This case introduces the challenges and decision criteria for businesses seeking to sponsor student athletes in the advent of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) landmark decision to authorize collegiate student athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness (NIL), just as professional athletes and other celebrities have always done. The case follows Jonathan Cotten, president of Easy Step Enterprises (Easy Step), a franchisee for the Good Feet Store based in Richmond, Virginia, as he explores the possibility of using college athletes as social media influencers to stimulate demand for the Good Feet Store locations his company operates. The primary focus of this case is not on franchisee-franchisor relations, but rather on the strategic decision processes a business must consider when exploring the emerging opportunity to engage college student athletes as social media influencers. Because of their youth and relative inexperience, college student athletes pose different challenges and issues compared to the longer-established engagement of professional athletes and celebrities in similar roles. This case highlights these differences and encourages careful integration of criteria for executing these decisions.

Serena Khan, a fictional analyst at an investment management firm, was tasked with evaluating a potential investment in Robinhood Markets, Inc. in March 2023. Known for its sleek interface and zero-commission trades, Robinhood aimed to "democratize finance" by making investment products widely accessible. The company saw a surge in users during the COVID-19 pandemic but came under fire for its role in the meme-stock craze and its revenue model based on payment for order flow. Robinhood had struggled since its 2021 IPO as the number of active users declined and shares fell over 80% from their highs. This case encourages students to explore key themes relevant to a broad range of fintech companies and provides an opportunity to discuss the role of wholesale market makers in trade execution, the economics of PFOF, and the gamification of investing.

A key negotiating concept, the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), allows a buyer and seller to reach a mutually acceptable price. This technical note provides an overview of ZOPA for both individual-level negotiations and company-level pricing decisions, highlighting its importance to marketing. Challenges in applying ZOPA are discussed, as well as its role in value creation and exchange. Students are encouraged to consider the real-world impacts of ZOPA-based pricing on business and brand management. This note is suitable for use in graduate and under graduate courses on marketing, negotiation, brand management, and product pricing.

Managers, policymakers, and leaders are often presented with data and evaluation techniques, then tasked with deciding whether to go ahead with the strategy or policy. This fictional case aims to build a basic framework to understand how one can determine whether a particular business strategy or economic policy "works." It offers an overview of commonly used evaluation strategies and their associated pitfalls, through the lens of Ramesh Sharma, the CEO of a large nongovernmental organization, who has to decide how to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program to female entrepreneurs. The case is used at Darden in a second-year elective on "India in the Global Economy." It is taught in the second week of the course with the aim of introducing students to basic methods for rigorously evaluating their business and policy decisions. While directly pertinent to the course on India, this case builds a general framework on evaluation techniques that can be easily extended to other contexts and decisions. Therefore, it can also be taught in courses in marketing, business strategy, management, operations, policy evaluation, and ethics.

This field-based case describes the situation facing David Bronner, cosmic engagement officer (CEO) of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps (Dr. Bronner's), the top-selling brand of natural soaps in North America in 2019. Since its founding, the company has centered advocacy for unity and social change in its products and giving. The question before David and the leadership team is whether to extend the brand further by publicizing its support for the use of psychedelics to treat mental health. David believes passionately in this cause, and he has been a major supporter of scientific and political efforts to support the informed use of psychedelics to alleviate suffering. While scientific studies are increasingly highlighting their promise and Dr. Bronner's has experience with other "label" campaigns for social issues, psychedelics remain Schedule I drugs, and other key decision-makers lack David's zeal for the cause. Dr. Bronner's established its unique position in the mid-20th century based on founder Emil Bronner's "All-One" vision of universal love and his German family's multigenerational expertise as soap makers. Since his death in 1998, the family-owned firm has grown rapidly and profitably, reaching revenues over $120 million in 2018. Students are asked to make a recommendation about whether to introduce a label campaign declaring support for psychedelic therapy and to assess that decision in ways that align clearly with the firm's perspective on value creation. The case is designed primarily for a core curriculum course in business strategy or business ethics. Because of the issues it raises, it also works well in brand marketing and leadership courses. The decisions embedded in the case are pertinent to all levels-MBA students, undergraduates, and executives.

