last four months of the
March 2009 through February 2010 Board term and additional meeting fees earned for meetings
attended during the first eight months of the March 2010 through February 2011 Board term.
23Additional Information about Non-Employee Director Equity Awards
The following table provides additional information about non-employee director equity awards,
including the stock awards and option awards made to non-employee directors during fiscal 2010,
the
grant date fair value of each of those awards and the number of stock awards and option awards
outstanding as of the end of fiscal 2010:
Grant Date
Fair Value of
Stock and
Option Option
Awards Awards Stock Awards
Stock Awards Granted Granted Outstanding at Option Awards
Granted During During During Fiscal Year Outstanding at
Fiscal 2010 Fiscal 2010 Fiscal 2010
(1)
End
(2)
Fiscal Year End
Name (#) (#) ($) (#) (#)
Marc L. Andreessen . . . . . . . . . 7,507 389,633 7,544
Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr. . . . . . . . 1,632 5,976 174,790 1,639 69,919
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 169/270
Page | 169
Sari M. Baldauf . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,632 5,976 174,790 1,639 18,708
Rajiv L. Gupta . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,263 175,027 3,276 6,177
John H. Hammergren . . . . . . . . 2,564 9,390 274,627 2,574 45,780
Joel Z. Hyatt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,127 275,012 5,147
John R. Joyce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,263 175,027 3,276
Robert L. Ryan
(3)
3,263 175,027 3,276 . . . . . . . . . . .
Lucille S. Salhany . . . . . . . . . . . 1,632 5,976 174,790 1,639 42,605
G. Kennedy Thompson . . . . . . . 5,127 275,012 5,147 8,364
(1) Represents the grant date fair value of stock options and stock awards granted in fiscal 2010
calculated in accordance with applicable financial accounting standards. For awards of restricted
stock units, that number is calculated by multiplying the closing price of HPs common stock on
the date of grant by the number of units awarded. For option awards, that amount is calculated
by multiplying the Black-Scholes value determined as of the date of grant by the number of
options awarded.
(2) Includes dividend equivalent units paid with respect to outstanding awards of restricted stock
units during fiscal 2010.
(3) Mr. Ryan elected to defer the stock award that he received as his equity retainer for the March
2010 through February 2011 Board term. That deferred compensation will be paid in the form of
restricted stock units.
Non-Employee Director Stock Ownership Guidelines
Under HPs stock ownership guidelines, non-employee directors are required to accumulate within
five years of election to the Board shares of HP common stock equal in value to at least five times
the
amount of their annual cash retainer. Shares counted toward these guidelines include any shares
held
by the director directly or indirectly, including deferred vested awards.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 170/270
Page | 170
All non-employee directors with more than five years of service have met HPs stock ownership
guidelines. See Common Stock Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management.
24PROPOSALS TO BE VOTED ON
PROPOSAL NO. 1
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
HPs Bylaws fix the current number of directors at 17. Directors Joel Z. Hyatt, John R. Joyce,
Robert L. Ryan and Lucille S. Salhany are not nominees for election at the meeting. On the
recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Board has nominated the 13
persons named below for election as directors this year, each to serve for a one-year term or until
the
directors successor is elected and qualified. The Board has also reduced the number of directors to13
effective immediately prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Director Nominee Experience and Qualifications
The Board annually reviews the appropriate skills and characteristics required of directors in the
context of the current composition of the Board, our operating requirements and the long-term
interests of our stockholders. The Board believes that its members should possess a variety of skills,
professional experience, and backgrounds in order to effectively oversee our business. In addition,
the
Board believes that each director should possess certain attributes, as reflected in the Boards
membership criteria described below.
HPs Corporate Governance Guidelines contain the current Board membership criteria that apply
to nominees recommended for a position on the Board. Under those criteria, members of the Board
should have the highest professional and personal ethics and values, consistent with longstanding
HP
values and standards. They should have broad experience at the policy-making level in business,
government, education, technology or public service. They should be committed to enhancing
stockholder value and should have sufficient time to carry out their duties and to provide insight and
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 171/270
Page | 171
practical wisdom based on experience. Their service on other boards of public companies should be
limited to a number that permits them, given their individual circumstances, to perform responsibly
all
director duties. Each director must represent the interests of all stockholders of HP. Although the
Board uses these and other criteria as appropriate to evaluate potential nominees, it has no stated
minimum criteria for nominees.
The Board believes that all the nominees named below are highly qualified and have the skills and
experience required for effective service on the Board. The nominees individual biographies below
contain information about their experience, qualifications and skills that led the Board to nominate
them.
All of the nominees have indicated to HP that they will be available to serve as directors. In the
event that any nominee should become unavailable, the proxy holders, L´eo Apotheker, Michael J.
Holston and Paul T. Porrini, will vote for a nominee or nominees designated by the Board.
All of the nominees except Mr. Apotheker, Mr. Banerji, Mr. Lane, Mr. Reiner, Ms. Russo,
Ms. Senequier and Ms. Whitman have served as directors since the last annual meeting. Mr.
Apotheker
and Mr. Lane were elected by the Board to serve as directors effective November 1, 2010, and
Mr. Banerji, Mr. Reiner, Ms. Russo, Ms. Senequier and Ms. Whitman were elected by the Board to
serve as directors effective January 21, 2011.
There are no family relationships among our executive officers and directors.
25Our Board recommends a vote FOR the election to the Board of the each of the following
nominees.
Marc L. Andreessen Mr. Andreessen is co-founder and a general partner of Andreessen
Director since 2009 Horowitz, a venture capital firm founded in July 2009, and
Age 39 co-founder and Chairman of Ning, Inc., an online platform
founded in 2004 for people to create their own social networks.
From 1999 to July 2007, Mr. Andreessen served as Chairman of
Opsware, Inc., a software company that he co-founded. From
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 172/270
Page | 172
March 1999 to September 1999, Mr. Andreessen served as Chief
Technology Officer of America Online, Inc., a software company.
Mr. Andreessen co-founded Netscape Communications
Corporation, a software company, and served in various positions,
including Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President of
Products from 1994 to 1999. Mr. Andreessen also is a director of
eBay Inc. and several private companies.
Mr. Andreessen brings to the Board extensive experience as an
Internet entrepreneur. Mr. Andreessen also is a recognized
industry expert and visionary in the IT industry. In addition, he has
extensive leadership, consumer industry and technical expertise
through his positions at Netscape, America Online and Opsware
and his service on the boards of public and private technology
companies. He has also gained valuable experience serving on the
boards of both public and private companies.
L´eo Apotheker Mr. Apotheker has served as HPs President and Chief Executive
Director since 2010 Officer and as a member of the Board since November 2010.
Age 57 Mr. Apotheker served as Chief Executive Officer of SAP AG, a
software company, from June 2009 until February 2010 after
having served as co-Chief Executive Officer of SAP from April
2008 to May 2009. Previously, Mr. Apotheker served as worldwide
Chairman of Customer Solutions and Operations for SAP from
2002 until April 2008. Mr. Apotheker occupied various other
positions at SAP since joining the company in 1995, including
Chairman of SAP EMEA from 1999 to 2002; Chairman of SAP for
the South-West Europe Region from 1997 to 1999; and CEO of
SAP France and SAP Belgium from 1995 to 1997. Mr. Apotheker
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 173/270
Page | 173
also is Vice Chairman of the supervisory board of Schneider
Electric SA.
Mr. Apotheker brings to the Board significant expertise in global
business and technology and extensive management and operating
experience. During his more than 20 years at SAP, he was a driving
force in making it the largest business software applications
company in the world. During his tenure at SAP, Mr. Apotheker
also transformed research and development and technology
platforms, expanded business models and customer segments, and
developed a strong track record of driving technological
innovation, building customer relationships and managing worldclass teams. In addition, because of
his vast international
experience, Mr. Apotheker is able to provide valuable leadership
as HP continues to expand globally, particularly in high-growth
emerging markets.
26Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr. Mr. Babbio has served as a Senior Advisor to Warburg Pincus, a
Director since 2002 private equity firm, since June 2007. Previously, Mr. Babbio served
Age 66 as Vice Chairman and President of Verizon Communications, Inc.,
a telecommunications company, from 2000 until his retirement in
April 2007. Mr. Babbio also served as Vice Chairman of Bell
Atlantic Corporation, a telecommunications company, from 1995
until the formation of Verizon through the merger of Bell Atlantic
and GTE Corporation, another telecommunications company, in
2000; as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of
Bell Atlantic from 1994 to 1995; and Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and President of Bell Atlantic Enterprises
International, Inc. from 1991 to 1994.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 174/270
Page | 174
Mr. Babbio brings to the Board strong business skills and
experience, executive leadership expertise, and extensive knowledge
of financial and operational matters, having spent more than
40 years in the telecommunications industry. Mr. Babbio also
brings to the Board recent experience in venture capital investing
with a focus on the technology, media and telecommunications
industries.
Sari M. Baldauf Ms. Baldauf served as Executive Vice President and General
Director since 2006 Manager of the Networks business group of Nokia Corporation, a
Age 55 communications company, from 1998 until February 2005. She
previously held various positions at Nokia since joining the
company in 1983, including Executive Vice President of Nokia,
Asia-Pacific from 1997 to 1998 and President of Nokia Cellular
Systems from 1988 to 1996. Ms. Baldauf also was a member of the
Executive Board of Nokia from 1994 until January 2005.
Ms. Baldauf also is a director of Daimler AG and three companies
headquartered in Finland.
Ms. Baldauf brings to the Board valuable business and leadership
experience, including extensive operational and management
experience at Nokia, a technology-driven company. In addition,
Ms. Baldaufs knowledge of global business from both a consumer
and an enterprise market perspective and her experience in large,
emerging markets such as China and India have provided her with
insight regarding building operations in diverse cultural
environments as well as the importance of innovation. Ms. Baldauf
also has a high level of understanding of the boards role and
responsibilities based on her service on other public company
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 175/270
Page | 175
boards. In addition, because of her service on the boards of several
other international companies, Ms. Baldauf is able to provide
insight regarding operating and governing a business in a diverse
range of geographies.
27Shumeet Banerji Mr. Banerji has served as Chief Executive Officer of Booz &
Director since 2011 Company, a consulting company, since July 2008. Previously,
Age 51 Mr. Banerji served in multiple roles at Booz Allen Hamilton, a
consulting company and predecessor to Booz & Company, while
based in offices in North America, Asia and Europe, including
President of the Worldwide Commercial Business from
February 2008 to July 2008, Managing Director, Europe from
February 2007 to February 2008 and Managing Director, United
Kingdom from 2003 to March 2007. Earlier in his career, he was a
member of the faculty at the University of Chicago Graduate
School of Business.
Mr. Banerji brings to the Board a robust understanding of the
issues facing companies and governments in both mature and
emerging markets around the world through his nearly two decades
of work with Booz & Company. In particular, Mr. Banerji brings
valuable experience in addressing issues ranging from corporate
strategy, organizational structure, governance, transformational
change, operational performance improvement and merger
integration.
Rajiv L. Gupta Mr. Gupta has served as Chairman of Avantor Performance
Director since 2009 Materials, a manufacturer of chemistries and materials, since
Age 65 August 2010 and as Senior Advisor to New Mountain
Capital, LLC, a private equity firm, since July 2009. Previously,
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 176/270
Page | 176
Mr. Gupta served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Rohm and Haas Company, a worldwide producer of specialty
materials, from 1999 to April 2009. Mr. Gupta occupied various
other positions at Rohm and Haas since joining the company in
1971, including Vice-Chairman from 1998 to 1999; Director of the
Electronic Materials business from 1996 to 1999; and
Vice-President and Regional Director of the Asia-Pacific Region
from 1993 to 1998. Mr. Gupta also is a director of Tyco
International Ltd., The Vanguard Group and several private
companies.
Mr. Gupta brings to the Board extensive experience in executive
leadership at a large global company, international management
experience, and venture capital investment experience. From his
nearly ten years as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Rohm
and Haas, Mr. Gupta has a strong operational and strategic
background with significant experience in manufacturing and sales.
He also brings public company governance experience as a
member or chair of boards and board committees of other public
and private companies.
John H. Hammergren Mr. Hammergren has served as Chairman of McKesson
Director since 2005 Corporation, a healthcare services and information technology
Age 51 company, since 2002 and as President and Chief Executive Officer
of McKesson since 2001. Mr. Hammergren joined McKesson in
1996 and held a number of management positions before becoming
President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Hammergren also is a
director of Nadro, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico).
28Mr. Hammergren brings to the Board nearly 30 years of business
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 177/270
Page | 177
and leadership experience in the healthcare industry. As a
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of a large global company,
Mr. Hammergren brings a wealth of complex management,
worldwide operational and financial expertise. He also brings
in-depth knowledge of the opportunities and challenges facing
global companies.
Raymond J. Lane Mr. Lane has served as HPs non-executive Chairman since
Director since 2010 November 2010. Mr. Lane has served as Managing Partner of
Age 63 Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a private equity firm, since 2000.
Prior to joining Kleiner Perkins, Mr. Lane was President and Chief
Operating Officer and a director of Oracle Corporation, a software
company. Before joining Oracle in 1992, Mr. Lane was a senior
partner of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting company. Prior to
Booz Allen Hamilton, Mr. Lane served as a division vice president
with Electronic Data Systems Corporation, an IT services company
that HP acquired in August 2008. Mr. Lane also is a director of
Quest Software, Inc. and several private companies.
Mr. Lane brings to the Board significant experience as an earlystage venture capital investor,
principally in the information
technology industry, through his position as Managing Partner of
Kleiner Perkins. In addition, having served as President and Chief
Operating Officer of Oracle, Mr. Lane has experience in
worldwide operations, management and the development of
corporate strategy. He has also gained valuable experience serving
in board leadership roles for many public and private companies.
Gary M. Reiner Mr. Reiner has served as Special Advisor at General Atlantic, a
Director since 2011 private equity firm, since September 2010. Previously, Mr. Reiner
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 178/270
Page | 178
Age 56 served as the Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer
at General Electric Company, a technology, media and financial
services company, from 1996 until March 2010. Mr. Reiner
previously held other executive positions with GE since joining the
company in 1991. Earlier in his career, Mr. Reiner was a partner
at Boston Consulting Group where he focused on strategic and
process issues for technology businesses.
Mr. Reiner brings to the Board deep insight into how IT can help
global companies succeed through his many years of experience as
Chief Information Officer at GE. From his other positions at GE
and his prior experience with Boston Consulting Group, he also
brings decades of experience driving corporate strategy,
information technology and best practices across complex
organizations. In addition, Mr. Reiner brings recent experience in
private equity investing focusing on the IT industry.
Patricia F. Russo Ms. Russo served as Chief Executive Officer of Alcatel-Lucent, a
Director since 2011 communications company, from December 2006 to September
Age 58 2008. Previously, she served as Chairman of Lucent
Technologies Inc., a communications company, from 2003 to
November 2006 and Chief Executive Officer and President of
Lucent from 2002 to November 2006. Ms. Russo also is a director
of General Motors Company, Merck & Co., Inc. and Alcoa Inc.
29Ms. Russo brings to the Board extensive global business
experience, a broad understanding of the technology industry,
strong management skills and operational expertise through her
positions with Alcatel-Lucent and Lucent Technologies. In those
positions, she dealt with a wide range of issues including mergers
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 179/270
Page | 179
and acquisitions and business restructurings as she led Lucents
recovery through a severe industry downturn and later a merger
with Alcatel. Ms. Russo also brings public company governance
experience as a member of boards and board committees of other
public companies.
Dominique Senequier Ms. Senequier has served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Director since 2011 of AXA Private Equity, a private equity firm, since founding the
Age 57 firm and joining AXA Investment Managers in 1996. Earlier in her
career, she worked at the Commission Fran¸caise des Assurances
and at the French insurance group GAN. Ms. Senequier also is an
observer of the supervisory board of Schneider Electric SA.
Ms. Senequier brings to the Board broad international perspective,
strong financial acumen and a keen focus on long-term
performance through her experience as Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of AXA Private Equity. She also brings extensive
experience in investing in the IT industry. In addition,
Ms. Senequier brings international public company governance
experience as a member of the Schneider Electric supervisory
board.
G. Kennedy Thompson Mr. Thompson has served as Senior Advisor to Aquiline Capital
Director since 2006 Partners LLC, a private equity firm, since May 2009. Previously,
Age 60 Mr. Thompson served as Chairman of Wachovia Corporation, a
financial services company, from 2003 until June 2008.
Mr. Thompson also served as Chief Executive Officer of Wachovia,
formerly First Union Corporation, from 2000 until June 2008 and
as President from 1999 until June 2008. Previously, Mr. Thompson
served as Chairman of First Union for a portion of 2001; Vice
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 180/270
Page | 180
Chairman of First Union from 1998 to 1999; and Executive Vice
President of First Union from 1996 to 1998.
Mr. Thompson brings to the Board broad business skills and
experience, executive leadership expertise, organizational and
operational management skills, and knowledge of complex global
business and financial matters, having served as Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President of a global financial services
company. Mr. Thompson also brings to the Board recent
experience in venture capital investing focusing on the financial
services industry.
30Margaret C. Whitman Ms. Whitman served as President and Chief Executive Officer of
Director since 2011 eBay Inc., an ecommerce and payments company, from 1998 to
Age 54 March 2008. Prior to joining eBay, Ms. Whitman held executivelevel positions at Hasbro Inc.,
a toy company, FTD, Inc., a floral
products company, The Stride Rite Corporation, a footwear
company, The Walt Disney Company, an entertainment company,
and Bain & Company, a consulting company. She also served as a
director of The Procter & Gamble Company from 2003 to 2008
and DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. from 2005 to 2008, having
resigned from both boards of directors in preparation for her 2010
California gubernatorial bid.
Ms. Whitman brings to the Board unique experience in developing
transformative business models, building global brands and driving
sustained growth and expansion through her ten years as President
and Chief Executive Officer of eBay. From her previous executive
positions with other large public companies, she also brings strong
operational and strategic expertise. In addition, Ms. Whitman
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 181/270
Page | 181
brings public company governance experience having previously
served as a member of boards and board committees of other
public companies.
