As executives at the Steinway prepared the piano company to go public in 2022, the firm Damen Investments eyed the intriguing brand as having great potential. A new equity analyst at Damen, Vicki Xu, was tasked with determining if the Steinway brand and the company's growth prospects hit all the right notes. If it had significant growth potential, the investment likely would make sense. If not, then the investment would not work well. Damen invested only in firms with strong growth potential over a long horizon--a decade or more. The storied brand, founded in 1853 in New York City, had long since developed a reputation for crafting the ultimate in quality and gained a loyal following among top pianists and musicians. With sales in 88 countries, Steinway was a global brand and business. Asia was a vital region for growth, especially China, where sales reached $117 million in 2021. That same year, overall revenue for Steinway was $538.4 million, up by a compound annual growth rate of 6.9 percent from 2016, when sales reached $386 million. In the company's IPO filings, Steinway executives presented an optimistic outlook. According to the Steinway team, the company was a promising player in the global luxury industry. Steinway expected to benefit from market trends, and the number of high-net-worth individuals was growing worldwide--particularly in China. Additionally, the company was expanding sales of its Spirio line, focusing on wealthy buyers who could not play the piano.
In March 2015, Amgen is preparing for the launch of Repatha, a new molecule that has demonstrated a remarkable ability to treat high cholesterol. Through a series of clinical trials, Amgen has proven that the molecule is both safe and effective for patients with high cholesterol. It also is effective for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, a difficult-to-treat population that has exceptionally high levels of cholesterol. Amgen expects the FDA to approve the molecule before the end of the year. Now, the Repatha team has to develop a revenue forecast.
In January 2013, small biotechnology firm Orexigen was in the final stages of testing Contrave, a promising new pharmaceutical product for the treatment of obesity. At the time, Orexigen had no products in the market, so all its hopes of financial success rested on this new treatment. Contrave had proven to be highly effective in clinical trials, and Orexigen executives were confident it would receive FDA approval. At the same time, a much larger pharmaceutical company was considering acquiring Orexigen. Because the decision to acquire would ultimately be a financial one, the project team from the large company had to complete a valuation for Orexigen's only significant product in its pipeline, Contrave. What was the new product actually worth?
In 2013 Taco Bell, a large U.S. fast food chain, was looking for ways to grow. One of the opportunities the company was considering was adding a line of breakfast foods, something the brand had tried-unsuccessfully-before. There were clear reasons to proceed with the launch, as breakfast offered a completely new meal occasion with tremendous potential. However, there were also notable concerns when it came to operational issues and consumer behavior. Opening for breakfast would increase costs, and getting people to change their morning routine would be difficult. Should Taco Bell risk adding a breakfast menu, or not? This case gives students an opportunity to debate growth and new product opportunities.
Michael Belden, longtime manager of the El Cerrito brand of high-end leather products and accessories, had just concluded a presentation to the senior executive team on his plan to increase profits by 4 percent over the next year. His new boss, Sara Jensen, was not pleased and instructed him to go back to the drawing board: "You and I both know that a 4 percent profit increase just isn't sufficient. I was hoping to see an increase of 20 percent or more." Belden was deeply concerned. El Cerrito was a mature brand that catered to exclusive, high-end clientele. Would it be possible to generate the kind of growth Jensen wanted without damaging the brand's equity? This is the real story of a well-known luxury brand that has been disguised for purposes of this case. Students sometimes will correctly guess at the brand's true identity, but this does not impact the discussion. The disguised brand gives the case an entertaining twist when the brand's true identity is revealed.
It is January 2014, and the case protagonist, David Milestone (senior advisor at the Center for Accelerating Innovation and Impact at the U.S. Agency for International Development's Global Health Bureau), is preparing for a meeting of global stakeholders and pharmaceutical manufacturers who are interested in reducing mortality caused by childhood pneumonia and are prepared to donate $10 million to support this effort. Milestone's goal is to propose a strategy to address childhood pneumonia in Uganda, toward which the $10 million donation would go. In addition to effectively and sustainably reducing childhood pneumonia deaths, the plan must align the interests of various stakeholders behind the problem. A successful strategy in Uganda could be a model for interventions elsewhere. The United Nations Commission on Lifesaving Commodities for Women and Children recently identified Uganda as a "pathfinder" country, meaning it could serve as the example for other countries wrestling with the same issues. This is a remarkable opportunity to change the lives of children in Uganda-and all around the world.
