After 15 years of remarkable achievements, Taiwan-based HTC Corp. faced difficult times by 2012. CEO Peter Chou, who drove HTC's transformation from an unknown manufacturer of PDAs for other companies to a well-known global player in smartphones, faced an uncertain and complex environment. Apple's lead in the smartphone and tablet markets, the acquisition of Motorola by Google, the Microsoft-Nokia alliance, the rise of Samsung, and the extensive patent wars - each raised questions about how HTC could continue its upward trajectory. In a rapidly evolving and increasingly competitive market, what would a sustainable differentiation strategy look like for HTC? How could HTC, a historically innovative company, compete in the tablet market? And how could it weather - and mitigate - the patent wars?
In 2011, Walmart was the world's largest company, with $420 billion in sales and operations in 14 countries. Yet it found itself searching for the right growth strategy moving forward. U.S. same-store sales had declined for eight consecutive quarters, and Walmart was increasingly becoming dependent on international sales. Meanwhile, intense competition came from various players, ranging from general discounters to dollar stores to online retailers. What should Walmart do as its traditional markets and core competencies no longer ensure the kind of growth that it had enjoyed for decades in the past?
Muhtar Kent, CEO of the Coca-Cola Company, faced a critical decision in 2011 after closing a $12 billion deal to buy its troubled North America bottling operations from its biggest bottler, Coca-Cola Enterprises. The decision was prompted by several changes in the U.S. market, including the bottler's inability to make crucial investments, the growth of alternative, non-sparkling drinks, and the growing power of national accounts, such as Wal-Mart. Now that Coke owned most of its North American bottling network, Kent had to decide whether keeping the labor and capital-intensive side of the bottling business was in Coke's long-term strategic interest. If not, should he re-franchise the bottling business, again, as Coke had done in the past? Or was there a third path? For one of the most successful companies in the world over the last 100 years, Kent's answers to these questions had the potential to redefine Coke's business model for the next century.
The 'Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2010' case examines the industry structure and competitive strategy of Coca-Cola and Pepsi over 100 years of rivalry. The most intense battles of the cola wars were fought over the $74 billion CSD industry in the United States, where the average American consumes 46 gallons of CSD per year. In a "carefully waged competitive struggle," from 1975 to the mid-1990s, both Coke and Pepsi had achieved average annual growth of around 10%, as both U.S. and worldwide CSD consumption consistently rose. However, starting in the late 1990s, U.S. CSD consumption started to decline and new non-sparkling beverages become popular, threatening to alter the companies' brand, bottling, and pricing strategies. The case considers what has to be done for Coke and Pepsi to ensure sustainable growth and profitability. A rewritten version of an earlier case.
On April 4, 2010, Apple Inc. launched the iPad, the company's third major innovation released over the last decade under its iconic CEO Steve Jobs. Apple's strategy of shifting its business into non-PC products had thrived so far, driven by the smashing success of the iPod and the iPhone. Yet challenges abounded. Macintosh sales in the worldwide PC market still languished below 5%. Growth in iPod sales was slowing down. iPhone faced increasing competition in the smartphone industry. And would Apple's latest creation, the iPad, take the company to the next level?
In 2009, Chile's Finance Minister Andres Velasco's fortunes had been reversed. His fiscal policy that had come under attack just a year ago had been used to finance a $4 billion fiscal stimulus package amid the global economic downturn. Velasco was now Chile's most popular minister. However, the future of Chile's fiscal policy was questionable with the election of a new president, Sebastian Pinera, the first conservative leader to lead Chile in two decades.
In 2008, Andres Velasco, Chile's Finance Minister, was under mounting criticisms over his fiscal policy. As the world's largest copper producer, Chile was benefiting from the rise in copper prices, which had more than tripled since 2003. Copper revenues translated into greater income for the government as Chile's biggest copper producer, Codelco, was a state-owned enterprise. Velasco had chosen to save the bulk of the copper revenues into two stabilization funds; by the end of August 2008, the collective amount represented more than 20% of Chile's GDP. Several critics wanted the funds to be used to improve the poor public education system, income gap, and other impending social issues. After all, Chile had one of the most unequal distributions of wealth in the world. Productivity was stagnant and economic growth had slowed down significantly since the 1990's. What should Velasco do amid growing public discontent? Was it really in Chile's best interest to keep saving the copper wealth?
Taiwan-based HTC Corp. had emerged as the world's fourth largest smartphone manufacturer by 2009. CEO Peter Chou was extremely proud of the remarkable achievements his company had made over the last 12 years since starting off as an unknown manufacturer of PDAs for other companies. Yet Chou faced several decisions in order to move his company forward. Competition for high-end, sophisticated mobile devices was intensifying as HTC faced big name players such as Nokia, Apple, and Samsung Electronics. Many companies were offering their own application stores. What did HTC have to do to become a more powerful global brand? Where should HTC participate in the value chain in one of the most exciting, innovative product categories in the technology world?
Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd faced a daunting task that he never imagined he would have to face when he was elected two years ago. Australia at that time was poised to enter its 17th year of uninterrupted growth. Commodity exports were booming, largely driven by China's insatiable appetite for raw materials. Then the global financial crisis erupted in 2008, brewing challenges for the world's biggest exporter of coal and iron ore. Prime Minister Rudd pushed for massive stimulus packages to revive domestic consumption and demand. Yet as an economy heavily dependent on trade, tumbling commodity prices brewed difficult times for Australia's trade deficit and its persistent large current account deficit. What was in hold for Australia's deficit, which had been in the red all but four years since 1950? In addition, how should policymakers address the intense concerns regarding China's growing interest in Australia's prized natural resources sector?
In March 2009, the U.S. economy was in a severe recession not seen since the Great Depression after the subprime mortgage crisis had spiraled out of control. The situation had dramatically changed in one year since the Federal Reserve Board had helped to bailout investment bank Bear Stearns. Deflation, not inflation, had become a top concern. Interest rates were near zero percent. Five million jobs had been lost. The new Barack Obama administration had pushed forward with a $787 billion stimulus package, coupled with various programs to address the frozen credit markets and depressed investors' confidence. Yet the burning question in every policymakers' mind was--how effective would the various plans work to revive the U.S. economy?
The global economy was expected to suffer from negative growth for the full year in 2009, a phenomenon not seen since World War II. While the U.S. subprime mortgage disaster was blamed as the original instigator, it was noted that the "global imbalances" of the U.S. current account deficit funded for many years by other nations such as China was also a chief culprit of the crisis as well. Policymakers around the world recognized that the scope and scale of the financial crisis required a coordinated global response. Yet there were conflicting views on what kind of action was needed to address the first global financial crisis of the 21st century.
The Gucci Group had transformed itself into the world's third largest luxury retailer with multiple brands. The company had performed well even after the departure of star designer Tom Ford and former CEO Domenico De Sole. However, the challenging global economic times in 2009 raised the question whether it was time, again, to re-adjust Gucci's portfolio, especially as YSL continued to lose money.
In the fall of 2008, E Ink had positioned itself as a leader in electronic ink technology thanks to the launch of several eBook devices such as Amazon's Kindle. Yet E Ink still faced the question of how to turn its technology into a profitable business amid competing technologies and financial challenges.
On March 21, 2008, the U.S. government secured an agreement from two leading sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) to adopt a new set of investment principles to govern the Funds' activities. SWFs, broadly defined as an investment fund owned by a national or a government, were gaining prominence across the globe, especially with their recent investments in troubled U.S. financial firms that had suffered significant losses from the subprime mortgage crisis. Yet SWFs were viewed with suspicions amid concerns that they could have potential political interests behind their investments. Many SWFs also lacked disclosure or transparency regarding their activities or investment goals. Countries such as the United States felt that some kind of international regulation had to be imposed, but would it be possible?
By March 2008, the U.S. Government and the U.S. Federal Reserve Board had taken various policy measures over the last few months to tackle the subprime mortgage crisis that threatened to drag the economy into a recession. The Bush administration approved a fiscal stimulus package exceeding $150 billion. Interest rates had been repeatedly cut at the fastest pace in decades, to 2.25% as of March 2008. The Fed, in an unprecedented move, helped JPMorgan Chase to take over Bear Stearns, which was on the brink of collapse. Yet as the global economy faced slower growth stemming from the U.S. mortgage crisis, policy makers were caught in an intense debate over what the 'right' solution would be, and the implication of these policies on global imbalances.
In July 1997, Thailand became the first Asian "tiger" economy to abandon its fixed exchange rate system in response to speculative attacks on its currency. Investors started to flee Asia, and the crisis rapidly spread to other countries. Central banks spent billions of dollars to try and defend their currencies, only to seek emergency bailouts from the International Monetary Fund. This case presents a chronology of events that unraveled during the Asian financial crisis from 1997 to the end of 1998.
South Korea, as one of the Asian "tiger" economies, transformed itself into the world's 11th largest economy and major exporter by 1996, emerging from being one of the lowest income countries in the region back in the 1960s. Yet one year later in 1997, Korea was swept up in the Asian financial crisis and sought a record $58 billion bailout from the International Monetary Fund. The crisis exposed fundamental weaknesses in the Korean economy, from bad loans to reckless growth policies pursued by large conglomerates. Sweeping reforms took place and the Korean economy rebounded quickly. Yet as Korea approached the 10-year anniversary of the crisis, the nation found itself pondering whether it had implemented enough institutional and structural reforms, or whether more had to be done, such as searching for a new economic development model to ensure its future.
At the 2005 Group of Eight summit, world leaders agreed to relieve the world's poorest countries' debt burden and double aid to Africa by 2010. The announcement raised questions whether debt relief would really help the poor. By examining past aid trends and policies of multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, this case also questions whether aid can allow poor countries to break their vicious cycle of poverty, and/or how aid can be used effectively.