Search results

This case features Lucas Lopez Lince, a rising leader in Colombian consumer goods company Grupo Familia. Lopez Lince had inherited a digital marketing program built around a newly identified customer persona–a young low-income mother. The program represented a significant shift in Familia's target customer as well as a shift in the way marketing funds were spent. The program appeared to be working, so he increased the digital spend even as he had to reduce his overall marketing budget in the face of challenging economic headwinds. Activity metrics such as page views, social media “likes,” and video views rose dramatically, and at the same time sales began to rise again. By the beginning of 2017, Lopez Lince faced a deeper set of questions. How could he be certain that the rising sales were due to the digital efforts? Would the existing digital programs and tactics continue to deliver against chosen metrics? And what could he do next in order to continue driving growth of revenue and margin through digital efforts? Students assume the role of Lopez Lince and are asked to apply concepts such as customer personas, micro-moments, and customer journey mapping to develop their own point of view on what they would do next.

The case is set in Northeast Wisconsin, where the two largest industries are dairy farming and papermaking. Dairy farms have a continual need for bedding material for cows, and Lynn Heemeyer recognized an opportunity for a new bedding material: a waste byproduct of recycled paper. The case includes the progression of Heemeyer’s venture – Alternative Animal Bedding (AAB) – from the idea phase, to initiation and growth, to near collapse, recovery, and renewed growth. By September 2015, AAB was at a turning point as the sales were increasing, and Jess, Lynn’s daughter, had joined the business. Jess’s challenge: how best to grow the business.

Information for the case was gathered via interviews with Jess Heemeyer; she also provided some supporting materials. Jess Heemeyer is a former student of the author and a graduate of the institution that employs the author. Additional information for the case was collected from publicly available sources, as referenced. The identification of the college was not included in the case.

The case is best suited for use in an undergraduate or graduate entrepreneurship course or courses that include entrepreneurship as a topic. The case fits well with the topics of alertness and opportunity identification, and the innovation process. It can also be used to illustrate critical factors for new-venture development and growth. In addition, the benefits and challenges related to family-based entrepreneurial ventures can be included as a learning objective.

This case draws upon and illustrates the concept of alertness (Kirzner, 1973) which was further developed by Tang et al. (2012) when they identified three dimensions of alertness: “scanning and searching for information, connecting previously disparate information, and making evaluations on the existence of profitable business opportunities” (p. 77). Also, the case follows the creativity-based model of opportunity recognition developed by Corbett (2005) that uses experiential learning theory. Finally, students are asked to apply Ansoff’s Growth Matrix (Ansoff, 1957) to identify and evaluate the growth options available to the business owners and managers. As an optional pasture for discussion, a stewardship theory perspective can be applied to examine the family business aspect of this case (see Eddleston and Kellermanns, 2007).

In early 2014, recent Stanford University graduate Tyler Shultz was in a quandary. He had been working at Theranos, a blood-diagnostic company founded by Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford-dropout wunderkind, for almost a year. Shultz had learned enough about the company to realize that its practices and the efficacy of its much-touted finger-prick blood-testing technology were questionable and that the company was going to great lengths to hide this fact from the public and from regulators.

Theranos and Holmes were Silicon Valley darlings, enjoying positive press and lavish attention from potential investors and technology titans alike. Just as companies like PayPal had revolutionized the stagnant payments industry and Uber had upended the for-hire transportation sector, Theranos had been positioned as the latest technology firm to substantially disrupt yet another mature sector: the medical laboratory business. By the start of 2014, the company had raised more than $400 million in funding, and had an estimated market valuation of $9 billion.

Shultz's situation was exacerbated by the fact that his grandfather, the highly respected former US Secretary of State George Shultz, was on the Theranos board and was one of Elizabeth Holmes's biggest supporters.

But Tyler Shultz worried about the customers he was convinced were receiving highly unreliable and often inaccurate blood-test results. With so much at stake, Shultz wondered how he should proceed. Should he raise his concerns with the firm's investors? Blow the whistle externally? Report to industry regulators? Go away quietly?

This case and its subsequent four brief follow-up cases are based largely on interviews with Tyler Shultz, and outline the dilemma he faced and the various steps he would take both to extricate himself from his unsavory position and let the public know the full extent of the deception at Theranos.

Five optional handouts are available to instructors to further discussion after the case has been debriefed. The handouts serve as additional decision points for the students if your class time permits.