Thursday, October 31, 2019

MGT501 - Management and Organizational Behavior Mod 4 Case Assignment Essay

MGT501 - Management and Organizational Behavior Mod 4 Case Assignment - Essay Example There are no things present in a corporation that are not part of the culture. All things are. Now, that may mean that they negatively affect or positively affect the culture but they are still part of it. The culture consists of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of social and ethnic groups as well as patterns of language, dress, eating habits, activities of daily living, and attitudes. It also includes attitudes toward other culture, health beliefs and values, spiritual beliefs or religious orientation and attitudes toward children, women, men, marriage, education, work and recreation (Chitty & Black, 2007). As one can see culture is all that we are personally as well as corporately. Organizational culture is a cross-section of all of the cultures that its employees bring with them. National culture is just that. For example, the United States has a totally different culture than Mexico but a Mexican-American organization has a culture that is part of both cultures brought by the employees and blended. Corporate culture is a" set of common understandings of meanings that are shared by a group or system of knowledge, standards and beliefs."(au.af) All employees are affected by the overall corporate culture. However, employees and managers are different subcultures of the corporate culture. The management staff have a culture of their own in which they have behaviors that are expected of them, values that they believe in and assumptions that they make. The same holds true of employees. The working staff is a combination of the two in which there is a blending of the managements beliefs and the employees beliefs. In the Culture Crash case study there were some truly important differences in the cultures of the management staff and the employees. In this case the cultures were so different that the employees did not know what to expect when the merger first happened. However, eventually they merged into the culture provided and

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

An analysis asking a critical question about the ad Assignment

An analysis asking a critical question about the ad - Assignment Example Coco Cola, stands extremely aloof from the list of healthy drinks, and has been a subject of criticism for all the health and nutritional experts. One might wonder what is it about coke that makes the health experts criticize it so much. The fact is, no health expert or physician have been successful in finding a single trace of goodness in this drink to recommend it to person on a healthy diet. However, Coco Cola enjoys a humongous good will in the global market and it is powerful enough to reach to every nook and corner of the planet with minimum effort. Sadly, the age group which is largely influenced by Coke is undoubtedly the children and the youth of the current age. They are not only a prey to Coke’s ad campaigns but also innocent victims of this malicious life threatening drink. It is sad to know that the globalization has reached such heights that goodness lost its value to the unquenchable thirst of physical pleasure. Reference This is about the World Cup 2010 Coca-C ola Commercial Source - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDwRkiHaOfI

Sunday, October 27, 2019

The Important Car Industry In Malaysia Marketing Essay

The Important Car Industry In Malaysia Marketing Essay The automotive industry is one of the most important industries in the manufacturing sector in Malaysia. Comparing with other manufacturing industries, the automotive industry is a promising one and contributes boosting and evolving economic and industrialization processes which leads Malaysia to change into a developed country in the foreseeable future. The automotive industry in Malaysia started in the 1960s and the Government of Malaysia began to encourage the establishment of the automotive industry in 1963. Initially, the assembly plants were mainly joint venture projects between European automobile manufacturers and local partners were previously their local distributors. Although at the beginning there was requirement to promote the growth of components manufacturing, but the industry was not very successful until 1980s. At that time there were some assemblers who just produced vehicles for European and Japanese manufacturers and there were large amounts of import. In fact the development in auto industry was started by launching of the National Car Project which was PROTON in 1983. Proton Company profile Proton which is the acronym of Perusahan Otomobil Nasional Berhad was founded in 1983 as manufacturing, assembling and selling motor vehicles and related products which were then produced Malaysias first car named Proton Saga. The main plant of the company was established in Shah Alam, with the capacity of 80000 units per year. Proton could increase this capacity to 230000 units per year in 1997 by constructing another factory next to its main plant. Today, the factory in Shah Alam has the capacity of producing 240000 vehicles per year. PROTON has a total of 11 subsidiaries and 11 associate companies, which are involved in manufacturing, research and development, as well as sales and service activities. Proton exports to 50 countries including the competitive markets of UK and continental European markets as its objectives include research and development capabilities, world class manufacturing and production standards, design capabilities as well as a presence in the global market. Considering Malaysias short and long term economic objectives, Proton was established to fulfill these goals with the help of technological knowledge and know-how. As a result, with the use of resources, technology, innovations, and design capabilities the national car project resulted in remarkable impact on automotive industry. PROTON was Malaysias dominant auto manufacturer until the establishment of PERODUA, in the year 1993. Now the Malaysian auto market is dominated by Malaysias national cars, PROTON and PERODUA which jointly accounted for 90 per cent of the vehicles sold annually. PROTONS production was based on technology and parts from Mitsubishi Motors, and it produced the first model which was Proton Saga in September 1985 at its first manufacturing plant in Shah Alam. At the beginning the components were made by Mitsubishi but gradually the company began producing those parts with the help of technological knowledge. PROTON also entered to international markets through exporting. For instance it began its exports from Malaysia to other right hand drive markets like New Zealand and UK as well as the Middle East, South-East Asia and Australasia, but it was mostly successful in UK. It is possible to say that proton which came as a national auto manufacturer 25 years ago, now evolved to an international auto maker. 