This case introduces the challenges and decision criteria for businesses seeking to sponsor student athletes in the advent of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) landmark decision to authorize collegiate student athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness (NIL), just as professional athletes and other celebrities have always done. The case follows Jonathan Cotten, president of Easy Step Enterprises (Easy Step), a franchisee for the Good Feet Store based in Richmond, Virginia, as he explores the possibility of using college athletes from the University of Virginia (UVA) as social media influencers to stimulate demand for the Good Feet Store locations his company operates. The primary focus of this case is not on franchisee-franchisor relations, but rather on the strategic decision processes a business must consider when exploring the emerging opportunity to engage college student athletes as social media influencers. Because of their youth and relative inexperience, college student athletes pose different challenges and issues compared to the longer-established engagement of professional athletes and celebrities in similar roles. This case highlights these differences and encourages careful integration of criteria for executing these decisions.

The realities of boardroom dynamics can often reveal a different story than how things appear on paper. Boards need the right dynamics and culture to effectively carry out their responsibilities. At their best, boards can catch budding issues before they negatively impact the firm and can partner with management to lead through change, like they did with Indra Nooyi's transformation of PepsiCo. Given the dual mandate of boards to both monitor and advise management, how can boards strike the right balance? This case begins with a brief discussion of director and board performance, along with an analysis of the role of government regulation in promoting healthy board dynamics. Then you are asked to act as a consultant to evaluate the board dynamics and culture of three companies presented below in vignettes: GE, Theranos, and PepsiCo. The GE and Theranos vignettes focus on governance challenges, while the PepsiCo vignette focuses on a successful board-management partnership. The B case explores subsequent governance changes that were made at each company and allows for a discussion of governance evolution.

This field-based case follows the fictionalized Elisa Stallings, the manager of CandyCo's Aviation Dispatch group (Dispatch) which manages the aviation assets for the international company. Students learn about the positive leadership style of Stallings, who believed in empowering employees and having frank, respectful conversations with her staff. Stallings's leadership approach and focus on improving efficiency seem to initially work well as she encounters challenges related to Dispatch's culture and processes. Her successful track record leads to greater opportunities and challenges, however, when Stallings's boss asks her to take control of two other functions in CandyCo: Meeting Planning and Travel Services. Stallings could see the synergies among the three groups she was now managing and believed she could make great changes if she got the teams to work together, but personnel issues kept popping up. One of her employees had a temper problem, another was insubordinate, and a third was a talented worker who seemed unhappy in his role. Stallings had to decide how best to handle these three employees, but she also needed to balance three full groups of people if she wanted to create a cohesive team with a healthy workplace culture. Every puzzle piece had to fit together correctly, and the whole puzzle had to fit the CandyCo organization. This case offers the chance for rich discussions around leadership, managing change, and cross-team collaboration in the context of corporate aviation. It offers role-playing opportunities for students.

This case, a follow-up to "Food Supply and COVID-19: Breaking the Chain (B)" (UVA-OM-1691), looks at how the global food supply chain was faring almost 18 months after John Tyson wrote that America's "food supply chain is breaking." It explores the rising prices, global shipping issues, food-industry hiring problems, and political turmoil that the coronavirus pandemic continued to leave in its wake in late 2021 and beyond.