Vote Required
Each director nominee who receives more FOR votes than AGAINST votes representing
shares of HP common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to be voted at
the
annual meeting will be elected.
If you sign your proxy or voting instruction card but do not give instructions with respect to voting
for directors, your shares will be voted for the 13 persons recommended by the Board. If you wish to
give specific instructions with respect to voting for directors, you may do so by indicating your
instructions on your proxy or voting instruction card.
You may cumulate your votes in favor of one or more of the director nominees. If you wish to
cumulate your votes, you will need to indicate explicitly your intent to cumulate your votes among
the
13 persons who will be voted upon at the annual meeting. See Questions and AnswersVoting
InformationIs cumulative voting permitted for the election of directors? for further information
about how to cumulate your votes. L´eo Apotheker, Michael J. Holston and Paul T. Porrini, as proxy
holders, reserve the right to cumulate votes and cast such votes in favor of the election of some or
all
of the applicable nominees in their sole discretion, except that a stockholders votes will not be cast
for
a nominee as to whom such stockholder instructs that such votes be cast AGAINST or ABSTAIN.
If an incumbent director nominee receives a greater number of votes against his or her election
than votes for such election, he or she is required to tender his or her resignation for considerationby
the Nominating and Governance Committee in accordance with Section V of HPs Corporate
Governance Guidelines and as described under Corporate Governance Principles and Board
MattersBoard Policy Regarding Voting for Directors.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 182/270
Page | 182
31PROPOSAL NO. 2
RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Audit Committee of the Board has appointed Ernst & Young LLP as the independent
registered public accounting firm to audit HPs consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year
ending October 31, 2011. During fiscal 2010, Ernst & Young LLP served as HPs independent
registered public accounting firm and also provided certain tax and other audit-related services. See
Principal Accountant Fees and Services on page 76. Representatives of Ernst & Young LLP are
expected to attend the annual meeting, where they will be available to respond to appropriate
questions
and, if they desire, to make a statement.
Vote Required
Ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as HPs independent registered public
accounting firm for the 2011 fiscal year requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of
HP
common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to be voted at the meeting. If
the
appointment is not ratified, the Board will consider whether it should select another independent
registered public accounting firm.
Recommendation of the Board of Directors
Our Board recommends a vote FOR the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as
HPs independent registered public accounting firm for the 2011 fiscal year.
32PROPOSAL NO. 3
ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the
Dodd-Frank Act) enables HP stockholders to vote to approve, on an advisory or non-binding basis,
the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement in accordance
with SEC rules.
HP has a pay-for-performance philosophy that forms the foundation of all decisions regarding
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 183/270
Page | 183
compensation of HPs named executive officers. This compensation philosophy, and the program
structure approved by the HR and Compensation Committee, is central to HPs ability to attract,
retain
and motivate individuals who can achieve superior financial results. This approach, which has been
used
consistently over the years, has resulted in HPs ability to attract and retain the executive talent
necessary to guide HP during a period of tremendous growth and transformation. Please refer to
Executive CompensationCompensation Discussion and AnalysisExecutive Summary for an
overview of the compensation of HPs named executive officers.
We are asking for stockholder approval of the compensation of our named executive officers as
disclosed in this proxy statement in accordance with SEC rules, which disclosures include the
disclosures under Executive CompensationCompensation Discussion and Analysis, the
compensation tables and the narrative discussion following the compensation tables. This vote is not
intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our
named executive officers and the policies and practices described in this proxy statement.
This vote is advisory and therefore not binding on HP, the HR and Compensation Committee of
the Board, or the Board. The Board and the HR and Compensation Committee value the opinions of
HP stockholders and to the extent there is any significant vote against the named executive officer
compensation as disclosed in this proxy statement, we will consider those stockholders concerns,
and
the HR and Compensation Committee will evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address
those
concerns.
Vote Required
The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of HP common stock present in person or
represented by proxy and entitled to be voted on the proposal at the annual meeting is required for
advisory approval of this proposal.
Recommendation of the Board of Directors
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 184/270
Page | 184
Our Board recommends a vote FOR the approval of the compensation of HPs named executive
officers as disclosed in this proxy statement pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the
SEC.
33PROPOSAL NO. 4
ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF HOLDING FUTURE ADVISORY VOTES
ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Dodd-Frank Act also enables HP stockholders to vote, on an advisory or non-binding basis, on
how frequently they would like to cast an advisory vote on the compensation of HPs named
executive
officers. By voting on this proposal, stockholders may indicate whether they would prefer an
advisory
vote on named executive officer compensation once every one, two, or three years.
After careful consideration of the frequency alternatives, the Board believes that conducting
advisory vote on executive compensation on an annual basis is appropriate for HP and its
stockholders
at this time.
Vote Required
The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of HP common stock present in person or
represented by proxy and entitled to be voted on the proposal at the annual meeting is required for
advisory approval of this proposal. The Board will carefully consider the outcome of the vote when
making future decisions regarding the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation.
However,
because this vote is advisory and not binding, the Board may decide that it is in the best interests of
HP and its stockholders to hold an advisory vote more or less frequently than the alternative that
has
been selected by our stockholders.
Recommendation of the Board of Directors
Our Board recommends a vote for the approval of an ANNUAL advisory vote on the compensation
of HPs named executive officers.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 185/270
Page | 185
34PROPOSAL NO. 5
APPROVAL OF THE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
2011 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
On November 17, 2010, the HR and Compensation Committee of the Board adopted the
HewlettPackard Company 2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the 2011 ESPP) and reserved
100,000,000
shares of HP common stock for issuance thereunder. The 2011 ESPP will be effective May 1, 2011,
subject to HP stockholder approval within 12 months of Board approval.
HP stockholders are being asked to approve the 2011 ESPP and the Boards reservation of shares
under the 2011 ESPP for the purpose of qualifying such shares for special tax treatment under
Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). The 2011 ESPP is
intended to replace HPs 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (also known as the Share Ownership
Plan or SOP), which expired on November 1, 2010. At the time of expiration, approximately
30,426,564 shares of common stock were reserved for issuance under the SOP.
Summary of the 2011 ESPP
The principal features of the 2011 ESPP are summarized below. The following summary of the
2011 ESPP does not purport to be a complete description of all of the provisions of the 2011 ESPP. It
is qualified in its entirety by reference to the complete text of the 2011 ESPP, which has been filed
with
the SEC as Annex A to this proxy statement. Any HP stockholder who wishes to obtain a copy of the
2011 ESPP may do so upon written request to the Secretary at HPs principal executive offices.
General. The purpose of the 2011 ESPP is to provide employees of HP and its designated
subsidiaries and affiliates with an opportunity to purchase HP common stock and, therefore, to have
an
additional incentive to contribute to the prosperity of HP.
Administration. The 2011 ESPP is administered by a committee (the Administrative Committee)
appointed by the Board. The Administrative Committee has full power to interpret the 2011 ESPP,
and
the decisions of the Board and the Administrative Committee are final and binding upon all
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 186/270
Page | 186
participants.
Eligibility. Any employee of HP or any HP subsidiary or affiliate designated by the Administrative
Committee who is regularly employed for at least 20 hours per week and more than five months in a
calendar year on an Entry Date (as defined below) is eligible to participate in the 2011 ESPP during
the Offering Period (as defined below) beginning on that Entry Date, subject to administrative rules
established by the Administrative Committee. However, no employee is eligible to participate in the
2011 ESPP to the extent that, immediately after the grant, that employee would have owned 5% of
either the voting power or the value of HPs common stock, and no employees rights to purchase
HPs
common stock pursuant to the 2011 ESPP may accrue at a rate that exceeds $25,000 per calendar
year.
Eligible employees become participants in the 2011 ESPP by filing with HP an enrollment agreement
authorizing payroll deductions on a date set by the Administrative Committee prior to the applicable
Entry Date. As of October 31, 2010, approximately 250,000 HP employees, including 12 executive
officers, were eligible to participate in the 2011 ESPP.
Participation in an Offering. The 2011 ESPP is implemented by offering periods lasting for six
months (an Offering Period). If stockholders approve the 2011 ESPP, the first six-month Offering
Period will begin on May 1, 2011. Common stock is purchased under the 2011 ESPP every six months
on the last trading day of each Offering Period (a Purchase Date), unless the participant becomes
ineligible, withdraws or terminates employment earlier. The Entry Date is the first trading day of the
Offering Period. To participate in the 2011 ESPP, each eligible employee must authorize
contributions
pursuant to the 2011 ESPP, which will generally be collected through payroll deductions. Such
payroll
35deductions may not exceed 10% of a participants eligible compensation and are also subject tothe
limitations discussed above. A participant may increase or decrease his or her rate of contribution
through payroll deductions at any time, but at no time may such rate of contribution exceed 10%.
Each
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 187/270
Page | 187
participant who has elected to participate is automatically granted an option to purchase shares of
common stock on his or her Entry Date. The option expires at the end of the Offering Period, upon
termination of employment, or if the employee becomes ineligible, whichever is earlier, but is
exercised
at the end of each Offering Period to the extent of the contributions accumulated during such
Offering
Period. The number of shares that may be purchased by an employee in any Offering Period, subject
to
the limitations discussed above, may not exceed 5,000 shares of common stock.
Purchase Price; Shares Purchased. Shares of common stock may be purchased under the 2011
ESPP at a price not less than 95% of the fair market value of the common stock on the last trading
day of the Offering Period; however, the Administrative Committee has the discretion to adjust the
purchase price in the future so long as it is not less than 85% of the fair market value of the common
stock on the last trading day of the Offering Period. On December 31, 2010, the closing price per
share
of HP common stock was $42.10. The number of whole shares of HP common stock a participant
purchases in each Offering Period is determined by dividing the total amount of the participants
contributions during that Offering Period by the purchase price, subject to the 5,000 share limit.
Termination of Employment. Termination of a participants employment for any reason, including
death, immediately cancels his or her option and participation in the 2011 ESPP. In such event, the
contributions credited to the participants account will be returned without interest to him or her or,
in
the case of death, to the person or persons entitled to those contributions.
Adjustments upon Changes in Capitalization, Merger or Sale of Assets. In the event that HP
common stock is changed by reason of any stock split, stock dividend, combination, recapitalization
or
other similar changes in HPs capital structure effected without the receipt of consideration,
appropriate proportional adjustments may be made in the number of shares of stock subject to the
2011 ESPP, the number of shares of stock to be purchased pursuant to an option and the price per
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 188/270
Page | 188
share of common stock covered by an option. Any such adjustment will be made by the Board,
whose
determination shall be conclusive and binding. In the event of a proposed sale of all or substantially
all
of the assets of HP or the merger or consolidation of HP with another company, the Board may
determine that each option will be assumed by, or an equivalent option substituted by, the
successor
company or its affiliates, that the Purchase Date will be accelerated, or that all outstanding options
will
terminate and accumulated payroll deductions will be refunded.
Amendment and Termination of the Plan. The Board may terminate or amend the 2011 ESPP at
any time, except that it may not increase the number of shares subject to the 2011 ESPP other thanas
described in the 2011 ESPP. The 2011 ESPP will continue until May 1, 2021, unless otherwise
terminated by the Board.
Withdrawal. Generally, a participant may withdraw from the 2011 ESPP during an Offering
Period prior to the change enrollment deadline established by the Administrative Committee. The
Administrative Committee may establish rules limiting the frequency with which participants may
withdraw and re-enroll in the plan and may establish a waiting period for participants wishing to
re-enroll.
New Plan Benefits. Because benefits under the 2011 ESPP will depend on employees elections to
participate and the fair market value of HP common stock at various future dates, it is not possible
to
determine the benefits that will be received by executive officers and other employees if the 2011
ESPP
is approved by the stockholders. Non-employee directors are not eligible to participate in the 2011
ESPP.
36U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences
If HP stockholders approve this proposal, the 2011 ESPP, and the right of participants to make
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 189/270
Page | 189
purchases thereunder, should qualify under the provisions of Sections 421 and 423 of the Code.
Under
these provisions, no income will be taxable to a participant until the shares purchased under the
2011
ESPP are sold or otherwise disposed of. Upon sale or other disposition of the shares, the participant
will generally be subject to tax and the amount of the tax will depend upon the holding period. If the
shares are sold or otherwise disposed of more than two years from the applicable Entry Date and
more
than one year from the date of transfer of the shares to the participant, then the participant
generally
will recognize ordinary income measured as the lesser of (i) the excess of the amount received upon
such sale or disposition over the purchase price, or (ii) an amount equal to 5% of the fair marketvalue
of the shares as of the Entry Date. Any additional gain should be treated as long-term capital gain. If
the shares are sold or otherwise disposed of before the expiration of this holding period, the
participant
will recognize ordinary income generally measured as the excess of the fair market value of the
shares
on the date the shares are purchased over the purchase price. Any additional gain or loss on such
sale
or disposition will be long-term or short-term capital gain or loss, depending on the holding period.
HP
is not entitled to a deduction for amounts taxed as ordinary income or capital gain to a participant
except to the extent ordinary income is recognized by participants upon a sale or disposition of
shares
prior to the expiration of the holding period(s) described above. In all other cases, no deduction is
allowed to HP.
The foregoing is only a summary of the effect of U.S. federal income taxation upon participants
and HP with respect to the 2011 ESPP based on the U.S. Federal income tax laws in effect as of the
date of this proxy statement. It is not intended to be exhaustive and does not discuss the tax
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 190/270
Page | 190
consequences arising in the context of the employees death or the income tax laws of any
municipality,
state or foreign country in which the employees income or gain may be taxable or the gift, estate, or
any tax law other than U.S. federal income tax law. Because individual circumstances may vary, HP
advises all recipients to consult their own tax advisor concerning the tax implications of participation
in the 2011 ESPP.
Vote Required
Approval of the 2011 ESPP requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of HP
common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to be voted on the proposal
at
the annual meeting.
Recommendation of the Board of Directors
Our Board recommends a vote FOR the approval of the Hewlett-Packard Company 2011 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan.
37PROPOSAL NO. 6
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
2005 PAY-FOR-RESULTS PLAN TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE PLAN
The Hewlett-Packard Company 2005 Pay-for-Results Plan (the PfR Plan) was approved by
stockholders in March of 2006. The PfR Plan provides a non-exclusive framework that can satisfy the
standards of Section 162(m) of the Code. Under the PfR Plan, the HR and Compensation Committee
of the Board (the Committee) may designate performance measures and a bonus formula with
respect to a performance period for each PfR Plan participant. Utilizing those criteria and other
factors
that the Committee determines appropriate, the Committee uses the PfR Plan to reward
accomplishments achieved or recognized during the performance period. The Board believes that
the
PfR Plan benefits stockholders because it creates a strong incentive for executives to meet or exceed
specified financial goals. Stockholders are being asked to approve an amendment to the PfR Plan to
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 191/270
Page | 191
remove the expiration date so that the PfR Plan will continue until terminated by the Committee and
to fulfill the requirements to qualify the amounts paid pursuant to the PfR Plan for a United States
federal income tax deduction by HP. Other than the removal of the plan expiration, all terms of the
PfR Plan remain unchanged.
The Board believes that it is in the best interest of HP and its stockholders to provide for a
stockholder-approved plan under which bonuses qualify for deductibility by HP for United States
federal income tax purposes, to the maximum extent permitted. Accordingly, the PfR Plan is
structured
such that payments under it can qualify as performance-based compensation within the meaning
of
Section 162(m) of the Code. In general, Section 162(m) of the Code places a limit of $1 million on the
deductibility for federal income tax purposes of the compensation paid to covered employees,
generally defined as the four highest-paid officers employed by the company on the last day of its
taxable year other than the chief financial officer. However, compensation that qualifies as
performance-based under Section 162(m) is not subject to the $1 million limitation. One of the
requirements of performance-based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code is
that
the material terms of the performance goal under which compensation may be paid be disclosed to,
and approved by, the companys stockholders every five years. Therefore, we are seeking
stockholder
approval of the material terms of the PfR Plan which permit continued qualification under
Section 162(m). For purposes of Section 162(m), the material terms include (i) the employees eligible
to receive compensation, (ii) a description of the business criteria on which the performance goal is
based and (iii) the maximum amount of compensation that can be paid to an employee under the
performance goal. Each of these aspects of the PfR Plan is discussed below, and stockholderapproval
of the amendment to the PfR Plan will be deemed to constitute approval of each of these aspects of
the PfR Plan for purposes of the approval requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code.
Summary of the PfR Plan
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 192/270
Page | 192
The principal features of the PfR Plan are summarized below. The following summary of the PfR
Plan does not purport to be a complete description of all of the provisions of the PfR Plan. It is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the complete text of the PfR Plan, which has been filed with
the
SEC as Annex B to this proxy statement. Any HP stockholder who wishes to obtain a copy of the PfR
Plan may do so upon written request to the Secretary at HPs principal executive offices.
Administration. The Committee has complete authority to: (i) select from the eligible participants
the individuals to whom awards under the PfR Plan may from time to time be paid, (ii) determine
the
performance periods and performance goals upon which payment of awards under the PfR Plan will
be
based, and (iii) make any other determination and take any other action that the Committee deems
necessary or desirable to discharge its duties under the PfR Plan. The Committee may delegate
various
functions to a Plan Committee to act on certain compensation and benefits matters. The Plan
Committee will have the responsibility for general administration and interpretation of the PfR Plan,
38except to the extent inconsistent with Section 162(m) of the Code. The Plan Committee is
composed of
HPs Executive Vice President of Human Resources, General Counsel, Controller and Treasurer. The
Plan Committee may further delegate its administrative tasks to other HP employees as it deems
appropriate.
Participation and Eligibility. Each Section 16 officer is eligible to participate in the PfR Plan. HPs
non-employee directors are not entitled to participate in the PfR Plan. As of December 31, 2010, HP
had 12 Section 16 officers who were eligible to participate in the PfR Plan in fiscal 2011.
If a person ceases to be a Section 16 officer or becomes a Section 16 officer during a performance
period, such participant may receive a prorated bonus under the PfR Plan.
