Search results

Marketing, Pricing, Strategic marketing.

The case is developed for an MBA-level program.

In May 2017, the telecom industry in India witnessed an intense price war over 4G (fourth generation) data prices. Gopal Vittal, CEO of Bharti Airtel was exploring various options on how best to respond to the situation. He had to take a final call regarding Bharti Airtel’s marketing team’s counter move to tackle this price war by Jio – should Bharti Airtel ignore it, accommodate it or retaliate with even lower prices? Bharti Airtel strongly believed that Jio pricing structure had violated “fair pricing” norms, and its pricing was anti-competitive. It had filed a case with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to restrain Jio from further giving “free” promotional offers and penalize it for it. Could the legal recourse by Bharti Airtel dampen Jio’s consistent subscriber growth rate?

The case provides the students with an insight into how the competition focused on pricing happens in the telecom industry. The pricing war affects the profit margin of all competing companies. It changes the customer reference point for evaluating the competing products and services. The students would also learn practical applications of positive-sum pricing, pricing war, fair pricing and legal aspects of pricing. This case provides the students with an opportunity to understand the pricing war and how to respond to it in a particular situation; understand positive-sum pricing and negative-sum pricing in telecom industry context; understand legal aspects of pricing; and how to leverage data for gaining newer customer insights.

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.

Pricing of natural gas in India suffers from asymmetry because of the presence of limited suppliers having byzantine contracts. The oligopolistic market combined with price regulation results in welfare losses, and market failure. We argue that for the sake of long-term development of natural gas sector in fast developing economies like India, the long-run marginal cost (LRMC) seems to be the most suitable pricing policy. In the case analysis, we present a theoretical framework of calculating LRMC while acknowledging that the conditions necessary for a ‘first-best world’ rarely exist. We conclude that it is very much possible to gradually move from the existing ad-hoc pricing mechanism to a more robust LRMC regime that takes into account not just the production cost but also a scarcity premium as well as any externalities resulting from the natural-gas fuel cycle. The outcome based on our model compares very well with the one from the Rangarajan Committee's formula that got the government's nod recently for fixing of price of indigenously produced natural gas, to be effective from 01st April 2014.

The Tata owned Coastal Gujarat Power Limited is seeking to reopen Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with state owned distribution utilities because of increase in imported coal prices resulting from a change in Indonesian laws. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has decided to provide relief through a “compensatory tariff”. This is opposed by the power purchasers. Simultaneously, another Reliance Energy owned power project is seeking relief from unprecedented change in exchange rates using the CGPL decision as a precedent. The CERC and the power purchasers have to decide what to do next.

Business contracts are done on General Conditions of Contracts (GCC). The GCCs have detailed terms to displace general principles of contract law and bring certainty in commercial dealings. Bunge SA v Nidera BV, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on damages terms in GCCs. A term on damages may not be a comprehensive code, answering all questions on damages. In this case, the general principles will survive and interact and interface with the contract terms to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.

The case was compiled using secondary research, including the following sources, all of which are cited in the References List section of the case: Company annual reports, press releases and company websites and news media, podcasts, video recordings, websites of trade associations and other public domain sources.

This case highlights the decisions facing Moderna, Inc. (Moderna) related to pricing of its COVID-19 vaccine in the European Union (EU) in July of 2021. The CEO, Stéphane Bancel, must balance the need for improving shareholder returns with the call to act responsibly during a global pandemic. Should Moderna raise prices or hold prices constant? What other options might be available to the CEO?

At the authors’ institute, instructors use this case in a second-year marketing elective in pricing at the MBA level. Within the elective, the case enables a discussion on concepts of value realization through pricing and leadership decision strategies. The case may also be used in at the Executive MBA level, in a course of strategic leadership.

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows:

1. the benefits of differential pricing over uniform pricing;

2. the differences between second- and third-degree price discrimination;

3. the rationale for charging different prices for segments having different willingness to pay; and

4. how different prices for the same product can lead to perceptions of unfairness and how companies might manage such an issue.

This case outlines the decisions that Adar Poonawalla, the CEO of Serum Institute of India (Serum), had to make in late April 2021 concerning its pricing for the COVID-19 (Covid) vaccine. Serum was the world’s largest manufacturer of vaccines, and its Covishield vaccine had received regulatory approval, but faced an unusual challenge and opportunity. In most countries, governments had procured Covid vaccines from manufacturers and then delivered the vaccines to consumers free of cost. But in India, there was a three-tier pricing system. While the Government of India had committed to free vaccines in government-run public hospitals, it also allowed vaccine makers to directly sell vaccines to state governments, as well as private hospitals, who were at liberty to charge consumers for the vaccines. This created an interesting pricing dilemma for Serum: as different customers had different willingness to pay, should Serum use differential pricing? Would such a tiered pricing system be considered fair? How many different price points should Serum maintain? By exploring these and related decisions that Poonawalla had to make, the case is intended to teach price discrimination.

