Chapter 5 Strategies in Action - Home

E-mail Address:
Michael Cooke
IC room 817
Class hours:
Class Location:
Tuesday 09:00-12:00
IC room 822
Likely Project Topics
 Thai silk
 Thai rubber and rubber products
 Thai rice
 Thai shrimp
 Thai cassava
 Thai tourist industry
Choose a topic and a partner by 3-December
Advise 10-15 minute presentation form, papers
Look at the business using the Five Forces framework
Suggest and support a strategy
Due 28 January for presentations
Alliances and cooperation
 Joint ventures
◦ Globalization is often a driver
◦ Need clear agreements to succeed
Merger / acquisition
 First mover advantages
 Outsourcing
Ch 5 -3
Cooperation among Competitors
In November 2012 Samsung has hiked the price of its
mobile processors by 20 percent, but to only one of the
Korean technology giant's customers: Apple.
Apple bought roughly 130 million Samsung-made mobile
processors last year (2011) and more than 200 million
chips this year to keep up with demand for the iPhone 5
and the new iPads.
Apple first disapproved it, but finding no replacement
supplier, it accepted the increase.
Apple and TSMC will be testing the waters to see if TMSC
can deliver enough solid processors to handle demand and
accommodate Apple's notoriously high standards for chip
If TSMC can pull it off, Samsung might be pushed out. If
not, Apple might have to go back to the drawing board.
The way Microsoft works with its hardware manufacturers changed with the release of Windows RT.
Longtime partners are thinking about how to react.
Windows RT and the chips running the operating system are different from past software and
hardware. Microsoft had to control the partners. Successful products, like those from Apple, have
integration of hardware and software.
Microsoft took control of partners working with the new Windows RT for low-power ARM chips.
◦ It held regular meetings with the companies in its development program and dictated their
◦ Microsoft demanded partner hardware product designs and samples.
◦ "We were required at various points to get their approval on designs and on the
development of our product," one hardware executive said.
Yet Microsoft was secretly developing its own Surface tablet which would compete with the partners'.
Microsoft invited companies to a mysterious press event in June, where it revealed it was working on
the Surface tablet. The Surface would be the company's first push into making computer hardware.
The news shocked Microsoft's chip and PC partners. Some knew Microsoft was working on its own
hardware to sell in its stores, but Microsoft didn't say anything about a tablet or using Windows RT.
"We were absolutely surprised they were doing that," another hardware executive said. "Compete with
us if you like, but you need to provide a higher degree of clarity in where the line is drawn between
the guys...who are our friends and those who are not.“
◦ For the PC makers, it means their relationship with Microsoft and consumers will change.
◦ While many executives said they want more clarity on when Microsoft is a rival and when it's
a friend, Microsoft isn't likely to share details about its future products with partners.
In a July regulatory filing MSFT said Surface will compete with the other RT device makers and may
reduce computer makers' commitment to Windows.
In contrast, Google works with partners to create Google-brand devices instead of building their own.
If a PC maker wants to move away from Microsoft, the options are limited.
Cooperation among Competitors
 To succeed both firms must contribute something
 Contributions might be complementary, such as one firm has
distribution capabilities while the other has manufacturing capacity
 Globalization may cause competitors to enter into an alliance
US companies use cross-border alliances try to reduce the cost of entering markets
Asian firms tend to use alliances as a means of learning from partners
 Due to high cost of product development, companies might pool
 Some alliances involve distribution channels and trademarks
Kimberly Clarks Huggies are made and distributed through an
alliance with Lever Brothers in India
In other instances a company will buy another for access to
 Dangers are unintended information transfers (employees
working together) and changes in the nature of the rivalry
 Alliance agreements might be vague or incomplete
 Company firewalls might crumble (a firewall is supposed to keep one
part of a company from influencing another part)
 Changes in the balance of power between the companies
Business Ecosystems
 From the late 19th Century, the quest to reap economies of scale became the driving
force for business. Integrated, hierarchical organizational structures followed.
 Standardization of processes and of procurement of materials favored hierarchical
firms over networks of individualistic firms, especially in an era where the primary
demand was for rapidly increasing volume of standardized goods and services.
 The benefits of increased specialization, meanwhile, could be maximized by creating
a few large, well-located units.