A participant generally will forfeit any bonus for a performance period during which such
participant is involuntarily terminated by HP or terminates his or her employment with HP for any
reason, although the Committee may determine that the forfeiture does not apply in cases of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 193/270
Page | 193
termination due to death, workforce reduction, disability, retirement or in connection with certain
mutual separation agreements, but only to the extent that the applicable performance goals are
met.
Adjustments may also be made if a participant is on a leave of absence approved by HP or is on
non-pay status.
Awards under the PfR Plan are subject to repayment in the event of a significant restatement of
financial results. In the event of such a restatement, the Board will review all bonuses that were paid
to
Section 16 officers on the basis of having met or exceeded specific performance targets for
performance
periods beginning after December 31, 2005 for the restatement period. If such bonuses would have
been lower had they been calculated based on such restated results, the Board will, to the extent
permitted by governing law, seek to recoup all such bonuses paid to Section 16 officers whose fraud
or
misconduct resulted in such restatement.
PfR Plan Operation. Within the earlier of (i) 90 days after commencement of a performance
period, or (ii) the expiration of 25% of the performance period, the Committee will designate or
approve:
the performance period (the PfR Plan defines performance period to mean HPs fiscal year or
such other period that the Committee may establish);
the employees (designated by position or name) who will be participants in the PfR Plan for the
performance period;
the performance measures and targeted performance goals for those measures during the
performance period;
the bonus formula applicable to each participant for the performance period (which can be set
on an individual or group basis);
the target bonus opportunity for each participant;
the weighting of each performance measure; and
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 194/270
Page | 194
the eligible earnings that the participant accrues during the performance period.
When the Committee establishes a bonus program, the Committee first determines the length of
the performance period in which a bonus program applies. The Committee also determines the
performance measures, and associated weighting and targeted goals, for the applicable
performance
period. For the 2011 fiscal year performance period, the Committee selected non-GAAP net profit
(before bonus) to determine overall plan funding. For individual participants, the Committee will
make
bonus awards based on performance measures that include business-owned net profit and revenue,
as
well as achievement against certain strategic objectives, customer satisfaction and employee
development metrics.
39Business Criteria and Maximum Amount of Compensation Payable under the PfR Plan. The
performance measures for any performance period will be any one or more of the following
performance criteria, either individually, alternatively or in any combination, applied to either HP as
a
whole or to a region, business unit, affiliate or business segment, either individually, alternatively or
in
any combination, and measured either on an absolute basis or relative to a pre-established target, toa
previous periods results or to a designated comparison group, in each case as specified by the
Committee: (i) cash flow (including operating cash flow or free cash flow), (ii) revenue (on an
absolute
basis or adjusted for currency effects), (iii) gross margin, (iv) operating expenses or operating
expenses
as a percentage of revenue, (v) earnings (which may include earnings before interest and taxes,
earnings before taxes and net earnings, and may be determined in accordance with United States
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or adjusted to exclude any or all non-GAAP
items), (vi) earnings per share (on a GAAP or non-GAAP basis), (vii) growth in any of the foregoing
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 195/270
Page | 195
measures, (viii) stock price, (ix) return on equity or average stockholders equity, (x) total
stockholder
return, (xi) growth in stockholder value relative to the moving average of the S&P 500 Index or
another index, (xii) return on capital, (xiii) return on assets or net assets, (xiv) return on investment,
(xv) economic value added, (xvi) operating profit, controllable operating profit, or net operating
profit,
(xvii) operating margin, (xviii) cash conversion cycle, (xix) market share, (xx) contract awards or
backlog, (xxi) overhead or other expense reduction, (xxii) credit rating, (xxiii) strategic plan
development and implementation, (xxiv) succession plan development and implementation,
(xxv) improvement in workforce diversity, (xxvi) customer indicators, (xxvii) new product invention
or
innovation, (xxviii) attainment of research and development milestones, (xxix) improvements in
productivity, (xxx) attainment of objective operating goals and (xxxi) employee metrics.
The PfR Plan further provides that the Committee may appropriately adjust any evaluation of
performance under a performance measure to exclude any of the following events that occurs
during a
performance period: (A) the effects of currency fluctuations, (B) any or all items that are excluded
from the calculation of non-GAAP earnings as reflected in any HP press release and Form 8-K filing
relating to an earnings announcement, (C) asset write-downs, (D) litigation or claim judgments or
settlements, (E) the effect of changes in tax law, accounting principles or other such laws or
provisions
affecting reported results, (F) accruals for reorganization and restructuring programs, and (G) any
other extraordinary or non-operational items.
The maximum bonus that any one participant may be paid under the PfR Plan in any one fiscal
year is $10 million.
Committee Certification and Determination of Awards. After the conclusion of each performance
period, the Committee will determine and certify the extent to which the targeted goals for the
performance measures applicable to the performance period were achieved. The Committee will
also
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 196/270
Page | 196
certify the bonus amount for each participant for the performance period based upon bonus
formula
for such participant as previously established by the Committee. The Committee has the authority to
reduce or eliminate to zero the amount of any bonus payable under the PfR Plan to any participant;
however, the Committee cannot increase the bonus amounts payable under the PfR Plan in excess
of
the maximum that a participant would receive based on the bonus formula established for the
participant at the beginning of the performance period.
Non-Exclusivity. Nothing contained in the PfR Plan prevents the Board from adopting other or
additional compensation arrangements that provide for bonuses or other forms of compensation for
HPs officers or other employees regardless of stockholders approval of the PfR Plan. Such other
arrangements may or may not qualify for deductibility under Section 162(m) of the Code and may be
either applicable only for specific officers or employees, or may be generally applicable. However,
for
payments under the PfR to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m), any
such
other or additional compensation arrangements may not be designed to provide PfR Plan
participants
40all or part of the compensation they would receive under the PfR Plan regardless of whether the
performance goal is attained.
Amendment and Termination of the PfR Plan. The Committee may amend, suspend or terminate
the PfR Plan at any time as it may deem proper and in the best interests of HP; provided that no
amendment, suspension or termination may be made that would increase the amount of
compensation
payable pursuant to a bonus awarded under the PfR Plan or cause amounts payable under the PfR
Plan to fail to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code.
Administrative changes or changes required by law may be made by the Plan Committee. To the
extent
required under applicable law, amendments to the PfR Plan will be subject to stockholder approval.
New Plan Benefits. Information about the range of possible amounts that could have been paid
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 197/270
Page | 197
under the PfR Plan for fiscal 2010 is set forth in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal 2010
table under Executive Compensation.
U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences
All amounts paid pursuant to the PfR Plan constitute taxable income to the employee when
received. If a participant elects to defer a portion of the bonus, the participant may be entitled to
defer
the recognition of income. Generally, and subject to Section 162(m) of the Code, HP will be entitled
to
a federal income tax deduction when amounts paid under the PfR Plan are included in employee
income. Subject to stockholder approval of the PfR Plan, the failure of any aspect of the PfR Plan to
satisfy Section 162(m) shall not void any action taken by the Committee under the PfR Plan.
As stated above, the PfR Plan is being submitted for stockholders approval at the annual meeting
so that payments under the PfR Plan can qualify for deductibility by HP under Section 162(m) of the
Code. However, stockholder approval of the PfR Plan is only one of several requirements under
Section 162(m) of the Code that must be satisfied for amounts payable under the PfR Plan to qualify
for the performance-based compensation exemption under Section 162(m) of the Code, and
submission of the PfR Plan to stockholder approval should not be viewed as a guarantee that all
amounts paid under the PfR Plan will in practice be deductible by HP.
The foregoing is only a summary of the effect of U.S. federal income taxation upon participants
and HP with respect to amounts paid pursuant to the PfR Plan. It is not intended to be exhaustive
and it does not discuss the tax consequences arising in the context of the employees death or the
income tax laws of any municipality, state or foreign country in which the employees income or gain
may be taxable. Because individual circumstances may vary, HP advises all recipients to consult their
own tax advisor concerning the tax implications of participation in the PfR Plan.
Vote Required
Approval of the amendment to the PfR Plan requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the
shares of common stock present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on this proposal at the
annual meeting.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 198/270
Page | 198
Recommendation of the Board of Directors
Our Board recommends a vote FOR the approval of the amendment of the Hewlett-Packard
Company 2005 Pay-for-Results Plan.
41COMMON STOCK OWNERSHIP OF
CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2010 concerning beneficial
ownership by:
holders of more than 5% of HPs common stock,
HP directors and nominees,
each of the named executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table on page 62, and
all directors and HP executive officers as a group.
The information provided in the table is based on HPs records, information filed with the SEC
and information provided to HP, except where otherwise noted.
The number of shares beneficially owned by each entity or individual is determined under SEC
rules, and the information is not necessarily indicative of beneficial ownership for any other
purpose.
Under such rules, beneficial ownership includes any shares as to which the entity or individual has
sole
or shared voting power or investment power and also any shares that the entity or individual has the
right to acquire as of March 1, 2011 (60 days after December 31, 2010) through the exercise of any
stock options, through the vesting of restricted stock units (RSUs) payable in shares, or upon the
exercise of other rights. Beneficial ownership excludes options or other rights vesting after March 1,
2011 and any RSUs vesting on or before March 1, 2011 that may be payable in cash or shares at HPs
election. Unless otherwise indicated, each person has sole voting and investment power (or sharessuch
powers with his or her spouse) with respect to the shares set forth in the following table.
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP TABLE
Shares of Percent of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 199/270
Page | 199
Common Stock Common Stock
Name of Beneficial Owner Beneficially Owned Outstanding
Blackrock, Inc.
(1)
%149,051,919 6.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marc L. Andreessen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,397 *
L´eo Apotheker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159,550 *
Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr.
(2)
* 102,957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sari M. Baldauf
(3)
* 31,314 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shumeet Banerji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Rajiv L. Gupta
(4)
* 15,461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John H. Hammergren
(5)
* 50,847 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joel Z. Hyatt
(6)
* 16,985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John R. Joyce
(7)
* 10,772 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Raymond J. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 200/270
Page | 200
Gary M. Reiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Patricia F. Russo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Robert L. Ryan
(8)
* 20,532 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lucille S. Salhany
(9)
* 73,370 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dominique Senequier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
G. Kennedy Thompson
(10)
* 24,984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Margaret C. Whitman
(11)
* 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Catherine A. Lesjak
(12)
* 185,869 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R. Todd Bradley
(13)
* 386,995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ann M. Livermore
(14)
* 1,908,231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vyomesh I. Joshi
(15)
* 1,780,640 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 201/270
Page | 201
All current executive officers and directors as a group (28 persons)
(16)
* 6,721,165 . .
* Represents holdings of less than 1%.
42(1) Based on a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on January 29, 2010 by Blackrock, Inc. The
Schedule 13G contained information as of January 29, 2010 and may not reflect current holdings
of HP common stock. The address for Blackrock, Inc. is 40 East 52nd Street, New York, New York
10022.
(2) Includes 63,943 shares that Mr. Babbio has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
(3) Includes 12,732 shares that Ms. Baldauf has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
(4) Includes 6,177 shares that Mr. Gupta has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
(5) Includes 14,457 shares that Mr. Hammergren holds indirectly through a trust and 36,390 shares
that Mr. Hammergren has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
(6) Includes an aggregate of 200 shares that Mr. Hyatt holds indirectly through two trusts.
(7) Represents shares held by Mr. Joyce indirectly through a trust.
(8) Represents shares held by Mr. Ryan indirectly through a trust.
(9) Includes 36,629 shares that Ms. Salhany has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
(10) Includes 8,364 shares that Mr. Thompson has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
(11) Represents shares held by Ms. Whitman indirectly through a trust.
(12) Includes 306 shares held by Ms. Lesjaks spouse and 38,280 shares held indirectly by Ms. Lesjak
with her spouse, and 141,250 shares that Ms. Lesjak has the right to acquire by exercise of stock
options.
(13) Includes 290,000 shares that Mr. Bradley has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
(14) Includes 4,011 shares held by Ms. Livermore in the HP 401(k) plan, 56,176 shares that
Ms. Livermore holds indirectly through a trust with her spouse, and 1,826,200 shares that
Ms. Livermore has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 202/270
Page | 202
(15) Includes an aggregate of 10,008 shares that Mr. Joshi holds indirectly through two living trusts,
an
aggregate of 160,000 shares that Mr. Joshi holds indirectly through four grantor retained annuity
trusts, and 1,465,000 shares that Mr. Joshi has the right to acquire by exercise of stock options.
(16) Includes 5,229,685 shares that executive officers and directors have the right to acquire.
43SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, requires our directors, executive officers and holders of more
than 10% of HP common stock to file reports with the SEC regarding their ownership and changes in
ownership of our securities. HP believes that, during fiscal 2010, its directors, executive officers and
10% stockholders complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements. In making these statements,
HP
has relied upon an examination of the copies of Forms 3, 4, and 5, and amendments thereto, and the
written representations of its directors, executive officers and 10% stockholders.
TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS
Related Person Transaction Policies and Procedures
HP has adopted a written policy for approval of transactions between HP and its directors,
director nominees, executive officers, beneficial owners of more than 5% of HPs common stock, and
their respective immediate family members where the amount involved in the transaction exceeds
or is
expected to exceed $100,000 in a single calendar year.
The policy provides that the Nominating and Governance Committee reviews certain transactions
subject to the policy and decides whether or not to approve or ratify those transactions. In doing so,
the Nominating and Governance Committee determines whether the transaction is in the best
interests
of HP. In making that determination, the Nominating and Governance Committee takes intoaccount,
among other factors it deems appropriate:
The extent of the related persons interest in the transaction;
Whether the transaction is on terms generally available to an unaffiliated third party under the
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 203/270
Page | 203
same or similar circumstances;
The benefits to HP;
The impact or potential impact on a directors independence in the event the related party is a
director, an immediately family member of a director or an entity in which a director is a
partner, stockholder or executive officer;
The availability of other sources for comparable products or services; and
The terms of the transaction.
The Nominating and Governance Committee has delegated authority to the chair of the
Nominating and Governance Committee to pre-approve or ratify transactions where the aggregate
amount involved is expected to be less than $1 million. A summary of any new transactions
pre-approved by the chair is provided to the full Nominating and Governance Committee for its
review
at each of the committees regularly scheduled meetings.
The Nominating and Governance Committee has adopted standing pre-approvals under the policy
for limited transactions with related persons. Pre-approved transactions include:
1. Compensation of executive officers that is excluded from reporting under SEC rules where
HPs HR and Compensation Committee approved (or recommended that the Board approve)
such compensation;
2. Director compensation;
3. Transactions valued at less than $1 million or 2% of the other companys consolidated gross
revenues, where the related person has an interest only as an employee (other than executive
officer), director or beneficial holder of less than 10% of the other companys shares;
444. Charitable contributions of less than $1 million or 2% of the charitys annual receipts, where
the related person has an interest only as an employee (other than executive officer) or
director; and
5. Transactions where all stockholders receive proportional benefits.
A summary of new transactions covered by the standing pre-approvals described in paragraphs 3
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 204/270
Page | 204
and 4 above is provided to the Nominating and Governance Committee for its review in connection
with the committees regularly scheduled meetings.
Fiscal 2010 Related Person Transactions
HP enters into commercial transactions with many entities for which its executive officers or
directors serve as directors and/or executive officers in the ordinary course of its business. All of
those
transactions were pre-approved transactions as defined above except for transactions with Current
Media LLC, McKesson Corporation, Ning, Inc. and Silver Lake. In fiscal 2010, Mr. Hyatt was Vice
Chairman of Current Media, Mr. Hammergren was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
McKesson, and Mr. Andreessen was Chairman of Ning. In addition, Mr. Joyce was a managing
director
of Silver Lake for a portion of fiscal 2010. HP considers these transactions to be arms-length and
does
not believe that any of Mr. Hyatt, Mr. Hammergren, Mr. Andreessen and Mr. Joyce has a material
direct or indirect interest in any of such commercial transactions.
Kimberly M. Bocian, the spouse of Peter J. Bocian, an executive officer of HP, was employed by
HP during fiscal 2010. She was paid a base salary of $209,000 and received bonuses totaling
$147,750
with respect to her employment with HP during fiscal 2010. Ms. Bocian also participated in HPs
equity
award and benefit programs in fiscal 2010 and received an award of 1,000 performance-based
restricted
units during fiscal 2010.
45EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Executive Summary
As one of the worlds leading technology companies, Hewlett-Packards mission is to invent
technologies and deliver services that drive business value, create social benefit and improve the
lives of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 205/270
Page | 205
customerswith a focus on positively impacting the greatest number of people possible. To fulfill
this
mission, the HR and Compensation Committee (the Committee) of the Board of Directors (the
Board) believes that HP must recruit and retain executive talent from among the most capable
and
highest performing executives within any industry. Because the labor market for this type of
executive
talent is limited, the Committee spends a significant amount of time understanding the market for
executive talent and the economic factors that affect HPs short- and long-term performance within
this
context.
Compensation and benefits for employees at all levels of HP, including for the named executive
officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table on page 62 (the NEOs), are determined in the
context of HPs Total Rewards Program. The Total Rewards Program includes base pay, annual
variable
pay, long-term incentive pay, benefits and perquisites. Overall, the Total Rewards Program aims to
foster a high-performance culture at all levels and to provide an opportunity for employees to earn
significant rewards if HP achieves strong financial results.
HPs pay-for-performance philosophy forms the foundation of all of the Committees decisions
regarding compensation. Like most companies, HP uses a combination of fixed and variable
compensation programs to reward and incentivize strong performance, and to align the interests of
HPs executives with its stockholders. This compensation philosophy, and the program structure
approved by the Committee, is central to HPs ability to attract, retain and motivate individuals who
can achieve the superior financial results that HP stockholders expect.
Each year the Committee, along with HP management, establishes performance targets for shortand
long-term incentive plans that require the achievement of significant financial results. At the end of
each year, the Committee determines compensation by assessing performance against these
financial
targets, as well as in light of HPs performance relative to its peers on other financial and non-
financial
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 206/270
Page | 206
factors and unusual or extraordinary events. While the Committee believes that financial
performance
should be the most significant driver of compensation, other factors that drive long-term value for
stockholders are also taken into account by the Committee, including improvements in market
share,
successful product launches, achievement of strategic objectives and customer satisfaction.
