TOM Challenge 33's Profile
TOM Challenge 33
This is such an interesting topic. Thanks for sharing! Given the rise of economically efficient cars, I believe that Starbucks transportation system will evolve with the broader market. As someone mentioned above, Starbuck’s brand is intrinsically linked to sustainability. I appreciate its commitment to lessen its impact on the world. Although I agree that vertical integration of its supply chain will allow greater flexibility and control, I hesitate to adopt this solution. Is Starbucks positioned to manage farms and could it do so in a manner that is more efficient than other firms?
This is such an interesting and relevant topic (who doesn’t love chocolate?) Sadly, I am not convinced that Mars will honor this commitment in an economic downturn. One of the common themes across classes thus far has been the the role of business to maximize value for shareholders. Although I am not convinced that this is the sole role of a corporation, I do believe there is more pressure to maximize profits during downturns. In order to accomplish substantial change and hedge against broken commitments, an accountability system must be implemented. This system of accountability could be as simple as establishing social pressure.
This is a very interesting article. As you mentioned above, I also wonder what the role of the global subsidiaries will be in helping to minimize the effects of isolationism. In my opinion, subsidiaries present a unique opportunity to mitigate disruptions. For example, many financial service providers already operate in locations around the world and are able to ramp up operations in other regions. These firms are able to leverage the existing structures, relationships, and operations that are already in place. As a result, in many ways, the company can maintain its brand as a global firm while also catering to the requests of its clients. In my opinion, banks like J.P. Morgan will always be global. The rise of isolationism provides a unique opportunity to improve its competitive advantage.
Thanks for posting such an interesting article. The problem that Macy’s faces reminds me of the problem that Gap faced in a marketing case that we read a few weeks ago. Like Macy’s, Gap was struggling to maintain its profit margins in the face of the changing industry dynamics: the shift from brick and mortar to e-commerce. Although the shift to fast fashion seems like the ideal solution, in Macy’s case, this seems inconsistent with its value proposition. In my opinion, Macy’s has the ability to bring together brands from different designers onto one platform while creating a unique buying experience. For many people, Macy’s is an entry point into new brands and products. With this being said, I completely agree that Macy’s should work to improve its supply chain through digitization. However, I am unsure if it should adopt shift its business strategy to compete in the crowded fast fashion space.
After reading the Wells Fargo case in class, I wonder how the company thinks about being a market leader vs a follower. I had the opportunity to work at a large US financial service provider prior to business school. Following the financial crisis and the penalties that we faced as a company, we adopted more of a follower mentality. There was an unspoken rule to be conservative. Although I personally did not agree with this approach, in some ways, I understand the root cause. In the case of notary adoption, I completely agree that it enhances the customer experience and should be adopted by Wells Fargo. However, the question, in my opinion, is “should Wells Fargo be the innovator or imitator. As the second mover, it can leverage the experiences of the first mover (which may be start ups) and mitigate risks to its brand and potential share price if there are challenges along the way.