The case is intended for graduate-level courses in marketing, pricing and economics. This case illustrates the principles of differential pricing/price discrimination. More specifically, it highlights pricing strategies motivated by second- and third-degree price discrimination in an emerging market’s health-care context. From the information in the case, the student can learn to apply the concepts of second- and third-degree price discrimination in marketing. After working through the case and assignment questions, instructors will be able to help students understand the following concepts:

Teaching objective 1: the benefits of differential pricing over uniform pricing.

Teaching objective 2: the differences between second- and third-degree price discrimination.

Teaching objective 3: the rationale for charging different prices for segments having different willingness to pay.

Teaching objective 4: how different prices for the same product can lead to perceptions of unfairness and how companies might manage such an issue.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 8: Marketing

The case delves into supply, demand, price gouging, hoarding and capabilities of the firm. The theories/concepts and a short overview are covered below. These theories and concepts are then referenced as appropriate in the “Answers to Discussion Questions” section as follows: Supply Demand Theory; Price Gouging, Speculation and Hoarding; Resources, Capabilities and Activities; Friedman’s and Porter’s view of goals of a firm; Corporate Social Responsibility.

The case was motivated after a discussion with Mr Matthew Roberts, who is the Chief Operating Officer of SPR Industries. Several subsequent interviews were conducted with Matt. Matt also became the chief protagonist of the case. Matt provided multiple quotes and anecdotes. The protagonist Matt and the focal organization (SPR Industries) are disguised. The financial figures have also been disguised using a multiplier. However, the material facts of the case are authentic.

This case sheds light on the impact of the COVID pandemic on a small business in the personal protective equipment industry. The students will get an understanding of the supply and demand forces in a market. Furthermore, the case bears out how unpredictable situations such as the pandemic lead to speculation and price gouging opportunities but not in all products affected by it. The case explores the corporate social responsibility (CSR) of firms regarding price gouging in their products. Students will also get an appreciation of how an industry and its participants change in response to such black swan events as the COVID pandemic. Finally, the case presents a small enterprise’s decision choices â?? Should they maintain the status quo, become a sub-broker or become a wholesaler.

This case is designed to target undergraduate students of strategic management or entrepreneurship. It could be appropriate for upper level courses such as Strategic Management, Small Business Management and maybe even Family Business Management. It could be taught in the latter half of the course after the basic concepts have been covered. This case could bring together many of the concepts into a real-life setting.

Yo Bike is selling scooters to commuters, housewives and students at a price (including battery) that is the same as that of petrol scooters. The key question faced by the manage is how to formulate and communicate the price to target customers to enhance probability of purchase.

Adani Power Limited (A) is the first case in a series of cases on the attempts by the firm to wriggle out of negative consequences of long-term fixed price power purchase agreements it had entered into. The firm wanted to terminate the agreement on the ground that its bid was based on coal allocation by another Government owned entity. This case describes as to how the firm was unable to get the contract terminated due to regulatory interventions. The case also raises public policy issues including the robustness of guidelines for procurement of power.

This case can be used to help students achieve the following objectives: To project financial statements and assemble different pieces of financial information to create a valuation model (objective #1, create), To calculate a value for Arcor shares, supporting the estimated value with the chosen assumptions and methodologies (objective #2, evaluate), To draw connections between four different approaches to valuation (DCF, EVA, RV and VI), contrasting them and weighting their advantages and limitations (objective #3, analyze), To examine the relationship between forecasted financial statements and valuation (objective #3, analyze), To discuss the calculation of the Weighted Average Cost of Capital in a new situation as is an emerging economy, with the corresponding country-risk adjustment (objective #4, apply), To discuss the sources of value creation in a family-owned private company in a developing economy (objective #4, apply), To understand the dilemma that the head of a company was facing, identifying the three possible financing alternatives discussed in the text as follows: corporate bonds, earnings reinvestment and an IPO (objective #5, understand). To recall basic facts, as the main character’s opinion on the direction of the local economy or the fact that Arcor already complies with the information requirements of a public company (objective #7, remember).

This case is based on the valuation of the world’s largest candy maker, Arcor S.A.I.C., originally a Latin American company, which remains a private family business. The key problem presented by the case is the use of different valuation approaches to price Arcor shares, in view of a possible Initial Public Offer. The case illustrates the application of four main valuation approaches as follows: Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), Economic Value Added (EVA), Relative Valuation (RV) and Value Investing (VI). Additionally, it includes a fundamental analysis of eight years of historical financial information and the preparation of forecasted financial statements. Set in a developing economy, the Arcor case introduces the complexities of calculating the cost of capital with the inclusion of country risk, as well as the financial analysis distortions caused by an environment of high inflation.

The Arcor case is appropriate to be used in graduate courses of Corporate Finance, Valuation or Private Equity.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.