This case looks at an important business task: forecasting a new product. The case can be used to teach finance, marketing (new product introduction), and healthcare strategy. The product is one of Amgen's most important new products: denosumab. On the surface, the case is fairly easy: students simply have to do some simple mathematical calculations. However, the challenges of forecasting quickly become apparent: every forecast depends on some critical assumptions, and the answer can vary dramatically.
The Penfolds case is designed to help students think through brand positioning and brand portfolio questions. Penfolds, one of the world's best known brands of wine, is performing poorly and a new management team needs to quickly reverse the business trends. To do so, the new management team needs to answer key questions, such as: What is Penfolds' positioning? Has the brand extended too far? Can Penfolds successfully play in all price segments of the wine industry? What is the best way to grow the brand going forward?
Julie Smith, brand manager for dog food manufacturer Pedigree, has to determine how best to jump-start growth in the slumping business. The (A) case centers on the debate over which type of strategy to pursue, brand building versus in-store activity, while the (B) case focuses on the concept of cause marketing as a growth strategy.
Executives at biotechnology firm Genzyme are debating funding a clinical trial for a new version of a medical device called Synvisc. The trial is expensive and the odds of success are not high, but the upside is substantial. The case presents a common business question: invest or not? The case forces students to wrestle with a number of complex issues and analyze the financials of their decisions.
Pharmaceutical company Genzyme has created a new drug, Renvela, which is a phosphate binder designed to be used primarily by patients with kidney failure. Renvela is a slightly different version of Genzyme's highly successful Renagel. Company executives must now decide how best to launch Renvela. Should it replace Renagel? Should it be a premium version of Renagel? Is it worth launching the product at all? The case appears rather simple on the surface, but the questions are challenging to work through.
The senior management team at Leclerc, one of the largest retailers in France, is considering how best to maintain growth in the highly regulated French retail industry. Strict limits on pricing and store construction will significantly limit Leclerc's flexibility; many of the traditional growth levers cannot be used. These regulations also have a major impact on competition. The executives at Leclerc must identify the optimal growth plan and then consider whether it will deliver the desired growth.
Allison Watkins, senior director of Merck's Vaccines Division, needed to decide on the pricing of Gardasil, Merck's newest vaccine and one of the company's most important product launches of the year. The outside consulting firm she had hired to recommend a price for Gardasil had suggested a price of $120 per dose (or $360 per person, as each person required three doses over six months to achieve adequate immunity). The Gardasil marketing team disagreed about this recommended price; some thought it was clearly too high, whereas others said it was too low. The latter group argued that Merck would be missing a major opportunity by setting the price at such a low level. Watkins now needed to decide whether to follow the consulting firm's recommendation or to set a different price.
Not all that long ago, the acronym KISS was so popular that many executives displayed it on their desks, either embedded in Lucite or sculpted in bronze. Keep It Simple Stupid was the preferred strategy of the time. That strategy - and the acronym -- is enjoying a limited revival in these difficult times, especially in the research-obsessed, insight-seeking marketing domain. These days, the tome-like marketing plan is out and the pithy pocket version is in. Or, it better be.
Focuses on a simple question: should Zimmer develop a gender-specific artificial knee? The decision is complicated because while the idea seems to make sense, there is little clinical evidence that a gender-specific knee produces superior patient outcomes, and orthopedic surgeons are likely to be skeptical of the innovation.
AstraZeneca is preparing for the launch of Crestor, the company's first entrant in the enormous and fast-growing statin category. The team responsible for the product launch is considering how best to bring Crestor to market. Should AstraZeneca simply follow the example set by Pfizer with the exceptionally successful launch of Lipitor? Or should the company instead launch Crestor as a niche product?