個案總覽

This case describes Walmart's omnichannel strategy in 2018 as it battled Amazon for online retail market share. The case discusses Walmart's early forays into online retail, as well as its 2018 strategy, which aimed to integrate Walmart's enormous brick and mortar footprint with its growing ecommerce business, e.g., through merchandise and grocery delivery and order online, pickup in store options. Walmart's strategy also included the acquistion of Jet.com (in 2016) as well as the acquistion of a number of other specialty eretailers (e.g., Shoes.com, Moosejaw, Bare Necessities) and digitally-native vertical brands that developed their own products and sold them directly to consumers, such as ModCloth, Bonobos, and Eloquii. In addition to building its online marketplace, Walmart hoped to leverage its existing assets, such as its massive network of retail stores and thriving grocery business, in the fight against Amazon. The case poses the question: Could Walmart successfully compete against Amazon and other online retailers in areas such as grocery delivery, product selection, shipping costs, and delivery times?

In 2013, the Swiss sports data company Sportradar debated whether to expand from its core business of data provision to bookmakers into sports media products. Sports data was becoming a commodity, and in the future, sports leagues might reduce their dependence on third-party data feeds such as Sportradar's, prefering to develop data services in-house. Thus, CEO Carsten Koerl believed the company needed to branch into sports media, not just supplying data to companies, but finding ways to tell stories about that data. However, Sportradar's core business was thriving, whereas a recent attempt to branch out into video player tracking systems had proved a costly failure. The team weighed the pros and cons of various media ventures, including online sports betting minigames, a social media site, and streaming of sports content.

This case follows up on the competition between Kmart and Walmart as discussed in the A case. It summarizes the companies' positions in the early 2000s, and discusses events between 1990 and Kmart's declaration of bankruptcy in 2002. Walmart grew significantly, expanded internationally, and became a leading player in groceries. However, it also faced criticism regarding its wage and labor practices. Meanwhile, Kmart faced an identity crisis, falling between the cracks while customers sought lower prices at Walmart and higher-end goods at Target. In the 1990s, its growth stemmed mainly from acquisitions, not all of which proved beneficial in the long term.

This case, set in 1990, describes the history of Walmart and asks what competitive strategies Kmart might adopt in response to Walmart's success. It discusses the strategy and organization of both companies in terms of HR practices, store location, distribution, information technology, procurement, pricing, and company culture. This (A) case is the first in a multi-part series that goes on to describe the results of Kmart's competition with Walmart, as well as Walmart's later grappling with ecommerce and Amazon.

This case examines the strategic choices and evolving business model of Imprimis Pharmaceuticals from the perspective of CEO Mark Baum. The A case provides a brief history of the company and of the compounding business, outlining the challenges faced by Imprimis in 2013. At the time, Imprimis was in the process of seeking FDA approval for a branded drug called Impracor. This process, already difficult, was further complicated by recent manufacturing issues. Meanwhile, the opportunity arose for Imprimis to purchase a technology related to compounded ocular injections. Because of the different competencies and business models required for the traditional pharmaceutical business vs. pharmaceutical compounding, Imprimis did not have the resources to pursue both of these options at once. Instead, Baum had to decide whether or not to abandon the company's previous focus on Impracor and to delve headlong into the compounding business. The two paths would require vastly different approaches to marketing, R&D, and manufacturing, so that either decision would shape the future of the company for years to come.

This case is a supplement to Imprimis (Case A), Imprimis (Case B), and Imprimis (Case C). It describes Imprimis's 2015 decision to develop a $1 per pill compounded alternative to Daraprim, the branded drug that had recently undergone an extreme price hike, raising its price to $750/pill. Imprimis also created compounded alternatives to several other branded drugs, and made investments to increase its manufacturing capabilities. The company now had to decide where to focus its efforts in the future. In developing innovative compounded formulations, should it base its decisions on market size, either by population or dollar size? Should it concentrate instead on the level of exploitation by the branded drug manufacturers--how much they had raised prices by, in what amount of time? Or should it decide instead based on the life-threatening nature of the disease, regardless of how many people were afflicted? The company had to balance these choices with the expansion of its core ophthalmology business while continuing to raise funds from investors.

This case is a supplement to Imprimis (Case A) and Imprimis (Case B). Set in 2015, it first describes Imprimis's decision to introduce its own line of compounded eye drop medication called LessDrops. The case then examines the moral dilemma faced by CEO Mark Baum, who was struck by the problem of high drug prices in the United States. Recent, drastic price hikes on pharmaceutical drugs, such as those initiated by Turing Pharmaceuticals under CEO Martin Shkreli, had recently brought media attention to this issue. Baum believed it would be relatively easy for Imprimis to create compounded versions of many of the affected drugs, which could increase competition in the pharmaceutical industry and lessen the strain both on patients and the healthcare system as a whole. However, doing so would require the company to raise capital, strengthen its sales force, and increase its manufacturing capabilities. The decision was further complicated by the relatively low barrier to entry, and by the ubiquitous nature of the drug pricing problem. Baum had to decide whether Imprimis should stick with its already-successful ophthalmology business, or begin the endeavor of combatting high drug prices, going up against powerful competitors in the drug industry.

This case is a supplement to Imprimis (Case A). It describes the company's decision to enter into the pharmaceutical compounding business in 2013-14. Imprimis purchased a compounded ophthalmological medication called Dropless Therapy, which was injected into patients' eyes post-cataract surgery, with the aim of replacing a complex regimen of prescription eye drops. After a successful launch of the compounded medication, Imprimis ran into complications when Medicare changed its policy regarding payment for the drug. Under the new policy, not only would Medicare not cover the medication, but patients could no longer pay for it out of pocket. Instead, the cost had to be absorbed by the physician or surgery center. Imprimis now had to figure out a way to deal with the effects of this policy, whether that be by lobbying for a policy change, creating a compounded eye drop treatment of their own, or moving out of the cataract treatment business entirely.

This case describes the origins of the traditional circus, including its rise to popularity in the United States in the 1800s, and examines the factors that led to its decline in the 20th and 21st centuries.