個案總覽

BYD Company Limited (BYD), a Chinese firm that started as a battery manufacturer, produced its first gasoline-fuelled vehicle in 2005. In 2008, BYD then launched its first electric vehicles based on its advantages in battery technology and experience in low-cost research and development. The company expected to gain a strong presence in the automotive market with these electric vehicles; its goal was to secure its place as China’s largest auto manufacturer by 2015, and the world’s largest by 2025. By February 2015, sales of one of BYD’s new energy vehicles, the Qin, accounted for 32 per cent of total new energy vehicle sales in China that month. Yet BYD was ranked 15th among China’s passenger vehicle companies. How could the company climb to number one in terms of sales volume?

The Renault KWID was successfully launched in India in the entry-level car segment as a new competitor for the Maruti Suzuki Alto, the largest-selling passenger car in the country. By August 2016, the market leader’s market share had fallen to 40.6 per cent from 48.5 per cent earlier that year, while the Renault KWID gained a market share of about 19.8 per cent. Despite the KWID’s remarkable success, however, Renault’s strategy for the future needed to consider two major issues: competitive strategy for market leaders versus market disruptors, and product portfolio analysis and performance. Renault also needed to consider the threat other new entrants might pose. Should the company create a strategy to manage new entrants that might follow Renault’s own successful launch? Renault also had to consider the strength of its portfolio. Was it likely to generate more successful launches in the future or was the KWID just a rare occurrence?

In September 2015, the Volkswagen Group (VW) was in a state of flux. Its reputation was taking a severe beating in the auto industry and among consumers. The United States Environmental Protection Agency had accused the company of tampering with its EA 189 diesel engines to clear emissions tests. The engines, fitted with a “defeat device,” met the stringent emission levels and higher fuel efficiency standards set in the United States. The defeat device controlled emissions during laboratory testing and driving so that they remained within permissible limits; however, during actual on-the-road driving, the nitrogen oxide emissions were up to 40 times higher. VW’s admission of the intentional manipulation severely dented its value chain, affecting market share, brand image, internal/external stakeholders trust, and supply chain operations. In the wake of the scandal, the company faced the challenge of organizing a product recall and reconceptualizing the VW brand identity.

In November 2014, an intern at Top Dog Wealth Management in Brisbane, Australia, was assisting with a market evaluation and company evaluation for Medibank Private Limited (Medibank). The upcoming Medibank initial public offering (IPO) was set to be one of Australia’s largest and was expected to generate more than AU$4 billion from shareholders who were keen to own a piece of the country’s largest private health insurer. Because the intern was new to the deal, her supervisor gave her access to his notes and directed her to use Bloomberg terminals. As she read through this material, the intern pondered some important questions: What was Medibank worth? Which valuation methods should she use?

Kaya Skin Clinic (Kaya) was started in India in 2002. It expanded its operations to the Middle East in 2003. The company’s value proposition was to provide medical advice from a dermatologist, which formed the basis for product and service recommendations that would dramatically improve customers’ skin. The company had worked hard to position the Kaya brand through defined e-marketing and customer relationship management strategies; however, in 2015, Kaya needed to consider whether combining expertise, customized solutions, and a friendly environment would continue to work for the brand, or whether it was time to revamp and redefine the Kaya brand in the Middle East.

In 2016, the chief executive officer of the ibibo Group, one of the largest players in India’s online travel sector, faced a major decision. MakeMyTrip, India’s market leader in online travel, had expressed interest in acquiring the ibibo Group. Should the ibibo Group’s chief executive officer accept the offer and give up partial or total control of the company, in return for growing with the market leader? Or should he continue with the business he had launched in 2007, and rely on outside investment or the parent company to fund his efforts at growing the business? It was time to evaluate his strategic options.

Neptune Orient Lines Limited (NOL) was started as Singapore’s national shipping line to facilitate industrial development and support the economy. The CMA CGM Group (CMA CGM) had acquired 67 per cent of NOL from Temasek Holdings Private Limited for SG$2.3 billion or $1.30 per share—a 6 per cent premium over the last closing price. In 2016, CMA CGM sought to acquire the remaining shares at the same price so that it could delist NOL and take it private. In order to delist, the company would need to acquire another 23 per cent of shares to hit the acceptance threshold of 90 per cent. Should the remaining shareholders sell their shares at $1.30 per share, or hold out for a better price? Should bondholders of CMA CGA and NOL be concerned about the acquisition?

