Search results

A year into the launch of TiVo—the “revolutionary new personal TV service that lets you watch what you want, when you want”—John Tebona, VP of business development, was faced with important decisions about TiVo's revenue model and strategic alliances. With television's move from a network-based model to an interactive one, he had to decide what role TiVo would play in the emerging industry landscape. Would TiVo be just a set-top box or would it live up to the vision of revolutionizing the television viewing experience? What revenue streams should it emphasize to capture the most value? What strategic relationships must TiVo form in an environment where companies were cross-investing in multiple technologies across different industry segments? How could it expand its customer base and accelerate its revenues before competitors like Microsoft's WebTV became the default standard?

To understand that disruptive innovation from a value creation standpoint may not mean a profitable or viable business from a value capture standpoint; products are far easier to create than robust business architectures with solid profit engines; the future of interactivity is clouded by the conflicting visions of the varied players; and control over standards is a valuable choke point.

In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms.

This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.