Q.1 Case study
Four years ago, the Texas Office of the Attorney
General (OAG), which is the state’s child support enforcement agency, began
mailing letters to a small number of incarcerated noncustodial parents (NCPs)
with information on how to apply for a modification of their child support
order. NCPs often become unable to make their monthly child support payments
when they are incarcerated, and, if they do not request and obtain a downward
order modification, they may leave prison with significant child support arrearages
that follow them for years. Despite the clear benefits of this pilot program
for NCPs, only a small percentage of incarcerated NCPs who were contacted by
OAG applied for a modification. The BIAS team has partnered with OAG to
determine whether the tools of behavioral economics can be used to increase the
overall response rate of incarcerated NCPs, as well as the accuracy and
timeliness of their application materials.
BIAS and OAG analyzed every step in the
modification request process fromthe wording of the outreach letter and
application to the actions the NCP must take within the prison to get an
application notarized by a law librarian and returned to OAG by mail. The team
identified several potential “bottleneck” points at which NCPs may not follow
through with the process, a few of which are discussed below:
The NCP may receive the letter but decide not to
open it. Because the NCP likely associates OAG with child support enforcement,
seeing a letter from this agency may stimulate a negative affective response
and the ostrich effect1 (the tendency to “put one’s head in the sand” and avoid
undesirable information). Or, the NCP may perceive the deliberation costs in
time and mental effort to be too high to fully examine the letter.
The NCP may not decide to act on the letter. The
letter mentions the NCP’s incarceration several times, identifying him as a
prisoner rather than a parent. This increases the saliency of their prisoner
identity,2 which may reduce their motivation to act.
The NCP may not follow through. Even if the NCP is
interested in applying for a modification, he may procrastinate3 in completing
the application or forget to request an appointment with the law librarian
because this is not part of his everyday routine.
The NCP may not successfully
submit the application. After the NCP attends the appointment, the law
librarian may find that the application is incomplete and the NCP will need to
complete the application and return it at another time. The NCP may forget to
request notarization or even forget to drop the completed application in the
mail.
The NCP may see the future when they are released
from prison as too distant to plan for. NCPs may exhibit some degree of present
bias — overweighing the present with respect to the future. When the projected
release date is psychologically distant, the NCP may think about it abstractly,
and neglect to consider the negative effects of accrued arrears. The team has
redesigned the materials that are sent to incarcerated NCPs to address these
bottlenecks in ways that are informed by behavioral economics.
1. What are the changes according to you that
should be include in itinclude
2. How should an email to be managed?
Assignment
Subject: Behavioural
Science
Q.2 Case study
A new report released by AIM
Research and Hansa Cequity studies how and to what extent organisations in
India leverage behavioural science and data science to analyse consumer
behaviour across different industries and functions.
The report titled “Impact of
Behavioural Science and Data Science on Consumer Behaviour” also dives into the
connection between behavioural and data science in comprehending consumer
behaviour and makes a case for their use in collaboration.
Data science has seen increasing popularity in the
last couple of years and is used extensively by most organisations to identify
growth drivers. While data is a critical input to improve customer satisfaction
and increase revenues, Behavioural Science plays a crucial role in studying and
analysing customer experiences, brand loyalty, and overall consumer
journey.
According to the study, there
is limited use of Behavioural Science techniques by Indian organisations to
study buying behaviour. Around one in five respondents said they had none or
rare utilisation, indicating a significant scope for improvements across
certain industries and functions, some more than others. This includes studying
consumers’ implicit attitudes towards the brand or analysing the impact of
celebrity endorsements, ethnocentrism, the social image of inclusion or
exclusivity, etc.
The report provides detailed
insights through a comprehensive analysis of the survey. The study highlights
cases where the utilisation of Behavioural Science could see improved outcomes
if two functions within the same
company worked together. Along with this, the study
identifies areas in which Behavioural Science and Data Science can be used in
conjunction.
The study can be used by
leaders or decision-makers to get insight into where their companies stand in
utilising Behavioural Sciences compared to others and realise areas where they
are falling behind. The study also helps its readers identify future roadmaps
in terms of using Behavioural Science along with Data Science to their
advantage.