1.2. Ethical considerations One of the important issues regarding proton is consideration of ethical issues as well as its social responsibilities. As a result, in addition to its focus on the profitability, it also focuses on human resource development, the environment and the society within its operations. Proton objectives include meeting expectations of good corporate governance, ethnical corporate values and responsible corporate citizens. MARKET STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS OLIGOPOLY Number of firms competing Small number Nature of the product Undifferentiated or differentiated Entry Many barriers Information availability Asymmetric Firms control over price Some An oligopolistic market is the one which is dominated by some large suppliers. Homogeneous products, mutual interdependence, few large producers and high entry barriers are oligopoly characteristics prevalent in such markets. The three most import characteristics of oligopoly include: Industry dominance by few large firms Products sold by these firms are either differentiated or identical in nature Various entry barriers depending upon the industry Few large firms is a very crucial oligopoly characteristics which states that these markets include few large firms which are dominant in existence, and each of these firms is comparatively larger than the market size. This particular oligopoly characteristic ensures that all these large firms have a fair amount of market control. The automobile industry is a very good example of an oligopolistic market. There are a few car manufacturers in the market across the world as against the demand for millions of cars every day. The dominant car manufacturers include General Motors, Honda, Chrysler, Toyota and Ford, to name a few. The automobile industry in an oligopolistic market is a Differentiate Product Oligopoly where the products manufactured are for personal consumption as consumers need a variety of products since they have different needs and wants. In Malaysia, the national automobile industry is dominated by the countrys two leading manufacturers, namely PROTON and PERODUA. PROTON is 42% owned by the Government. Rising car sales in 2010 has pushed up production in all car assemblers in Malaysia except for the national car maker, PROTON. PROTONs market share has reached 80% at its peak but now it has lost its market share to local and foreign competitors from 60% of the domestic passenger car market in 2001 to 26% for year 2010. Protons brand value has also dropped from RM239 million in 2007 (rank 19) to RM150 million in 2008 (rank 23). It was revealed in November 2009 that Protons ranking has dropped from Malaysias 30 Most Valuable Brand (MMVB) ranking. It was reported in the newspapers that PROTON is only operating at half of its capacity. PROTON Shah Alam was operating at 54% while PROTON Tanjung Malim is at 42%. The combined installed capacity production for PROTONs two plants is 350,000 units per year and PERODUA 250,000 per year that is about 48.7% and 79% respectively, accounting for about 61%, more than half of the total industry output. As reported by the Malaysian Automotive Association (MAA), UMW Toyota Motor Subsidiary, Assembly Services, was operating at 215 per cent production capacity, Honda at 212 per cent, Tan Chong Motors at 143 per cent, and PERODUA at 164 per cent.  [i]   For years, both PROTON and PERODUA have led charmed lives as national car companies, indulged by the Government and over-protected behind a wall of tariff and non-tariff barriers, tax exemptions, rebates, subsidies and other special favors. PROTON has only introduced four (4) new models in recent years the second generation Proton Saga in 2008, Exora in 2009 and Inspira in 2010. PROTON was knocked off as the top Malaysian car producer in 2006 by PERODUA which becomes Malaysias largest vehicle maker. PROTON is the second most popular marque for year 2010. PERODUA remains the most popular make in the passenger vehicle category while third-place Toyota is the most popular foreign car at 12.9% market share. PROTONs market share is 26% and PERODUA is 31.2%. Their combined market share has fallen to 57% today, with more than 30 foreign makers now in Malaysia competing for the remainder.  [ii]   PROTON remains handicapped by lack of scale, overcapacity, outdated technology, a limited product line up, and other disabilities. The company suffers from state protectionist policies and need a strategic partner for growth. PROTON also needs technology it does not have to produce attractive new models. Malaysias revised National Automotive Policy (NAP) that took effects on 1 January 2010 ostensibly to deregulate the domestic market attract more foreign auto makers into the country and would not likely meet the governments expectations. To sop up some of the excess capacity, PROTON managers are adopting an Asian multi-local OEM strategy focused mainly on expanding exports into Southeast Asia, China, India, the Middle East and North Africa. How well this will work is questionable given the intensifying competition among global auto makers for export sales, the models PROTON has to offer, and the minor role of exports so far in the auto makers operations. Proton exports 81,000 units of cars between 2008 2010. For year 2010, total export revenues amounted to only RM889 million. The Kinked Demand Curve A very common and important feature of oligopoly is that the action of, or on, one specific manufacturer will affect the other manufacturers, especially their sales. The kinked demand curve model best described PROTONs oligopoly behavior. PROTON faces a downward sloping demand curve but its elasticity may depend on the reaction of its competitors to changes in its prices or outputs. The competitors for example may not follow the increase in PROTONs prices in their attempt to maintain a high level of profits and market share. Demand therefore will be relatively elastic and a rise in price instead would lead to a fall in the total revenue of PROTON. On the other hand, the competitors might more likely to match a price fall by PROTON to avoid a loss of market share, causing demand to become inelastic leading to a fall in total revenue. As all these producers in an oligopolistic market are interdependent they need to consider the impact and reactions on other firms while determining their own pricing and investment policies. For example, when PROTON launches a new product (Exora) , it affects other producers and their sales causing them to react with a new product (e.g. PERODUA: Alza), which inflates the market price.  ­Ã‚ ­4.Competitive Environment For Proton Company The first Malaysia national car is PROTON. The main competitor in Malaysia in term of automobile companies and affordable car is PERODUA. The competitive environment as we can see approximately in Malaysia is affordable car where all native of a Malaysia can buy it and the car maintenances also cheap. You see, the porter five are been applied for more obviously because the competitive environment not only about the competitor. It can be about the economic decline, natural misfortune and etc. Porter five 1. Competitive Rivalry 2. Threat of New Entrant 3. Threat of Substitutes   4. Buyer Power 5. Supplier Power Competitive Rivalry   In Malaysia, after PERODUA that is main competitor for proton , there is not too much competitor around affordable car. The low cost car as mentioned above is not have a lot of competitor in generally. The affordable car in Malaysia has a more potential to sell compared to luxury car that only specific people are used it. A family will have more than 1 car. Definitely, the first car they will choose the cheaper car and affordable car. New Entrant has a high threat    Recession the economic will be a big threat for PROTON. We know that, all big company will facing over budget or does not achieve the sale for that year. The government will lose a lot of money cause of policy and shareholders. By the way, economic downward tendency actually comes suddenly without notice. High threat from Substitutes Malaysia has tow national car. First : PROTON , second : PERODUA. The substitutes will high in term of car model and some of them looks similar. Buyer Power Buyer will choose the cheap car for the first car and buyer also actually are fragmented. Therefore, it will not has much influence.   Supplier Power Nowadays compared to the many years ago, this is not giving a big threat for PROTON. Government and PROTON As a Government connected Company, Proton is protected in term of financial capabilities. Furthermore, as the first  national automotive manufacturer they have more than 20 years of experience and backed by the more than 1000 suppliers and highly concentrated distributed the service and distribution way out. As financial year ender 31  March 2006 denoted, the net value of asset is more than RM 5 billion while the liabilities is only about RM 2 billion. Proton had begun on a project with the Lotus. Group to improve a hybrid vehicle proficient of running on both gasoline and electricity and others special projects that are concentrating on technology development. This program direct to raise high the technology to a level that is on par with their global rivals by creating an alternative vehicle for the future which provides customers with less fuel consumption, decrease emanation and uncompromising performance. The increase numbers of substantial order by the different overseas markets were far in surplus of the number shipped, the difference was due to restrictions in the supply chain. There is no uncertain that demand for Proton cars in the overseas markets exists. As such, looking forward into financial year 2007, the company predicts a meaningful improvement in the number of Proton cars sold overseas. International Market for Proton The objectives of the Malaysian National Car:   à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Rationalize the local automotive industry à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Spearhead the development of a local component industry and to enhance greater use of local components.   à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Encourage the upgrading of technology, engineering knowledge and technical skills of the countrys workforce.   à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Assist and develop Bumiputera (the indigenous people of Malaysia) participation in the automotive industry.  [1] Social, Economy, Politic and Technology analyses Proton Holdings Berhad Proton is a Malaysian national automobile manufacturer. Proton Holdings Berhad is the holding company which is listed on the Bursa Malaysia. 14,706 Proton cars were exported in 2006 to other countries/ Proton exports cars to the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Australia and the company is aggressively marketing its cars in several other countries including the Middle East. Proton cars has also been exporting a small volume of cars to other countries like: 1.Singapore 2.Brunei 3.Indonesia 4.Nepal 5.Sri 6.Pakistan 7.Bangladesh 8.Taiwan 9.Cyprus   10.Mauritius Proton has never succeeded to export their car to the US, because the cars required many changes to meet American safety standards in order to secure coverage from auto insurers and satisfy legislative requirements. In some countries,    Proton cars suffer somewhat from a poor public image because of their designs. Strengths   Proton has over 20 years of experience in Automotive industry Many cars are exported by Proton to many countries every years, proves that proton has the experience of exporting cars. Did the financial crisis in 2008/09 have any impact on the group? What about the current economic turmoil in Europe? Mohd Nadzmi,( chairman),said : The global automotive industry was affected by the financial crisis in 2008/09, and this included Proton. However, in our case, being small was actually an advantage, and because of our size, we were able to minimise the impact on our business. Protons presence in Europe is also small, hence we were not affected by the economic turmoil there. Because Lotus has a bigger presence globally, the impact of the crisis on it is bigger. However, Lotus operates on small volumes, hence any financial damage was minimised.  [2] Swot Analyze: The inability to succeed by Proton to find a foreign associate is a cautioning gesture that it is no longer a competitive and economically capable to living entity with present market condition and debatable management determinations that reason Proton to lose money when other finds profits. Hence, Proton Holdings Berhad requires to regard a foreign participation to more develop on its quality and service to the buyers. Khazanah Malaysia, the Malaysian governments investment arm, holding about 42.74% of Proton, followed by the Employees Provident Fund with 15.4 per cent and Petronas with 7.9 per cent. Price/Earnings: Not Meaningful Price/Sales: 0.3x (2/5 points) Price/Book: 0.4x (2/5 points) Price/Cash Flow: Not Meaningful TEV/Sales: 0.1x (3/5 points) A integrator has its profits economies of scale, market domination, etc. but an expand national car company could produce many duplications i.e. product, merchants network, sellers etc. Proton is finding it tough to decorate its network of providers and distributors.National car company Proton Holdings Berhad once dominated with a majority share in the market. It has since not only lost that majority, its sales in unit terms have even dropped below that of unlisted Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Berhad (Perodua). UMW Holdings Berhad is the biggest in the sector, with a market value of RM5.9 billion, compared with Protons RM1 billion. Although, UMW has an important oil and gas division, it derives most of its profits from its Toyota division, the most profitable in the industry. In the other hand, Proton reported a loss of RM75 million in the October December quarter last year. It is surpassed in market value by Oriental Holdings Berhad (RM2.3 billion) and DRB-HICOM Berhad (RM1.4 billion), both of which are variegated motor-based groups. In my deduction, Proton should go on to strive strategic alliances and further expand its market in the whole world because of the finishing of conversations with Volkswagen AG in the year of 2007. In an outlook, Proton requires to basically join more into the global supply chain and the global market. Fundamentally, we have not attained the type of sell overseas permeation projected when the company was based. Global motor vehicle industry was enduring a solidification and Proton should be component of this mode. We require to be part of the greater family in a path that works for us.Up to now, there were not any explanation regarding The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) submit its report on Proton Holdings Berhads sale of Italian motorbike manufacturer, MV Augusta to GEVI s.p.a at one euro to Parliament because Proton had obtained a 57.75 percent risk in MV Augusta in December 2004 for 70 million euro (RM367.6 million). The factory is recently producing 240,000 units per year. Opened in 2005, a phase of the art assembly plant was put together at Tanjung Malim, 60 miles north of Kuala Lumpur. This area has been named Proton City and be made up of 500 hectare site containing the factory, plant, housing, a university and other commercial buildings to lodge part suppliers. This plant produces the 3 novel model ranges, the GEN-2, Savvy and Satria Neo. Protons total workplace in Malaysia totals just over 6,000 staffs working in all areas of vehicle design, RD, production and manufacturing. By way of a strong base built up since 1983, Malaysias car manufacturing industry is growing fast.   Proton apparatus a major step forward in upgrading its engineering capabilities when it acquired a share in Lotus are closely involved in Protons new model development, with a group of engineers perpetually based at the design and development centre in Malaysia. The Company has come a long way since 1983, PROTON was publicly listed on the Kuala Lumpur stock conversion in 1992, and current day, Proton cars are sent abroad to more than 50 countries throughout the world. Key export markets contain Australia, Singappore, the far East and the UK, where during 2009 it celebrates 20 years in the market place.   From 1989 until now, Proton Cars (UK) Ltd have been presenting the British public dependable value for money vehicles. 6. Market Power With governments protection and general tariff set up to protect Malaysias fragile automobile industry, Proton continue to record as one of the most profitable car in Malaysia and continue to profit and churn out new cars almost every year. Some of the best selling models, like the MyVi also continue to generate income to the Proton Holdings. In the early days of Proton, the market share was small compared to the other Japanese made cars which were highly used here. But, by 2002 Proton held a market share of over 60% in Malaysia, which was reduced to barely 30% by 2005 and is expected to reduce further in 2008 when AFTA mandates reduce import tariffs to a maximum of 5%. The national car company, Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional or Proton, was established in the early 1980s as a key component of Malaysias heavy industrialization program. From the onset of the projects implementation, the government tilted playing field in the domestic car market in Protons favor by exempting it from import duties on CKD kits. As a result, Proton was able to sell its cars at prices 20-30 percent cheaper than comparable cars produced by other car assemblers in the country. By the 1990s, Proton had become the dominant car producer in the Malaysian Market. Today, about 75 percent of vehicle sales are controlled by Proton (45 percent) and the second national car company Perodua (30 percent). This dominance was however threatened by Malaysias commitment under the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) agreement to reduce import duties to 20 percent in 2005 and between zeros to five percent in 2008. The implementation of these trade liberalization commitments would seriously affect Protons (and Peroduas) competitiveness vis-à  -vis their competitors. The governments response in 2004 was to raise the excise duties to neutralize the reduction in import duty. The import duty on CKD passenger cars from ASEAN countries were reduced from 42%-80% to 25% while excise duty was increased from 55% to between 60%-100%. For CBU units from ASEAN countries, the import duty was reduced from between 140%-300% to 70%-190% while excise duty was increased by between 60%-100%. The above case illustrates how the impact of trade liberalization (e.g. via import tariff reduction) can be neutralized by the use domestic policies (such as excise tax) by the government to support its industrial policy. In Malaysias case, this strategy is probably an interim strategy aimed at buying some time for restructuring of the national industry. The restructuring, for example, may take the form of a future joint venture with a major foreign car producer. (a) Industrial Policy, Market Entry and Competition: The EON Proton Edar Case Industrial policy may also create anti-competition problems. The recent case of EON vs. Proton Edar illustrates this point. Cars produced by the national car company, Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Berhad (Proton), have been traditionally distributed domestically by two firms, namely, Proton Edar Sdn Bhd (Proton Edar) and Edaran Otomobil Nasional Bhd (EON). EON was established in 1984 as the sole distributor of the national car (Proton Saga). The strategy adopted then was to separate the manufacturing activity from the distribution activity. Proton Edar was established in 1985 and it later evolved into a joint-venture between DRB and Proton Berhad in 1993 to distribute Protons cars (Proton Wira). Proton Edar became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Proton in 2000 