Ultimately,
the amount of compensation awarded to HPs executives is determined based on HPs performance
and
what the Committee believes is in the best interests of stockholders. This approach has been used
consistently over the years and has resulted in HPs ability to attract and retain a talented executive
team throughout a period of tremendous growth and transformation.
Performance during fiscal 2010, and for the three year period ending with fiscal 2010, was
consistently solid and demonstrated improved earnings and operational discipline year-over-year
throughout a period of significant financial turmoil. Under the compensation structure established in
2008, the Committee believes that the payouts made in fiscal 2010 reflect an appropriate level of
compensation for a talented team of HP executives.
Other aspects of our compensation program are intended to further align our executives interest
with stockholders. These include:
Stock ownership guidelines that more closely align executives interests with those of
stockholders;
A clawback policy that permits the Board to recover bonuses from senior executives whose
fraud or misconduct resulted in a significant restatement of financial results;
46 No tax gross-ups on income associated with the personal use of corporate aircraft or on
payments made in connection with a change of control; and
No special or supplemental pension, health or death benefits for executives.
The following pages of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis (this CD&A) include the
following:
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 207/270
Page | 207
An overview of HPs Total Rewards Program, including our policy on pay positioning and pay
for performance, which appears under HP Total Rewards Program and Executive Officer
Compensation Within Total Rewards;
A description of the roles of those responsible for overseeing and implementing the
compensation plan, which appears under Oversight and Authority Over Executive
Compensation;
A description of how we develop our competitive compensation structure, including how we use
external data, which appears under Use of Comparative Compensation Data and Analysis of
HPs Process for Setting and Awarding Executive Compensation;
A discussion of the impact of this analysis on the compensation of the named executive officers,
which appears under Analysis of the Elements of Executive CompensationBase Pay,
Annual Incentive Pay and Long Term Incentive Pay;
A summary of the other elements of executive officer compensation under HPs Total Rewards
Program, which appears under Analysis of the Elements of Executive CompensationBenefits,
Perquisites, Severance Plan for Executive Officers and Benefits in the Event of a
Change of Control; and
An outline of some other aspects of HPs Total Rewards Program, which appears under Stock
Ownership Guidelines, Accounting and Tax Effects, Policy on Recovery of Bonus in Event of
Financial Restatement and Approval Process for Equity Grants.
The compensation tables appear immediately following this CD&A.
HPs Total Rewards Program
Compensation and benefits for employees at all levels of HP, including the NEOs, are determined
in the context of HPs Total Rewards Program. The Total Rewards Program includes base pay, annual
variable pay, long-term incentive pay, benefits and perquisites. Overall, the Total Rewards Program
aims to foster a high-performance culture at all levels and to provide an opportunity for employees
to
earn significant rewards when HP achieves strong financial results.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 208/270
Page | 208
While the elements of the Total Rewards Program are intended to motivate and encourage
employees at all levels of HP to drive performance, there is a different emphasis on certain elements
of
the Total Rewards Program based on an employees position and ability to impact HPs financial
results. Within the Total Rewards Program, the percentage of performance-based pay, or at-risk pay,
increases with job responsibility. Among HPs peer group companies, HP executives have a higher
percentage of performance-based pay, which generally means smaller bonuses and lower overall
compensation in years of low performance and higher bonuses and long-term incentive payouts in
years
of exceptional performance, reflective of the performance achieved.
Executive Officer Compensation Within Total Rewards
As one of the worlds leading technology companies with multiple business units of significant size
and complexity, the Committee generally targets the total compensation of HPs executive officers
to be
at or near the 75
th
percentile of pay for comparable positions at its peer group companies. The
Committee believes this level of pay is necessary to provide appropriate retention and incentives to
HPs executive officers and that it is appropriate given HPs size and complexity. It also generally
corresponds to HPs percentile ranking of revenue within its peer group companies. In the case of
47NEOs who head significant business segments, the Committee has determined that in certain
cases,
setting and paying target compensation at or above this range, up to approximately the 90
th
percentile,
is justified due to the fact that some business segments are of a similar size or even exceed the size
of
several of HPs peer group companies.
At the NEO level, there is the greatest emphasis on linking pay to performance so as to align the
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 209/270
Page | 209
interests of the NEOs directly with those of stockholders. Accordingly, compensation is structured so
that approximately 80% to 90% of NEO target compensation is performance based depending upon
HPs financial results, with the remaining 10% to 20% comprising base pay and benefits. The
Committee believes that this percentage of performance-based pay is appropriate for application to
the
NEOs.
Within the portion of pay representing performance-based pay, approximately 10% to 30% is tied
to achievement of annual incentive goals and 70% to 90% is tied to achievement of financial goals
over
a longer period of time. This mix of short- and long-term incentives provides sufficient rewards in the
short-term to motivate near-term performance, while at the same time providing significant
incentives
to keep HPs executives focused on longer-term corporate goals that drive stockholder value. This
also
mitigates the risk of NEOs focusing solely on short-term or solely on long-term goals. It is also
consistent with the practice of HPs peer group companies.
HPs incentive compensation programs are also designed to provide payments based on a
combination of both individual business unit and aggregate HP financial results. This type of program
design motivates business units across HPs varied portfolio to work together to achieve greater
returns
for stockholders. Under this compensation structure, when business segment or company results do
not
meet expectations, the total compensation of HPs NEOs may be below target market position in
comparison to HPs peer group companies. Similarly, when superior results are achieved, the NEOs
may receive significant above-market rewards. Furthermore, in any one year, because HP is
comprised
of a number of independent business units, NEOs in high-performing business units may receive
significantly more compensation than NEOs in business units that did not perform as well.
Oversight and Authority Over Executive Compensation
Role of the HR and Compensation Committee and its Advisors
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 210/270
Page | 210
The Committee oversees and provides strategic direction to management regarding HPs Total
Rewards Program generally. It makes recommendations regarding the CEOs compensation to the
independent members of the Board, and it approves the compensation of the remaining Section 16
officers. Each Committee member is an independent non-employee director with significant
experience
in managing employee-related issues and making executive compensation decisions. The Committee
employs its own independent compensation consultant, as well as its own independent counsel.
During fiscal 2010, the Committee selected a new independent compensation consultant,
Compensation Advisory Partners LLC (CAP), to replace Frederick W. Cook & Co., Inc. The
Committees independent counsel, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, remained the same,
although
the firm was renamed SNR Denton US LLP following its combination with another firm.
CAP provides analyses and recommendations that inform the Committees decisions; evaluates
market data and competitive position benchmarking compiled by managements consultants;
provides
updates on market trends and the regulatory environment as it relates to executive compensation;
and
reviews various proposals presented to the Committee by management related to executive
compensation. The Committees independent counsel advises on legal matters that come before the
Committee, including proxy statements and Committee resolutions. Neither CAP nor the
independent
counsel performs other services for HP, and neither will do so without the prior consent of the
Committee chair.
48The Committee met 11 times in fiscal 2010, including 8 times in executive session. The
Committees independent advisors participated in most of the Committees meetings and, when
requested by the Committee chair, in the preparatory meetings and the executive sessions.
Role of Management and the Chief Executive Officer in Setting Executive Compensation
On an annual basis, management considers market competitiveness, business results, experience
and individual performance in evaluating NEO compensation. The Executive Vice President, Human
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 211/270
Page | 211
Resources and other members of HPs Human Resources department, together with members of the
Finance and Legal departments, work with the CEO to design and develop compensation programs,
to
recommend changes to existing plans and programs applicable to NEOs and other senior executives,
to
recommend financial and other targets to be achieved under those programs, to prepare analyses of
financial data, peer comparisons and other briefing materials to assist the Committee in making its
decisions, and, ultimately, to implement the decisions of the Committee.
The Executive Vice President, Human Resources has engaged Mercer LLC as managements
compensation consultant. Mercer provides information and analyses that inform managements
recommendations. During fiscal 2010, Mercer gathered market and performance data on HPs peer
group companies and analyzed the compensation of HPs Section 16 officers against that data.
Mercer
provides other consulting services to HP as well.
Prior to his resignation, Mr. Hurd was actively engaged in setting compensation for other
executives through a variety of means, including recommending for Committee approval the
financial
performance goals and the annual variable pay amounts for his executive team. He worked closely
with
other members of executive management in analyzing relevant market data to determine base
salary
and annual target bonus opportunities for senior management and to develop targets for the short-
and
long-term incentive plan. Ms. Lesjak, while serving as interim CEO, met with the Committee and
made
recommendations regarding, among other things, annual bonus awards for the Section 16 officers,
other
than herself, for fiscal 2010. Since assuming office, Mr. Apotheker has been active in reviewing
compensation program designs, as well as in proposing new metrics and targets for 2011 executive
compensation programs.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 212/270
Page | 212
Use of Comparative Compensation Data
Each year, the Committee reviews the compensation of HPs Section 16 officers and compares it
to that of HPs peer group companies. This process starts with the selection of an appropriate group
of
peer companies for comparison purposes. Since 2008, the Committee has used a rules based
method
for determining the executive compensation peer group, with certain adjustments made from time
to
time based on external market factors (for example, in fiscal 2009, the market capitalization levels
were
reduced to reflect general market trends, but those levels were restored in 2010 when markets
recovered).
Under this approach, the peer group companies are determined using six screening levels:
(1) current market capitalization greater than $25 billion (up from $17 billion in fiscal 2009);
(2) revenue in excess of $15 billion for technology companies (up from $10 billion in fiscal 2009) and
$50 billion for companies in other industries; (3) inclusion in the S&P 500 Index, the Dow Jones 30
Index and/or the Dow Jones Global Titans Index; (4) inclusion in industry specific categories of
information technology, industrials, materials, telecommunications services, consumer discretionary
and
consumer staples; (5) the global scope and complexity of the companys business; and (6) in the case
of
companies used for comparison of CEO pay, a lack of anomalous pay practices (typically companies
with a founder as CEO). The Committee believes that use of this methodology continues to produce
the appropriate peer group for comparison, as well as a group that is large and diverse enough so
that
the addition or elimination of any one company does not alter the overall analysis.
49Under this six-level screening approach, the peer group used by the Committee during fiscal 2010
for executive compensation comparison purposes included 16 of the 20 companies included in the
prior
years peer group, as well as two new companies. In addition, one company was retained in the peer
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 213/270
Page | 213
group for year-over-year consistency, even though its market capitalization did not exceed the
$25 billion threshold at the time that the peer group was determined. The full list of companies is as
follows:
Company Name Revenue ($ in billions)*
Chevron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171.64
General Electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156.78
Hewlett-Packard Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126.03
AT&T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.02
Ford Motor Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118.31
Verizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107.81
IBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.76
Procter & Gamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.94
Boeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.28
Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.23
Microsoft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.48
Johnson & Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.90
United Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.92
Dell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.90
Cisco Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.04
Intel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.13
Oracle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.82
Google . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.65
EMC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.03
* Represents fiscal 2009 reported revenue, except fiscal 2010 reported revenue is provided
for Apple, Dell, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Oracle, Procter & Gamble and HP. The
companies new to the peer group are Chevron, which replaced ConocoPhillips, and Ford
Motor Company. EMC was retained for year-over-year consistency. United Parcel Service,
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 214/270
Page | 214
Dow Chemical and Texas Instruments no longer met the screening criteria.
Following its determination of the executive compensation peer group, management presents the
Committee with its analysis of executive officer pay. This analysis is then discussed and reviewed by
the
Committee with its independent advisors. The Committee finds comparative data useful in setting
and
adjusting executive compensation. In general, the aim is to set target compensation levels at or near
the
75
th
percentile and, in certain situations, at or near the 90
th
percentile, with an opportunity to earn
greater rewards for the achievement of superior business results.
Analysis of HPs Process for Setting and Awarding Executive Compensation
A broad range of facts and circumstances is considered in setting executive compensation. Among
the factors considered for HPs executives generally, and for the NEOs in particular, are business
results, market competitiveness, internal equity, past practice, experience and individualperformance.
The weight given each factor may differ from year to year and may differ among individual NEOs in
any given year. For example, when HP recruits externally, market competitiveness and experience as
well as the circumstances unique to a particular candidate may weigh more heavily in the
compensation
analysis. In contrast, when determining year-over-year compensation for current NEOs, business
results,
peer company metrics, and internal equity generally factor more heavily in the analysis.
50Because such a large percentage of NEO pay is performance based, the Committee spends
significant time determining the appropriate financial targets for HPs short- and long-term incentive
pay plans. In general, management makes the initial recommendation for the financial targets, and
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 215/270
Page | 215
these recommendations are reviewed and discussed by the Committee and its independent
advisors.
The major factor used in setting targets for the current fiscal year are business results from the most
recently completed fiscal year; other factors taken into account include the general business climate,
global market conditions, conditions or goals specific to a particular business segment, strategic
initiatives and succession planning goals. Targets are set by the Committee within the first 90 days of
the fiscal year.
Following the close of the fiscal year, the Committee reviews actual financial results against the
targets set by the Committee under HPs incentive compensation plans for that year, and payouts
under
the plans are generally determined by reference to performance against the established financial
targets. The total incentive compensation payments approved by the Committee may be more or
less
than the amounts determined solely by performance against targets due to a range of other factors,
such as the quality of earnings, the number and size of strategic acquisitions, improvement in
market
share, the economic conditions in which the performance was delivered, and unusual or
extraordinary
events. In reviewing fiscal 2010 performance at its November meeting, the Committee reviewed the
financial results and recommendations as presented by the CFO and the CEO, reviewed the
individual
performance of the NEOs as reported by the CFO and the CEO, and determined their incentive
compensation for that fiscal year.
In setting incentive compensation for NEOs, the Committee generally does not consider the effect
of past changes in stock price, or expected payouts or earnings under other plans. In addition,
incentive
compensation decisions are made without regard to length of service or prior awards. For example,
NEOs with longer service at HP or who are eligible for retirement do not receive greater or lesser
awards, or larger or smaller target amounts, in a given year than do NEOs with shorter service.
Analysis of Elements of Executive Compensation
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 216/270
Page | 216
Under HPs Total Rewards Program, executive compensation consists of the following elements:
base pay, annual incentive pay, long-term incentive pay, benefits and perquisites.
Base Pay
Consistent with HPs philosophy of tying pay to performance, HP executives receive a relatively
small percentage of their overall compensation in the form of base pay. Consistent with the practice
of
HPs peer group companies, the NEOs are paid an amount in the form of base pay sufficient to
attract
qualified executive talent and maintain a stable management team. The Committee aims to have
executive base salaries be at or near the market median for comparable positions and to comprise
10%
to 20% of their overall compensation, which is also consistent with the practice of HPs peer
companies.
In fiscal 2009, HP implemented base pay reductions at graduated rates (where permitted by local
law) as part of several cost-savings initiatives. As of July 1, 2010, the Committee restored base pay
for
all the NEOs to their pre-reduced levels and provided additional increases to the NEOs other than
the
then-current CEO (Ms. Lesjak) to bring them up to then-current market rates. No other adjustmentsto
NEO base pay were made during fiscal 2010. In connection with an overall review of Section 16
officer
compensation at the beginning of fiscal 2011, the Committee increased Ms. Lesjaks base salary to
$825,000 effective November 1, 2010 in recognition of her past performance and expected future
contributions to the company.
51Annual Incentive Pay
The NEOs are eligible to receive annual incentive pay under the Hewlett-Packard Company 2005
Pay-for-Results Plan (the PfR Plan). In the discretion of the Committee, HP executives may receive
additional annual incentive pay outside the PfR Plan. Annual incentive pay under the PfR Plan is
awarded based on achievement against the key financial metrics of revenue and net profit, each of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 217/270
Page | 217
which is equally weighted under the plan for performance from threshold to target. For performance
above target, additional funding is driven by performance on net profit. These metrics address both
top line (revenue) and bottom line (net profit) corporate financial goals, both of which we
believe
are critical to driving long-term value.
The combination of these two metrics limits the ability of an executive to be rewarded for taking
excessive risk on behalf of HP by, for example, seeking revenue-enhancing opportunities at the
expense
of profitability, since performance is required on both metrics to achieve payout under the PfR Plan.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, PfR Plan revenue and net profit targets are set for each of
HPs business units. For PfR Plan participants in most business units, including Mr. Bradley, Mr. Joshi
and Ms. Livermore, payouts are determined based 50% on the performance of their respective
business
units and 50% on HPs overall performance. For PfR participants in corporate functions (e.g., finance,
human resources), including the CEO and CFO, payouts under the plan are made based 100% on HPs
overall performance, which is determined by aggregating the performance of all eight business units.
The targeted short-term bonus percentages for the NEOs for fiscal 2010 remained unchanged since
fiscal 2007, with the CEOs target at 200% of base pay, and at 125% of base pay for the remaining
NEOs.
The fiscal 2010 targets were recommended by management and set by the Committee at its
meeting in November 2009. As in prior years, the 2010 targets were set primarily based on expected
improvement over prior year achievements.
At its November 2010 meeting, the Committee reviewed and certified HPs annual performance
against the targets under the PfR Plan for fiscal 2010. Most business units achieved financial
performance above threshold, with some performing above target. In fiscal 2010, HP achieved solid
financial results in a recovering global economic environment, delivering revenue of $126 billion and
GAAP diluted earnings per share of $3.69. In addition, over the past three years, HPs performance
was at the 79
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 218/270
Page | 218
th
percentile of the peer group with respect to revenue growth and at the 68
th
percentile of
the peer group with respect to EPS growth. Against the S&P 500, HPs performance on revenue was
at
the 74
th
percentile and at the 85
th
percentile on EPS growth over the same three-year period. This level
of consistent performance formed the basis of the Committees fiscal 2010 compensation decisions.
In
addition, the Committee also considered that the aggregate amount approved to pay fiscal 2010
bonuses for all HP employees was lower as a percentage of pre-tax earnings (before bonus) than
bonuses paid in fiscal 2009. As a result, a larger proportion of the earnings delivered benefited
stockholders than compared to last fiscal year.
