The chief executive officer of Ridlr, a mobile application (app), faced a new challenge in 2019. Ridlr was a subsidiary of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which was a major player in India's transportation-as-a-service sector and also owned Ola, a ride-hailing app. The chief executive officer envisioned Ridlr becoming the preferred information and mobile ticketing option for India's public transportation modes. He wanted to successfully position the firm to grow from 600 million annual transactions in 2019 to 6 billion in 2022. He was confident in the firm's value proposition to serve the large consumer base, but he wasn't convinced that direct monetization through consumers was the best option. Although the business-to-business channels of transporters and technology service providers offered some opportunities at monetization, how could Ridlr gain access to that value? The chief executive officer needed to prepare a product and marketing strategy that would ensure both growth and monetization. Where should he begin?
In December 2018, Hindustan Unilever Limited announced that it would buy out GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Consumer Healthcare Ltd. India business, which included popular brands such as Horlicks, Boost, and Viva. With Horlicks in its portfolio, Hindustan Unilever Limited expected to gain market share, draw synergies from individual strengths, and gain access to a larger consumer base. However, India's health food drink category had registered only single-digit growth in 2017. Its primary target audience of parents, physicians, and nutritionists had concerns regarding the side effects of sugar as a key ingredient in beverages such as Horlicks. With consumer focus shifting to healthier, preservative-free alternatives, among other issues, Hindustan Unilever Limited was faced with a challenge: how could it build on Horlicks's brand equity to sustain its leadership position in the disrupting health food drink market, leverage its leadership position to grow the company in this segment, and take that growth to double digits?
In October 2018, the founder of NutriHealth started to think about the next phase of her company's growth strategy. NutriHealth began as a stand-alone clinic in 1998 and was a service provider of personalized wellness and health management diet plans. It was time to make decisions that would lead to sustained growth. NutriHealth had reached a satisfactory position in the market, and investors had become interested in the venture, offering capital. There were many options to explore, and the founder wanted to find the best approach in choosing a growth pathway.
This case examines the financial performance of Bob's Baloney, a leader in the ultrapremium bologna market. While the business appears to be doing well with respect to most of its stakeholders, its largest equity investor has recently expressed strong dissatisfaction with the company's financial performance. Students are invited to examine the financial statements and ratios associated with the business to understand the source of the underperformance and to provide recommendations for business policy changes.
In January 2019, Florian vom Bruch was brought in as the first external CEO to lead the privately-held luxury watch winder and safe company, BUBEN&ZORWEG. The founders, Harald Buben and Christian Zörweg, driven by a passion for adventure, a keen ear for market needs and a canny eye for seeing and seizing opportunities, had successfully brought the company so far. However, they wanted BUBEN&ZORWEG to go to the next level of growth and had brought in Florian to help them double turnover by 2025. Florian's first mandate: to create and execute a growth strategy for the company. What was at the heart of the firm's distinctive advantage? In which segments and markets should BUBEN&ZORWEG expand?
Owing to its intangible nature and oligopolistic structure, the Media & Entertainment industry used to seem particularly difficulty to disrupt, and Disney was sitting right at the top. Yet, ten years after Netflix launched its online video streaming service, incumbents acknowledged that surviving the online revolution requires drastic changes. Until 2017, Disney had not taken the threat seriously. Its streaming strategy could be described as exploratory, at best: It had a 30% stake in Hulu, a third-party streaming platform jointly owned by media giants, and it sold its "old" content to Netflix. However, as Disney's cable partners (e.g., Comcast) started to lose millions of highly profitable subscribers, the company realized that its half-hearted approach to online streaming was a recipe for disaster. That year marked the turnaround of Disney's approach to streaming. First, it shocked the world in August, when it announced that it would gradually withdraw its movie content from Netflix. That same month, it revealed it had taken a controlling stake in BAMTech, a technology company providing streaming video technology. Finally, in December, it announced its intention to acquire 21st Century Fox in a deal that closed 15 months later, giving it a controlling stake in Hulu and greatly expanding Disney's already formidable content library. With the nomination of Kevin Mayer at the helm of DTCI in March 2018, Disney realized its intention to transition into a B2C company. However, it was going to be a long road for Mayer, who faced both external and internal challenges. The case explores Mayer's options to succeed in a rapidly evolving marketplace in which former partners and internet giants have become the competitors. It also examines how Mayer can position DTCI within Disney, addressing the complexities of collaborating with other business units and the potential cannibalization of the Media Networks division.