 In a world where technology for communications and knowledge exchange was
primitive, corporate hierarchies offered the most efficient way of reducing transaction
costs and synchronizing supply and demand between these specialist units.
 Today’s world requires the capacity to deliver complex solutions to customers, built
by bringing together specialized capabilities scattered in diverse organizations
around the world. At the same time, suppliers of these solutions need to maintain
flexibility and a rapid pace of improvement. The imperative is to achieve not only
economies of scale, but economies of scope.
 The modern business ecosystem needs to be complex in size and
 It requires the coordination of many fluid, organic, diverse, and difficult to manage
relationships with many different types of parties.
 Today, lead companies—such as ARM Holdings Plc; Dassault Systems, Europe’s
second largest software company; SAP; Apple; and Google—have gained success
by shaping (although not fully determining) the formation of business
ecosystems around them that help fuel their growth and enhance their returns.
David Vogel CMR Fall 2012
Ch 5 -8
Strategic Alliances
 Coalition of organizations to achieve goals for mutual benefit
 Can be licensing, joint ventures, R&D partnerships
 Can be informal
 Types of Strategic Alliances
Simple licensing agreements between two partners
Market-based alliances (distribution channels, trademarks)
Operations and logistics alliances
Operations-based alliances (sharing of manufacturing ideas)
 The Logic Behind Strategic Alliances
Defend leading position by access to new ideas, markets, etc
Catch-Up by joining forces
Remain in a leading business that is not core to the parent
Restructure a non-core business (which may be acquired by the alliance
 Success factors
 Partners of equal strength
 Alliance must have independent management with authority
 Shared vision and support from top management in the parent organizations
Licensor receives royalties for use of knowledge assets
Licensee pays royalties fees to use the assets
Cross licensing is where companies share intellectual property
With patent cross licensing each company has a portfolio of patents
 Rather than have endless and costly ‘patent wars’ companies agree to cross
 These agreements are common among technology firms
Benefits of licensing
◦ Low commitment of resources
◦ Appealing to small companies that lack resources
◦ No import barriers
◦ Low exposure to political and economic risks
◦ Rapid penetration of global markets
Risks from licensing
◦ Revenue may be lower than with other entry modes
◦ Licensee may not be committed
◦ Lack of control over licensee can result in bad image
◦ Licensee may become a future competitor
Reduce risks through patents, trademarks, analysis, and carefully worded
Other Means to Achieve Strategies
Patent Litigation
What was said to be a fight over whether the Samsung infringed specific Apple patents, was appropriately seen as
corporate warfare waged through courts. This was a consequence of Steve Jobs’ vow to “go thermonuclear” on
Google’s Android operating system, which powers Samsung phones.
Today it’s practically impossible to build anything without violating a patent of some kind—and risking a multimilliondollar lawsuit for your troubles.
Large companies built patent stockpiles as a defensive measure. They were hesitated to sue one another because they
knew their target likely had patents that covered similar territory and they could be countersued quickly.
“Typically there’s a cross-license that keeps companies from having to assert literally 10,000 or 20,000 patents against
each other,” Google general counsel Kent Walker says.
Companies have begun banding together to buy costly patent portfolios at the expense of a rival.
In 2011 while telecom giant Nortel Networks was going bankrupt, it was valued at less than a billion dollars. Its
patents ended up selling at auction for $4.5 billion to a group of companies
The group included Microsoft and Apple, two companies famous for their rivalry. Google, a third competitor,
dropped out of the bidding at $3.14 billion.
Trolling is a multibillion-dollar industry in which Non-performing Entities (NPEs) buy patents.
A famous patent-troll case came in 2006, when an NPE said that the RIM BlackBerry infringed on patents.
RIM asked the Patent Office to reexamine the patents,
Before the patent office could reach a decision, the judge had to decide whether to grant an injunction, which
could have shut down RIM’s entire business.
Fearing the worst, RIM settled for $612.5 million.
Not long after the case was settled, the Patent Office ruled that many of the disputed patents were indeed invalid.