In addition to approving PfR Plan awards, the Committee approved discretionary cash awards to
the NEOs based on the quality of their financial performance in fiscal 2010 and their contributions to
business results, which the Committee believed were not fully rewarded through the payouts under
the
PfR Plan. These awards are included in the Bonus column of the Summary Compensation Table. In
making this determination, the Committee considered HPs solid and consistent performance
relative to
its competitors and the S&P 500, over both a one-year and three-year period. In making theseawards,
the Committee gave considerable weight to HPs three-year performance due to the fact that in
periods
of significant market volatility (as has been the case over the past three years), companies that
perform
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 219/270
Page | 219
poorly in one year, followed by a year of recovery, often appear, on a relative basis, to have had
exceptional one-year performance, when in fact, their financial performance is simply recovering to
52prior-year levels. This was the case with several companies in HPs peer group, where in some
cases
companies in the top ranks were simply re-gaining ground lost in prior years. By comparison, HPs
performance over this period, and its financial position at the end of this period, has improved
substantially from where it was three years ago, which cannot be said for all others in the peer
group.
The Committee also took into account the significant disruption caused by the departure of Mr. Hurd
and the fact that the subsequent decline in the value of HP shares, which affected HPs Total
Shareholder Return (TSR) and the number of shares released to the NEOs following the end of the
three-year performance period applicable to the fiscal 2008 PRU grants, was unrelated to the
performance of the NEOs. Furthermore, in determining the amounts of the discretionary cash
awards,
particularly in the case of Ms. Lesjak, the Committee took into account the exceptional service of the
NEOs during the period following Mr. Hurds departure.
With respect to the variations among NEOs, the Committee took into consideration the relative
contributions of each to the overall performance and other quantitative and qualitative factors,
including year-over-year growth in revenue, margin and market share, as well as operational
discipline
demonstrated in management of channel and owned inventory. These factors resulted in higher
discretionary bonuses for certain NEOs, as well as increased discretionary funding of bonuses for
other
eligible employees in these business units, rewarding solid financial performance in those units.
Long-Term Incentive Pay
In general, HP aims to set a total long-term incentive compensation target amount for its senior
executives to be at or near the 75
th
percentile of the long-term incentives paid by its peer group
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 220/270
Page | 220
companies. In the case of the NEOs who head significant business segments, the Committee also
compares compensation data for these positions against the pay for CEOs of smaller companies, as
the
size and complexity of certain of those business segments are similar in size and complexity to
several
of HPs peer group companies. Thus, the long-term target incentives for the NEOs who head these
significant business segments are determined based on a blend of peer positions with similar titles at
peer group companies and CEO positions among smaller companies, using the 75
th
percentile for
peer-company positions and the median for CEO positions at smaller companies as competitive
reference points.
At the beginning of fiscal 2010, the Committee established a total long-term incentive target
amount for each NEO. Of that amount, 80% was awarded in the form of performance-based
restricted
units, with the remaining 20% awarded in the form of restricted stock units with time-based vesting.
This same mix of performance-based and time-based awards has been granted by the Committee for
the past several years and reflects HPs primary emphasis on performance driven compensation,with
the time-based awards providing a measure of retention value, which is also an important
component of
the overall executive compensation arrangement.
Performance-Based Restricted Units
Performance-based restricted units (PRUs) were first awarded to eligible employees in fiscal
2008. Implementation of this program represented an important step taken by HP to drive a
high-performance culture. It was also consistent with the direction being taken by some of HPs peer
group companies. Fiscal 2010 was the third year that long-term incentive awards were granted to
the
NEOs under the PRU Program.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 221/270
Page | 221
Under the PRU Program, a target number of PRUs is awarded with respect to a three-year
performance period. The performance metrics of the PRU Program are (a) annual targets based on
cash flow from operations as a percentage of revenue based on a goal set for each of the three
years,
and (b) an overall modifier based on HPs TSR relative to the S&P 500 over the three-year
53performance period. Depending on performance during the period, participants may receive
shares at
the end of the period ranging from zero to two times the units awarded.
The metric of cash flow from operations as a percentage of revenue has been used for more
than five years as a financial metric in HPs long-term incentive programs, and HP believes that it
continues to be a key metric that both drives and demonstrates improved financial performance
within
the company. It is also a complementary metric to the revenue and net profit metrics used under
the
PfR Plan. Furthermore, the use of a cash flow metric in a long-term incentive plan prevents
executives
from being rewarded for taking excessive risk because payouts under the plan are based on rolling
three-year performance periods. In determining achievement on this metric for purposes of
certifying
performance, the Committee has the discretion to make adjustments to cash flow, as permitted
under
the Amended and Restated Hewlett-Packard Company 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2004 Plan),
for items such as asset write-downs, litigation claims or settlements, the effect of changes in tax laws
or
accounting principles, and similar types of extraordinary events. These adjustments may be different
from adjustments taken or described in the companys financial statements for GAAP reporting
purposes.
The TSR metric is based on HPs stock performance relative to the S&P 500 over the three-year
performance period. This metric operates to reduce payouts under the program if HPs stock
performance is below the median of S&P 500 companies for the three-year period, and it eliminates
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 222/270
Page | 222
payouts entirely if HPs relative TSR performance is in the bottom quartile. As a result, even if annual
cash flow goals are achieved or exceeded in each of the three years of the performance period,
there
may be no or limited payouts if HPs stock performance is below the median compared to the S&P
500
companies. The use of the TSR metric also limits the ability of participants to be rewarded for
shortterm risk-taking.
Under the PRU Program, cash flow goals are set at the beginning of each fiscal year, and
performance is reviewed at the end of that year. The percentage to be applied to each participants
target award ranges from zero to 150%, based upon the extent to which the annual performance
goals
are achieved. If HP does not achieve a threshold level of cash flow performance for the year, the
amount earned for one-third of the award is zero. If HP achieves a threshold level of cash flow
performance for the year, a percentage is applied to one-third of a participants target award for the
period to determine the number of units earned during that year. For example, if an NEO received
an
award of 60,000 PRUs and cash flow goals were achieved at 150% in the first year, at 100% in the
second year and at 90% in the third year, at the end of the three-year performance period, the
participant would be credited with 68,000 PRUs ((20,000 150%) +(20,000 100%) +
(20,000 90%) = 68,000) before application of the TSR modifier
described below.
At the end of the three-year performance period, the total units credited, if any, are adjusted by
applying a modifier based on HPs TSR (including reinvestment of dividends) relative to the TSR of
S&P 500 companies for the three-year period. If HPs TSR is in the bottom quartile of the S&P 500,
the modifier will be zero, and no shares will be released with respect to that three-year performance
period. If HPs TSR is at the median of the S&P 500, the modifier will be 100%, and the number of
shares released will equal the number of units credited earned during the period with respect to
annual
cash flow performance. If HPs TSR is at or above the 75
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 223/270
Page | 223
th
percentile of S&P 500 companies for the
period, the maximum modifier of 133% will apply, and the number of shares released will equal
133%
of the number of units credited during the period.
To achieve the maximum payout (200% of the initial PRU award), HP must achieve the maximum
cash flow goals for each of the three years, and HPs TSR must meet or exceed the 75
th
percentile of
the TSRs of S&P 500 companies for that period. Award values will reflect changes in stock price (both
increases and decreases) over the three-year period because awards are denominated in stock units
payable in shares, which further aligns the value executives realize with that of other stockholders.
For
54example, if a participant was credited with 68,000 PRUs at the end of the performance period and
HPs TSR for that three-year period was at the 80
th
percentile of the S&P 500, a total of 90,440 shares
of HP common stock would be released to the participant for that period (68,000
133% = 90,440).
The Committee set the PRU cash flow goals for fiscal 2010 in the first 90 days of the fiscal year.
As in prior fiscal years, goals were set primarily to require that future performance exceed prior-year
performance in order to achieve above-target payout amounts.
At its November 2010 meeting, the Committee reviewed HPs actual cash flow from operations as
a percentage of revenue, and, taking into account certain permitted adjustments, certified
performance
at approximately 90% of target. Accordingly, PRU Program participants were credited with
approximately 90% of one-third of the units attributable to the third year of the fiscal 2008 grant,
the
second year of the fiscal 2009 grant and the first year of the fiscal 2010 grant. HPs TSR performance
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 224/270
Page | 224
over the three-year performance period of the fiscal 2008 grant was at the 40
th
percentile, which
resulted in a TSR modifier of 86%. That percentage was applied to the units credited based on cash
flow performance during the three-year period to determine the total number of shares released
under
the fiscal 2008 grant. As a result, an executive who received a fiscal 2008 grant of 60,000 PRUs had
58,690 shares released to him in November 2010 with respect to the three-year performance period
ending October 31, 2010.
Whether any units credited under the fiscal 2009 and 2010 grants will be paid out in shares at the
end of any three-year performance period will depend on future cash flow results and HPs TSRduring
those periods, neither of which is determinable until the end of those periods.
Grants of Restricted Stock Units
As described above, a portion of an executives target long-term incentive amount is delivered in
the form of PRUs, and the remaining value is awarded in grants of time-based restricted stock units.
These awards have restrictions that lapse as to one-half of the number of units on the first and
second
anniversaries of the date of grant.
For more information on PRUs and grants of restricted stock units to the NEOs during fiscal
2010, see Executive CompensationGrants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal 2010.
Grants of Special Incremental Performance-Based Unit Awards for Fiscal 2011 Through Fiscal 2013
At its July 2010 meeting, the Committee approved awards of special incremental performancebased
units (the Incremental Awards) for Ms. Lesjak, Mr. Bradley and certain other Section 16
officers. The units subject to the awards will be earned, if at all, upon achievement on the metrics of
EPS and relative TSR over the two- and three-year periods covered by the award. Under the terms of
the awards, 40% of the units will be earned if HP meets its EPS goal for the two-year period covering
fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012 and if its relative TSR for the same period is at or above the 50
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 225/270
Page | 225
th
percentile;
and the remaining 60% of the units will be earned if HP meets its EPS goal for fiscal 2013 and HPs
relative TSR is at or above the 50
th
percentile for the entire three-year period of the award.
Under the Incremental Awards, 40% of the units are subject to performance during the first
two-year period, and an EPS goal is set for each fiscal year during that period. At the end of that
two-year period (referred to as segment 1 below), if HPs relative TSR is at or above the
50
th
percentile, units credited based on EPS performance are banked. The remaining 60% of the units
are earned based on EPS achievement during the third year of the award and relative TSR over the
entire three-year period of the award (referred to as segment 2 below).
55The chart below illustrates operation of the award, using an award of 20,000 units as an example.
Total Target Segment 1 Units: 8,000 Total Target Segment 2 Units: 12,000
(EPS Units: 6,000; TSR Units: 2,000) (EPS Units: 9,000; TSR Units: 3,000)
Units Units Units
Banked Banked Banked
for EPS for EPS for Relative Units Banked Totals Units
Performance Performance TSR over Units Banked for Relative TSR Released at
During During initial for EPS During over End of
Months Months 24-Month Months 36-Month 3-Year
Performance Levels 1 - 12 13 - 24 period 25 - 36 Period Period
Below 50
th
percentile 0 0 0 0 0 0
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 226/270
Page | 226
At 50
th
percentile (Min) 1,500 1,500 1,000 4,500 1,500 10,000
75
th
percentile (Target) 3,000 3,000 2,000 9,000 3,000 20,000
90
th
percentile (Max) 6,000 6,000 4,000 18,000 6,000 40,000
Any units banked due to EPS performance during segment 1 or segment 2 will be cancelled if
TSR performance is below the 50
th
percentile for that segment. However, units may be earned based
on TSR performance during the period even if no units are earned or banked based on EPS
performance during that segment.
For example, assume that during segment 1, EPS performance is achieved at the 75
th
and
90
th
percentiles with TSR at the 50
th
percentile. In this case, 10,000 units will be banked and earned for
that period (3,000 + 6,000 + 1,000). During segment 2, if EPS performance is at the 75
th
percentile but
TSR performance is below the 50
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 227/270
Page | 227
th
percentile, the 9,000 units banked based on EPS performance will
be cancelled due to TSR performance below the 50
th
percentile. Under this scenario, a total of 10,000
units would have been earned, and the participant in this example would receive a release of 10,000
shares.
The fiscal 2011 targets were set by the Committee at its January 2011 meeting and will require
achievement of significant financial performance by HP during the period if any payout is to be
received at all. These awards were granted by the Committee in consideration of the significant
achievement by the recipients and their criticality to the organization over the next several years.
Benefits
HP does not provide its executives or the NEOs with special or supplemental pension or health
benefits. HPs NEOs receive health and welfare benefits (including retiree medical benefits, if the
eligibility conditions are met) under the same programs and subject to the same eligibility
requirements
that apply to HP employees generally.
Benefits under all U.S. pension plans were frozen effective December 31, 2007. No NEO or any
other HP employee accrued a benefit under any HP U.S. defined benefit pension plan during fiscal
2010.
The NEOs, along with other HP executives who earn base pay or an annual bonus in excess of
certain federal tax law limits, are eligible to participate in the HP Executive Deferred Compensation
Plan (the EDCP). This plan is maintained to permit executives to defer some of their compensation
in order to defer taxation on such amounts. This is a standard benefit plan offered by most of HPs
peer companies. It permits deferral of base pay in excess of the amount taken into account under
the
qualified HP 401(k) Plan and up to 95% of the annual incentive bonus payable under the PfR Plan. In
addition, HP makes a matching contribution to the plan on a portion of base pay contributions in
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 228/270
Page | 228
excess of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) limits, in the same percentage as those executives are
eligible to receive under the HP 401(k) Plan. This permits these executives and all employees to
receive
a 401(k)-type matching contribution on a portion of base-pay deferrals in excess of IRS limits.
Amounts
deferred or matched under the EDCP are credited with investment earnings based on investment
options selected by the participant from among mutual and proprietary funds available to
employees
under the HP 401(k) Plan. No amounts earn above-market returns.
56Consistent with its practice of not providing any special or supplemental executive benefit
programs, including arrangements that would otherwise provide special benefits to the family of a
deceased executive, in 2010 the Committee adopted a policy that, unless approved by HPs
stockholders
pursuant to an advisory vote, HP will not enter into a new plan, program or agreement or modify an
existing plan, program or agreement with a Section 16 officer that provides for payments, grants or
awards following the death of the officer in the form of unearned salary or unearned bonuses,
accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, awards of ungranted
equity,
perquisites, and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation, except to the extent thatsuch
payments, grants or awards are provided or made available to HP employees generally.
Perquisites
Consistent with the practices of many of its peer companies, HP provides a small number of
perquisites to its senior executives including the NEOs for the reasons described below.
HPs NEOs are provided reimbursement of up to $18,000 per year for a financial counseling
services to assist them in obtaining professional advice on managing the compensation they receive.
This reimbursement is also provided because it is common among the peer group companies.
Due to HPs global presence, HP maintains a certain number of corporate aircraft. Personal use of
these aircraft by the CEO and his direct reports (members of the Executive Council, or EC
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 229/270
Page | 229
members, which includes all of the other NEOs) is permitted, subject to availability. The CEO may
use HP aircraft for personal purposes in his own discretion and, at times, is advised to use HP aircraft
for personal travel for security reasons. EC members may use HP aircraft for personal purposes, if
available and approved by the CEO. The CEO and EC members are taxed on the value of this usage
according to IRS rules. There is no tax gross-up on the income attributable to this value.
Following a global risk-management review commissioned by the Audit Committee of the Board,
security systems were installed at the personal residences of some of HPs executives, including the
NEOs. These protections are provided due to the range of security issues that may be encountered
by
key executives of any large, multinational corporation.
Severance Plan for Executive Officers
HPs Section 16 officers (including all of the NEOs) are covered by a severance plan to provide a
level of transition assistance in the event of an involuntary termination of employment and to keep
executives focused on HPs business rather than their personal circumstances. Under the HP
Severance
Plan for Executive Officers, participants who incur an involuntary termination, not for cause, and
who
execute a full release of claims following such termination, are eligible to receive severance benefitsin
an amount determined as a multiple of base pay and the average of the actual annual bonuses paid
in
the preceding three years. In the case of the CEO, the benefit is calculated as two times the sum of
base pay plus average annualized bonus paid during the preceding three years; in the case of the
other
NEOs, the multiplier is 1.5 instead of two. In all cases, this benefit will not exceed 2.99 times the sum
of the executives base pay plus target bonus as in effect immediately prior to the termination of
employment.
Although the majority of compensation for HP executives is performance-based and largely
contingent upon achievement of aggressive financial goals, the Committee continues to believe that
the
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 230/270
Page | 230
HP Severance Plan for Executive Officers provides important protection to the Section 16 officers
and
is appropriate for attraction and retention of executive talent. In addition, we find it more equitable
to
offer severance benefits based on a standard formula for the Section 16 officers because severance
often serves as a bridge when employment is involuntarily terminated, and should therefore not be
affected by other, longer-term accumulations. As a result, and consistent with the practice of the
peer
57companies, other compensation decisions are not generally based on the existence of this
severance
protection.
Benefits in the Event of a Change in Control
HP did not have separate change-in-control agreements with its NEOs in fiscal 2010. Under HPs
equity plans, however, the Board has the discretion to accelerate vesting of all stock and stock
option
awards upon a change in control, but accelerated vesting is not automatic. This allows the Board to
decide to vest equity if it determines that accelerated vesting is appropriate under the facts and
circumstances of a given transaction. This is a common equity plan feature at many of the peer
group
companies. As a result, the NEOs could become fully vested in their outstanding equity awards upon
a
change in control if the Board affirmatively acts to accelerate vesting.
In addition, while in fiscal 2010 none of the NEOs was covered by an agreement that was expressly
tied to a change in control of HP, an involuntary termination of employment following a change in
control of HP could qualify as involuntary termination, not for cause within the meaning of the HP
Severance Plan for Executive Officers. This event would trigger the same level of benefits as though
the termination occurred absent a change in control.