and subsequently began to distribute other Proton models (Wira, Perdana and Iswara) that were previously distributed by EON. In the same year, the 10-year distribution agreement between Proton and EON ended. A new dealership agreement have since not been concluded. These changes set the stage for further intensification of the rivalry between EON and Proton Edar to distribute Protons cars. Problems arose with the launching of a new Proton car, namely the Gen.2 on 8th February 2003. Not surprising, Proton chose to initially distribute Gen.2 solely through its wholly-owned subsidiary Proton Edar. In addition, EON will have to obtain its supply of Gen.2 from Proton Edar Proton has also argued that EON should restrict itself to selling a single brand in a single showroom, referring to EONs current practice of selling Protons cars as well as that of Audi and Chevrolet. Anti-competitive conduct is fairly obvious in the EON-Proton Edar case. There is a severe conflict of interest due to Protons ownership of Proton Edar. It is in Protons commercial interest to favor its own subsidiary Proton Edar against EON. This has manifested in Protons conduct to vertically restraint EONs competitiveness by restricting its access to a new product. Worse, EONs only source of supply of the new product is now its rival Proton Edar. Furthermore, Protons insistence on the a single brand in a single showroom distribution policy is akin to market foreclosure to reduce inter-brand competition in the car market. There was no government intervention at the initial stages of these controversies surrounding the EON-Proton Edar case. As the above debate became more public and acrimonious, the government did intervene to hasten both parties to sign a five-year dealership agreement on 2 March 2004. Part of the government ability to intervene in the above case is due to the fact that it is a major shareholder in both Proton and EON. The dealership agreement signed may contain elements that should go under competition policy scrutiny. One such clause is the requirement that EON allocates 70 percent of its servicing capacity to Proton cars. This may be construed as the use of market power by the supplier firm (Proton) to force a buyer firm (EON) to limit the latters ancillary services to other competing suppliers. This is an important issue given the importance of the ancillary services to the actual sale of the primary product (cars). Industrial policy can also restrict competition via the promotion of strong vertically integrated structures. In the Proton case, this took the form of car production and distribution. The absence of a competition law obviously exacerbated these vertical restraint problems. If such a law had existed and if Proton was found to be guilty of anti-competitive conduct, it could have been forced to divests its distribution subsidiary. Furthermore, the government currently regulates these companies via its substantial shareholdings in these companies. If the government were to divest its controlling shareholding in these companies, these companies would need to be regulated by competition laws. Barriers to Entry The barriers to enter the automotive industry are substantial. For a new company, the startup capital required to establish manufacturing capacity to achieve minimum efficient scale is prohibitive. An automotive manufacturing facility is quite specialized and in the event of failure could not be easily retooled. Although the barriers to new companies are substantial, established companies are entering new markets through strategic partnerships or through buying out or merging with other companies. In fact, the barriers to entry for new (or different) markets may be quite low; in the 1980s, U.S. companies Team A 4 practically invited Japanese makers into the U.S. by failing to offer quality vehicles in the lower price markets. All of the large automotive companies have globalize and entered foreign markets with varying degrees of success. In the newer, undeveloped markets of Asia, Africa, and South America, the barriers to entry similarly exist. However, a domestic start up, with local knowledge and expertise, has the potential to compete in its home market against the global firms who are not yet well established there. Such an operation, if successful, would surely be snatched up by one of the global giants and incorporated into its fold. 1. The threat of new entrants in the auto manufacturing industry, this is generally a very low threat. Factors to examine for this threat include all barriers to entry such as upfront capital requirements (it costs a lot to set up a car manufacturing facility), brand equity (a new firm may have none), legislation and government policy (think safety, EPA and emissions), ability to distribute the product 2. The bargaining power of buyers/customers who has ever bought a car without bargaining? In early 1990s especially, Proton dealers were giving great deals to buyers to get the industry moving. While quantity a buyer purchases is usually a good factor in determining this force, even in the automotive industry when buyers only usually purchase one car at a time, they still wield considerable power. However, this may be different in other markets. In Singapore it sure is lower than in the US, creating a more favorable situation for the industry but not the buyers. Generally, however, its safe to say the customers have some buying power, but it depends on the market. 3. The threat of substitute products If buyers can look to the competition or other comparable products, and switch easily (they have low switching costs) there may be a high threat of this force. With new cars, the switching cost is high because you cant sell a brand new car for the same price you paid for it. A P5F analysis of the car industry covers the new market, not used or second-hand. But what about the threat of substitute products before the buyer makes the purchase? You need to know whether the market you are analyzing has many good alternatives to new cars. A vibrant used car market perhaps? Used cars threaten the new market. How about a very good mass-transportation system? Product differentiation is important too. In the car industry, typically there are many cars that are similar just look at any mid-range Toyota and you can easily find a very similar Nissan, Honda, or Mazda. However, if you are looking at amphibious cars, there may be little threat of substitute products (this is an extreme example!). I n Protons case, the substitute of this car remains low as its continuos support from the government being the national car of Malaysia plays an integral part in Protons operations. 4. The amount of bargaining power suppliers have In the car industry this refers to all the suppliers of parts, tires, components, electronics, and even the assembly line workers. We know that some suppliers are small firms who rely on the carmakers, and may only have one carmaker as a client. So this force can be tricky to evaluate. The Proton still commands a relatively stronger market despite the ample suppliers available thanks to the government policy. 5. The intensity of the competitive rivalry We know that in most countries all carmakers are engaged in fierce competition. Tit-for-tat price slashes, ad campaigns, and product developments keep them on the edge of innovation and profitability. Margins are low and pressure between rivals is high. All major car-producing nations experience this