Overall, almost every
Behavioural Science technique (surveyed) had more than two in five respondents
(40%) agreeing to its high/very high utilisation.
Although, almost every technique also had more than
20% who said they had none or rare utilisation. Respondents in the marketing
function had higher utilisation of most Behavioural Science techniques surveyed
than all the other functions. Almost every technique had more than/around two
in three (66%) Marketing respondents, saying that they have a high/very high
utilisation.
In terms of industry, different sectors had the
highest share of respondents claiming they have a high/very high utilisation of
different Behavioural Science techniques. However, Telecom & Media
consistently performed well—almost every technique had more than 50% of Telecom
& Media respondents saying yes to utilising it to a high/very high
extent.
1. Write the factors that influence the behavior of
an individual.
2. Discuss about the situation how behaviour
science deals with consumer behavior.
Assignment
Subject: Behavioural
Science
Q.3 Case study
Organizational behavior in this coca cola case
study refers to the study of activities or behavior of the employees inside a
commercial enterprise. The reflective case study has been made depending on the
issues faced the famous soft drink company Coca Cola. The aim of this coca cola
case study is to figure out the strategies with which the company can utilize
it human capital in order to make the organization a better place to work. At
the same time, I have described the opportunities through which the company can
continue its growth in the local market.
Coco Cola has been serving the world for more than
130 years however, the organization is facing extreme problem in the market of
the island country like Sri Lanka. The company is facing a downtrend regarding
its brand value. In the year 2014 the brand value of Coca Cola a around 34
billion dollar whereas it has decreased to nearly 32billion dollar in the year
2018. It means the company has faced an acute loss of around 5.4 percent. In
this coca cola case study discovered certain factors that have caused such an
acute downfall of the branded organization. One of the factors is the
mismanagement inside the organization. In the following coca cola case study, I
have highlighted how the improper workforce management of Coca Cola has leaded
the company to such an adverse situation.
Reasons of the downfall of Coca Cola Company
Communication: In order to identify problem lied
behind the downfall of the Coca Cola Company discussed in this coca cola case
study, I found certain issues and communication is one of such issues. The
entire set up of the organization is so much corporate like that the employees
hardly get time as well as scope to share their opinion or thought with other.
It has affected the growth of the company in two different ways. First of all
the staffs has could not get chance to share their problem with their leader.
As a result, they could not develop their skill in order to improve their
performance. On th contrary, the company lost the opportunities of utilizing
the innovative ideas of the workers that could have been fruitful for the Coca
Cola Company.
Feedback sharing: The HR of
the team leader did not pay proper attention on sharing the feedback with the
staffs of the. As a result, the employees did not get the chance to improve
their skill. Sometimes, they lacked of the proper knowledge of using the latest
technology while producing the various
products. This situation had a negative
repercussion on the company’s growth as a lot of employee left the firm out of
lack of dissatisfaction. As an irreversible effect, the company had to face an
acute shortage of labour that has hindered the production rate. In my opinion
the shortage of the human capital is one of the most important factors that has
affect the growth of
Coca Cola Company in a profound way.
Motivation: I think motivation is one of the
factors that are responsible for the shortage of the staffs inside the
organization. It is true that Sri Lanka is one of the densely populated area in
South Asia. As per the recent report held on 8th May, in the year 2019, which
is refered in this coca cola case study the entire population of the country is
21,008,582 (Chandrajith et al., 2019, pp-12, pp-37) which is approximately 0.27
percent of the entire population of the world (Wijesuriya et al., 2019). As a
result of such huge population the country enjoys the facility of plenty human
capital. May be that is the reason that the company treated its staff as a
factor that caneasily be replaced by some other employ. The management of the
company did not pay attention in order to motivate the employees. For instance
in this coca cola case study, they did not arrange proper compensation or
increment which was quite demotivating for the staffs. As a result, theemployee
showed less interest in order to enhance their performance.
Absence of proper training: I found in this coca
cola case study that one of the reasons of the downfall of Coca Cola Company is
the lack of training the needed to be provided to the employee in order to
enhance their performance. Like other country like Australia, UK and many more
the company did not have proper training facility for their employees. I think,
that is the reason why the staffs that were unable to perform well were easily
demotivated. In addition, the management did not take any measure in order to
increase the efficiency of their workers. This situation had a adverse effect
on their work performance which consequently followed by the decrease in
products’ quality.