As discussed below, on December 15, 2010, HP entered into a letter agreement with Ms. Lesjak
relating to her employment with HP. That letter agreement includes, among other things, certain
protections for Ms. Lesjak in the event of a change in control of HP. The Committee believed that
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 231/270
Page | 231
including those provisions was appropriate given the context of that agreement.
Separation Agreement with Mark V. Hurd
Mr. Hurd resigned as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of HP and as a member of
the Board effective August 6, 2010. In connection with Mr. Hurds resignation, HP and Mr. Hurd
entered into a Separation Agreement and Release (the Separation Agreement) that provided
Mr. Hurd would receive a cash severance benefit of $12,224,693 in full satisfaction of HPs
obligations
under the HP Severance Plan for Executive Officers, which amount did not exceed the limit of 2.99
times the sum of Mr. Hurds current annual base salary plus annual target cash bonus established
under the HP Severance Policy for Senior Executives. The Separation Agreement also provided for
continued vesting of, and an extension of time to exercise, certain of Mr. Hurds outstanding equity
awards, as well as payment of COBRA premiums for continuing medical coverage. In connection with
the settlement of litigation subsequently commenced by HP against Mr. Hurd, all of his outstanding
equity awards were cancelled.
Employment Agreement with L´eo Apotheker
On September 29, 2010, HP entered into a four-year employment agreement with Mr. Apotheker
(the Apotheker Agreement) pursuant to which he was appointed President and Chief Executive
Officer of HP and a member of the Board effective November 1, 2010. Under the Apotheker
Agreement, Mr. Apotheker will receive base pay of $1.2 million, which amount is fixed for his first
two
years of service but may be reduced during the subsequent two years under certain circumstances,
and
a target annual bonus of 200% of base pay. Mr. Apotheker was granted a long-term incentive award
consisting of 76,000 shares of time-based restricted stock vesting in equal amounts annually over a
two-year period, 304,000 PRUs for the two-year performance period extending from
58November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2012, and an additional 304,000 PRUs for the three-year
performance period extending from November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2013. Mr. Apotheker
was
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 232/270
Page | 232
also granted a sign-on equity award consisting of 80,000 shares of time-based restricted stock
vesting in
equal amounts annually over a two-year period and 120,000 PRUs for the three-year performance
period extending from November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2013. The cash flow metric for the
first
year of each three-year PRU grant is deemed to be achieved at no less than target. In addition, on
November 29, 2010, Mr. Apotheker received a cash signing bonus of $4 million, a pro rata portion of
which he must re-pay if he resigns or is terminated for cause within 18 months, and an additional
cash
payment of $4.6 million as reimbursement for foregone non-competition payments from his former
employer and to cover relocation expenses. Mr. Apotheker is eligible to participate in the standard
employee benefits plans offered to employees in the United States and to receive perquisites
offered to
other senior executive officers.
The Apotheker Agreement was the result of arms-length negotiation between representatives of
Mr. Apotheker and members of the Board, which received advice and input from both its
independent
counsel and the independent consultant to the Committee. The Board believed that the salary,
bonus
and long-term compensation provided under the Apotheker Agreement were in the aggregate
consistent with the compensation packages provided to CEOs in comparable positions. The Board
also
believed that the sign-on equity awards and cash payments were appropriate in recognition of,
among
other things, the compensation from his former employer being foregone by Mr. Apotheker as a
result
of entering into the Apotheker Agreement and the considerable expense he will incur in relocatinghis
family to the United States.
Letter Agreement with Catherine A. Lesjak and Interim CEO Compensation
Following the resignation of Mr. Hurd, Ms. Lesjak was appointed as interim Chief Executive
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 233/270
Page | 233
Officer of HP effective August 6, 2010. Prior to being appointed as interim CEO, Ms. Lesjak advised
the Committee that she did not wish to be considered as a candidate for the vacant CEO position.
The
Committee subsequently began discussions with Ms. Lesjak about the terms of her employment
because
the Committee members believed that Ms. Lesjaks continued service as CFO was critical to
providing
stability and continuity to HP during the transition to a new CEO and that it was appropriate to
provide Ms. Lesjak with certain additional benefits in the event that her employment was
terminated
under certain circumstances following that transition. As a result, on December 15, 2010, HP entered
into a letter agreement with Ms. Lesjak (the Lesjak Agreement) that (i) provides that she will
continue to serve as HPs Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer throughout the
three-year term of the agreement, (ii) maintains her base salary and target annual and long-term
incentive awards at then-current levels, subject to reduction only in the event that similar reductions
apply to substantially all other Executive Vice Presidents, and (iii) provides her with enhanced
severance benefits in the event of a qualifying termination of her employment during the term of
the
agreement, subject to the limitations of the HP Severance Policy for Senior Executives describedbelow
under Narrative to the Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control TableHP
Severance Policy for Senior Executives. In addition, in recognition of Ms. Lesjaks exceptional
service
as interim CEO, the Committee awarded her a bonus consisting of $1 million cash (paid as part of her
fiscal 2010 annual bonus) and equity awards with an aggregate value of $2.6 million granted in
addition
to her regular fiscal 2011 long-term incentive award. While recognizing that these circumstances
were
unique and that no directly applicable benchmark data was therefore available, the structure and
amount of the compensation provided to Ms. Lesjak in recognition of her service as interim CEO was
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 234/270
Page | 234
reviewed by the Committee with its independent consultant, who, based on data gathered with
respect
to the compensation provided by other companies in connection with CEO transitions, determined
that
the compensation was appropriate, particularly in light of the length of Ms. Lesjaks service asinterim
CEO and HPs performance during that period.
59Other Compensation-Related Matters
Succession Planning
Among the Committees responsibilities as described in its charter is to oversee succession
planning and leadership development. The Board plans for succession of the CEO and annually
reviews
senior management selection and succession planning that is undertaken by the Committee. As part
of
this process, the independent directors annually review the Committees recommendation of
candidates
for senior management positions to see that qualified candidates are available for all positions and
that
development plans are being utilized to strengthen the skills and qualifications of the candidates.
The
criteria used when assessing the qualifications of potential CEO successors include, among others,
strategic vision and leadership, operational excellence, financial management, executive officer
leadership development, ability to motivate employees, and an ability to develop an effective
working
relationship with the Board.
Stock Ownership Guidelines
HPs stock ownership guidelines are designed to increase executives equity stakes in HP and to
align executives interests more closely with those of stockholders. The guidelines provide that,
within
five years of joining HP, the CEO should attain an investment position in HPs stock equal to five
times
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 235/270
Page | 235
his base salary and all other Section 16 officers should attain an investment position equal to three
times their base salary. Shares counted toward these guidelines include any shares held by the
executive
directly or through a broker; shares held through the HP 401(k) Plan; shares held as restricted stock;
shares underlying restricted stock units; and shares underlying vested but unexercised stock options
(50% of the in-the-money value of such options is used for this calculation). During fiscal 2010, all
NEOs were in compliance with these guidelines.
Accounting and Tax Effects
The impact of accounting treatment is considered in developing and implementing HPs
compensation programs generally, including the accounting treatment as it applies to amounts
awarded
or paid to HPs executives. In this regard, the fact that the accounting treatment aligns more closely
with the amount of the payouts was among the factors considered in adopting the PRU Program,
and
in reducing the number of stock options awarded generally.
The impact of federal tax laws on HPs compensation programs is also considered, including the
deductibility of compensation paid to the NEOs, as limited by Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code (the Code). Most of HPs compensation programs are designed to qualify for deductibility
under Section 162(m), but to preserve flexibility in administering compensation programs, not all
amounts paid under all of HPs compensation programs qualify for deductibility. In determining to
award additional bonus amounts to the NEOs for fiscal 2010, the Committee considered the fact that
such amounts would not be deductible and would result in loss of the deductibility of amounts paid
from the PfR Plan to covered employees within the meaning of Section 162(m).
Likewise, the impact of Section 409A of the Code is taken into account, and HPs executive plans
and programs are, in general, designed to comply with the requirements of that section so as to
avoid
possible adverse tax consequences that may result from non-compliance.
Policy on Recovery of Bonus in Event of Financial Restatement
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 236/270
Page | 236
In 2006, the Board adopted a clawback policy that permits the Board to recover bonuses from
senior executives whose fraud or misconduct resulted in a significant restatement of financial
results.
The policy allows for the recovery of bonuses from those senior executives whose fraud or
misconduct
60resulted in the restatement where the bonuses would have been lower absent the fraud or
misconduct,
to the extent permitted by applicable law.
Approval Process for Equity Grants
There were no grants of stock options to the NEOs during fiscal 2010. Grants of restricted stock
units and PRUs to Section 16 officers (other than the CEO) are approved by the Committee at a
regularly scheduled meeting, or occasionally at a special meeting or by unanimous written consent.
Grants to the CEO are approved by the independent members of the full Board. If approval is made
at
a meeting, the grant date of the award is generally the date of the meeting; if approval is by
unanimous
written consent, the grant date of the award is generally the day the last Committee member (or
independent Board member, in the case of the CEO) signs the consent. The Committee may act in
advance to approve equity grants for newly-hired Section 16 officers and other executives, in whichcase
the grant effective date may be the first day of employment or a later, pre-established date.
HP has no practice of timing grants of stock options or restricted stock awards to coordinate with
the release of material non-public information, and HP has not timed the release of material
non-public information for the purpose of affecting the value of NEO compensation.
HR and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation
The HR and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Hewlett-Packard Company
has reviewed and discussed with management this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Based on
this review and discussion, it has recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation
Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 237/270
Page | 237
of Hewlett-Packard Company filed for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.
HR and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr., Chair
Rajiv L. Gupta
John H. Hammergren
Joel Z. Hyatt
Lucille S. Salhany
61Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth information concerning the compensation of HPs chief executive
officer, chief financial officer, and the three other most highly-paid executive officers (collectively,
the
NEOs) for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2010, October 31, 2009 and October 31, 2008.
Change
in Pension
Value and
Non-Equity Nonqualified
Incentive Deferred
Stock Option Plan Compensation All Other
Name and Principal Salary
(1)
Bonus
(2)
Awards
(3)
Awards
(4)
Compensation
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 238/270
Page | 238
(5)
Earnings
(6)
Compensation
(7)
Total
Position Year ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
Catherine A. Lesjak
(8)
2010 610,000 2,580,762 3,514,884 940,925 366,363 84,034 8,096,968 . . .
Executive Vice President 2009 589,063 340,938 4,298,102 2,199,694 571,605 209,697 8,209,099
and Chief Financial Officer 2008 625,000 701,408 3,328,251 1,953,760 (33,346) 32,493 6,607,566
R. Todd Bradley . . . . . . . 2010 748,000 1,655,355 5,021,292 1,465,145 373 187,666 9,077,831
Executive Vice President, 2009 743,125 337,857 4,701,215 5,767,373 727 248,378 11,798,675
Personal Systems Group 2008 820,000 907,415 6,228,712 13,222,059 1,184 269,843 21,449,213
Ann M. Livermore . . . . . 2010 748,000 1,745,123 5,021,292 910,690 953,734 81,202 9,460,041
Executive Vice President, 2009 743,125 419,857 4,701,215 5,731,498 1,468,639 184,31313,248,647
HP Enterprise Business 2008 820,000 917,586 4,640,918 13,601,216 (216,460) 68,130 19,831,390
Vyomesh I. Joshi . . . . . . 2010 748,000 1,953,883 3,765,932 1,568,930 978,888 102,459 9,118,092
Executive Vice President, 2009 743,125 77,507 3,134,250 3,937,173 1,505,196 183,647 9,580,898
Imaging and Printing Group 2008 820,000 3,662,918 15,197,845 (311,000) 70,963 19,440,726
Mark V. Hurd
(9)
2010 1,121,944 9,883,455 969 12,857,376 23,863,744 . . . . . . .
Former Chairman of the 2009 1,268,750 1,180,340 11,909,924 14,629,074 1,895 475,192
29,465,175
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 239/270
Page | 239
Board, Chief Executive 2008 1,450,000 5,341,882 16,543,791 18,590,000 3,087 596,410
42,525,170
Officer and President
(1) Amounts shown represent base salary paid during the fiscal year, as described under
Compensation
Discussion and AnalysisAnalysis of Elements of Executive CompensationBase Pay.
(2) Amounts shown for each year include the discretionary bonuses awarded to the NEOs by the
Committee
taking into account performance during the applicable fiscal year.
(3) The grant date fair value of all stock awards has been calculated in accordance with applicable
financial
accounting standards. In the case of time-based RSUs, the value is determined by multiplying thenumber of
RSUs granted by the closing price of HP common stock on the grant date. In the case of PRUs, the
accounting standards provide for the value to be determined using only those tranches where the
cash flow
targets have been set as of the reporting date. As a result, the grant date fair value of the PRUs is
calculated
using only the first two tranches of each grant; the third tranche is not included because its value is
not yet
probable of determination under applicable standards. If the PRUs were to be valued using the
methodology
applicable to the time-based RSUs (number of units multiplied by the closing price of HP common
stock on
the grant date), the fiscal 2010 PRU award grant date fair values would be reported as follows: Ms.
Lesjak:
$4,507,837; Mr. Bradley: $6,439,781; Ms. Livermore: $6,439,781; Mr. Joshi: $4,829,836; and Mr.
Hurd:
$12,695,783.
(4) No NEO was awarded a stock option in fiscal 2010, 2009 or 2008.
(5) Amounts shown consist of payouts under the PfR Plan (amounts earned during the applicable
fiscal year but
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 241/270
Page | 241
401(k) NQDC Security Personal Tax
Company Company Relocation Services/ Aircraft Severance Gross- Total
Match
(1)
Match
(2)
Expenses
(3)
Systems
(4)
Usage
(5)
Payments Miscellaneous
(6)
Up
(7)
AOC
Name ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
Catherine A. Lesjak . . . . . . 8,427 11,025 6,997 20,249 28,310 9,026 84,034
R. Todd Bradley . . . . . . . . . 9,770 11,025 35,290 19,230 6,408 64,891 41,052 187,666
Ann M. Livermore . . . . . . . 9,800 11,025 4,508 13,255 31,124 11,490 81,202
Vyomesh I. Joshi . . . . . . . . 9,617 11,025 6,774 4,586 45,970 24,487 102,459
Mark V. Hurd . . . . . . . . . . 9,562 11,025 362,899 158,816 12,224,693 53,762 36,619 12,857,376
(1) Represents matching contributions made under the HP 401(k) Plan.
(2) Represents matching contributions credited in February 2010 under the HP Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan with respect to the 2009 calendar year of the plan.
(3) Represents the mortgage subsidy that Mr. Bradley was eligible to receive under HPs relocation
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 242/270
Page | 242
policy.
(4) Represents home security services provided to the NEOs. Although security systems were
installed
at the request of the company, consistent with SEC guidance, the expense is reported here as a
perquisite due to the fact that there is an incidental personal benefit.
(5) Represents the value of personal usage of HP corporate aircraft. Under HPs policy for the
personal use of corporate aircraft, the CEO and the other NEOs may use HP aircraft for personal
purposes subject to availability, and at times the CEO is advised to use HP aircraft for personal
travel for security reasons. For purposes of reporting the value of such personal usage in this table,
HP uses data provided by an outside firm to calculate the hourly cost of operating each type of
aircraft. These costs include the cost of fuel, maintenance, landing and parking fees, crew, catering
and supplies. For trips by NEOs that involve mixed personal and business usage, HP includes the
incremental cost of such personal usage (i.e., the excess of the cost of the actual trip over the cost
of a hypothetical trip without the personal usage).
For income tax purposes, the amounts included in NEO income are calculated based on the
standard industry fare level (SIFL) valuation method. A tax gross-up was provided for certain
travel in the past, but all aircraft-related gross-ups were discontinued effective March 1, 2009.
(6) Includes $18,000 for financial counseling for each NEO, except that the fiscal 2010 amount for
Mr. Hurd was $13,500. The remaining amounts represent primarily the aggregate incremental cost
of lodging, travel, meals and other event-related expenses provided for family members
accompanying the NEO to HP-sponsored events at HPs request. For group events where
individual expense information is not available, the amounts reported represent an estimate of the
aggregate incremental cost attributable to family members in attendance at such events.
(7) Represents primarily amounts to reimburse the NEOs for taxes on meals and other event-related
expenses for individuals accompanying the NEOs to HP-sponsored events. This HP reimbursement
policy applies to all HP employees where family members or partners are requested to attend
HP-sponsored events or the expenses are otherwise properly incurred with respect to those
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 243/270
Page | 243
individuals (e.g., in connection with an employee relocation). In the case of Mr. Hurd, amounts
also include a gross-up on COBRA premiums for continuing medical coverage paid on his behalf
as required by his Separation Agreement.
63Narrative to the Summary Compensation Table
The amounts reported in the Summary Compensation Table, including base pay, annual and
long-term incentive amounts, benefits and perquisites, are described more fully under
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis.
The amounts reported in the column entitled Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation include
amounts earned and paid in fiscal 2011 by all the NEOs under the PfR Plan for fiscal 2010. The
narrative description of the remaining information in the Summary Compensation Table is providedin
the narrative to the other compensation tables.
Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal 2010
The following table provides information on awards granted under the PfR Plan for fiscal 2010
and awards of PRUs and awards of restricted stock units (RSUs) granted as part of fiscal 2010
long-term incentive compensation:
All Other
Stock
Awards:
Estimated Future Payouts Estimated Future Payouts
Number Grant-Date
Under Non-Equity Under Equity
of Shares Fair Value
Incentive Plan Awards
(1)
Incentive Plan Awards
(2)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 244/270
Page | 244
of Stock of Stock
Grant Threshold Target Maximum Threshold Target Maximum or Units
(3)
Awards
(4)
Name Date ($) ($) ($) (#) (#) (#) (#) ($)
Catherine A. Lesjak
PfR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/1/2009 6,906 690,625 1,726,563
PRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/10/2009 17,981 89,905 179,810 2,387,937
RSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/10/2009 22,476 1,126,947
R. Todd Bradley
PfR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/1/2009 8,713 871,250 2,178,125
PRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/10/2009 25,688 128,436 256,872 3,411,347
RSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/10/2009 32,109 1,609,945
Ann M. Livermore
PfR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/1/2009 8,713 871,250 2,178,125
PRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/10/2009 25,688 128,436 256,872 3,411,347
RSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/10/2009 32,109 1,609,945
Vyomesh I. Joshi
PfR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/1/2009 8,713 871,250 2,178,125
PRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/10/2009 19,266 96,327 192,654 2,558,511
RSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/10/2009 24,081 1,207,421
Mark V. Hurd
(5)
PfR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/1/2009 23,200 2,320,000 5,800,000
PRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/11/2009 50,733 253,662 507,324 6,709,534
RSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/11/2009 63,415 3,173,921
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 245/270
Page | 245
(1) Amounts represent the range of possible cash payouts for fiscal 2010 awards under the PfR Plan.