for lucrative prison contracts. Prison and jail operators valued not only the telecommunications platform and the service it provided to inmates and their families, but also the commissions they received in the contracts, which helped to fund their budgets. This industry structure led to mostly rising telecommunications prices being passed on to inmates and their families, even while telecom prices outside of prison had plummeted. Inmates and their families wanted the highest degree of access at the lowest possible price, particularly at a time when the world was recovering from a pandemic. The case provides rich data for students to consider fundamental questions like: Is the current system fair to all stakeholders? Who should pay for prison communications-inmates and their families or the taxpayer? Under what corporate conditions is it possible to do good and do well? Criminal-justice advocates had worked for years to push back against the high price of inmate communications, which they argued caused loved ones to cut off contact with the inmate in order to save money-something that could contribute to mental health issues and increase recidivism. In 2021, the issue seemed to be coming to a head. Aventiv, which had grown through acquisition to become one of the largest prison communication providers (40% market share), had been bought in 2017 by Platinum Equity (Platinum), which was soon targeted by activists for change. In response, Platinum had pledged to make existing telecommunications products more affordable and accessible. It also planned to expand Aventiv beyond telecommunications and into tablet and related technology that would offer education, entertainment, job training, and post-incarceration products and services that would benefit inmates on the inside and help reduce recidivism once they were released. The transformation program represented a significant decision by Platinum to lean into the issues facing the industry, rather than run away from

This public-sourced case set in May 2020 examines various corporate governance issues that have arisen for the nonprofit USA Track & Field (USATF). The case's protagonist is board member Tricia Myers who considers how the board can better serve its constituents as they are inundated with a torrent of issues around CEO compensation, fundraising, and governance regulations. The board faces a fire drill as CEO Max Siegel's high compensation has just been made public, surprising the board and requiring a response. Students can use the data provided in the case to evaluate whether Siegel's compensation package is "fair and reasonable" for a nonprofit executive and recommend next steps. The board also grapples with whether Nike's influence over USATF has grown too large after Siegel signed a long-term sponsorship contract with the company that provided the bulk of USATF's total revenues but also created potential conflicts of interest and polarized USATF's elite athletes. Lastly, the board contemplates regulatory changes imposed by the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee and the implications for its membership base. This case allows for a rich discussion about a nonprofit's mission statement and business model, aligning stakeholder interests, and the role of nonprofit board members.

This public-sourced case describes the lapses in board oversight that led to the dramatic rise and fall of collaborative office space company WeWork and its charismatic leader, Adam Neumann. The case is set in September 2019 and follows board member Mark Schwartz into a critical board meeting to discuss many of the issues facing the company as it tries to raise billions through an IPO: lapses in governance oversight and fiscal discipline, CEO Neumann's erratic behavior, and perhaps even fraud. The case offers an opportunity to evaluate WeWork's strategy and path to future profitability; the board and other stakeholders' role in WeWork's hypergrowth and rapid fall from grace; differences in corporate governance in private versus public companies; and the governance changes that occur in preparation for an IPO. With WeWork on the brink, students are put in Schwartz's shoes in the board meeting and challenged to answer the question: What would you do and why?

The realities of boardroom dynamics can often reveal a different story than how things appear on paper. Boards need the right dynamics and culture to effectively carry out their responsibilities. At their best, boards can catch budding issues before they negatively impact the firm and can partner with management to lead through change, like they did with Indra Nooyi's transformation of PepsiCo. Given the dual mandate of boards to both monitor and advise management, how can boards strike the right balance? This case begins with a brief discussion of director and board performance, along with an analysis of the role of government regulation in promoting healthy board dynamics. Then you are asked to act as a consultant to evaluate the board dynamics and culture of three companies presented below in vignettes: GE, Theranos, and PepsiCo.

This case uses the impact of the global pandemic on the concentrated meatpacking industry to explore management of supply chain disruptions. COVID-19 had created massive problems at Tyson Foods, with high infection rates among workers, plants closing, and farmers unable to deliver livestock to processing plants. This translated into shortages at grocery stores. Then the president of the United States issued an executive order that meat-processing plants were to stay open to ensure the food supply. At the time, Tyson Foods had decided to close the majority of its facilities, but with the order, the meat-processing giant could remain open and workers could not hold the company liable if they got sick on the job. Tyson Foods struggled with workers getting sick, with creating protocols for clean line work, and with getting products to supermarkets. The material in this case brings the opportunity to explore a vitally important supply chain, the resiliency of that supply chain, and important decisions around fragility, security, fairness, and employees' welfare. In addition, the case allows exploration around how Lean operations leads to efficiencies, but supply chains may not be resilient to disruption. Furthermore, examining John Tyson's public letter in select newspapers provides the opportunity to explore crisis communication and crisis leadership.