Improper human resource management: Before writing
this coca cola case study, I had gone through certain researches, which
illustrate the error of the human resource management of Coca Cola Company. For
instance, the company has collaborated with four bottling firms that created a
big issue as the organization brought around ten thousand workers (Chiu,
Fischer and Friedman, 2019, pp-109). It was actually double of the entire work
force. As a result of such collaboration the company had to encounter with the
problem of complexity of the unnecessary staffs as well as resignation of termination
of employees (Chiu, Fischer and Friedman, 2019, pp-98). It
created an unstable situation inside the
organization that had a negative impact on the reputation of the company. In
addition, the human resource managers did not show proper interest in order to
attract or retain the quality employee who could play significant role in
betterment of the company.
Attitude of team leader: The team leader failed to
motivate their team members. Most of the time they could not encourage their
subordinate staffs and thus they could take proper initiative in order to
achieve the company’s target. In addition, the team leader r the supervisors
did not perform the proper monitoring of the tasks of their subordinate team
members. Even they showed reluctant to share proper feedback which could
improve the quality of the performance of their team members. The
irresponsibility of the team member or the management of the Coca Cola Company
has increased the uncertainty among the subordinate staffs of the organization.
In my opinion this kind of attitude of the higher authority was quite
responsible for the loss of status of the world famous Coca Cola Company.
Relation between the management and the staffs: I
discovered that the company management was failed to build a lateral relation
between the employees as well as the team leader inside the company premises. I
have discussed earlier in this report that the workers hardly got chance to
talk about their problems whatever they faced at the time of performing their
task. The management of Coca Cola Company hardly arranged meetings in order to
discuss the problems of their staffs as well as the possible remedies to
resolve those problems.
Proper working environment: The management failed
to create the proper working environment that can encourage or motivate the
employees to give their best performance (Jones and Comfort, 2018, pp-43). As I
have earlier mentioned that Coca Cola Company provided a strict corporate
environment to its employees. This situation created obstruction in building an
emotional attachment between the workers as well as the management of the
organization. As a result, the employees failed to understand that their
improvement was closely related to the success of the company (Jones and
Comfort, 2018). That was the reason in this coca cola case study why the
workers of the Coca Cola Company did not take enough enthusiasm in order to
provide their best performance for the organization’s upliftment.
1. What are the factors that 1.
What are the factors that are responsible for the downfall of the Coca Cola Company in Sri Lanka?
2. Suggest some possible
remedies through which the company can overcome such situation?
3. Justify’ Coca Cola targets
middle class people in rural areas”. 4. Discuss the attitude and related
beliefs towards Coca-Cola of intensely brand-loyal consumers.
5. What are the key success factors for Coca-Cola?
Assignment
Subject: Behavioural Science
Q.4 Case study
Pepsi Next was launched by
PepsiCo into the US market in February 2012, and has since been rolled out to
various international markets (for instance, it was launched in Australia in
September 2012).
The new product is described
as a mid-calorie cola beverage, having a mix of sugar and artificial
sweeteners, designed to deliver a full cola taste with reduced calories. While
filling the market gap between full sugar and diet soft drinks, PepsiCo has indicated
that its prime target market is lapsed cola drinkers (giving them a reason to
return to the product category). PepsiCo, which owns range of high profile
beverage brands in addition to its flagship brand Pepsi, appear to be highly
committed to Pepsi Next providing it with strong launch and management support.
In fact, according to PepsiCo themselves, this is their most significant
product launch for several years.
PepsiCo is the second largest
food and beverage company in the world, with revenues now in excess of $60
billion. The corporation has 22 brands that achieve retail sales in excess of
$1 billion each. As a result of their brand diversification, around half of
PepsiCo’s revenue is generated from their food lines, such as Frito-Lay (snack
food) and Quaker Oats.
In addition, they have
progressively expanded internationally and now access over 80% of the world’s
population. Their international (non-US) markets account for almost 50% of
their total revenues and they still see significant growth potential from these
markets, on the basis that per capita consumption of snacks and beverages in
other countries is well below US market levels.