Friday, October 25, 2019

Educational System :: essays research papers

â€Å"Educational System†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  High school is a place where you grow up physically and mentally. In high school you begin as freshmen and graduate as a senior. Throughout that span of life a lot happeneds, and you are constantly learning as you grow. But I know many high schools including mine are not perfect and have flaws in their educational system, that can be fixed in order to provide a better environment for learning. Learning is a never ending process that we draw from our personal experiences. Although Americans believe in our educational system, there seems to be many problems that we are not aware of that have a negative effect on our students as a whole. One problem that the educational system faces is the obstacle between school and life. Schools need to break down the barrier in order to connect, going to school to learn and living your life. The students should be told that learning doesn’t stop after the bell rings or it is time to go it is happening all the time. In â€Å"School Is Bad For Children†, John Holt states, â€Å"’You come to school to learn’, we tell him, as if the child hadn’t been learning before, as if living were out there and learning were in here, and there is no connection between the two† (34). I think schools sometimes play a role of being separate from life because they enforce the rule of ‘you come to school to learn’ and that is it. Children come to school curious to learn with other people, particularly other children, but when the school teaches them to be indifferent they lose interaction with the world. Holt explains, â€Å"You might say that school is a long lesson in how to turn yourself off, which may be one of the reasons why so many young people, seek the awareness of the world and responsiveness to it they had when they were little, think they can only find it in drugs† (35). Making the student disconnect from the real world, meaning life, allows the students to believe that drugs are ok, which is bad. School and living is a connecting subject because you are living your life while attending school, which can affect the way you are learning. Problems and other situation that are happening in your life can make you lose focus, which affects the way you learn. Letting school and learning connect will break the barrier and create a better environment for students to function. Educational System :: essays research papers â€Å"Educational System†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  High school is a place where you grow up physically and mentally. In high school you begin as freshmen and graduate as a senior. Throughout that span of life a lot happeneds, and you are constantly learning as you grow. But I know many high schools including mine are not perfect and have flaws in their educational system, that can be fixed in order to provide a better environment for learning. Learning is a never ending process that we draw from our personal experiences. Although Americans believe in our educational system, there seems to be many problems that we are not aware of that have a negative effect on our students as a whole. One problem that the educational system faces is the obstacle between school and life. Schools need to break down the barrier in order to connect, going to school to learn and living your life. The students should be told that learning doesn’t stop after the bell rings or it is time to go it is happening all the time. In â€Å"School Is Bad For Children†, John Holt states, â€Å"’You come to school to learn’, we tell him, as if the child hadn’t been learning before, as if living were out there and learning were in here, and there is no connection between the two† (34). I think schools sometimes play a role of being separate from life because they enforce the rule of ‘you come to school to learn’ and that is it. Children come to school curious to learn with other people, particularly other children, but when the school teaches them to be indifferent they lose interaction with the world. Holt explains, â€Å"You might say that school is a long lesson in how to turn yourself off, which may be one of the reasons why so many young people, seek the awareness of the world and responsiveness to it they had when they were little, think they can only find it in drugs† (35). Making the student disconnect from the real world, meaning life, allows the students to believe that drugs are ok, which is bad. School and living is a connecting subject because you are living your life while attending school, which can affect the way you are learning. Problems and other situation that are happening in your life can make you lose focus, which affects the way you learn. Letting school and learning connect will break the barrier and create a better environment for students to function.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Cowboy Conservatism

In Cowboy Conservatism, we get to take a look at the rise of conservatism in Texas and the many events that led to the shift from Democratic Texas to a more right wing centered Texas. The events in the book including the election of LBJ, the assassination of Kennedy, and the election of Ronald Reagan, are some of the major events that helped shape Texas into what it is today. For a century after Reconstruction, the Democratic Party enjoyed electoral dominance on all levels of state government and in the Lone Star State's representation in the national government.Democrats held a lock on state politics and government throughout the first half of the twentieth century. But beneath the surface the party's dominance was crumbling. Political change in Texas and the nation eroded the conditions that fostered Democratic dominance. The 1964 election was one of the most interesting presidential elections in the history of U. S. A. For the first time since the election of 1932, American voters were given a chance to choose a President from two candidates who were completely opposite in their