個案總覽

In 2019, Netflix had 167 million subscribers globally and offered thousands of television shows and movies on its streaming application, a growing proportion of which it produced itself. Media giants, who for years had valued the relationship with Netflix because it provided an additional outlet, began to re-evaluate their own (make) versus contract (buy) distribution decision. Leveraging acquisitions, technology investments, and vast content libraries, they entered the streaming wars by going direct to consumers. Was Netflix vulnerable in head-to-head competition in an increasingly fragmented market? How should it respond to entry by its former partners?

The Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding (Panda Base), located in Chengdu, China, was the world’s most popular scenic spot for giant panda tourism. Panda Base was founded in 1987 with a mission that included the protection and breeding of the endangered giant panda, scientific research, public education, and cultural tourism. In 2002, the director of Panda Base began to build panda culture and the panda brand in an effort to resolve low brand awareness and to better protect the giant panda. In 2020, Panda Base promoted the giant panda on various digital media platforms. Based on the concept of Web 3.0, Panda Base integrated the theories of social media marketing, content marketing, and viral marketing to promote panda culture and brand value, and successfully developed its core cultural brand value: "Tell the most touching story of the giant panda." Looking to the future, Panda Base’s director wanted to develop a smart tourism project to continue protecting giant pandas and increasing their population with the help of 5G (fifth-generation) technology, while providing tourists with an immersive experience. How can the director best use technology to support and promote Panda Base?

On January 13, 2019, the Gillette Company aired the advertisement “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be.” After the airing, both the company and its chief executive officer were subjected to backlash. The advertisement, launched amid the Gillette brand’s declining market share, addressed the #MeToo movement, sexism in the boardroom, and bullying, and asked viewers, “Is this the best a man can get?” Although the advertisement was intended to challenge men to end toxic masculinity and abuse, it became both the most liked and the most disliked advertisement in YouTube’s history. Six months after the airing, The Procter & Gamble Company, reported a US$8.3 million writedown in its Shave Care business, represented by the Gillette brand, leading some observers to wonder whether the polarizing reactions to the advertisement had led to the writedown. What was The Gillette Company’s fiduciary responsibility in the era of the #MeTooMovement? Should its chief executive officer and visionary of the controversial advertisement be fired? Should he be promoted for confronting such a serious societal issue? Or should no change be made in the corporate structure?

In January 2015, an investor bought 1,000 shares of Bank of India stock when the banking sector was expected to perform better over the medium to long term. On October 11, 2019, after holding the shares for nearly five years, the investor was surprised to see that the stock price had instead dropped by almost 80 per cent. He was disappointed in his investment’s performance to date, but the stock’s current low price seemed a bargain, so he was contemplating buying more shares for overall cost averaging of his investment. Before making any investment decisions, however, he carefully analyzed the bank’s annual reports for the previous five years and discovered an unusual change in the bank’s accounting policy for the provisioning of non-performing assets. After his review of the bank’s financial statements, the investor was unsure whether he should sell his shares, buy more shares to achieve overall cost averaging, or hold the number of shares he currently owned.

By 2019, Facebook Inc.’s (Facebook’s), popular social media and social networking service (known as Facebook) that launched in 2004, had emerged as one of the world’s largest market capitalizations. Over its 15 years, the company had experienced public relation incidents that led to controversies regarding its social media business model. Most criticism related to the unethical ways the company had handled its users’ personal data. By 2019, the level of mistrust from users had skyrocketed alarmingly. Many analysts questioned the company's willingness to deal with data privacy concerns, with some alleging that its business model was fundamentally unethical by design. Clearly Facebook's chief executive officer and his team needed to step back and reflect on the company’s next steps.

On September 24, 2018, two analysts were asked by the pension fund they worked for to evaluate the prospects of long-term investing in India’s banking sector. They set off to identify and select a bank stock that was fundamentally strong and should be included in an equity portfolio. For their research, the two analysts used the CAMELS analysis framework, a model that examined six factors—capital adequacy, asset quality, management quality, earning ability, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk. The two analysts narrowed their research down to HDFC Bank Ltd. stock for valuation and tried to determine the intrinsic price of the bank shares. The objective of the HDFC Bank Ltd. stock valuation was to identify a banking stock that would make a strong potential long-term investment for the pension fund’s equity portfolio.