(2) Amounts represent the range of shares that may be released at the end of the three-year
performance period applicable to the PRU award assuming achievement of threshold performance.
If HPs cash flow performance is below threshold for each year during the performance period or
if HPs TSR for the period is in the bottom quartile of the S&P 500, no shares will be released at
the end of the period. See the discussion of PRU awards under Compensation Discussion and
AnalysisAnalysis of Elements of Executive CompensationLong-Term Incentive Pay
Performance-Based Restricted Units.
(3) Restrictions on the RSU awards lapse as to one-half of the units on the first and second
anniversaries of the date of grant.
(4) See footnote (3) to the Summary Compensation Table for a description of the method used to
determine the grant date fair value of stock awards.
(5) No annual incentive award was paid to Mr. Hurd for fiscal 2010 performance, and all stock
awards
granted to him in fiscal 2010 were cancelled in connection with his separation from HP on
August 6, 2010.
64Outstanding Equity Awards at 2010 Fiscal Year-End
The following table provides information on stock and option awards held by the NEOs as of
October 31, 2010:
Option Awards Stock Awards
Equity
Incentive
Equity Plan Awards:
Incentive Market or
Plan Awards: Payout Value
Market Number of of Unearned
Number of Value of Unearned Shares,
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 246/270
Page | 246
Number of Number of Shares or Shares or Shares, Units Units
Securities Securities Units of Units of or Other or Other
Underlying Underlying Option Stock That Stock That Rights That Rights That
Unexercised Unexercised Exercise Option Have Not Have Not Have Not Have Not
Options (#) Options (#) Price
(2)
Expiration Vested
(4)
Vested
(5)
Vested
(6)
Vested
(5)
Name Exercisable Unexercisable
(1)
($) Date
(3)
($) (#) ($) (#)
Catherine A. Lesjak . . . 6,250 21.77 4/14/2013 35,924 1,510,963 188,907 7,945,428
35,000 31.50 1/23/2014
75,000 25,000 42.27 1/18/2015
R. Todd Bradley . . . . . 15,000 23.77 6/14/2013 46,868 1,971,268 235,748 9,915,561
75,000 31.50 1/23/2014
150,000 50,000 42.27 1/18/2015
Ann M. Livermore . . . . 400,000 21.75 1/31/2012** 46,868 1,971,268 235,748 9,915,561
500,000 22.02 3/18/2012
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 247/270
Page | 247
400,000 21.77 4/14/2013
340,000 31.50 1/23/2014
150,000 50,000 42.27 1/18/2015
Vyomesh I. Joshi . . . . . 100,000 33.63 1/18/2011** 33,939 1,427,474 167,524 7,046,059
125,000 15.75 4/16/2011
300,000 22.02 3/18/2012
500,000 21.77 4/14/2013
340,000 31.50 1/23/2014
150,000 50,000 42.27 1/18/2015
Mark V. Hurd
(7)
. . . . . .
(1) Options vest at the rate of 25% per year with full vesting on the fourth anniversary of the date of
grant.
(2) Option exercise prices are the fair market value of HP common stock on the date of grant.
(3) Options granted by HP since 2003 generally have an eight-year term. The options marked with
** have a ten-year term.
(4) The amounts in this column include shares underlying dividend equivalent units granted with
respect to outstanding RSU awards through October 31, 2010. The release dates and release
amounts for all unvested stock awards are as follows:
Ms. Lesjak: December 10, 2010 (11,238 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares);
January 15, 2011 (13,125 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares); December 10, 2011
(11,238 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares).
Mr. Bradley: December 10, 2010 (16,054 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares);
January 15, 2011 (14,355 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares); December 10, 2011
(16,055 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares).
65 Ms. Livermore: December 10, 2010 (16,054 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares);
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 248/270
Page | 248
January 15, 2011 (14,355 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares); December 10, 2011
(16,055 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares).
Mr. Joshi: December 10, 2010 (12,040 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares);
January 15, 2011 (9,570 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares); December 10, 2011
(12,041 shares plus accrued dividend equivalent shares).
(5) Value calculated based on the $42.06 closing price of HP common stock on October 29, 2010,
which was the last trading day of fiscal 2010.
(6) Represents the number of PRUs granted in fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010, adjusted for actual
achievement during those periods on the annual metric of cash flow from operations as a
percentage of revenue with respect to the portion of each award attributable to fiscal 2010
performance. Performance on the annual cash flow metric was 100.94% of target for fiscal 2009
and was 90.26% of target for fiscal 2010. The 100.94% multiplier applies to the first one-third of
the PRUs granted for fiscal 2009; the 90.26% multiplier applies to the second one-third of the
PRUs granted for fiscal 2009 and the first one-third of the PRUs granted for fiscal 2010; the
remaining units are reported at target and will be adjusted based on actual cash flow performance
during the remaining portion of the applicable performance periods. Total PRUs credited at the
conclusion of each three-year period will be adjusted by HPs performance on TSR as compared to
the S&P 500, which will determine the number of shares, if any, released at the end of the period.
(7) All outstanding equity awards held by Mr. Hurd were cancelled either under the terms of his
Separation Agreement or in connection with the settlement of litigation subsequently commenced
against him by HP.
66Option Exercises and Stock Vested in Fiscal 2010
The following table provides information about options exercised and stock vested for the NEOs
during the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010:
Option Awards Stock Awards
Number of Number of
Shares Acquired Value Realized Shares Acquired Value Realized
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 249/270
Page | 249
on Exercise on Exercise
(1)
on Vesting on Vesting
(2)
Name (#) ($) (#) ($)
Catherine A. Lesjak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,108 1,061,126 120,644 5,541,997
R. Todd Bradley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,000 3,986,550 162,920 7,370,845
Ann M. Livermore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764,536 6,846,519 131 ,493 6,032,232
Vyomesh I. Joshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,000 2,709,785 126,671 5,779,221
Mark V. Hurd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850,000 12,469,600 127,987 6,696,478
(1) Represents the amounts realized based on the difference between the market price of HP stock
on
the date of exercise and the exercise price.
(2) Represents the amounts realized based on the fair market value of HP stock on the vesting date
for restricted stock or restricted stock units and the release date for PRUs. Fair market value is
determined based on the closing market price of HP stock on the applicable date. In the case of
the PRUs granted for the three-year period that ended on October 31, 2010, the value was not
determinable and no shares could be released until the fiscal 2010 cash flow performance and the
three-year TSR were certified by the Committee, which occurred after the fiscal year end.
Fiscal 2010 Pension Benefits Table
The following table provides information about the present value of accumulated pension benefits
payable to each NEO (no payments were made to any NEO during fiscal 2010):
Number of Present Value of
Years of Accumulated
Credited Benefit
Service 10/31/10
(2)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 250/270
Page | 250
Name Plan Name
(1)
($) (#)
Catherine A. Lesjak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RP 21.3 225,694
EBP 21.3 1,671,017
R. Todd Bradley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAPP 0.6 11,820
CARP 0.6 8,123
Ann M. Livermore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RP 25.4 231,237
EBP 25.4 4,673,497
Vyomesh I. Joshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RP 27.2 294,968
EBP 27.2 5,640,218
Mark V. Hurd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C APP 0.8 11,867
CARP 0.8 40,079
(1) The CAPP and the CARP are the qualified HP Cash Account Pension Plan and the
nonqualified HP Cash Account Restoration Plan, respectively. The RP and the EBP are the
qualified HP Retirement Plan and the nonqualified HP Excess Benefit Plan, respectively. All
benefits are frozen under these plans. The CAPP and the RP have been merged into the HP
Pension Plan, although benefits continue to be determined under the separate formulas.
67(2) The present value of accumulated benefits is shown at the age 65 unreduced retirement age
for
the RP and the EBP using the assumptions under Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic
715-30 Defined Benefit PlansPension for 2010 fiscal year end measurement (as of October 31,
2010). The present value is based on a discount rate of 5.60% for the RP and 4.45% for the EBP,
lump sum interest rates of 1.74% for the first 5 years, 4.75% for the next 15 years and 6.03%
thereafter, and applicable mortality. As of October 31, 2009 (the prior measurement date), the
ASC Topic 715-30 or, as known prior to the codification of the accounting standards, Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard 87 assumptions included a discount rate of 5.91% for the RP and
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 251/270
Page | 251
5.33% for the EBP, lump sum interest rates of 2.73% for the first 5 years, 5.63% for the next
15 years and 6.07% thereafter, and applicable mortality. Since there are no early retirement
reductions in the CAPP or the CARP and the account balances are vested, the CAPP and the
CARP account balances are used as the present value of the accumulated benefit.
Narrative to the Fiscal 2010 Pension Benefits Table
No NEO currently accrues a benefit under any qualified or non-qualified defined benefit pension
plan, as HP ceased benefit accruals in all of its U.S. qualified defined benefit pension plans (and their
non-qualified plan counterparts) in prior years. Benefits previously accrued by the NEOs under HP
pension plans are payable to them following termination of employment, subject to the terms of the
applicable plan.
Terms of the HP Retirement Plan
Ms. Lesjak, Ms. Livermore and Mr. Joshi earned benefits under the RP and the EBP based on pay
and service prior to 2008. The RP is a traditional defined benefit plan that provided a benefit based
on
years of service and the participants highest average pay rate, reduced by a portion of Social
Security earnings. Highest average pay rate was determined based on the 20 consecutive fiscal
quarters when pay was the highest. Pay for this purpose included base pay and bonus, subject to
applicable IRS limits. Benefits under the RP may be taken in one of several different annuity forms or
in an actuarially equivalent lump sum. Benefits calculated under the RP are offset by the value of
benefits earned under the HP Deferred Profit Sharing Plan (the DPSP) before 1993. Together, the
RP and the DPSP constitute a floor-offset arrangement for periods before 1993.
Benefits not payable from the RP and the DPSP due to IRS limits are paid from the nonqualified
EBP under which benefits are unfunded and unsecured. When an EBP participant terminates
employment, the benefit liability is transferred to the EDCP, where an account is established for the
participant. That account is then credited with hypothetical investment earnings (gains or losses)
based
upon the investment election made by participants from among investment options similar to those
offered under the HP 401(k) Plan. There is no formula that would result in above-market earnings or
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 253/270
Page | 253
EDCP (there were no withdrawals or distributions to NEOs during fiscal 2010):
Executive Registrant Aggregate
Contributions Contributions Earnings Aggregate
in Last FY
(1)
in Last FY
(2)
in Last FY Balance at FYE
Name ($) ($) ($) ($)
Catherine A. Lesjak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,431,597 11,025 633,148 4,041,816
R. Todd Bradley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,000 11,025 150,810 2,504,134
Ann M. Livermore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,600 11,025 890,790 6,578,087
Vyomesh Joshi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120,000 11,025 267,180 1,977,274
Mark V. Hurd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,577 11,025 5,539 263,599
(1) The amounts reported here as Executive Contributions and Registrant Contributions are
reported as compensation to such NEO in the Summary Compensation Table above.
(2) The contributions reported here as Registrant Contributions were made in February 2010 with
respect to calendar year 2009 participant base-pay deferrals. During fiscal 2010, the NEOs were
eligible to receive a discretionary 4% matching contribution on base pay deferrals that exceeded
the IRS limit that applies to the qualified HP 401(k) Plan up to a maximum of two times that
limit.
Narrative to the Fiscal 2010 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table
HP sponsors the EDCP, a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that permits eligible U.S.
employees to defer base pay in excess of the amount taken into account under the qualified HP
401(k)
Plan and bonus amounts of up to 95% of the annual incentive bonus payable under the PfR Plan. In
addition, a matching contribution is available under the plan to eligible employees. The matching
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 254/270
Page | 254
contribution applies to base pay deferrals on compensation above the IRS limit that applies to the
qualified HP 401(k) Plan up to a maximum of two times that compensation limit (for fiscal 2010, on
base pay from $245,000 to $490,000).
At the time participation is elected, employees must specify the amount of base pay and/or the
percentage of bonus to be deferred, as well as the time and form of payment. If termination of
employment occurs before retirement (defined as at least age 55 with 15 years of service),
distribution
is made in the form of a lump sum in January of the year following the year of termination, subject
to
any timing restriction otherwise applicable under Section 409A of the Code. At retirement, benefits
are
paid according to the distribution election made by the participant at the time of the deferral
election
and are subject to any timing restrictions applicable under Section 409A of the Code. No withdrawals
are permitted during employment or prior to the previously elected distribution date, other than
hardship withdrawals as permitted by applicable law.
69During fiscal 2010, the NEOs were eligible for a discretionary matching contribution of up to 4%,
based on HPs financial performance during each fiscal quarter. Effective with restoration of the
matching contribution made to the HP 401(k) Plan on a non-discretionary basis beginning February
1,
2011, matching contributions to the EDCP will also revert to being non-discretionary.
Amounts deferred or credited under the EDCP are credited with hypothetical investment earnings
based on participant investment elections made from among the investment options available under
the
HP 401(k) Plan. Accounts maintained for participants under the EDCP are not held in trust, and all
such amounts are available to general creditors of HP. No amounts are credited with above-market
earnings.
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
The amounts in the following table assume that the NEOs terminated HP employment effective
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 255/270
Page | 255
October 31, 2010. The closing price of HP common stock was $42.06 on the last trading day before
that
date. These amounts are in addition to benefits generally available to U.S. employees upon
termination
of employment, such as distributions from the retirement plans and the HP 401(k) Plan and payment
of accrued vacation. Of the NEOs, only Mr. Joshi is currently eligible for retirement status, which is
generally defined in the United States as termination of employment on or after age 55 with at least
15 years of qualifying service.
Long Term Incentive Programs
(3)
Stock Restricted PRU
Termination Total
(1)
Severance
(2)
Options Stock Program
Name Scenario ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
Catherine A. Lesjak . Voluntary/For Cause
Disability 5,449,336 1,497,378 3,951,958
Retirement
Death 5,025,792 1,073,834 3,951,958
Not for Cause 13,558,247 4,115,454 1,497,378 7,945,415
Change in Control 13,558,247 4,115,454 1,497,378 7,945,415
R. Todd Bradley . . . . Voluntary/For Cause
Disability 6,657,789 1,954,276 4,703,513
Retirement
Death 6,075,805 1,372,292 4,703,513
Not for Cause 16,422,670 4,552,836 1,954,276 9,915,558
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 256/270
Page | 256
Change in Control 16,422,670 4,552,836 1,954,276 9,915,558
Ann M. Livermore . . Voluntary/For Cause
Disability 6,657,789 1,954,276 4,703,513
Retirement
Death 6,075,805 1,372,292 4,703,513
Not for Cause 16,100,474 4,230,640 1,954,276 9,915,558
Change in Control 16,100,474 4,230,640 1,954,276 9,915,558
Vyomesh I. Joshi . . . . Voluntary/For Cause 4,686,553 1,415,361 3,271,192
Disability 4,686,553 1,415,361 3,271,192
Retirement 4,686,553 1,415,361 3,271,192
Death 4,256,363 985,171 3,271,192
Not for Cause 12,516,655 4,055,232 1,415,361 7,046,062
Change in Control 12,516,655 4,055,232 1,415,361 7,046,062
(1) Total does not include amounts earned or benefits accumulated due to continued service by the
NEO through October 31, 2010, including vested stock options, accrued retirement benefits, and
70vested balances in the EDCP, all as detailed in the preceding tables. Total also does not include
amounts an NEO was eligible to receive under the annual PfR Plan with respect to fiscal 2010
performance or the release of shares under the fiscal 2008 PRU grant for the performance period
ended October 31, 2010. These amounts could have been reduced or eliminated by the Committee
(prior to payment) for any reason.
(2) Reflects the cash benefit payable in the event of a qualifying termination under the HP Severance
Plan for Executive Officers.
(3) Under the HP equity plans, the Board and the Committee have the discretion to accelerate
vesting
of options and to release vesting restrictions on stock and cash awards in the event of a change in
control, as well as in connection with individual employment terminations. The information
reported in these two columns assumes that the Board or the Committee would exercise discretion
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 257/270
Page | 257
to release restrictions in both of these circumstances. From time to time, however, certain HP
executives have received less than full acceleration of vesting on stock options, and no (or less than
full) release of the vesting restrictions on stock and cash awards, so the amounts actually paid to
an NEO upon a not for cause termination may be lower in some circumstances. In the case of
Mr. Joshi, because he is retirement eligible, he will have up to three years following his
termination to exercise his vested stock options; any unreleased restricted stock or stock unit
awards will continue to vest, subject to certain post-employment obligations; and any outstanding
PRU awards will receive pro-rata vesting. Pro-rata vesting of PRUs applies in the event of a
termination due to retirement, death or disability for all grant recipients.
Narrative to the Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control Table
Termination payments for the NEOs are generally governed by the terms of the HP Severance
Plan for Executive Officers and discretionary terms within the PfR Plan and the HP stock plans. Of the
NEOs, only Mr. Joshi qualified for termination based on retirement status as of the end of the
fiscal
year, which generally requires attainment of age 55 with at least 15 years of qualifying service.
