Search results

The decade from 2000 until 2010 was a turbulent time for Toyota Motor Company. The carmaker came under significant criticism from the United States government, consumers throughout the world, and media critics amid allegations of poor quality control and vehicle safety concerns. Problems with accelerators and brake systems were found on several of its most popular models, a situation initially exacerbated by the slow and somewhat tentative response from top management. Toyota was accused of not addressing early warning signs that appeared several years before the crisis received intense negative publicity. Toyota struggled to retain the confidence of consumers and governmental regulators, eventually recalling approximately eight million automobiles.

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows:1. Analyze the pricing strategy followed by Netflix in India;2. Examine the challenges faced by media companies, including over-the-top (OTT) service providers, in developing content for target consumers in emerging markets; and3. Evaluate the dynamics of the Indian OTT industry and understand the effect of external and internal factors on the growth of Netflix in India.

This case discusses the dilemma faced by Netflix in India regarding pricing and content. Netflix was accused of hurting the religious and political sentiments of Indians by broadcasting bold shows such as Sacred Games and A Suitable Boy. Netflix is caught in a dilemma between its pursuit to achieve its target of achieving 100 million subscribers from India versus continuing its profitable high pricing strategy. Another key dilemma is regarding the streaming of attractive bold content which may occasionally hurt the religious/political sentiments of some Indians or stream only safe content which may be deemed as boring by its young target audience.

Undergraduate and postgraduate students studying Marketing courses in Commerce and Business Management streams can use this case.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 8: Marketing.

The case discusses the operational, strategic, and financial turnaround at Solo Cup, a manufacturer of disposable dining wares. Solo Cup’s troubles were compounded by the acquisition of a larger rival, Sweetheart Company, which had its own problems and presented issues of merger integration that management could not solve. David Garfield, a managing director at turnaround consulting firm Alix Partners, must first recognize Solo Cup’s core competencies in order to determine the appropriate change in strategic course, strip out the assets that no longer support the operations necessary for that strategy, and monetize them in order to rationalize its balance sheet. This case teaches that a three-pronged approach will invariably produce greater results than any one-dimensional turnaround.

Students will learn turnaround techniques necessary to restructure a company operationally, strategically, and financially, and will learn how Alix Partners' relentless focus on “letting data rule” allowed the firm to revive a faltering company.

This case is about Kija Kim, a Korean born founder and CEO of Harvard Design and Mapping Inc. (HDM). Founded in 1988, HDM is a cutting-edge GIS firm with $5 million in revenue and 35 employees in their Cambridge, MA and Washington D.C. offices. Through Kija Kim's leadership, HDM has become a significant niche player in homeland security and disaster relief. The case ends in fall 2005 just after HDM provided Hurricane Katrina mapping support, and Kija is nominated for the SBA Small Business Person of the Year. This case explores the intersection between cultural heritage, leadership effectiveness and organizational behavior. It particularly notes Kija's ability to turn her immigrant female minority status into a business advantage. This strength coupled with her ethos of care and ability to network in all walks of her life contributes to her distinctive and integrated leadership style. Definitions of leadership success and implications for decision making are also highlighted.

To recapture lost market share, tobacco giant R. J. Reynolds (RJR) developed Uptown, the first cigarette brand created and targeted specifically at a minority group—in this case, African-Americans. RJR planned to launch a six-month test market in Philadelphia in February 1990, which coincided with national Black History Month. The launch generated grassroots opposition from the black community in Philadelphia, which became intent on ensuring there was “No Uptown in our town or any town.”

After analyzing the case, students should be able to:

• Identify some of the complex issues surrounding targeting specific populations

• Recognize the importance of understanding cultural context

• Recognize the limits of profit-based decision-making

Identify some of the complex issues surrounding targeting specific populations

Recognize the importance of understanding cultural context

Recognize the limits of profit-based decision-making

This is an illustrative case analyzing shareholder and accounting outcomes and legal issues resulting from a merger of two major publicly traded companies. In today's business world, the “urge to merge” is tempered by heightened shareholder activism. In response to this activism, boards must proceed with care when negotiating mergers. Challenges to mergers that appear to be in the shareholders' best interest occur often. As is the case here, shareholders and their well funded legal representatives, seek damages for alleged bad decisions. Conoco Oil and Phillips Petroleum announced their intention to merge in November 2001. At that time the cost of gasoline spiraled ever upward and large oil firms put heavy competitive pressure on smaller oil producer/refiners. The merger described as a “merger of equals”, intimated that neither Conoco nor Phillips shareholders would receive a financial advantage (or disadvantage) over other merging shareholders following the completion of the merger. Immediately following the announcement, Michael Iorio, a Conoco shareholder, filed a lawsuit, claiming damages to Conoco shareholders from the merger of the two firms.

This case details the history of Southwest Airlines from its inception in 1971 until 2004. The case provides details of Southwest's business model and reasons for its success. It ends with a description of the company's competitive pressures in 2004. The case can be used for a course in service operations or strategy.

Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to test the effectiveness of the case exercise process as it relates to increasing student participation and engagement. Surveys were used as a data collection method where students self-reported their participation.

This research paper argues that class engagement and participation is a process that must be learned by students. To this end, it presents a case exercise process designed particularly for the introduction to management class that helps students to learn and apply management theory while increasing their engagement. While each element of the process is not new, the integration of the elements into a process that is structured and repeated throughout the semester adds value to student participation. Empirical data demonstrated that students increased their participation in classes that used the case exercise process over traditional lecture classes.

This paper is relevant for faculty members seeking to use case exercises in teaching undergraduate management courses, particularly introductory management courses.

This case serves as an introduction to the concept of economic value added (EVA). The student is placed in the position of Valmont's CFO to decide whether EVA can live up to its promise to motivate managers to act like shareholders and ultimately lead them to make value-enhancing decisions that can reverse Valmont's weak earnings and lackluster stock-price performance. The case works best if students are acquainted with the concepts of cost of capital and net present value. The teaching note that is available for registered faculty explains how to incorporate the accompanying six-minute video supplement.

The case compares two U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) programs from the 1970s and 1980s: (1) “stealth” combat aircraft, capable of evading detection or engagement by anti-aircraft systems, and (2) precision attack of hardened ground vehicles from “standoff” distances, i.e., far behind the battle lines. Conceived at roughly the same time, motivated by the same strategic challenge, and initially driven by the same DoD organization, stealth combat aircraft progressed from idea to deployment in less than eight years---an astounding pace for a complex military system---while a demonstrated system for standoff precision strike against mobile ground targets was not fully implemented. The case highlights the critical role of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), part of the DoD, regarded as one of the most innovative entities in the U.S. federal government.

The case highlights factors that facilitate rapid, successful implementation of radically innovative or disruptive concepts. Students are introduced to the organizational realities facing such projects, including issues of strategic clarity, interdepartmental competition and cooperation, executive leadership, and timing. Comparing the differences in implementation of the two programs in the case reveals issues relevant to any large organization seeking to bring innovative concepts to fruition.