Search results

This case explores the turnaround and corporate renewal of the Chicago Blackhawks professional hockey team, which transformed from one of the worst-run organizations in all of professional sports in 2007 to one that won the Stanley Cup (the National Hockey League championship trophy) in 2010. W. Rockwell “Rocky” Wirtz was faced with making critical decisions shortly after inheriting the team from his father, who was the individual most associated with the organization's decline. The team faced financial trouble and had narrowly avoided missing payroll; the previous customer relations strategy (which included refusing to televise home games or to conduct effective marketing) had resulted in significantly diminished brand value; and management and player personnel were devoid of effective leadership. At its nadir, the team was named “The Worst Franchise in Professional Sports” by ESPN in 2004. After assuming control, Rocky embarked on an ambitious corporate renewal strategy that included the following components: leadership: install a new management team with clear goals and creative ideas about how to turn around the organization; culture: reward players for accomplishing their goals and establish a performance-based culture; financial: seek new corporate sponsorships and increase ticket prices once the team established a winning record; and brand and marketing: send a clear message that the team was intent upon winning the championship and design a customer-focused marketing strategy.

After analyzing the case, students should be able to: recommend strategic, financial, and operational changes needed to turn around the organization, and identify key leadership qualities that enable execution of a turnaround plan.

By early 2009 Starbucks had nearly 17,000 stores worldwide, with about a third of these outside the United States. Despite multibillion-dollar annual revenues, the giant coffee retailer's yearly growth had declined by half, quarterly earnings had dropped as much as 97 percent, same-store sales were negative, and its stock price was languishing. Factors such as a global economic downturn and increasing competition in the specialty coffee market from large players such as McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts had driven this decline, resulting in the closings of hundreds of domestic stores already, with many more planned. Founder Howard Schultz, who had recently returned as CEO, and his executive team were convinced that Starbucks's growth opportunities lay overseas, where the firm already had a strong foothold in markets like Japan and the United Kingdom and was preparing to open hundreds of new stores in a variety of locations. But recent international challenges, including the closing of most Australian stores due to sluggish sales, made clear that Starbucks had more to learn about bringing its value proposition—a combination of premium coffee, superior service, and a “coffeehouse experience”—to foreign soil. The key question was not whether Starbucks could transport its value proposition overseas, but how the value proposition's three elements would play in recently entered and new markets. And the stakes of making the right international moves rose with each U.S. store closure. Schultz and his team also faced a broader question, one that applied to both their U.S. and foreign stores: Could they “grow big and stay small,” remaining a huge retailer that delivered both high-quality products and a consistently intimate and enjoyable experience to consumers worldwide? This case presents this challenge in the context of Starbucks's history, well-established value proposition, and domestic and international growth and vision.

The key objectives of the case focus on the successful growth of local city brand, to a country brand, to a global brand, leaving the questions: 1. How much more can it grow? 2. Can it? 3. What is the impact of new competitors in a given market and/or the impact of the global economy on discretionary spending by a loyal customer base? 4. How important is it to the sustain a brand's core value(s) proposition when innovating for new audiences and customer preferences?