HP Severance Plan for Executive Officers
The HP Severance Plan for Executive Officers (SPEO), originally adopted by the Board in 2003,
provides a severance benefit under certain circumstances to executives who were Section 16 officers
of
HP within 90 days of their termination employment. This plan provides for a lump-sum cash
severance
benefit upon a qualifying termination, calculated as a multiple of the sum of annual base salary and
target cash bonus, as in effect immediately prior to the employment termination; the multiple is 2.0
for
the position of CEO, 1.5 for executive vice presidents, and 1.0 for senior vice presidents and vice
presidents. Payments under the SPEO are reduced by any cash severance benefit payable to the
participant under any other HP plan, program or agreement. In addition, the cash benefit is subject
to
the 2.99 limit of the HP Severance Policy for Senior Executives, described below.
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 258/270
Page | 258
A participant will be deemed to have incurred a qualifying termination for purposes of this plan if
he or she is involuntarily terminated without cause and executes a full release of claims in a form
satisfactory to HP, promptly following termination. For purposes of the SPEO, cause means a
participants material neglect (other than as a result of illness or disability) of his or her duties or
responsibilities to HP or conduct (including action or failure to act) that is not in the best interest of,
or is injurious to, HP.
Voluntary or For Cause Termination
In general, an NEO who remained employed through October 31, 2010 (the last day of the fiscal
year) but voluntarily terminated employment immediately thereafter, or was terminated
immediately
thereafter as a for cause termination, would be eligible (1) to receive his or her annual incentive
71amount earned for fiscal 2010 under the PfR Plan (subject to any downward adjustment or
elimination
by the Committee prior to actual payment), (2) to exercise his or her vested stock options on or
before
the last day of employment, (3) to receive a distribution of vested amounts deferred or credited
under
the EDCP, and (4) to receive a distribution of his or her vested benefits under the HP 401(k) and
pension plans. An NEO who terminated employment before the last day of the fiscal year, either
voluntarily or as a for cause termination, would generally not be eligible to receive any amount
under
the PfR Plan with respect to the fiscal year in which the termination occurred, except that the
Committee has the discretion to make payment of prorated bonus amounts to individuals on leave
of
absence or in non-pay status, as well as in connection with certain voluntary severance incentives,
workforce reductions and similar programs.
Not for Cause Termination
A not for cause termination would qualify the NEO for the amounts described above under a
voluntary termination and benefits under the SPEO, if the NEO signs the required release of claims
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 259/270
Page | 259
in favor of HP.
In addition to the cash severance benefit payable under the SPEO, the NEO would be eligible to
exercise vested stock options and receive distributions of vested, accrued benefits from HP deferred
compensation and pension plans. The Committee may also exercise its discretion to release
restrictions
on equity-based awards in individual cases.
Termination Following a Change in Control
During fiscal 2010, no NEO was covered by an agreement that provided for special payments in
the event of a change in control. In the event of a change in control of HP, however, the Board is
authorized (but not required) to accelerate the vesting of stock options and to release restrictions on
awards issued under HP stock plans. For the purposes of this table, the amounts reported for each
NEO in the rows marked Change in Control assume that the Board would exercise its discretion in
this manner, resulting in fully accelerated vesting of stock options, and release of all restrictions on
restricted stock and outstanding PRU awards. In addition, an executive terminated following a
change
in control would be eligible for benefits under the SPEO, as described above.
As described under Executive CompensationCompensation Discussion and AnalysisAnalysis
of Elements of Executive CompensationLetter Agreement with Catherine A. Lesjak, on
December 15, 2010, HP entered into a letter agreement with Ms. Lesjak relating to her employment
with HP. That letter agreement includes, among other things, certain protections for Ms. Lesjak in
the
event of a change in control of HP. The Committee believed that including those provisions was
appropriate given the context of that agreement.
HP Severance Policy for Senior Executives
Under the HP Severance Policy for Senior Executives adopted by the Board in July 2003 (the HP
Severance Policy), HP will seek stockholder approval for future severance agreements, if any, with
certain senior executives that provide specified benefits in an amount exceeding 2.99 times the sum
of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 260/270
Page | 260
the executives current annual base salary plus annual target cash bonus, in each case as in effect
immediately prior to the time of such executives termination. Individuals subject to this policy
consist
of the Section 16 officers designated by the Board. In implementing this policy, the Board may elect
to
seek stockholder approval after the material terms of the relevant severance agreement are agreed
upon.
For purposes of determining the amounts subject to the HP Severance Policy, benefits subject to
the limit generally include cash separation payments that directly relate to extraordinary benefits
that
are not available to groups of employees other than the Section 16 officers upon termination of
72employment. Benefits that have been earned or accrued, as well as prorated bonuses, accelerated
stock
or option vesting and other benefits that are consistent with HP practices applicable to employees
other
than the Section 16 officers, are not counted against the limit. Specifically, benefits subject to the HP
Severance Policy include: (a) separation payments based on a multiplier of salary plus target bonus,
or
cash amounts payable for the uncompleted portion of employment agreements; (b) any gross-up
payments made in connection with severance, retirement or similar payments, including any gross-
up
payments with respect to excess parachute payments under Section 280G of the Code; (c) the value
of
any service period credited to a Section 16 officer in excess of the period of service actually provided
by such Section 16 officer for purposes of any employee benefit plan; (d) the value of benefits and
perquisites that are inconsistent with HP practices applicable to one or more groups of employees in
addition to, or other than, the Section 16 officers (Company Practices); and (e) the value of any
accelerated vesting of any stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock or long-term cash
incentives that is inconsistent with Company Practices. The following benefits are not subject to the
HP
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 261/270
Page | 261
Severance Policy, either because they have been previously earned or accrued by the employee or
because they are consistent with Company Practices: (i) compensation and benefits earned, accrued,
deferred or otherwise provided for employment services rendered on or prior to the date of
termination of employment pursuant to bonus, retirement, deferred compensation or other benefit
plans, e.g., 401(k) plan distributions, payments pursuant to retirement plans, distributions under
deferred compensation plans or payments for accrued benefits such as unused vacation days, and
any
amounts earned with respect to such compensation and benefits in accordance with the terms of
the
applicable plan; (ii) payments of prorated portions of bonuses or prorated long-term incentive
payments that are consistent with Company Practices; (iii) acceleration of the vesting of stock
options,
stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units or long-term cash incentives that is
consistent with Company Practices; (iv) payments or benefits required to be provided by law; and
(v) benefits and perquisites provided in accordance with the terms of any benefit plan, program or
arrangement sponsored by HP or its affiliates that are consistent with Company Practices.
For purposes of the HP Severance Policy, future severance agreements include any severance
agreements or employment agreements containing severance provisions that HP may enter intoafter
the adoption of the HP Severance Policy by the Board, as well as agreements renewing, modifying or
extending such agreements. Future severance agreements do not include retirement plans, deferred
compensation plans, early retirement plans, workforce restructuring plans, retention plans in
connection
with extraordinary transactions or similar plans or agreements entered into in connection with any
of
the foregoing, provided that such plans or agreements are applicable to one or more groups of
employees in addition to the Section 16 officers.
HP Retirement Arrangements
Upon retirement on or after age 55 with at least 15 years of service, HP employees in the United
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 262/270
Page | 262
States receive full vesting of options granted under HP common stock plans with a three-year
post-termination exercise period. Restricted stock and restricted stock units continue to vest in
accordance with their normal vesting schedule, subject to certain post-employment restrictions.
Awards
under the PRU Program, if any, are paid on a prorated basis to participants at the end of the
performance period based on actual results, and bonuses, if any, under the PfR Plan may be paid in
prorated amounts in the discretion of management based on actual results. In accordance with
Section 409A of the Code, certain amounts payable upon retirement of (or other termination by) the
NEOs and other key employees will not be paid out for at least six months following termination of
employment. Of the NEOs, only Mr. Joshi was eligible to retire as of October 31, 2010.
HP sponsors two retiree medical programs in the United States, one of which provides subsidized
coverage for eligible participants based on years of service. Eligibility for this program requires that
participants have been employed by HP before January 1, 2003, and to have met other age and
service
73requirements. Of the NEOs, only Mr. Joshi will be eligible for this program following his
termination
of employment.
The other U.S. retiree medical program sponsored by HP provides eligible retirees with access to
coverage at group rates only, with no direct subsidy provided by HP. In addition, beginning at age 45,
eligible U.S. employees may participate in the HP Retirement Medical Savings Account Plan (the
RMSA), under which participants are eligible to receive HP matching credits of $1,200 per year,
beginning at age 45, up to a lifetime maximum of $12,000, which can be used to cover the cost of
such
retiree medical coverage (or other qualifying medical expenses) if the employee retires from HP on
or
after age 55 with at least 10 years of service. All of the NEOs other than Mr. Joshi could be eligible
for the HP Retiree Medical Plan and the employer credits accumulated under the RMSA if they retire
from HP on or after age 55 with at least 10 years of qualifying service.
Separation Agreement with Mark V. Hurd
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 263/270
Page | 263
As discussed under Executive CompensationCompensation Discussion and AnalysisAnalysis
of Elements of Executive CompensationSeparation Agreement with Mark V. Hurd, Mr. Hurd
resigned as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of HP and as a member of the Board
effective August 6, 2010. In connection with Mr. Hurds resignation, HP and Mr. Hurd entered into a
Separation Agreement and Release that provided Mr. Hurd would receive a cash severance benefit
of
$12,224,693 in full satisfaction of HPs obligations under the SPEO, which amount did not exceed the
limit of 2.99 times the sum of Mr. Hurds current annual base salary plus annual target cash bonus
established under the HP Severance Policy. The agreement also provided for continued vesting of,
and
an extension of time to exercise, certain of Mr. Hurds outstanding equity awards, as well as
payment of
COBRA premiums for continuing medical coverage. In connection with the settlement of litigation
subsequently commenced by HP against Mr. Hurd, all of his outstanding equity awards were
cancelled.
74EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
The following table summarizes our equity compensation plan information as of October 31, 2010.
Common shares to Common shares
be issued upon Weighted-average available for future
exercise of exercise price issuance under equity
outstanding of outstanding compensation plans
options, warrants options, warrants (excluding securities
Plan Category and rights
(1)
and rights
(2)
reflected in column (a))
(a) (b) (c)
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 264/270
Page | 264
Equity compensation plans approved by HP
stockholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,095,753
(3)
$28.8389 124,553,185
(4)
Equity compensation plans not approved by
HP stockholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 $ 0 0
Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,095,753 $28.8389 124,553,185
(1) This column does not reflect awards of options and restricted stock units assumed in acquisitions
where the plans governing the awards were not available for future awards as of October 31, 2010.
As of October 31, 2010, individual awards of options and restricted stock units to purchase a total
of 42,408,497 shares were outstanding pursuant to awards assumed in connection with acquisitions
and granted under such plans at a weighted average exercise price of $24.9673. Includes stock
appreciation rights with respect to 84,419 shares of HP common stock assumed in connection with
HPs acquisition of Compaq Computer Corporation. Also includes awards of PRUs representing
1,568,530 shares that may be issued under the Amended and Restated 2003 Incentive Plan of
Electronic Data Systems Corporation. The terms of the PRU awards are summarized in footnote
(3) to this table.
(2) This column does not reflect the exercise price of shares underlying the assumed options referred
to in footnote (1) to this table or the purchase price of shares to be purchased pursuant to the
Share Ownership Plan, which is governed by the HP 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
ESPP), or the legacy HP Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the Legacy ESPP). In addition, the
weighted average exercise price does not take into account the shares issuable upon vesting of
outstanding awards of restricted stock units and PRUs, which have no exercise price.
(3) Includes awards of options and restricted stock units outstanding under the HP Amended and
Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2004 Plan), the HP 2000 Stock Plan (the 2000 Plan),
the HP 1995 Incentive Stock Plan and the HP 1997 Director Stock Plan. Also includes awards of
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 265/270
Page | 265
PRUs representing 23,946,866 shares that may be issued under the 2004 Plan. Each PRU award
reflects a target number of shares that may be issued to the award recipient. HP determines the
actual number of shares the recipient receives at the end of a three-year performance period based
on results achieved versus company performance goals and stockholder return relative to the
market. The actual number of shares that a grant recipient receives at the end of the period may
range from 0% to 200% of the target number of shares.
(4) Includes (i) 90,034,630 shares available for future issuance under the 2004 Plan, (ii) 30,426,564
shares available for future issuance under the ESPP, (iii) 2,725,611 shares available for future
issuance under the Legacy ESPP, and (iv) 1,366,380 shares available for future issuance under the
HP Service Anniversary Award Plan. In November 2010, the ESPP expired, and HP ceased issuing
shares under that plan.
75PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
The Audit Committee has appointed Ernst & Young LLP (EY) as HPs independent registered
public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2011. Stockholders are being asked to
ratify the appointment of EY at the annual meeting pursuant to Proposal No. 2. Representatives of
EY
are expected to be present at the annual meeting, will have the opportunity to make a statement if
they
desire to do so and are expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions.
Fees Incurred by HP for Ernst & Young LLP
The following table shows the fees paid or accrued by HP for audit and other services provided by
EY for fiscal 2010 and 2009.
2010 2009
In millions
Audit Fees
(1)
30.8 $30.5$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Audit-Related Fees
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 266/270
Page | 266
(2)
14.9 13.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tax Fees
(3)
6.1 9.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All Other Fees
(4)
0.0 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $51.8 $53.8
The Audit Committee has approved all of the fees above.
The Audit Committee has delegated to the chair of the Audit Committee the authority to
pre-approve audit-related and non-audit services not prohibited by law to be performed by HPs
independent registered public accounting firm and associated fees up to a maximum for any one
non-audit service of $250,000, provided that the chair shall report any decisions to pre-approve such
audit-related or non-audit services and fees to the full Audit Committee at its next regular meeting.
(1) Audit fees represent fees for professional services provided in connection with the audit of HPs
financial statements and review of our quarterly financial statements and audit services provided in
connection with other statutory or regulatory filings.
(2) Audit-related fees consisted primarily of SAS 70 reviews, accounting consultations, employee
benefit plan audits, services related to business acquisitions and divestitures and other attestation
services.
(3) For fiscal 2010, tax fees included primarily tax advice and tax planning fees of $3.6 million and tax
compliance fees of $2.3 million. For fiscal 2009, tax fees included primarily tax advice and tax
planning fees of $5.6 million and fees for expatriate tax services of $3.0 million.
(4) All other fees included primarily fees for advice relating to employee benefits matters.
76REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 267/270
Page | 267
The Audit Committee represents and assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities for general
oversight of the integrity of HPs financial statements, HPs compliance with legal and regulatory
requirements, the independent registered public accounting firms qualifications and independence,
the
performance of HPs internal audit function and independent registered public accounting firm, and
risk assessment and risk management. The Audit Committee manages HPs relationship with its
independent registered public accounting firm (which reports directly to the Audit Committee). The
Audit Committee has the authority to obtain advice and assistance from outside legal, accounting or
other advisors as the Audit Committee deems necessary to carry out its duties and receives
appropriate
funding, as determined by the Audit Committee, from HP for such advice and assistance.
HPs management is primarily responsible for HPs internal control and financial reporting process.
HPs independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP, is responsible for performing
an independent audit of HPs consolidated financial statements and issuing opinions on the
conformity
of those audited financial statements with United States generally accepted accounting principles
and
the effectiveness of HPs internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee monitors
HPs
financial reporting process and reports to the Board on its findings.
In this context, the Audit Committee hereby reports as follows:
1. The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements with HPs
management.
2. The Audit Committee has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm
the matters required to be discussed under the rules adopted by the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).
3. The Audit Committee has received from the independent registered public accounting firm
the written disclosures and the letter required by the applicable requirements of the PCAOB
regarding the independent registered public accounting firms independence and has discussed
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 268/270
Page | 268
with the independent registered public accounting firm its independence.
4. Based on the review and discussions referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3) above, the
Audit Committee recommended to the Board, and the Board has approved, that the audited
financial statements be included in HPs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2010, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The undersigned members of the Audit Committee have submitted this Report to the Board of
Directors.
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Robert L. Ryan, Chair
Sari M. Baldauf
John R. Joyce
Lucille S. Salhany
G. Kennedy Thompson
77IMPORTANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE HP ANNUAL MEETING
Check-in begins: 12:30 p.m., local time Meeting begins: 2:00 p.m., local time
HP stockholders, including joint holders, as of the close of business on January 24, 2011, the record
date for
the annual meeting, are entitled to attend the annual meeting on March 23, 2011
All stockholders and their proxies should be prepared to present photo identification for admission
to the
meeting
If you are a record holder or a participant in the HP 401(k) Plan or the Share Ownership Plan, your
share
ownership will be verified against a list of record holders or plan participants as of the record date
prior to
your being admitted to the meeting
If you are a beneficial owner of your HP shares (i.e., you hold your shares through a broker, trustee
or
8/7/2019 gju-166,super final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gju-166super-final 269/270
Page | 269
nominee), you will be asked to present proof of beneficial ownership of HP shares as of the record
date, such
as your most recent brokerage statement prior to January 24, 2011 or other evidence of ownership
Persons acting as proxies must bring a valid proxy from a record holder who owns shares as of the
close of
business on January 24, 2011
Failure to present identification or otherwise comply with the above procedures will result in
exclusion from the
meeting
Meeting attendees will not be permitted to bring cameras, mobile phones, recording equipment,
electronic
devices or large bags, briefcases or packages to the meeting
Please allow ample time for check-in
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND SUPPORTYOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT!
Directions to the Sheraton National Hotel, 900 South Orme Street, Arlington, Virginia
From the North:
Follow 95 South to 495 West (Silver Spring)
Follow 495 West to the George Washington Parkway
Follow the George Washington Parkway for approximately 8 miles to the exit for 395 South and
Route 27
(Lyndon B. Johnson) exit
Stay to the right at the fork, heading towards 395 South
Stay to your right and take exit Route 244 West/Columbia Pike/Navy Annex
Continue straight through two traffic lights; Sheraton National Hotel is on your right side
From the South:
Follow 95 North to 395 North/Washington exit 8A-Washington Blvd
Once on Washington Blvd. immediately get into the extreme right lane and take exit Columbia
Pike/Navy
Annex; Sheraton National Hotel is directly in front of you