ideology and personality.Incumbent candidates usually get good coverage if they are running for re-election in a time when the economy is good, and this time was no exception. Part of the good coverage President Johnson received can be explained by the good economy and the lingering sympathy the press and the people still felt for the passing of President Kennedy. It also helped that he faced a very weak candidate that came from a divided party.From the start, Senator Goldwater had a difficult task in trying to oust a popular President in a good economy: What made his task almost impossible was that his extreme right wing ideology alienated the more moderate wing of the party. As we can learn from history, a divided party usually loses an election because a portion of their supporters would choose to stay home rather than vote for the candidate they do not like. Senator Goldwater's r efusal to moderate his view alienated the moderate Republicans.Although many Texans supported Goldwaters views on issues, it was hard for most Texans to go against one of their own in Johnson. Johnson made sure that people thought of Goldwater as an extremist in his views, which actually worked very well. I think the election of Ronald Reagan was the defining moment for the change to conservatism not only for Texas but for the rest of the nation. Although Reagan was defeated in 1976, he stuck with his strong conservative principles that most Texans also agreed with.I think most Texans really was on the side of Reagan because he was strong in his beliefs but he wasn’t as threatening as Goldwater. As unemployment and inflation began to rise during the Carter administration, many Americans were looking at alternative views, and Reagan used this to his advantage to run against everything Carter and the Democrats were doing. The genius of Reagan was to unite several different cons ervative schools of thought and forge them into a political movement.Nevertheless, Ronald Reagan saw something essential to the American cause in each strand of conservatism. He was attracted to the ideas that animated them. Reagan's great achievement was carried out in the political arena: he pulled together those who were inspired by classical conservatism and those who were inspired by classical liberalism. The victory in Texas was really one of the major influences for the spread of conservatism throughout the United States.Even today, there has been a rise of people who say they want to get back to Reagan conservatism, especially with the economy and unemployment low and mirroring much of the era during the Jimmy Carter presidency. I think what happened with the rise of Reagan is very interesting because we are starting to see much of the same thing again today. There is a strong interest nationally to move back to more conservative principles economically and cut government sp ending and control. The election of Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, was the definitive turning point in the rise of conservatism in Texas and throughout the United States.

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Coffee and Starbucks Essay

Transnational corporations have had a tremendous impact on the interconnectivity that between countries, corporations, and people on a global landscape. Fueled by capitalistic ideals of increasing profits numerous corporations have expanded there operations into the global marketplace, some with much more success than others. One such transnational corporation that has embodied this pursuit of expansion in domestic and foreign markets for profit is the Starbucks Coffee Company. This company, which finds its roots in the opening of a single retail location in Pike place Market of Downtown Seattle in 1971, has been able to infiltrate into countless foreign domains and grow into a global powerhouse of the food and beverage industry with over nine thousand stores across the globe today in thirty-four countries outside of the Unites States. (Business Wire, 2005) Starbucks serves is an excellent specimen of a company that follows continual patterns of expansion directly correlating to increased access to foreign markets, and also the ability to nurture growth within these markets as well as gain access to new markets through the Market merging. In my research of this company and its path to globalization, I found that information about certain aspects of the company were more readily available than others. For example, I found that I had more difficulty finding scholarly articles that dealt with the distinct business strategies that Starbuck’s employed in order to globalize, in that it became apparent that much of the information about the terms of their mergers and acquisitions were not released or that the companies and business groups that they did so with had websites that contained no information in English. Interestingly enough, I found more of an abundance of scholarly material on the homogeneous cultural impacts that Starbucks has had and how the spread of the company’s locations worldwide has been received by some cultures as the spread of American values. A bulk of my research findings came from business reports and releases about the company, which were useful in keeping accounts of how the company was able to infiltrate global markets and expand. The Website was a good starting point for my research in that it provided points of interest about the company that I could research into greater detail in order to root out the bigger picture. In order for one to have a more complete understanding of how this company operates and how it has come to succeed at a global level, I will outline the company’s geographic expansion in terms of its operations and production; second, I will explain the company’s main motivation for global expansion as well as factors that had an effect on the expansion; lastly I will detail the methods of expansion and production employed by the company. These will all be discussed within the time frame from present day back to 1996, when Starbucks first became a global corporation. (Starbucks. com) Of the nine thousand locations Starbucks has worldwide, over two thousand of those are outside of the United States in thirty four different countries. (Sowa, June 2004) The expansion of retail stores into foreign countries began with a joint venture with Sazabay Inc. in Japan in 1995, and then the eventual opening of retail locations within the country during the following year. (starbucks. com) This was the first time Starbucks ever set up operations outside of the US, and it was in the form of construction of the Starbuck brand retail store locations operated by a foreign company. Starbucks entered the East Asian Market first, in countries