Search results

Dove and Axe were two highly successful brands owned by Unilever, a portfolio company. Dove was a female-oriented beauty product brand that exhorted “real beauty” and not the unachievable standards that the media portrayed. In contrast, Axe was a brand that purportedly “gives men the edge in the mating game.”□ Their risqué commercials always portrayed the supermodel-type beauty ideal that Dove was trying to change. Unilever had always been a company of brands where the consumer knew the brands but not the company, but recently there had been the idea to unify the company with an umbrella mission for all of its brands. This would turn Unilever into a company with brands, potentially increasing consumer awareness and encourage cross-purchases between the different brands. However, this raised questions about the conflicting messages between the brands' marketing campaigns, most notably between Unilever's two powerhouse brands, Dove and Axe. The case begins with COO Alan Jope anticipating an upcoming press meeting in New York City to discuss Unilever's current (i.e., 2005) performance and announce Unilever's decision to create an umbrella mission statement for the company. This case focuses on the central question of whether or not consistency between brand messages is necessary or inherently problematic.

The Unilever's Mission for Vitality case was created to help students and managers develop an appreciation for how the values underlying a marketing campaign can affect and alter an organization's culture. The case focuses on how two products and marketing campaigns that express conflicting underlying values (as reflected in the Dove Real Beauty and the Axe Effect campaigns) within the same corporation can give rise to a number of unintended organizational and marketing complications.

Describes the history of the tobacco industry and its emergence as an extremely effective marketer and non-market strategist. After years of success, both publicly and politically, the leaders of the tobacco industry are faced with mounting political pressure and the financial threat of litigation from class-action lawsuits. The leaders face an industry-wide strategic decision of whether to acquiesce to government demands in exchange for immunity, focus on judicial success, or develop a new course of action.

To evaluate the formulation and implementation of non-market strategies in the context of regulatory, legislative, and legal institutions. To understand how various aspects of the non-market environment interact and how these environments not only change over time, but change market competition within an industry. Further, to formulate and decide between firm-specific and industry-wide strategies. Finally, to appreciate and reflect upon the potential conflict between non-market strategies and ethical concerns.

Rick Jamison, as Project Manager for the highly profitable Mega-Yacht division of Thorsby-Wando Marine Refit, Inc., has been assigned the task of revamping the supplier evaluation and selection tool used by the company in view of the evolution of the business from a small boat storage and repair facility into a full-service large boat and mega-yacht repair and refit facility. Rick gleans ideas from a colleague at another facility in preparation for re-crafting the current supplier evaluation tool. Rick becomes acquainted with how the Delphi method could be used to achieve consensus among members of the buying center to arrive at key factors and their proportionate weights for use in the supplier evaluation tool.

The case is based upon interviews with the company that is represented by Thorsby-Wando Marine Refit, Inc.

This case is targeted primarily at undergraduate students in purchasing, materials management and supply chain management courses. The case works best when it is employed in connection with a discussion of the major methods for evaluating vendors.

In January, 2015, Chipotle stopped serving pork at a third of its 1,800 restaurants due to its discovery that a pork supplier was not meeting Chipotle's “Food with Integrity” standards. This case examines the trade-offs Chipotle faced in maintaining its focus on sustainable ingredients as the chain grew rapidly. Demand for healthier ingredients by others in the industry and scalability problems in sustainable agricultural production suggested that supply shortages and higher prices were likely threats to Chipotle's continued rapid growth. Could Chipotle maintain its commitment to “Food with Integrity” when the supply of sustainable foods failed to meet demand or should the company just buy available ingredients regardless of farming methods?

This case was developed from both secondary and primary sources. The secondary sources included industry reports, company annual reports, news reports, social media sites and company websites. Primary sources included video interviews with Chipotle executives (available on the company's website) and visits to Chipotle restaurants in several cities. This case has been classroom tested with MBA students in a capstone course and with undergraduates in a strategic management course.

This case was written for use in Strategic Management classes at the undergraduate and MBA levels. The focus of the case aligns well with discussions of competitive advantage, firm performance and business level strategy. The case also has application in discussions regarding implementation of strategy. Instructors that choose to emphasize sustainability strategies could assign this case to explore trade-offs between profitability, sustainability and growth. Additionally, the case could be used in supply chain management courses.

This case utilizes a stakeholder analysis approach to examine the trade-offs between sustainability initiatives, growth and performance. The resource-based model of VRIO is used to analyze the firm's competitive advantage.

Dean Adams was given notice to develop an online program with the School of Business Administration as a prototype of online education for the rest of the University. A major task which faced the Dean involved working with University information technology (IT) staff and faculty to choose a learning management system (LMS) to support the online program. After talking with the Chief Information Officer at Seacoast University and appointing a committee made up of IT staff and faculty, the Dean was presented with the committee's recommendation that focussed on two major decisions: first, choosing the LMS product for the University, and second, choosing to locate the LMS product and server either on-campus or off-campus. In the course of considering whether or not to accept the committee's recommendations, Dean Adams weighed the evaluations and justifications as outlined by the committee in the context of Seacoast University's IT situation.

This case reviews the financial performance of the Fidelity Magellan Fund up to mid-1995. In essence, the Magellan Fund has managed to “beat the market” over time under three different fund managers despite its enormous size ($51 billion at the date of the case). The tasks for the student are to assess the adequacy of this performance, evaluate its likely sources, and opine on its sustainability. The case affords the opportunity to consider the appropriateness of various possible benchmarks in a risk-return framework and to assess the reasonableness of the efficient-markets hypothesis. The case can be used in an introductory finance course to present general information about equity markets and the behavior of large, sophisticated money managers.

This case outlines the history of JetBlue Airways from its inception in 2000 until 2004. The case provides details of JetBlue's business model and reasons for success. It can be used in a course on service operations or strategy.