From 2000 to 2019, the department of corporate social responsibility and global supplier management at Huawei Technologies Company Limited had been trying to engage hundreds of Chinese suppliers on sustainability. The department’s effort included orchestrating multiple, diverse, sustainability initiatives, from auditing to contributing to the rollout of a self-assessment tool launched in 2012 by the British Telecom Group (BT). However, the auditing, even when delivered through a joint initiative established by international communications tech companies in 2013, seemed unlikely to cause pathbreaking development in Huawei’s large and fragmented supply network. Initial experiences with the self-assessment tool were proving equally unsuccessful in introducing suppliers to more sustainable products and operations and stimulating engagement among them. Why were these initiatives failing to produce improvement? What else could be done to effectively and efficiently engage hundreds of Chinese suppliers on sustainability?

On November 21, 2018, the Italian luxury fashion brand Dolce & Gabbana (D&G) cancelled a show that was scheduled to take place in Shanghai, China, after controversial video advertisements and private Instagram messages, allegedly sent by Stefano Gabbana himself, went viral. The videos were seen by many to be racist, and they resulted in subsequent boycotts by Chinese celebrities and consumers. As D&G struggled to regain market share in China and suffered huge financial losses, major Chinese e-commerce companies such as Alibaba Group Holding Limited and JD.com Inc. joined the boycott by dropping the brand from their platforms. The Chinese luxury market was large and growing, and experts warned that the brand's profits would suffer from this mistake. What mitigation strategy or actions could D&G undertake to repair the damage done to its reputation, especially in China?

In early January 2019, Gillette, one of the world’s leading razor brands, ignited controversy with a specific advertisement—the “We Believe” video. This short film tackled toxic masculinity and encouraged men to be #TheBestMenCanBe. While Gillette historically focused on portraying men as athletes or as career-oriented individuals, the brand's promotions since the late 2010s had turned to a more diverse conceptualization of manhood. When launched on YouTube, the "We Believe" video proved to be extremely polarizing: both consumers and the general public were strongly divided on it. How could Gillette support social change while remaining competitive in light of the changing industry and broader social awareness? Though sales did not change following the release of the ad, questions still remained about Gillette’s new direction and whether this approach ultimately helped or hindered its brand. What should Gillette do next?

M.M.LaFleur, a clothing company founded in New York in 2013, specialized in office wear for professional women. Specifically, M.M.LaFleur targeted a difficult-to-serve group—working women who did not like shopping. Despite the challenging customer base, the company grew steadily since its inception. Customers could shop online through the company's website or attend showrooms, pop-up stores, or trunk shows, where sales associates provided attentive personal service. However, the most successful venue for the company's sales was a feature called the M.M.LaFleur "bento box," which was responsible for 80 per cent of the company's revenue. By June 2019, M.M.LaFleur had grown from a small start-up company into a thriving business with a loyal customer base. The founder was pleased with her company's results, but wondered what her next steps should be. What could M.M.LaFleur do to continue its strong growth and momentum?

In April 2019, Carl’s Jr. Restaurants LLC (Carl’s Jr.), an American fast-food restaurant chain, faced an important decision. The company was up against strong competition from both traditional players in the fast-food market and newer competitors in the fast-casual dining market. In 2017, Carl’s Jr. had stopped using the provocative ads it had become known for, and in 2018, the company ended a long co-branding relationship with Hardee’s Restaurants LLC. Due in part to these changes, the company was struggling to form its own identity. Carl’s Jr.’s chief executive officer needed to develop a sustainable competitive advantage in order to make the company relevant again in the minds of consumers.

In May 2019, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) had paused rapid expansion of its massive agile organizational transformation, trying to make the existing program work better. ANZ announced the decision to take the bank agile in May 2017, moving from the traditional command-and-control, risk-based, and process-driven hierarchy to collaborative teamwork. Such decisions came after not only competitive pressures from the disruptive entry of financial technology companies but also a series of internal scandals. Would the agile transformation be a solution for ANZ to respond to these external and internal challenges? How could ANZ be successfully transformed, given its corporate culture that had been deeply rooted for over 180 years?

Takata Corporation was a business-to-business firm based in Japan, whose logo once symbolized safety. In 2013, however, the company mishandled its airbag recall crisis, which was Japan’s largest automotive safety recall. The crisis led to the largest corporate bankruptcy filing of a Japanese firm and impacted Japanese banks involved in a collateral-free syndicated loan. How could the company have better managed the crisis?