Tax Strategies and Government Support
Grant Thornton tax accountant Peter Vale, who works with multinationals in Ireland says the corporate tax rate of 12.5%
may not be a critical factor for companies like Google. Google uses Ireland as a conduit for revenues that end up going to
another country where the intellectual property is registered. For Google this country is Bermuda. An investigation
conducted by Bloomberg and UK-based tax accountant Richard Murphy last year uncovered a highly efficient tax structure
across six territories that meant Google paid just 2.4% tax on operations outside the US. (1) Note: The US tax rate is 35%.
Google, the owner of the world's most popular search engine, uses a strategy that is popular among such companies as
Facebook Inc. and Microsoft Corp. The method takes advantage of Irish tax law to legally shuttle profits into and out of
subsidiaries there, largely escaping the country's 12.5% income tax. The earnings wind up in island havens that levy no
corporate income taxes at all. Google's transfer pricing contributed to international tax benefits that boosted its earnings by
26% last year, company filings show. (Bloomberg News 10-21-10)
The tactics of Google and Facebook depend on "transfer pricing," paper transactions among corporate subsidiaries that
allocate income to low tax areas and attribute expenses to higher-tax countries. This typically involves registering
intellectual property in low tax areas such as Cayman Islands. The attraction of Ireland for some companies is that Irish tax
law allows flexibility in transfer pricing, in addition to relatively low tax rates and some incentives to locate R&D in Ireland.
Global companies retain tax advisory firms (ref. to stay within complex home country and Irish laws.
Tech companies are able to easily shift “intellectual property, and the profit that goes along with it, to tax havens,” said a
former Treasury Department economist, Martin A. Sullivan. “Apple went out of its way to try and ensure that its tax savings
didn’t attract too much public attention, because tax avoidance of that magnitude — even though it’s legal and permissible
— isn’t in keeping with the image of a socially progressive company.” (NY Times 3-1-13)
US Senate investigators are looking into the technology industry, to see if have been broken. The subcommittee is known to
be looking at Apple, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft and firms in such fields as biotechnology.
Governments and regions often provide incentives or support to investors or businesses. Sometime the support is indirect.
For instance, large banks enjoy an implicit government subsidy from low cost of funds due to the ‘too big to fail’ concept.
Recently, the Japanese government has proposed buying factories from Japanese companies in distress, and then leasing
those factories back. Political jurisdictions from China to US states offer loans or subsidies for certain types of investment.
Franchisor gets royalty payments for use of intellectual
property in a designated area for a specific time
Franchisee pays royalties and other payments
◦ Note the supply chain clause in Papa John’s (Exhibit 9-6)
◦ Potential for mark-up, also ensures quality of goods
Master franchising is often used in foreign markets
◦ Master franchise gets right to sell local franchises in a territory
◦ Master franchise usually commits to a target number
◦ CP All has the master franchise for 7-11 Thailand
◦ Expansion with a minimum investment
◦ Franchisees’ profits tied to their efforts
◦ Access to local franchisees’ knowledge of the local laws and customs
Revenues may be lower than with other modes of expansion
Lack of a master franchisee in certain markets
Limited franchising opportunities in some locations
Lack of control over the franchisees’ operations
Cultural problems
Physical distance
Exhibit 9-6: International Franchising with Papa John’s
Chapter 9
Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons,
Business Process Outsourcing involves functional operations
Allows firm to focus on core competencies
Flexibility (if needs shift)
May be less expensive or of higher quality than internal providers (possible comparison
Can be difficult to unwind a relationship
These must be actively managed and control of information might be an issue
Total costs might be higher than expected, and quality lower
Companies specialize in manufacturing for other companies
 Labor cost advantages
 Tax, energy, raw materials, and overhead savings
 Lower political and economic risk
 Focus on core competencies (such as product design, marketing)
 Access to manufacturing expertise
 Quicker access to markets (no need to build factories)
 Contract manufacturer may become a future competitor
 Conflicts of interest if the manufacturer has products
 May lack flexibility (contractor often has other commitments)
 Backlash from the company’s home-market employees regarding HR and labor issues
 Issues of quality and production standards
◦ Reducing the risks