As a result, PepsiCo has
achieved solid growth is many international markets. While their US beverage
sales fell by 2% in 2011, this has beenmore than offset by double-digit sales
increases in Europe, Asia, the Middle
East and Africa.
In terms of their overall
strategic approach, PepsiCo (as highlighted on their website) see themselves as
innovative and adaptive, as stated in the following website quote: “Pepsi is
constantly on the lookout for ways to ensure their consumers get the products
they want, when they want them and where they want them.”
“Pepsi is constantly on the
lookout for ways to ensure their consumers get the products they want, when
they want them and where they want them.”
In their Annual Report, PepsiCo has structured
their brands around three related themes, as highlighted in the following
table. This brand structure gives some insight into the role of their brands
and how they see their brand portfolio developing in the future.
|
Emphasis of Brand |
Key Brands |
|
Fun-for-you |
Pepsi, Mountain Dew, 7-Up, Lays, Doritos,
Cheetos,Red Rock |
|
Better-for-you |
Pepsi Max, Diet Pepsi, Lays (oven baked),
Quakerbars |
|
Good-for-you |
Tropicana, Quaker Oats, Gatorade, Nut
Harvest |
As you can see from PepsiCo’s
classification of their brands, it appears that the firm has the dual goals of
supporting and leveraging its existing ‘fun’ brands, while moving towards a
broader range of healthier offerings. While this second goal may appear to be
mainly related to improving their corporate image, it does have commercial
intent, as explained on the PepsiCo website: “Because a healthier future for
all people and our planet means a more successful future for PepsiCo.”
To help implement this
corporate goal, across their various brands, PepsiCo has focused on providing a
wider range of healthier choices, introducing more natural ingredients,
reducing fat content, reducing the environmental impact of their packaging, and
so on.
Recent Product Innovations
PepsiCo has a history of developing and launching a
number of mid-calorie beverages and Pepsi Next is by no means their first
attempt with this style of product. In addition to various Pepsi variations
(described in the ‘Before Pepsi Next’ section below), they have had some recent
success with reduced calorie versions within their Tropicana and Gatorade
brands.
One very successful
mid-calorie product initiate is Trop50, which was launched in 2010. Trop50, as
implied by its name, is a version of Tropicana with 50% less sugar and
calories. This new product was ranked as the 6th most successful new
food/beverage product in its launch year with retail sales in excess of $70
million. Its initial success has continued over the last two years, with the
Trop50 product line now generating over $150 million in sales. And even more
successful was Pepsi’s launch of Gatorade G2 in 2007. (Note: Pepsi acquired the
Gatorade brand with their purchase of the Quaker Company in 2001.) This
low-calorie version of Gatorade was identified as the most successful new food/beverage
product in 2008 in the US market, achieving sales over $150 million in its
first year.
Clearly, these fairly recent
product successes with reduced calorie offerings under strong brands would have
had the effect of buoying Pepsi’s confidence regarding the viability of this
style of product. Hence, they believed that it was the right time to revisit a
reduced calorie Pepsi variation.
However, as some commentators
have pointed out, it should be noted that their success (with Trop50 and G2)
has occurred in their ‘good-for-you’ brand range, where consumers are already
quite health-conscious and probably more responsive to healthier options.
Therefore, whether this perceived benefit (of less sugar) will carry to
‘fun-for-you’ brands, like Pepsi, is less certain for the firm.
Before Pepsi Next
Perhaps surprisingly, Pepsi
Next is PepsiCo’s fifth attempt at a mid-calorie beverage. In the 1970’s they
introduced Pepsi Light, which was lemon flavored and contained 70 calories (as
opposed to a normal Pepsi can at 150 calories). (Not to be confused with the
current Pepsi Light brand marketed in various countries, which is a version of
Diet Pepsi.)
Then in the late 1980’s the
firm introduced Jake’s Diet Cola, which came in at a mere 15 calories, but did
not leverage the Pepsi brand name. At the time, Pepsi stated that the beverage
had the potential to “revolutionize” the diet segment of the cola market. Prior
to launch, Jake’s was extensively taste-tested against Diet Coke and the firm
had strong hopes for its success.
