Search results

This case examines the public controversy that erupted over the increasingly high price of EpiPens. Mylan Inc. (Mylan), a generic drug maker, bought the EpiPen product line from Merck in 2007. Since that time, the company both invested in marketing to raise awareness for the drug and dramatically increased the price, lifting it from $100 to $600 per two pack in the U.S. In 2016, simmering consumer anger about the high prices of pharmaceutical drugs finally reached a boiling point and a media firestorm ensued. The case challenges students to think about the role of fairness in pricing. How can Mylan justify the dramatic price increases? How can it justify the variation in prices across countries, as an EpiPen is priced at an equivalent of $85 in France? The case challenges students to think about how they would handle a public controversy. The EpiPen case is well suited for students in MBA, MBA for Executives, and executive education programs. For MBA students, it can be placed in first-year marketing, pricing, or marketing communications courses. For executives, it can serve as a vehicle to discuss both ethical issues of pricing and how to handle a public controversy.

Services marketing.

This case can be taught effectively to MBA/MS students. The case provides students with an opportunity to closely examine various marketing activities and to understand how problems associated with intangible services can be dealt with by using effective integrated marketing communications.

On March 1, 2011, JustEat, the world's largest and premium online food ordering and table reservation portal, acquired a 60 per cent stake in India's premium online food ordering and table reservation portal – Hungryzone. Following this, Hungryzone was rebranded as www.justeat.in. Ritesh Kumar Dwivedy Founder and CEO of Hungryzone and now the CEO of www.justeat.in, soon faced some challenges that cropped up as a result of this new development. Rebranding and the scalability of operations with the existing resources were the major causes of concern. To overcome these problems, www.justeat.in undertook several marketing initiatives and in the process implemented innovative ideas like JustConnect Terminal; introduction of the global JustEast mascots Belly and Brain to replace the existing mascot Aloo Patel of Hungryzone; and various innovative promotional activities to promote www.justeat.in. The case highlights the issues and challenges faced by the management. Finally some significant challenges yet to be resolved are posed. What should be done to deal with the problem of poaching of customers by partnering restaurants? How should www.justeat.in ensure that the partnering restaurants do not perceive it as their competitor in spite of the fact that registering with www.justeat.in helps increase their revenues by 10-15 perx cent? How should www.justeat.in convince popular restaurant chains to register with it keeping in mind the fact that they are already facing excess demand situations?

The case is designed to enable students to understand: the concepts associated with delivering services through electronic channels; communications and the services marketing triangle; key serxvice communication challenges; the integrated services marketing communication mix; strategies to match service promises with delivery; and the services branding model.

Teaching notes are available; please consult your librarian for access.

The context of the case presents an account of how corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiated by Lawrence & Mayo (L&M), a company dealing in optical frames for 140 years, helped to build brand equity, image and identity, creating a strategic advantage against competition. The case had a deep-rooted theoretical association with a theory such as the triple bottom line theory (three Ps: profit, people and planet) on CSR. The case helps to understand and clarify the role of CSR in brand equity. It also gives an insight into the value and culture of L&M, and its impact on various stakeholders, namely, employees and customers.

This case is related to the CSR orientation of L&M and its impact on brand equity. As a brand, L&M is over 140 years old and has a dynamic and trending optics market in India. There is a dilemma in the company around the impact of CSR on brand equity, customer engagement and company goodwill. This case focuses on maintaining and improving brand equity, identity and image through CSR initiatives.

Undergraduate and postgraduate students, essential for students focusing on Marketing and CSR disciplines.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 8: Marketing.

Verklar is the leading maker of roof windows based in Europe. Its Austrian subsidiary has historically dominated the Austrian market, with about 85% market share. However, at the time of the case, its market share has dropped to about 75%, and many of its dealers have either dropped the line entirely or are buying not from the company, but from the few remaining large dealers who still buy directly from Verklar. This has prompted the president of the subsidiary to devise a new way—called the Quota System—to run the distribution channel in the country to improve performance. Asks the reader to examine the sources of market share decline and whether the proposed Quota System solves the channel's problems.