Keep proprietary design item manufacture in-house
Have contingency plans for changes in demand
Contract Manufacturing (Outsourcing)
 Qualities of An Ideal Subcontractor:
 Flexible/geared toward just-in-time delivery
 Able to integrate with company’s business
 Able to meet quality standards
 Solid financial footings
 Must have contingency plans for changes in demand
Contract manufacturers typically have multiple clients
In most cases the manufacturer has to balance client needs
 No conflicts of interest
 Major contract manufacturers (electronics total $360bb in 2011):
 Hon Hai (Foxconn)
 Flextronics
 Jabil Circuit
Semiconductors $14BB
 Celestica
 Catalent
Joint Ventures
 Cooperative joint venture
 No equity in the venture
 Involves collaboration
 Common among large multinationals with emerging market partners
 Equity joint venture – partners have equity stakes
 JV Benefits:
 Higher rate of return and more control over the operations
 Shared capital and risk
 Sharing of expertise and other resources
 Access to host country distribution networks
 Contact with local suppliers and government officials
 JV Risks:
 Lack of control
Government restrictions often forbid majority stake
Multinationals can deploy expatriates for greater control
 Partner can become competitor
 Conflicts arising over matters such as strategies, resource allocation,
transfer pricing, and ownership of assets like technologies and brand
names (Exhibit 9-7)
 Well planned agreements help reduce conflict
Exhibit 9-7: Conflicting Objectives in Chinese Joint Ventures
Chapter 9
Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons,
Successful Joint Ventures
 Screen for the right partner (Exhibit 9-8)
 Obtain information about the partner
 See if the partner has similar investment objectives
 Establish clear objectives from the beginning
 Bridge cultural gaps (perhaps with a middleman)
 Gain top managerial commitment and respect
 Use an incremental approach (start on small scale)
 Create a launch team during the launch phase:
(1) Build and maintain strategic alignment
(2) Create a system for parent company oversight
(3) Manage the compensation of each parent
(4) Build the organization for the joint venture (assign
Exhibit 9-8: Starbuck’s Coffee’s Partner Criteria
Chapter 9
Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons,
Wholly Owned Subsidiaries
Acquisitions and Mergers
– Merger is when companies of similar size unit
• Mergers come with issues about control of the resulting entity.
• Can be a defensive move against a powerful rival.
– An acquisition is when one company acquires another.
• Usually no question about control
• Management or private investors might ‘take a company private’ in an LBO
• A hostile takeover is when management or the BOD of the target firm is against the
– Quick access to local markets by buying an existing company
– Synergies, or economies of scale are often cited reasons for mergers
– Cross border acquisitions are a way to get access to local brands or distribution
– Funding is a key to acquisitions
• Cash (either from borrowing or retained earnings)
• Equity (use of shares as currency)
• A combination of cash and equity is most common
• A company with high share price may use the price to purchase weaker companies
• If a earnings per share rise the acquisition is said to be accretive to EPS
Greenfield Operations
– Entire operation is developed by the multinational
– Offers the company more flexibility than acquisitions in the areas of human
resources, suppliers, logistics, plant layout, and manufacturing technology.
Starbucks’ Comments to the IASB
• Our business model is built on a dynamic portfolio of numerous,
relatively small locations in a given market. Option periods enable us to
lock in a site while preserving flexibility to exit the location if
circumstances dictate. It is not a foregone conclusion that an option
period will be exercised, and the assessment conducted near the end of
the original lease term is very specific to the individual site, based not
only on that store’s performance but also other factors such as a more
desirable location becoming available nearby, changing traffic patterns,
and the impact of other stores in the area. Consequently, the effort to
assess the “more likely than not” lease term would be a very timeconsuming and imprecise process, involving several hours of work for
each lease at inception and again when a renewal or other trigger requires
re-evaluation. The goal of achieving comparability across companies – or
even among divisions of an individual company – would be difficult to
obtain. *
• Recall the bankruptcy of Tully’s, burdened with property when demand
• Businesses like flexibility, but an option (right to buy or sell that is not an
obligation) always comes with consideration for the other party (cost)
since they are giving up their own flexibility.
• Options to buy or sell are commonly used in of business strategy. A
company might place an option to buy on a property, for example.
