Search results
1 – 5 of 5One of the major issues present in this case is whether there is significant industry pressure to internationalize. Yip’s (1989) global strategy drivers are a helpful approach for…
Abstract
Theoretical basis
One of the major issues present in this case is whether there is significant industry pressure to internationalize. Yip’s (1989) global strategy drivers are a helpful approach for examining this issue. This case also applies two important marketing concepts – the product life cycle and diffusion of innovation theory – and how differences across international markets impact these concepts. Finally, there are significant cultural issues at play in this case as well. Theoretical models of national culture, such as Hofstede, Hall and others, can be used to examine cultural influences on an industry that is not often associated with culture.
Research methodology
The case is based upon a combination of secondary research and primary research. The lead researcher and a team of graduate students conducted interviews with Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LP) executives in the USA and Chile in 2017.
Case overview/synopsis
This three-part case examines the internationalization of LP into South America. Case A begins in 1999 as LP attempts to decide whether to take its oriented strand board product international. The reader is asked to consider where LP should go in South America. Case B examines the factors LP used to decide to enter Chile and then outlines the key decisions that led to its impressive growth between 2000 and 2015. Case C begins in 2015 as LP now considers whether to expand its markets into Argentina or Colombia.
Complexity academic level
Given the complexity of issues raised in the case and the need to narrow these issues down to an implementable decision, this case is most appropriate later in the schedule of a graduate or executive-level business course in international business or international marketing.
Details
Keywords
Eric T. Anderson and Elizabeth Anderson
From 2002 to 2011, coffee-machine manufacturer Keurig Incorporated had grown from a privately held company with just over $20 million in revenues and a plan to enter the single…
Abstract
From 2002 to 2011, coffee-machine manufacturer Keurig Incorporated had grown from a privately held company with just over $20 million in revenues and a plan to enter the single serve coffee arena for home consumers, to a wholly owned subsidiary of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., a publicly traded company with net revenues of $1.36 billion and a market capitalization of between $8 and $9 billion. In 2003 Keurig had introduced its first At Home brewer. Now, approximately 25 percent of all coffee makers sold in the United States were Keurig-branded machines, and Keurig was recognized as among the leaders in the marketplace. The company had just concluded agreements with both Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks that would make these retailers' coffee available for use with Keurig's specialized brewing system. The company faced far different challenges than when it was a small, unknown marketplace entrant. John Whoriskey, vice president and general manager of Keurig's At Home division, had to consider the impact that impending expiration of key technology patents and the perceived environmental impact of the K-Cup® portion packs would have on the company's growth. Whoriskey also wondered what Keurig's growth potential was, and how the new arrangements with Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts could be leveraged to achieve it.
Details
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1562e/1562e967296a8d8329bf59e30a25295b583517d4" alt="Kellogg School of Management"
Keywords
Robert F. Bruner, Laurie Simon Hodrick and Sean Carr
At three o'clock in the morning on September 10, 2001, Thierry Hautillac, a risk arbitrageur, learns of the final agreement between Pinault-Printemps-Redoute SA (“PPR”) and LVMH…
Abstract
At three o'clock in the morning on September 10, 2001, Thierry Hautillac, a risk arbitrageur, learns of the final agreement between Pinault-Printemps-Redoute SA (“PPR”) and LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA (“LVMH”). After a contest for control of Gucci lasting over two years, PPR has emerged as the winner. PPR and LVMH have agreed for PPR to buy about half of LVMH's stock in Gucci for $94 per share, for Gucci to pay an extraordinary dividend of $7 per share, and for PPR to give a two and a half year put option with a strike price of $101.50 to the public shareholders in Gucci. The primary task for the student in this case is to recommend a course of action for Hautillac: should he sell his 2% holding of Gucci shares when the market opens, continue to hold his shares, or buy more shares? The student must estimate the risky arbitrage returns from each of these choices. As a basis for this decision, the student must value the terms of payment and consider what the Gucci stock price will do upon the market's open. The student must determine the intrinsic value of Gucci using a DCF model as well as information on peer firms and transactions. The student must consider potential synergies between Gucci and PPR and between Gucci and LVMH. The student must assess the likelihood of a higher bid, using analysis of price changes at earlier events in the contest for clues.
Details
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8cdcd/8cdcd5ff076a51fece9e90a863b0300fd5587544" alt="University of Virginia Darden School Foundation"
Keywords
Nicolas Kervyn, Michael Breazeale and Iskra Herak
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…
Abstract
Synopsis
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.
Research methodology
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).
Relevant courses and levels
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.
Theoretical bases
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.
Details
Keywords
Daniel Diermeier and Gregory L. Hughes
United Learning is a family-owned leader in the K-12 supplementary teaching material market. In January 2001, United Learning realized that sales for one of its flagship products…
Abstract
United Learning is a family-owned leader in the K-12 supplementary teaching material market. In January 2001, United Learning realized that sales for one of its flagship products, a drug and prevention program, were rapidly deteriorating because the program was not mentioned on a recently released U.S. Department of Education list of recommended products. United Learning must decide on which action to take: regain sales or focus on its other educational products—which are also threatened by changes in the regulatory environment.
Details
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1562e/1562e967296a8d8329bf59e30a25295b583517d4" alt="Kellogg School of Management"