Search results

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.

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?

This case describes the evolution of an entrepreneur's venture-capital fund-raising from seed-stage financing through later-round efforts. The case focuses on where the “action” is in venture finance: the exploitation of social capital by an entrepreneur and investors. Much of the teaching materials on venture finance focus on the economics of financing; while these materials provide useful information about the mechanics of valuation and how to structure venture-capital agreements, they miss the social side of venture-capital investing. The case illustrates the theoretical concept that social capital (i.e., a person's relationship to other people in society) influences venture finance. The case can be used in a class on entrepreneurship or venture finance.