The case traces the development of Lululemon Athletica (Lulu) from founder Chip Wilson's first post-yoga euphoria in 1997 through the sale of all his shares in 2015. Officially founded in 1998, Lulu was built on the foundation of its “miracle” figure-enhancing yoga pants made from a proprietary stretch fiber. The case outlines Wilson's early experience in technical performance wear, which gave him the expertise needed to launch the Lululemon brand with its premium-priced, fashion-designed product line targeted at upscale women. The case also highlights the retailing and promotion approach that drove Lulu's first decade of success. The snapshot of how the Lulu brand cult was born and diffused provides the backdrop for assessing whether the brand has already hit its peak or whether it can sustain the explosive growth that effectively created the athleisure category. To aid in this determination, the case presents two competitors as comparative foils (Under Armour and Athleta) to contextualize Lulu's growth prospects.

The Lululemon case highlights the importance of the competitive frame of reference when positioning a brand and describes how this may differ for the three competitors. The case also allows for a discussion of the challenges of maintaining the congruence of a retail brand with a diverse product line. This struggle is unique to retailers who must fit ever-varied product assortments (not just a single product line) under the umbrella of a single brand proposition, and is particularly relevant to vertically integrated brands such as Lululemon.

Carl Woods, a management consultant, experiences a series of frustrating events when trying to replace the mesh sling to a patio chair. Eventually, he realizes that he could organize a coopetitive relationship among the various outdoor furniture companies, each of which provided only a portion of the service he needed. The case tracks Carl's recognition of the opportunity presented by a hole in the market and the consultant's role in the development of coopetition in the Florida outdoor furniture industry. Students are asked to assist Carl in performing the consulting role by developing solutions to the problems that have arisen within the coopetitive group.

This case has been field researched.

The case is suitable for undergraduate students in basic entrepreneurship, small business management, or organizational behavior.

Appendix 1: Comic Frames A At the end of the case study discussion, students will able to as follows: Explain various growth strategies as a potential unicorn with the exponential growth mindset rather than linear growth mindset through adaptation of Massive Transformative Purpose (MTP) and Moonshot Thinking (MT). Demonstrate innovative and creative plans and ideas, with the ability to scale up in the circular economy. Review and summarize the power of Collaborative Innovation (CI). Compare and contrast different ways in dealing with Hedgehog and Fox style of leadership into the business. Appendix 2: Comic Frames B At the end of the case study discussion, students will able to as follows: Act with a growth strategy as a potential unicorn with the exponential growth mindset rather than linear growth mindset through adaptation of MTP and MT. Simulate innovative and creative plans and ideas, with the ability to scale up in the circular economy. Assess and leverage the power of CI. Decide and differentiate in dealing with Hedgehog and Fox style of leadership into the business.

Ankit Tripathi, was a compassionate 22-year-old, the typical lad from New Delhi, India, who seemed driven to change the world. His elder brother Atul Tripathi, a young, creative 25-year-old, was sat there next to him, beaming with pride and gratitude. Both brothers, being mechanical engineering graduates, had experienced the advancement of technology at the cost of Mother Earth. It pained them no end. It was the reason that Atul had refused to serve as an engineer in a government institution after graduating. The parents were shocked when Ankit followed suit. The brothers were poles apart in their personality and temperament, and it was rare to see them agree on anything in this way. Yet, they agreed to disagree with their parents and ventured into becoming entrepreneurs with a purpose and passion to salvage the environment. They had a vision, but without a proper roadmap, it would certainly be a tough game. Nevertheless, they boldly embarked upon their journey and established their start-up “Uneako” in 2019. “Uneako” was a calculated risk, taking into account family resistance (parents’ attitude/perception), personal conflicts (psychological), financial limitations (resources), shallow expertise (professionalism), social concern acceptability and low awareness (environment), government regulations (legalities/approvals), conflicts between brothers (personality issues), etc. Being from a nonbusiness family, the brothers had defied the wave of obstacles and challenges in daring to start their own business, putting at stake the hard-earned money of their father, Satendra Tripathi. Amidst so much social mockery, would Atul and Ankit succumb and become a laughing stock or would they find something that they could live and die for?