Matt Barnard, CEO of the indoor vertical farming company Plenty, analyzed the agricultural supply chain in the United States and determined it had a four-pronged problem that people would pay to have solved: flavor, waste, environmental footprint, and nutrition. So, in 2014, Barnard and his cofounders incorporated the business that is now Plenty: a technology company that aimed to reshape the inefficient, but entrenched, agriculture sector and build a global brand by selling fresher, tastier, and more nutritious produce. By early 2020, Plenty had 300+ employees and had attracted hundreds of millions in investment from the likes of Bezos Expeditions, Innovation Endeavors, and SoftBank Vision Fund and had a valuation of $1.05 billion. This case details Plenty's journey from an idea to a path-breaking company that is disrupting the field of agriculture and valued at over a billion dollars.
By January 2020, sustainable investment firm Generation Investment Management (Generation), founded in London in 2004, had grown from a shared vision among seven founders to a 90-person firm managing $27 billion in public and private equity. Throughout its history, Generation had worked towards its mission of seeking to generate superior financial returns by investing in sustainable companies that created long-term value. The case examines Generation's investment process in general, and in particular with respect to a global manufacturer of agricultural equipment. It also examines some of the strategic decisions and challenges facing the firm.
The case discusses the international expansion strategy of The WeWork Company (WeWork), a co-working space company. In the United States and Europe, the expansion of WeWork occurred through greenfield investment; membership focus was on freelancers and entrepreneurs. In Asian markets such as India, where WeWork entered through a joint venture, enterprise customers were the revenue generators. In June 2019, a co-founder of WeWork considered buying the entire stake of its partner in the Indian joint venture. However, given that revenues continuously remained lower than losses, investors doubted the expansion strategy and business model of WeWork. Should WeWork’s pace of expansion be slowed? Can WeWork’s business model be revamped for more profitable returns, and if so, should it?
In 2019, the managing director of Sarva Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, a pharmaceutical company based in India, was considering an expansion of his company by entering the growing pharmaceutical market in Myanmar. He needed to identify the best way to execute this expansion plan, assess whether his company’s product range was adequate and suitable for the Myanmar market, prepare for possible risks and cross-cultural marketing issues, and plan the management staffing approaches in Myanmar.
This case set follows Eric and Holly Nelson, founders of Special Hope Network, a nonprofit organization providing holistic therapy services for children with intellectual disabilities and their families in Lusaka, Zambia. Eric, a pastor, and Holly, a special needs teacher, had previously adopted three children with Down syndrome and moved to Zambia to form this enterprise. They worked hard to overcome systemic obstacles to their mission, including a cultural bias against bringing children with intellectual disabilities out in public; a feeling that the family was to blame for the child's disabilities; a scarcity of qualified therapists; and a variety of economic and regulatory factors. Having originally relied on donations from US-based friends and family, they needed to finance their therapy centers, which were targeted to low-income Zambian families, and were highly subsidized. Options they explored included fundraising with local businesses, "child sponsoring" on their website, grant writing, teaching other educators and nonprofits, and tourism fundraising. This A case takes place in 2012, when the Nelsons are considering opening a for-profit resource center, marketed to middle- and upper-class Zambians. It explores the viability of this option, and asks, "Does a for-profit resource center fit with our mission to serve the neediest children?" This case is suitable for an undergraduate, graduate, or executive education class on nonprofit management or strategy. The focus is the alignment of a firm's activities, and whether they support its core mission-which can sometimes have a different answer depending on whether the firm is for profit or nonprofit.
This case set follows Eric and Holly Nelson, founders of Special Hope Network, a nonprofit organization providing holistic therapy services for children with intellectual disabilities and their families in Lusaka, Zambia. Eric, a pastor, and Holly, a special needs teacher, had previously adopted three children with Down syndrome and moved to Zambia to form this enterprise. They worked hard to overcome systemic obstacles to their mission, including a cultural bias against bringing children with intellectual disabilities out in public; a feeling that the family was to blame for the child's disabilities; a scarcity of qualified therapists; and a variety of economic and regulatory factors. Having originally relied on donations from US-based friends and family, they needed to finance their therapy centers, which were targeted to low-income Zambian families, and were highly subsidized. Options they explored included fundraising with local businesses, "child sponsoring" on their website, grant writing, teaching other educators and nonprofits, and tourism fundraising. In the B and C cases, which take place between 2018 and 2019, it is revealed that while the for-profit resource center did provide a number of valuable intangible benefits, it was ultimately not profitable. This case is suitable for an undergraduate, graduate, or executive education class on nonprofit management or strategy. The focus is the alignment of a firm's activities, and whether they support its core mission-which can sometimes have a different answer depending on whether the firm is for profit or nonprofit.
