Case 2 apple's winning marketing strategy

Marketing Case Analysis

10 Case analysis. Around 2 pages each.

All instructions + Rubric attached.

Book:

Marketing Strategy, 6th Edition by Ferrell and Hartline

Cases:

Trouble Brews at Starbucks (6th Edition)

Chevrolet: 100 Years of Product Innovation (6th Edition)

BP Struggles to Repair Its Tarnished Reputation (5th & 6th Edition)

Mattel Confronts Its Marketing Challenges (5th & 6th Edition)

IKEA Slowly Expands its U.S. Market Presence (5th & 6th Edition)

Gillette: Why Innovation May Not Be Enough (6th Edition)

Apple’s Winning Marketing strategy (6th Edition)

Netflix Fights to Stay Ahead of a Rapidly Changing Market (6th Edition)

New Belgium Brewing B: Developing a Brand Personality (5th & 6th Edition)

Zappos: Delivering Happiness (6th Edition)

Case Analysis Guidelines

Some Hints for Preparing Cases

· Skim the case first. Know the basic structure of the case and where the main information is.

· What are the broad issues? Who is involved in the case? What problems do they face? What is their situation like?

· What do the case question (located in the end of each case in the textbook) ask? What will it take to answer them? What issues in the course does the case involve? Make a list.

· Prioritize these problems (SWOT analysis). What issues are central to the problem?

· Develop a set of recommendations

· Evaluate your recommendations vs. alternatives. What conflicts between ideas, perspectives, or values are involved in decision what actions to take?

1. Write case memos and answer the case questions

· The case memo should include SWOT analysis, strategy alternatives, strategy recommendations, and answers to the specific case questions in the textbook (2-page limit).

· Use the related information and evidence to support your claims. Make thoughtful assumptions about the information that is not available in the case.

· Case analyses must be submitted before the end of the case discussion session.

· Case memos are individual work

· Many questions do not have a right or wrong answer; credit will be given for answers that demonstrate thoughtful, careful reading of the case, originality, analysis, good writing and neatness.

Rubric for Case Analysis

Level of Achievement

Criteria

Excellent

Good

Needs Improvement

Unacceptable

SWOT Analysis

A thorough SWOT analysis is presented and explained. There are no major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats missing. In addition, items under each category are appropriately categorized and written.

A SWOT analysis is presented and explained, but there are 1-2 things wrong with the analysis—e.g., at least one major item is missing, or an item is inappropriately categorized, or an opportunity is written as a tactic. Alternatively, the explanation of the SWOT may be unclear.

A SWOT analysis is presented and explained, but there are 3-4 things wrong with the analysis and/or the explanation is very unclear.

The SWOT analysis is either very poorly done (>5 things wrong with it) or missing, and/or the explanation is missing.

Identification of Problems/Issues

Clearly identifies problems/issues, based on the SWOT analysis. The problems/issues are prioritized, differentiating those that are important from those that are routine. Relationships among the problems are identified, with the underlying, primary or key problem/issue clearly designated.

Problem and issue identification is clear, based on the SWOT analysis, and prioritizations have been made. Most, but not all, judgments about priorities are appropriate. Relationships and the key underlying problem/issue are identified.

Problem and issue identification is unclear in some aspects and is not wholly based on SWOT analysis. Prioritization is confused. Relationships and the key underlying problem/issue are either misidentified or missing.

The problem identification is missing or not based on SWOT analysis at all. In addition, there is no attention given to relationships among and prioritization of problems. Shows lack of judgment.

Identification and Analysis of Strategic Alternative Actions

Clearly identifies several strategic alternative actions that can be taken to address problems/issues. The list of alternatives is complete and linkage to the SWOT and problems/issues is clear, providing clear reasoning for inclusion as an alternative action. Each strategic alternative clearly represents a broad strategic direction.

Analysis of alternative actions is detailed. Any necessary assumptions are stated and justified. The analysis appropriately incorporates strategic marketing management concepts and financial analysis. The likely benefits/disadvantages of each action are clearly identified and supported by the analysis.

Identifies strategic alternative actions that can be taken to address problems/issues. Most, but not all, alternative actions are linked to the SWOT and problems/issues. One of the alternative actions is too narrow (tactical) and does not identify a broad strategic direction. Analysis of alternative actions is detailed, but some statements are unsupported by analysis/ calculations. Assumptions are stated, but some are not justified. Most, but not all, benefits/disadvantages are clearly identified and supported by the analysis.

The list of strategic alternative actions is incomplete or unclear in some aspects, and includes alternatives that are not based on the SWOT and/or are not reasonably linked to the problems and issues. More than one alternative is too narrow and does not identify a broad strategic direction. Some analysis is included, but it is not very detailed. Many statements are not supported by analysis/calculations.

Either the list of strategic alternative actions is missing or the list is very incomplete or there is no linkage of the alternative actions to the SWOT or to the problems/issues. None of the alternatives identifies a broad strategic direction. Shows lack of thorough consideration. Analysis is trivial or missing, lacking any depth. No assumptions are stated (& are needed). Likely benefits/disadvantages are not provided at all or are unsupported by the analysis.

Recommendation

A clear action plan is given, logically derived from alternative analysis, that provides optimal solution for identified problems/issues and that further makes sense, given the SWOT analysis; the recommendation is based on only one of the strategic alternative actions. Assumptions, caveats, ongoing considerations concerning recommendation are provided.

An action plan is given, which is mostly, but not completely, logically derived from alternative analysis. There may be a better solution to the problems/issues than the one recommended, given the SWOT analysis. Most, but not all, assumptions, caveats, and ongoing considerations are provided.

A solution is recommended, but logical derivation from alternative analysis is unclear, and there is clearly a better optimal solution, given the SWOT analysis. No identification of assumptions, caveats, or considerations that might affect the recommendation is provided.

A solution is recommended, but it is not derived from the alternative analysis at all; or the recommended solution is clearly not viable, given the SWOT analysis; or the recommended solution does not address the problems/issues.

Organization and Professional Writing

Written work is well organized and easy to understand. Sections of case analysis are marked with appropriate headings. Proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, 3rd person objective view, professional writing, and syntax.

The organization is generally good. Adequate grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax

The organization is unclear; headings are missing. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax needs improvement

The case analysis is disorganized to the extent that it prevents understanding of content. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax needs significant improvement