Search results

Learning outcomes are as follows: understanding the difference between brand identity and brand image; applying various segmentation tools; understanding the appeal of the aspirational brand and its consequence on private and public consumption; exploring the strategic options available to a brand facing a brand appropriation; exploring the pros and cons of opposing a brand appropriation; and developing a plan for the implementation of this strategy.

This case will help students understand the difference between the brand identity that the brand owners intend and the brand image that consumers actually perceive.

This case is designed to be used in marketing management, brand strategy or consumer culture course. Specifically, the case is designed for college seniors or master students with basic strategic marketing training. It should provide the basis of discussions on the topics of brand management, consumer culture, brand portfolio management, international marketing, repositioning strategy, brand architecture, brand equity, brand assets, brand appropriation and consumer relationships with brands.

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 8: Marketing

Cara Pils is the private label beer brand of Colruyt, the biggest supermarket retailer in Belgium. As a true private label brand, Cara Pils has never been advertised. In 2015, Colruyt undertook an initiative to reposition its numerous private label brands under two larger private label brands. Unexpectedly, customers were incensed by this initiative, came out in droves and took the matter to social media hoping to lament the demise of their beloved brand. This case study investigates the roots of this strong brand attachment and the consequences for its brand management.

This case is built on primary (one in-depth interview and two focus group) as well as secondary data sources (previous research and web information).

This case is designed to be used in a marketing management or brand strategy course for students that already followed an introduction to marketing course or for students at a master level.

This case should provide the basis of discussions on the topics of brand management, private-label brands, repositioning strategy, brand portfolio management, brand architecture, brand equity, brand elements, brand nostalgia, and consumers’ relationships with brands.

This case covers the scandal that occurred in 2008 at Société Générale when one trader, Jérôme Kerviel, lost the prominent French bank nearly €5 billion through his unauthorized trading. The case describes Kerviel’s schemes as well as SocGen’s internal monitoring and reporting processes, organizational structures, and culture so that students reading the case can identify and discuss the shortcomings of the firm’s risk management practices. The case and epilogue also describe the French government’s and Finance Minister Christine Lagarde’s reactions to the scandal (e.g., imposition of a €4 million fine and increased regulations), prompting students to consider the role of government in overseeing that healthy risk management practices are followed in key industries (such as banking) that are highly entwined with entire economies. Finally, the case encourages students—during class discussion—to critically consider whether it is truly possible for one rogue trader to act alone, which elements in a work environment enable or even encourage risky behavior, and who should be held accountable when such scandals occur. Interestingly, this case highlights a story that is not unique. Prior to Kerviel’s transgressions were the similar scandals of Nick Leeson at Barings Bank and Toshihide Iguchi at Daiwa Bank, yet history has repeated itself. This case gives students a vivid example of the dangers of internal, self-inflicted risk on organizations, and it opens a discussion on how to avoid it.

After completing this case, students will be able to:

• Identify shortcomings in a firm’s risk management practices (i.e., processes, systems, structures)

• Evaluate the role and interests of governments as well as peer firms in overseeing healthy risk management practices in an industry

• Understand the dangers of self-inflicted risk and consider the elements in an organization (e.g., leadership, compensation structure, incentives, recruiting) that impact its risk environment

Identify shortcomings in a firm’s risk management practices (i.e., processes, systems, structures)

Evaluate the role and interests of governments as well as peer firms in overseeing healthy risk management practices in an industry

Understand the dangers of self-inflicted risk and consider the elements in an organization (e.g., leadership, compensation structure, incentives, recruiting) that impact its risk environment

Sara Lee Corporation's acquisition binge in the 1980s and 1990s left the company with a portfolio of vastly different businesses operating independently of one another. It had experienced rapid top-line growth, but at the same time cash flows had declined. Sara Lee ignored both internal and external warning signs until a major transformation plan became necessary. This case examines the company's multiple turnaround attempts. The learning objective of the case is to analyze “early stage” turnaround efforts by examining how the company found itself in decline, evaluating its attempts to improve its performance, and assessing the turnaround plan.

(1) Learn to identify a specific challenging moment when reading and analyzing a turnaround plan; (2) address the implementation problems of an early stage turnaround and discuss exit options; (3) evaluate when a change of long-held beliefs and decades-long strategy by a company is warranted; (4) evaluate Sara Lee's marketing strategies in light of the disappointed retail and wholesale customers; and (5) show the similarities in traits between turnaround managers and high-growth entrepreneurs.

This case examines the formation of an alliance between Fiat and Chrysler during the height of the financial crisis as a mechanism to save Chrysler from liquidation. The case traces the events leading up to the alliance, discusses the early stage issues with which the partners have to deal, addresses some of the governance issues, and examines the past merger between Chrysler and Daimler that ended in a failure. The case presents a normative approach to alliance management and conjectures about the success of the Fiat-Chrysler alliance. We address whether Chrysler is a suitable partner and whether there is a strong enough rationale for the alliance and whether the two partners are compatible. Finally, the case explores the lessons learned and the cautions that might derail the alliance.