* Financial Times 3-1 -13
Different means to strategy bring different
degrees of control
◦ In general lower investment brings less control
◦ Higher investment brings more control
◦ Firms with IP or brand equity tend to want control
Flexibility is an important consideration
◦ Contractual arrangements or major investments might
be hard to unwind
◦ Note Starbucks approach to retail locations
Firms differ in their tolerance and taste for
financial loss
◦ Higher investment of resources can bring higher loss
◦ A wealthy and diversified firm operating in familiar and
stable environments can make bigger investments
A Summary of Risk and Control
Financial risk
 Licensing – low control
 Low cost = low risk
 Franchising – low control
 Little invested = low risk
 Contract – limited control
 Low investment = low risk
 JV – limited control
 Risk sharing with partner
 Acquisition – high control
 High risk
A first mover enters a market or develops a product
before others
Products are not always pioneered in the home market
Firms tend to be early market entrants when
They are large firms
They have international expertise
They have a broad scope of products or services
When host countries have favorable risk dimensions
When market entry requires little capital
Firms tend to enter markets similar to markets in which they already
have experience
◦ Note all of the above factors tend to reduce risk to the firm
A firm can be a slow mover when products are easily
◦ First mover advantages when firms have similar resources
◦ A larger company can often wait while a small first mover makes
Late entrants may have more favorable business conditions
in developing countries
Exhibit 10-4: Examples of Test Market Countries
Masaaki Kotabe, Global Marketing Chapter11
Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Exhibit 9-10: Wal-Mart’s International Expansion
Chapter 9
Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons,
Strategy Analysis
David Chapter 6
 Strategy formulation generally encompasses three stages:
 Input stage (such as external and internal factors)
 Matching stage (SWOT, BCG, and other tools)
 Decision stage
 Formulation should not be mechanical.
 Factor weightings require judgment
 Analytical tools should facilitate communication
Admit the possibility of bad data
Follow up on anomalies in data
 “The hierarchy of command in an organization, combined with the
career aspirations of different people and the need to allocate scarce
resources, guarantees the formation of coalitions of individuals who
strive to take care of themselves first and the organization second or
third.” (David p. 228)
 “Successful strategists interject new faces and new views in the
consideration of major changes. This is important because new
employees and new managers have more enthusiasm… new employees
do not act as screens against change.” (David p 229)
 When firms merge, cultures may clash and plans must consider the
linking of cultures and strategy.
Competitive Analysis
• Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
analysis (See SWOT Exhibit 8-6.) isolates issues that will be
important to the future of the firm
• SWOT analysis looks at internal and external
factors, followed by matching.
• Matching is difficult and requires judgment.
– The purpose is to generate feasible alternatives.
– Not all scenarios will be used.
• Executives can construct alternative strategies
from SWOT analysis.
– For more on how to do SWOT analysis see David p 210.
– SWOT is static (a view frozen in time) and will not show
how to achieve advantage in dynamic environments.
– Interrelationships among factors need consideration
Chapter 8
Copyright (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons,
The BCG model is based on classification of products or
business units into four categories based on market
growth and market share relative to the largest
competitor. (1)
The model is used in multi-division firms.
◦ Divisions may compete in different industries
◦ Focus on relative market-share position & industry growth rates
Each product has a product life cycle and each stage in
product's life-cycle represents a different profile of risk
and return.
According to the model a company should maintain a
balanced portfolio of products. Having a balanced product
portfolio includes both high-growth products as well as
low-growth products.
◦ Portfolio theory states that companies do not need to diversity,
investors do (market cap of less diversified AAPL is 15x HPQ’s).
◦ Subsidizing one product with profit from another can expose the
profitable product to competitor pricing action.
STARS (high growth, high market share)
- High market share in a growing market.
- Stars need a lot of support for promotion and placement.
- Stars may become cash cows later in the PLC.
QUESTION MARKS (high growth, low market share)
- Low market share in growing market.
- These are new products and buyers have yet to discover them.
- The marketing strategy is to get markets to adopt these products.
- Resource intensive and low returns due to low market share.
- Need to increase market share quickly or they become dogs.
- Need investment to gain market share or need to divest them.
CASH COWS (low growth, high market share)
- High market share in a mature market.
- Cash cows may have high profit margins and generate a lot of cash.
- Because of the low growth additional marketing investment is low.
- Investments in supporting infrastructure can improve efficiency and
cash flow.
- Cash cows are the products that businesses strive for.
DOGS (low growth, low market share)
- Dogs are in low growth markets and have low market share.
- Dogs should be avoided and minimized.
- Expensive turnaround efforts may be futile. 5 -34