Following a report by the Premier’s Advisory Council on Government Assets in 2015, the sale of beverage alcohol products in Ontario was deregulated: in 2016, 60 grocery stores were licensed to sell beer and cider to consumers. The intention was for up to 450 grocery stores to eventually sell beer and cider products, and for 300 of these stores to also sell wine. The move to deregulate the industry was contentious; the province generated substantial tax revenues from its provincially owned liquor stores, and many stakeholders had concerns about expanding the availability of alcohol. <br><br><br><br>Retailers, policy-makers, and consumers faced questions about the role of regulation in a market. The provincial government had been trying to achieve specific historic and public-welfare goals by regulating the sale of alcohol and taxing sales of this controlled substance. Policy-makers needed to consider the impact of deregulation on health care and on tax revenues. Independent grocers wondered whether substituting their current products with beverage alcohol products would boost their overall income; they also wondered what future restrictions the government would place on the sale of beverage alcohol products. The impact of this regulation was felt by consumers and by industry players, including retail stores, restaurants, and alcoholic beverage manufacturers.

In 2014, Burberry’s new chief executive officer was facing a changing environment and digital disruption in the luxury fashion industry. The Burberry brand image had improved considerably over the past decade. However, several changes within the fashion world had had a significant impact on the overall luxury fashion industry. Fast fashion, digital technology, and new communication channels had changed the way the world’s leading luxury brands operated. The industry experienced financial growth year-over-year, and Burberry and other luxury brands continued to be the industry trendsetters. However, the luxury companies were slowly losing some of their power and control over their brand image, both artistically and financially. Burberry’s business strategy needed to adapt to this changing environment, respond to the latest global fashion trends, and improve the communication of its brand. Should Burberry lead or follow with regard to making changes to its stores and fashion shows, dealing with fast fashion, and integrating a clear digital strategy as part of the company’s marketing strategy?

Reliance Industries Limited entered the Indian telecommunications industry by launching Reliance Jio Infocomm, which offered high-speed, fourth-generation data services. Its business strategy was to provide integrated access to information, entertainment, and commerce at high speed and low prices. Despite the competitive landscape and various other challenges, the company was optimistic that it could acquire 100 million customers in 100 days. This ambitious target could be achieved through consistent marketing offerings and efforts driven by robust analytics. Could the company’s innovative business model revolutionize the industry?

In 2016, Tesco PLC, a leading U.K. retail chain, had undergone tremendous financial turmoil. Profitability had been decreasing since 2013 with heavy losses registered during fiscal year (FY) 2014/15. Net profit had decreased by 304 per cent from 2012 to 2015. However, after the appointment of a new chief executive officer in 2014, Tesco managed to register a net profit of £138 million in FY 2015/16: an astonishing turnaround. Evidently, Tesco was recovering from its losses, but the share price of the company had fallen by more than 20 per cent from 2015 to 2016. What course of action would enable Tesco to maintain and improve its value for shareholders? What areas should the chief executive officer focus on in order to change Tesco’s financial performance?

In mid-2016, the chief executive officer of Tesla, a U.S. manufacturer of electric cars, was interested in acquiring SolarCity, a U.S. solar power manufacturer and distributor. Both Tesla and SolarCity operated in young, high-growth industries; however, despite their high growth rates, both companies were also losing money every year. Both companies had similar products and could be a strong strategic fit. The chief executive officer needed to convince Tesla’s shareholders that SolarCity would be a good acquisition target and then determine a fair price to offer.

A 2016 consumer survey in the United Kingdom revealed that five out of 10 people did not know that Coca-Cola Zero (Coke Zero) contained no sugar. Many respondents also expected Coke Zero to taste more like Coca-Cola Classic, but found the taste not similar enough. Therefore, Coca-Cola relaunched the product with an ambitious multimillion-dollar marketing campaign that followed a three-dimension value management cycle encompassing value creation, value communication, and value capture. To successfully relaunch Coke Zero and achieve the company’s objectives, Coca-Cola would need to both anticipate the challenges in each of these three phases and manage them effectively.

Viacom, Inc., a New York City-based media company, owned Paramount Pictures and popular television channels such as MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon. Viacom was controlled by Sumner Redstone and run by his hand-picked second in command. In 2016, the 92-year-old Redstone, facing a claim of mental incompetency because of his advanced age, stepped down from his role as executive chair of the board. This led to several issues regarding corporate governance at the company. Viacom’s board of directors faced a lawsuit from a shareholder claiming that a mentally incompetent Redstone was playing a role on the board; an activist investor accused the company of a lack of governance and poor leadership. The newly elected lead independent director needed to address the board of directors’ role in this embattled company.

