Search results

Rockwell Automation's Allen-Bradley division was considering how to deal with the threat posed by national distributors in the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) business for its industrial automation products. National distributors were consolidating the MRO distribution channel, offering national account customers an integrated multichannel solution for their MRO needs. Allen-Bradley had traditionally served its customers through high-touch, high-value-added local distributors, but this channel was inadequate for the demands of large MRO customers. An effort by Allen-Bradley and other manufacturers to create an industry-wide electronic sourcing consortium called SourceAlliance.com had failed. Now the company had to choose between redesigning its traditional channel by creating a virtual network of local distributors, striking an alliance with a national distributor, or withdrawing from the MRO market. It had to contend with difficult channel conflict issues in choosing a channel strategy.

To analyze the competitive strategy of a company serving the MRO market.

Josh Brochhausen and Adam Podrat, as partners in The Resource, wrote commercial music for the ads of several companies. They were innovators in the recording studio, and their music appealed to young consumers.

Josh and Adam also had become involved in producing records for hip hop artists. They undertook a project called Deaf in the Family, which was a full length album featuring artists from the hip hop underground. The record was well received among music critics from the underground press, but the project made no money because Josh and Adam did not have the financing to secure the appropriate clearances for the right to use samples from existing songs.

Their problem centered on the uncertainty of financial success in producing hip hop records, which was their passion, and deciding whether to devote energy and resources toward it, and away from making commercial music, which was their livelihood.

This case traces Under Armour from its founding in 1996 through 2008 when the company entered the hyper-competitive non-cleated athletic footwear market. In 1996, with an innovative product and locker room access to college and pro players, Kevin Plank started Under Armour. He turned a struggling t-shirt company into a dominant player capturing 75% of the performance apparel market. In 2006, Under Armour successfully entered the athletic footwear market with a line of football cleats. Under Armour was the first company to disrupt Nike's dominance of the football cleat market by gaining 25% of the market within a year of introduction. In 2008, Under Armour entered the non-cleated athletic footwear market with a cross-trainer sneaker line and a $4.4 million Super Bowl ad. Unlike prior introductions, Nike responded aggressively to Under Armour's move into sneakers. Despite increased sales, Under Armour's costs increased, and profits and stock price decreased. The case concludes by asking students to evaluate Under Armour's next move. An extensive exhibit provides an overview of the athletic footwear industry in 2008.

To understand: – the demand and supply side challenges in launching a new product in sports. – Factors, which go into the making of a successful “new” sport. – The role of planning in sport management.

In July 2017, on the eve of Pro Kabaddi League (PKL) Season 5, kabaddi had emerged as one of India’s most important non-cricketing sport. PKL was India’s first men’s professional kabaddi league, introduced by Mashal Sports and Star India in 2014. Kabaddi was an indigenous sport, and India had an unbeaten international track record as world champions. Yet, the sport and its players had never received their due in India. In 2017, while kabaddi’s popularity had increased, leading to sponsorship opportunities, huge player bids, prize money and television viewership, all was not quite hunky-dory. A women’s kabaddi league introduced only the previous year had not been continued, despite an extended format in 2017. The audience profile also did not match that envisaged by Star. As a unique creator of sports content, Star was in an enviable position in India; and so was Kabaddi as a sport. How had Star created a new property around an indigenous sport with rural and rustic associations, transforming it into a snazzy, up-market sport within just three years, even while leagues involving other popular sports failed to create a mark? Could Star sustain this interest? How could kabaddi retain its “star” position within Star’s stable?

In an undergraduate or a postgraduate programme in business administration.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 11: Strategy.

The data for this case was collected from legal and business research databases (Lexis, ABI/INFORM)) and from business press sources (for example, Forbes, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal). Emails between the Egg Board, the Food and Drug Administration and key players at Unilever are referenced throughout the case and were provided by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service Compliance Branch and obtained pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Federal regulations and codes, as applicable, are also referenced (The US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations).

This short case presents the problems of Just Mayo, a start-up company, in maintaining and growing market share in an industry dominated by a well-established, multinational firm. In 2011 Hampton Creek (renamed Just, Inc in 2018) began operations as a manufacturer of plant-based food products. One of its earliest products was Just Mayo, a sandwich spread with all the attributes of traditional mayonnaise except without eggs or other dairy products. Shortly after Just Mayo was introduced, Unilever – a multinational conglomerate and food giant, sued Hampton Creek, claiming that use of the name “Just Mayo” amounted to false advertising and unfair competition.

This case is a learning tool for management, business law and ethics students at the undergraduate level. It was used in 2019 in a business law class at the sophomore and junior undergraduate level, where the focus was primarily on ethical considerations for all parties, understanding the role of regulatory agencies, and the legality of the strategies used. However, this case is equally applicable for a management or strategic management course with a focus on analyzing the tactics used for maintaining competitive advantage. A stakeholder analysis for various parties in either of these courses would also be suitable. Instructors addressing some of these topics together should find it particularly useful.

Entrepreneurship, Business Strategy, Leadership, Marketing and Decision-making in business.

This case is suitable for graduate-level programmes in business management as well as executive education programmes.

Stuart Gold, CEO of Trashy Bags is at a crossroads with respect to the future of his business. With deficits estimated at about GHS 120,000 annually, Gold is considering switching from the made-to-stock production model to a made-to-order model. Although the latter may tap into an available market and thus boost revenue, it would likely result in the displacement of the social enterprise’s loyal following and disenfranchisement of its employees’ creativity; not to mention the possibility of neglecting its mandate of repurposing plastic waste. Gold wonders if there is a case for maintaining the current made-to-stock model by driving up sales and reducing costs to eliminate the deficit.