This case uses Supreme, a skater-clothing brand from New York City, and a framework for understanding the concept of "coolness" (see ""A General Theory of Coolness,"" UV7307), which is the cornerstone of the firm's success, to set the stage for analyzing consumer behavior. Written using public sources, the case discusses the firm's overall strategy, including limited supply, unique shopping drops for newly released items, and a fan-like customer base. It introduces "coolness" as a marketing term to be explored with the Supreme brand. The case opens with an MBA's first assignment with her new company, in a business strategy role, to learn about the retail fashion business, understand the customer experience, and make recommendations to reengage Supreme as "cool." While conducting due diligence, the protagonist walks readers through the Supreme shopping experience, introduces what she sees as crucial to "coolness," and mulls over challenges the brand faces around how to sustain the customer experience through growth efforts.

Student spreadsheet to case UV8100

This case describes the situation of Tesla, Inc. (Tesla), in mid-2019. Tesla had just successfully launched the more affordable Model 3, but sales of the most expensive and profitable Models X and S were stagnant. In order to incentivize the sales of these luxury models, Tesla recently brought back free Supercharging for life for customers purchasing Models X or S. The case provides information about the history of Tesla, one customer's hesitation about buying a Tesla electric vehicle (EV), purchasing prices, different ways to procure electricity and their cost, Supercharging stations, tax credits, and the autonomous and self-driving features of the car.

This case teaches students the importance of maintaining a strong FICO score by illustrating the consequences of paying bills late or not at all. The protagonist is David Molina, a waiter at a struggling Italian restaurant located down the block from where he lives. Money is tight for Molina right now-his limited income means he lives paycheck to paycheck. However, Molina knows things will be looking up for him soon because he recently accepted a job as a bank teller across town-his first desk job. Molina has been putting off paying two of his bills: a cable bill and his Bank of America credit card bill, both of which are late and have been issued, this time, in the form of threats to impact Molina's credit score if he doesn't pay them. He has just enough money to afford the minimum payments on each overdue bill. But then he receives a phone call from his friend, Jim Lindsey, reminding him about an invitation to go to Myrtle Beach for the upcoming weekend. Molina knows he cannot afford it, but a woman he's attracted to, Jessica, will be there too. Should Molina put off the bills yet again, and if so, how exactly will being late on them hurt his credit score?

This case simulates the decision of choosing a bank account through the eyes of a new couple on the verge of getting married. Bill Donlon has no prior experience in banking, choosing instead to accumulate his savings in cash. Donlon's fiancée, Melissa Ivy, had a bank account in college, but rarely used it other than to withdraw funds occasionally. After their marriage, the couple will move from Norfolk, Virginia, to Roanoke, Virginia, to start new jobs. Donlon will be working as a salesman at the local Ford dealership and Ivy will be a pharmaceutical sales rep for Actavis, Inc., working mostly from her car as she visits accounts. Both Donlon and Ivy will be paid via direct deposit by their new employers, thus necessitating a bank account. This motivates Donlon to talk with his uncle Ned about banking and sends Ivy to the internet to compare banks and account options.

Matthew Andrews and Elizabeth (Liz) Graham had recently graduated college and planned to get married soon. They had both accepted jobs in Washington, DC, and would be moving to Gainesville, Virginia. Matthew would be working as a software engineer with both medical and life insurance, and Liz was taking a job as an advertising agent with no benefits. Until they started their jobs, neither Matthew nor Liz had health insurance. This was a source of real concern, especially since they recently had found out Liz was pregnant. They decided to sit down, go over the benefits offered by Matthew's employer, and make some decisions about which health insurance plan might be best for them, as well as consider life insurance and disability insurance options.