Tata Motors Limited, an Indian automobile manufacturer, had been struggling with decreasing market share and profitability, which was affecting the company's share price. After the appointment of a new chief executive officer in 2016, the company undertook several reorganization programs to revive its financial health and improve its market share. However, it still registered heavy losses in the first nine months of fiscal year 2018–19. Was there more that the company could do to improve the company's position and regain lost investor confidence?

In December 2018, US-based Virgin Galactic LLC (Virgin Galactic), a commercial space tourism company founded by Sir Richard Branson, launched its first successful crewed test spacecraft. The company’s goal was to launch suborbital space tourism in 2019. However, experts and critics voiced concerns that Virgin Galactic’s space tourism program could have adverse environmental and health effects. A prominent astronaut also considered Branson’s space program to be a marketing gimmick aimed at ultra-rich consumers. Branson believed that Virgin Galactic caused less environmental pollution than conventional air travel and with time would become affordable. Could Branson make space tourism a feasible reality in the long term? Was Branson right to claim that space tourism would become affordable over time? Should he pursue multiple business opportunities, such as intercontinental space travel and supporting research and development projects, along with space tourism?

In April 2018, two black customers were arrested at a Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) outlet in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after one of the two men asked to use the restroom while the pair were waiting to meet someone. After a video of the arrest went viral on social media, Kevin Johnson, the chief executive officer of Starbucks, immediately apologized to the men and, further, announced that the company would hold racial bias training across all Starbucks stores in the United States. Johnson was criticized for the presumption that a half-day training session could possibly resolve racial bias issues. Employees also expressed their dissatisfaction with the training program. Johnson also announced an open-toilets policy, which was also criticized, raising several questions: Had Johnson managed the crisis appropriately? How could he make such training effective? Should Johnson change his open-toilets policy? Should he reconsider his decision to conduct such training at the cost of future revenues?

After the management of Magna International Inc. (Magna) tabled a proposal to shareholders in May 2010 to acquire all of Frank Stronach's Class B voting shares for approximately US$1 billion, vociferous opposition emerged, heavily criticizing the process by which the terms had been agreed on and the lack of information provided by the board. The Ontario Securities Commission ruled that Magna needed to provide more information to shareholders. In compliance with that order, Magna released an amendment that included a report from its financial advisor, its advisor’s advice to the Magna board, and PricewaterhouseCooper's evaluation of the deal. In late August 2010, a Magna shareholder needed to decide whether to keep or sell her shares, and wanted to understand what amount, if any, would have been appropriate for Stronach’s Class B voting shares. As a consumer conscious of the environmental, social, and governance aspects of a corporation, she was also concerned whether Magna’s board and special committee had applied good governance principles.

Kanopy LLC (Kanopy) was a video streaming platform that hosted independent and documentary films for educative purposes. Founded in 2008, Kanopy had rapidly expanded to several countries. By 2017, it had more than 3,000 college libraries and several public libraries as subscribers. Although Kanopy’s services were received with much enthusiasm, under Kanopy’s pay-per-view pricing model, libraries soon incurred subscription fees that exceeded their budgets. Kanopy’s popularity became an impediment to growth as libraries cancelled subscriptions or switched to more restrictive models. By December 2019, even though Kanopy’s revenues were increasing, the company’s founder needed to consider how to ensure the company’s continued growth. Given libraries’ constrained budgets, what changes did Kanopy need to make to sell its streaming services to libraries?

This case focuses on the supply chain strategy of Apple Inc. (Apple). Set in early 2020, it provides a detailed description of the company’s supply chain network and capabilities. Data in the case allows students to develop an understanding of Apple’s source of competitiveness and to gain insights into the management of a large, complex global supply chain network that focused on the intersection of services, hardware and software. Students will obtain an understanding of the supply chain challenges faced by Apple, in the context of supporting its corporate strategy and growth objectives.

In August 2019, WeWork filed for an initial public offering; investors in its 14 venture capital rounds were anxious for an exit. Softbank had invested US$6 billion in WeWork, including US$2 billion in the Series H round that valued the firm at US$47 billion; consequently, it hoped for a positive reception from Wall Street. While WeWork had 100 per cent recent sales growth, its net income was US$1.9 billion, and it was on pace to spend over US$5 billion in 2019; it needed capital. WeWork’s chief executive officer met with SoftBank in Tokyo to discuss a “dramatic reduction in its valuation.” Should they proceed with the IPO, even if it required a reduction in its valuation, or should they cancel the IPO and pursue an additional round of private capital?