Students should be able to: appreciate the exigencies of managing social enterprises in a largely profit-oriented economic domain; understand the interplay of choice and trade-offs in business management and apply theory-driven frameworks in making optimal choices and analytically assess instances of tension between the art (e.g. passion, emotional stakes, psychological and other influences on business management philosophies) and science (e.g. the need for business skills, use of effective models and the quest for production efficiency) of business management.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

January 27, 2005, was an extraordinary day for Gillette's James Kilts, the show-stopping turnaround expert known as the “Razor Boss of Boston.” Kilts, along with Proctor & Gamble chairman Alan Lafley, had just orchestrated a $57 billion acquisition of Gillette by P&G. The creation of the world's largest consumer products company would end Kilts's four-year tenure as CEO of Gillette and bring to a close Gillette's 104-year history as an independent corporate titan in the Boston area. The deal also capped a series of courtships between Gillette and other companies that had waxed and waned at various points throughout Kilts's stewardship of Gillette. But almost immediately after the transaction was announced, P&G and Gillette drew criticism from the media and the state of Massachusetts concerning the terms of the sale. Would this merger actually benefit shareholders, or was it principally a wealth creation vehicle for Kilts?

To understand the factors that persuaded shareholders of both P&G and Gillette to merge their companies, the valuation metrics involved in determining the merger consideration, compensation packages for key managers, and the politics (internal, local government, and regulatory) that impact major mergers.

Encyclopædia Britannica was the leading provider of encyclopedias in the English language, but after sales declined rapidly in the early 1990s the company was forced to file for bankruptcy. Many different organizational and market factors contributed to this crisis, such as the diffusion of the PC, the invention of Encarta, the technical challenges of moving text to electronic formats, and the difficulties of inventing a new format while also operating the leading seller of books. Looking back, what could the company have done differently?

To illustrate important themes on a leading firm's response to technical opportunities and threats; teach students about technological waves, technological disruption, and different concepts of obsolescence; and examine strategic concepts such as attacker's advantages and skunk works.

Gary Parr, deputy chairman of Lazard Freres & Co. and Kellogg class of 1980, could not believe his ears. “You can't mean that,” he said, reacting to the lowered bid given by Doug Braunstein, JP Morgan head of investment banking, for Parr's client, legendary investment bank Bear Stearns. Less than eighteen months after trading at an all-time high of $172.61 a share, Bear now had little choice but to accept Morgan's humiliating $2-per-share, Federal Reserve-sanctioned bailout offer. “I'll have to get back to you.” Hanging up the phone, Parr leaned back and gave an exhausted sigh. Rumors had swirled around Bear ever since two of its hedge funds imploded as a result of the subprime housing crisis, but time and again, the scrappy Bear appeared to have weathered the storm. Parr's efforts to find a capital infusion for the bank had resulted in lengthy discussions and marathon due diligence sessions, but one after another, potential investors had backed away, scared off in part by Bear's sizable mortgage holdings at a time when every bank on Wall Street was reducing its positions and taking massive write-downs in the asset class. In the past week, those rumors had reached a fever pitch, with financial analysts openly questioning Bear's ability to continue operations and its clients running for the exits. Now Sunday afternoon, it had already been a long weekend, and it would almost certainly be a long night, as the Fed-backed bailout of Bear would require onerous negotiations before Monday's market open. By morning, the eighty-five-year-old investment bank, which had survived the Great Depression, the savings and loan crisis, and the dot-com implosion, would cease to exist as an independent firm. Pausing briefly before calling CEO Alan Schwartz and the rest of Bear's board, Parr allowed himself a moment of reflection. How had it all happened?

An analysis of the fall of Bear Stearns facilitates an understanding of the difficulties affecting the entire investment banking industry: high leverage, overreliance on short-term financing, excessive risk taking on proprietary trading and asset management desks, and myopic senior management all contributed to the massive losses and loss of confidence. The impact on the global economy was of epic proportions.

The following theoretical concepts are applicable to the case and its learning objectives: Stakeholder Power-Interest Matrix and Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Information was obtained in three separate interviews with PSEG. In February 2018, an introductory phone conference was conducted with a number of senior managers within PSEG, including the Director of Development and Strategic Issues, Kate Gerlach. In April 2018, an onsite interview was conducted with Gerlach, who connected the author with Scott Jennings. A phone interview was conducted with Scott Jennings in May 2018 and follow-up communication with him was handled via e-mail. The information obtained from these interviews was supplemented by material obtained from secondary sources. None of the information in the case has been disguised.

Scott Jennings, a Vice President at PSEG, the diversified New Jersey-based energy company, was the project leader for a large commercial wind farm that was to be built off the coast. The project, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between PSEG and Deepwater Wind, an experienced developer of offshore wind projects, had been announced over six years earlier, in late 2008. In the time that had passed, the Garden State Offshore Energy project team had waited for the New Jersey Bureau of Public Utilities, which had been tasked by Governor Chris Christie to evaluate the project costs before it could authorize the actual construction of the wind turbines. Justifying the project on a cost basis proved to be difficult; despite the growing public sentiment in favor of projects that utilized renewable energy sources such as wind power, the Garden State Offshore Energy team was unable to move the project forward. Scott needed to decide whether it made sense to continue to hold regular meetings with the Garden State Offshore Energy team. Scott’s colleagues suggested that Scott speak with senior management at PSEG to find out if the resources that had been dedicated to the Garden State Offshore Energy project could be shifted to other projects that might be more feasible.

This case is suitable for courses in Sustainability. It is appropriate to use the case in undergraduate courses to illustrate decision making in a regulated industry. Sufficient information is presented in the case to debate both sides of the offshore wind authorization issue.