Netflix, Inc. (Netflix), the world’s leading provider of subscription video on demand (SVoD), launched its Indian platform on January 6, 2016. Due to its huge population, India represented a lucrative market. Furthermore, the younger generation in India had dynamic consumption patterns that were comparable to those of Western consumers, giving Netflix another reason to invest in the country. However, six months after Netflix’s launch in India, as the initial buzz surrounding the entry subsided, important questions loomed: Would the company be able to meet the diverse needs of Indian consumers? Was the Indian market and consumer seasoned enough to adopt a more sophisticated model of SVoD? How could Netflix get a stronghold in a market that was still grappling with basic infrastructure problems and low Internet penetration, as well as censorship issues? Even though Netflix was a formidable player globally, it was not the first mover in the Indian market and many of its competitors were already doing extremely well. How could Netflix compete and move forward in India?

Founded in 1997, Allegiant Airlines (Allegiant) was one of the most profitable ultra-low-cost airlines in the United States. Allegiant maintained high profit margins by targeting the uncaptured market segment for leisure travel and using a unique way of managing cost and revenue drivers. Allegiant avoided direct competition with traditional airlines and captured the new market of price-sensitive leisure travelers. After employing extreme cost-reduction and revenue-enhancement strategies, Allegiant achieved one of the highest profit margins in the industry. In 2015, despite inexpensive airfares, Allegiant received low scores on customer satisfaction. The airline also faced labour and safety issues by the end of 2015, but it took several steps to resolve the issues in 2016. With increasing competition, rising costs, and low customer satisfaction, maintaining long-term profitability remained a challenge for Allegiant. How could the airline sustain its position in the market?

In 2014, Alibaba—the Chinese e-commerce giant who, in September 2014, completed the largest initial public offering (IPO) in New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) history—was preparing itself for an additional round of capital fundraising. This time, Alibaba focused its efforts on a new, large bond issue. Its chief executive officer would lead Alibaba’s finance team in meetings with investors in Hong Kong, Singapore, and London to gather information about this pending bond issue. <br><br>Although Alibaba was listed on the NYSE, an overwhelming majority of its revenues originated in China. Most U.S. investors had not heard of Alibaba until just a few months prior to its IPO in September 2014. Also, being a high-tech company, Alibaba was subject to the potential for large swings in valuations typical for the industry. Fluid valuations and matters related to country risk premia meant pricing the bond issue was going to be a challenge. How would Alibaba estimate the bonds’ pricing? Further, how should the firm determine the location and timing of the new bond issue?

In July 2014, WH Group faced the issue of attempting to launch an initial public offering for the second time, after having previously failed to list its shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. WH Group originated from a merger between two meat-processing companies: China’s Shuanghui International—a global leader in animal protein and the world’s largest pork producer—and Smithfield Foods from the United States. Both Shuanghui and Smithfield Foods commanded top market shares of pork consumption in their respective countries; Shuanghui controlled 2 per cent in China and Smithfield Foods captured 26 per cent in the United States. With many challenges ahead, WH Group had some decisions to make about the company’s future. Should the company try again to launch an initial public offering? Or should the company remain private?

In late 2015, South African telecommunications giant MTN was fined US$5.2 billion by the Nigerian authorities for a mass of improperly registered subscribers—the largest fine of its kind ever imposed in the industry anywhere in the world. MTN was an emerging-market multinational corporation with a track record of successfully operating in some of the toughest, riskiest emerging markets. Thus, it was surprising that MTN had been unable to avoid a fine of this magnitude. Three factors had preceded the fine and changed the business environment in Nigeria leading up to 2015: the first was the war against the Boko Haram movement in Nigeria, which led security forces to demand the registration of prepaid phone cards; the second was the economic crisis caused by the impact of falling oil prices; and the third factor was a change in government. In light of these political risks and government regulations, how could MTN recover and move forward from this difficult situation?

In February 2016, the president of the Union Pearson Express was being pressured to lower the fare price. The rail link between Union Station in downtown Toronto and the Toronto Pearson International Airport had only been running for eight months, but ridership was well below targets. On average, the train ran at only 10 per cent of capacity, and current revenue only covered 35 per cent of operating costs. The president and her team had set the one-way fare price at CA$27.50 to reflect the high-value positioning of the train. However, this price had received a great deal of criticism. The president had attempted to combat the criticism both in the press and with marketing actions, blaming entrenched consumer behaviours regarding travel. She also offered discounts and promotions to boost ridership, which ultimately failed. Now she had to decide whether to lower fares and how to market the Union Pearson Express.