This case set follows Eric and Holly Nelson, founders of Special Hope Network, a nonprofit organization providing holistic therapy services for children with intellectual disabilities and their families in Lusaka, Zambia. Eric, a pastor, and Holly, a special needs teacher, had previously adopted three children with Down syndrome and moved to Zambia to form this enterprise. They worked hard to overcome systemic obstacles to their mission, including a cultural bias against bringing children with intellectual disabilities out in public; a feeling that the family was to blame for the child's disabilities; a scarcity of qualified therapists; and a variety of economic and regulatory factors. Having originally relied on donations from US-based friends and family, they needed to finance their therapy centers, which were targeted to low-income Zambian families, and were highly subsidized. Options they explored included fundraising with local businesses, "child sponsoring" on their website, grant writing, teaching other educators and nonprofits, and tourism fundraising. In the B and C cases, which take place between 2018 and 2019, it is revealed that while the for-profit resource center did provide a number of valuable intangible benefits, it was ultimately not profitable. This case is suitable for an undergraduate, graduate, or executive education class on nonprofit management or strategy. The focus is the alignment of a firm's activities, and whether they support its core mission-which can sometimes have a different answer depending on whether the firm is for profit or nonprofit.
The US-China trade war in 2019 led to major shifts in global trade and supply chains, highlighting the recent trend in deglobalization. This case discusses the patterns of international trade and capital flows across the two countries, determinants of trade imbalances, and the role of national savings, policies, institutions, and exchange rates. The material allows for an examination of several factors, including the broader context of tech competition between China and the United States. The case raises a series of questions around the uncertainty the trade war created, the impact of tariffs on both economies, and diverging views from the two sides on who is winning. The case has been successfully taught in second-year MBA classes and executive training programs on global economies and markets.
The case discusses the international expansion strategy of The WeWork Company (WeWork), a co-working space company. In the United States and Europe, the expansion of WeWork occurred through greenfield investment; membership focus was on freelancers and entrepreneurs. In Asian markets such as India, where WeWork entered through a joint venture, enterprise customers were the revenue generators. In June 2019, a co-founder of WeWork considered buying the entire stake of its partner in the Indian joint venture. However, given that revenues continuously remained lower than losses, investors doubted the expansion strategy and business model of WeWork. Should WeWork's pace of expansion be slowed? Can WeWork's business model be revamped for more profitable returns, and if so, should it?
In 2019, the managing director of Sarva Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, a pharmaceutical company based in India, was considering an expansion of his company by entering the growing pharmaceutical market in Myanmar. He needed to identify the best way to execute this expansion plan, assess whether his company's product range was adequate and suitable for the Myanmar market, prepare for possible risks and cross-cultural marketing issues, and plan the management staffing approaches in Myanmar.
In July 2019, Green Trend Holdings Co. Ltd. (Green Trend) faced a difficult situation with regard to flaws in the preparation of its proposed initial public offering on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. According to the remedy measures raised by the underwriter facilitating the initial public offering process, Green Trend needed to raise additional capital of ¥1 billion with a proposed annual interest rate of about 30 per cent. Of course, the company could have postponed the initial public offering; however, without the long-awaited return following a successful initial public offering, all the efforts taken in past years would be in vain. The uncertainty of the capital market would further complicate the future road to an initial public offering. Did Green Trend have better alternatives?
This case looks at the product shortages of N95 and N99 masks, hand sanitizers and wipes as a result of a new coronavirus, COVID-19. Students have to respond to the question: What are some alternate strategies to control product shortages and how do they impact consumers and disease control?
THRIVE's mission was to accelerate, invest in, and work with entrepreneurs, investors, and Fortune 500 corporations to advance the future of food and agriculture through innovation. Comprised of top agriculture, food and technology corporations, universities, and investors, THRIVE had built a community of more than 2500 startups from 90 countries. With John Hartnett as CEO and Helen Hartnett as COO, THRIVE ran an accelerator, a fund, and, in partnership with Forbes, a major agricultural technology (agtech) summit. Interest in its mission and services seemed to be growing exponentially. Indeed, the sector was generating so much excitement that THRIVE was inundated with a diverse set of opportunities and calls for its founders' mindshare. Excited as they were about the opportunities before them, John and Helen were beginning to feel as if they held a rubber band that was getting increasingly stretched. "Business has grown substantially," explained John, "400 or 500 percent, and it's going really, really well. So we're sitting here in 2020 thinking: How do we expand without bringing ourselves down to our knees?" This case explores THRIVE's options as it looked to expand both domestically and around the world.