The third section explores the challenges Nike faces in the future. This paper closes by reviewing Nike’s current areas of concern and future challenges and the opportunities for further consideration. Introduction Nike’s story is one of reclamation, providing the prototype of a multinational company achieving industry leadership as a socially responsible corporation while recovering from extensive ethical and strategic oversights. Initially, Nike failed to address their responsibility in the widespread contract site manufacturing problems. Only later did Nike take these issues seriously, largely due to negative media attention and consumer demands.
Much like Ribena, Cadbury initially neglected the contamination speculations which led to disapproval from the media-authorities and customers. (Carroll, 2009) James E. Grunig states that to eliminate conflicts and customer complaints, brands should use advertising and all the tricks of the trade to change consumer opinion. () Ribena clearly did not establish this and continued telecast of the misleading ads which eventually impacted it's consumer's trust. One of the major mistakes made by Ribena was the shortfall in communicating information symmetrically with the public. Symmetrical communications help build effective customer relations and avoid harming the parent company.
But their lack of integration and push to get them to buy into the EnClean ideal wasn't very good; they simply focused too much on short term gains of the current people who were running the acquired companies instead of putting in management that would do the job right. What they ended up with was lost time, and money, which would have been better spent better getting the acquired company to better fit into the service aspect that EnClean had setup. I also think they started jumping the gun on certain buys, such as the AlphaChem acquisition. Why they did not realize or at least consider that they were not a distribution company, and that AlphaChem had no clear strategy is beyond me.
As a successor to the VERIFIER system, CONFIG was a good technology that was implemented horribly. Some of the main problems that plagued implementation of CONFIG were lack of employee training, poor interface design, and hardware inaccessibility. With the addition of a lack of motivation from employees who had disincentives to aggregate the system, this resulted in less usage and application across the board. Instead of assuming CONFIG as a “Turkey” or an “Edsel,” we must look at the organizational structure of the companies and make sure the optimization of subprocesses such as the sales representatives does not suboptimize the processes such as new technology that will benefit the company. CONFIG is an important example of how system analysts
The explanation for this failure is attributed to the fact that these firms were as well-run as a firm could expect to be, but there is something in the way that the decisions within the firm are made that lead to their failure. The Innovator’s Dilemma states that because firms listened to their customers, invested aggressively in technologies that would provide their customers with more and better products of the type they wanted, and because they studied market trends very intently and allocated capital toward innovations that promised the best returns, they lost their positions as leaders within their industry. The book declares that there are times at which its better to not listen to customers, to invest in developing lower-performance products that promise ... ... middle of paper ... ...asis of competition. The third strategic option for dealing with these dynamics is to use marketing initiatives to steepen the slopes of the market trajectories so that customers demand the performance improvements that the technologists provide.” (154). The ideas and theories presented in this book relate to this course because they can directly affect the way a company develops its supply chain.
According to the authors of the article, Relationship Marketing is powerful when it comes to theory but troubled in practice. The authors state that in order to prevent its premature death, marketers need to take the time to figure out how and why they are undermining their own best efforts, as well as how they can get things back on track (Fournier et al., 1998). Marketers did not fully understand what relationships with customers were about and how they should be built as well as maintained. As for the key issues, the article mentions a few customer scenarios of how the customers think about relationship marketing and customer satisfaction rates are at an all-time low. Companies must stop claiming that they value customer relationships and offer solutions to problem when customers feel that their loyalty is being taken advantage of.
Need recognition, is the first step in the Consumer Decision process (Grewal & Levy, 2014) and key in the fact that if consumers don’t sense a need the product will linger and die on the shelves. Proctor & Gamble as a company was full of products with great success for filling consumer’s functional needs and even greater with getting products into a consumer’s evoked set. Products in the Tide and Olay brands are both great examples of these types of P&G’s successes. However, the initial testing and marketing of Febreeze seemed difficult and challenging. P&G Marketers were unable to get anything other than dismal sales results regardless of how remarkable the product was at eliminating odors (Duhigg, 2012).
Motorola Company is a great company having penetrated in the United States market and hence had a fair market share. However, some wrangles had led to Motorola losing its glory where its customers left it, complaints increased and it was moving very slowly in digital production. Motorola had a very bad culture that involved internal rivalry and internal competition. Divisions within the company used to compete with each other instead of working together in their investments and exchange ideas in production. Their culture was too much of engineering driven and Galvin the chief executive officer of the company felt that this culture was not in line with the goals and vision of the company (Georgia, 1998).
Michael Porter believed that the traditional strategic analysis through the SWOT system was not a sufficient way to analyze business strategy, so he published his alternative, “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy,” to replace the SWOT Analysis method in 1979. These competitive forces, although proficient in examining a business’s past, are not an effective way to create a strategy that drives a business into the future of its industry. The reason that Porter’s Monitor Group failed was because it did change with the rapidly changing marketplace we find ourselves in today. Monitor, like the Five Forces Strategy, lacked clairvoyance. The Five Forces Porter used as the basis of his consulting firm included the bargaining power of customers, threat of new entrants, threat of substitute products, bargaining power of suppliers, and competitive rivalry within an industry.