Appendix 1: Comic Frames A: This case has been particularly focused on undergraduate level students pursuing business or commerce programs. Especially those studying core courses, for example, entrepreneurial and strategic management. Appendix 2: Comic Frames B: This case has been particularly focused postgraduate-early stage or higher level students pursuing business or commerce programs. Particularly those specializing in entrepreneurial and strategic management courses. Also, can be taught in the entrepreneurial or start-up workshops.

www.pewresearch.org/topics/generation-z/ Paulynice. J.P., (2019) “From Idea to Reality: An Entrepreneur’s Guide to Meaningful Business Growth” Paulynice Consulting Group. Hardy.D., (2015) “The Entrepreneur Roller Coaster: It’s Your Turn to Join The Ride” Success Publishers. Wadhwa.V., Amla.I., Salkever.A., (2020) “From Incremental to Exponential” Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Business Success through Sustainability edited by Christina Weidinger, Franz Fischler, René Schmidpeter, Springer 2014. Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

This case was developed to serve as a foundation for student discussion of the use of contingent forms of payment in M&A. The protagonist in the case represents the buyer, and must design terms of contingent payment (“arnout”) that will protect the buyer if the rosy future does not occur, yet reward the seller if it does. Students are given completed discounted cash flow (DCF) valuations of the target (Digitech) under both the seller's and buyer's forecasts, which reveal a wide gulf in valuation. The protagonist seeks to bridge this gulf through a combination of fixed and contingent payments to the seller. Two different earnout designs are suggested in the case. Students must simulate the value of the earnout to estimate the expected value of this provision from the standpoints of both the buyer and seller.

Josh Williams is a Student at the NAU who has driven buses on campus and wants to improve the transportation on campus. He is convinced that purchasing a new type of bus that is more fuel efficient, has larger capacity, better designed for boarding, and has a longer life is worth the higher purchase cost. He sets out to prove it by creating a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. Since many of the estimates for the DCF analysis are uncertain, he decides to perform a Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) analysis. Students are asked to step into Josh’s role and perform the analysis.

Josh Williams was a Student in the authors’ MBA program. Both authors teach in this program and one author was the Advisor for Net Impact and worked with Josh to present his idea to the university administration. The authors have changed a name or two but otherwise, the case describes a real situation in a real organization without disguise.

The authors have used this case in a first semester MBA-Applied Management course, Decision Modeling and Simulation. Students already have experience with DCF analysis and have been introduced to MCS. With this case, students apply MCS at the conclusion of a three-week module on predictive analytics. Students have run at least two MCS models and have become comfortable with the software. The case would also be appropriate for a senior-level undergraduate course such as business analytics or management science. It might also be useful for other courses that include the MCS modeling technique learning objectives such as project management.

This case provides an opportunity for students to perform an MCS analysis. MCS is useful when many of the inputs to a DCF analysis (or any model) have been estimated and the modeler is concerned that the estimates are uncertain and could perhaps be a range of values. MCS can be used to understand the effect of this uncertainty on NPV which in turn may affect the decision. The case could also be used without MCS focusing just on the DCF analysis with deterministic sensitivity analysis.

This case is designed to present students with the challenges of formulating a discounted-cash-flow (DCF) analysis for a strategically important capital-investment decision. Analytically, the problem is representative of most corporate investment decisions, but it is particularly interesting because of the massive size of the American Centrifuge Project and the potential of the project to significantly affect the stock price. Students must determine the relevant cash flows, paying close attention to the treatment of input costs, selling prices, timing of investment outlays, depreciation, and inflation. An important input is the appropriate cost of uranium, which some students argue should be included at book value, while others argue that market value should be used. Although the primary objective of the case is to focus on the estimation of cash flows, students are provided with a straightforward set of inputs to estimate USEC's weighted average cost of capital. The case is designed for students who are learning, or need a refresher on, DCF analysis. Because of the basic issues covered, the case works well with undergraduate, MBA, and executive-education audiences. The case also affords the opportunity to explore a variety of issues related to capital-investment analysis, including relevant costs, incremental analysis, cost of capital, and sensitivity analysis. The case is an excellent example of the value of a firm as the value of assets in place plus the net present value of future growth opportunities.