According to one of their vice
presidents at the time (Edward E. Jenkins), “Jake’s represents a new taste
concept in diet beverages and will provide consumers in the booming diet soft
drink category with a better-tasting, lowcalorie cola”.
In the mid-1990’s, they then
introduced Pepsi XL, another 70 calorie formula. In their promotions, they
indicated that X stood for ‘excellent taste’
and the L stood for ‘less sugar’. According to
reports at the time, Pepsi XL was a year in development at a cost of $1.5
million and was supported by an $8 million advertising budget.
More recently, in 2004,
PepsiCo released a 70-calorie beverage branded as Pepsi Edge. Around the same
time, Coca-Cola brought out a similar product under the brand Coca-Cola C2.
Coke supported C2 quite aggressively, with an estimated launch promotional budget
of somewhere around $40 million, making it their most significant launch since
Diet Coke. Both of these brands only lasted around 18 months or so in the
market before being withdrawn.
About the Soft Drink (Soda) Market
The US soft drink market
generates over $70 billion in sales. Volumes (units) have weakened slightly
since 2005, indicating that the market is in late maturity-early decline stage
of the product life cycle. Retail dollar sales have been supported somewhat by
price increases.
One of the biggest impacts on
soft drink consumption has come from bottled water, which now accounts for over
10% of beverage consumption. This is up from just 2% in 2000. And the soft
drink market has also been slightly challenged by sports drinks and energy drinks
that have seen a minor increase in market share.
The trend towards diet soft
drinks continues, with these offerings now representing 30% of the carbonated
soft drink (CSD) market, up from 25% just 10 years ago. Overall, these
movements indicate changing tastes of consumers as a result of a stronger
health focus. One of the brands most impacted by these market changes has been
the flagship Pepsi brand. In the most recent market share figures
available,
Pepsi now has less than 10%
share of the US CSD market (which ranks the brand 3rd behind Coke and Diet
Coke). While still well positioned, keep in mind that they were sitting at over
13% market share ahead of Diet Coke 10 years ago, at a time when the CSD market
was still growing at 3% per year.
Their Diet Pepsi product
enjoys a solid 5% market share. That product, along with Pepsi’s other soft
drink offerings (Mountain Dew in particular), gives Pepsi an almost 30% share
of the US CSD market, behind Coca-Cola at 42% (with Coke at 17% and Diet Coke
at 10%) and ahead of Dr Pepper Snapple at 17%.
Competitor Offerings
Pepsi isn’t the only player
seeking to tap into the perceived demand for reduced sugar beverages. Dr Pepper
Snapple (who has two products in the top 10 in the US CSD market) has also
introduced a low-sugar offering.
Their new product, Dr Pepper
Ten (with 10 calories), is squeezed between their normal Dr Pepper and their
Diet Dr Pepper, much in the same way the Pepsi Next product. Reportedly, Dr
Pepper Snapple is pleased with the performance of this new product to date.
Independent to the Pepsi Next offering, Coca-Cola is currently (mid-late 2012)
in the process of test marketing (in four American cities) mid-calorie versions
of their Fanta and Sprite brands. Carrying the sub-brand ‘Select’ (to make
Fanta Select) the concept is quite similar to Pepsi Next in that it uses a mix
of sugar and artificial sweeteners to cut the calorie count by half.
Obviously if these tests are
successful and these products are fully rolledout to the market as a standard
product, it appears that there could be a third sub-category of soft drinks;
traditional, diet, and now mid-calorie beverages. It would then be interesting
to see how and if this sub-category develops, particularly with more offerings
and overall promotional support. But on the other hand, it might be possible
that Coke might be test marketing the mid- calorie Sprite and Fanta options as
a form of market research only.
1. As per the above situation
what would be the impact of substituteproducts.
2. What will be benefit if Pepsi compromise to the
competitor offerings?
3. How do companies protect themselves against the
nonstop allegation of special interest group that have made them a
target?
4. Identify the ongoing issues in this case with
respect to issue management crisis management, global business ethics, and
stakeholder management.
No comments:
Post a Comment