such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and China, and concentrated on growth in these markets mainly for the first few years of entering the foreign market. Eventually, Starbucks was able to break into other markets as well, such as Australia, London, and New Zealand amongst others year after year until its present standing of 34 countries in North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific Rim with retail locations that exists today in 2005. (Business Wire, Feb 2005) Within these countries, retail operations were set up at first just primarily in areas with the densest population. (Ramsey, Mar. 1997) However, as the market for the Starbuck’s Brand continually increased, the locations throughout the countries would increase and fan out from the city centers. This can be seen in the example of Japan, whom after 5 years operations had opened 300 stores by the year 2000. (starbucks.com) The primary raw material that Starbucks purchases and uses in terms of production is coffee beans. Coffee beans grow in regions near the equator, where the climate is suitable to sustain their growth. It follows that Starbucks purchases all of its beans from countries in South America, Africa, and Asia. Coffee beans that Starbucks import come from regions near the equator, such as South America, Africa, and Asia (Starbucks. com). Basically, the beans that are grown in these countries are purchased by the company to be roasted or packaged in all of its 9000 locations worldwide. However, Starbucks is not the only buyer when it comes to the bean supply as numerous other coffee retail companies rely on these farms as well, which places Starbucks as part a modular model commodity chain. The production of a generic commodity such as coffee beans allows for that commodity to be purchased by numerous companies without any affiliation or necessary interconnectivity between them. Starbucks reasoning for their initial expansion domestically in the United States as well as into the foreign Market place was centered on the basic capitalistic need for increase in profits, as well as the promotion of free trade from a neo-liberalist standpoint. Looking back to Starbuck’s early domestic expansion, it can be noted that just prior to addition of retail operations in Japan in 1996, there had been signs of a retraction of sales and growth, even with the addition of new retail locations domestically in the United States. There were signs of slowing in the US, one such being that comparable store sales, up 9 percent in 1995, were up 7 percent in 1996 and 5 percent approaching the following year. (Ramsey, Mar. 1997) These numbers indicate that it was becoming evident that in order to further sustain growth and high profit margins; Starbucks could achieve gains and benefit from free trade by setting up operations abroad. There are certain social contexts which provide commentary on the manner in which Starbucks was able to globalize. Especially that of the company’s abilities to access markets from cultural and political standpoints. In order to bridge the culture gap between markets, Starbucks must follow three basic steps; first, it must engage in prospecting the local culture and its nuances; second, it must access the market conditions and the potential response to their presence; and lastly they make or don’t make the decision to mobilize (Santos 2004). All this is considered with the fact that they are marketing a product in not only the coffee but in the retail location itself, in that Starbucks attempts to blend an Italian style beverage with a highly European influenced coffee house setting (Santos 2004), which is something that has to be marketed correctly in order to effectively find its niche in a foreign market setting. This marketing schematic sheds light on the purpose in placing global operations in East Asia in the late 90’s before breaking into the European market due to a feared negative response to an American global presence in what had always been a highly saturated European local market. There was also a strong potential that the War in Afghanistan and later Iraq would have a devastating effect on growth and sales in the foreign market. There were some signs of this seen in April of 2003, when Starbucks was being heavily protested and boycotted in Lebanon and New Zealand, and was forced to pull operations out of Israel for fear of terrorist attacks. Despite these setbacks, however, it remained that Starbucks International persevered in revenues, according to Greg Schroeder, a research analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners LLC, who stated â€Å"Starbucks’ popularity persists even in an economic downturn and during the war is an undeniably impressive feat as other retailers are struggling. † (Jung, 2003) Starbucks maintained strong development during this period, and continued to open stores and form partnerships in Turkey, Chile, and Peru (Starbucks.com) despite facing political tensions created by Starbucks national affiliation with the United States. Market access brought Starbucks to the foreign domain but how they were actually able to break into these markets came in the form of some key business strategies. Starbucks used a few basic strategies in order to gain access to a particular foreign market which was joint ventures, acquisitions, and licensing. Two specific examples include Starbucks’ acquisition of the Seattle Coffee Company in the United Kingdom with more than 60 retail locations in 1998(Starbucks.com) , and the joint venture Starbucks formed with Sazaby Inc in 1995. The acquisition of the Seattle Coffee company basically allowed Starbucks to renovate each retail location previously owned by the company and to put the Starbucks name on each location as well. Another different but successful strategy employed in Japan was that of the joint venture with Sazaby Inc. This partnership gave Sazaby Inc. the right to develop and operate coffeehouses throughout a defined region. The rationale behind both of these types of partnerships is explained by Peter Maslen, president of Starbucks Coffee International, who states, â€Å"The idea is that an experienced local partner can help identify locations, sift through tax issues, and give Starbucks stores more community appeal. â€Å"(Jung, Apr. 2003 p. E1) This allows Starbucks to continue to expand into other markets knowing that operations elsewhere are in the hands of carefully chosen partners and business groups who are able effectively read and access the climate of their targeted region’s market. The employees, CEOs, and other workers all have an integral part in this corporation’s ability to globalize. Starting at the level of both full as well as part time employees which facilitate the day-to-day functions of the retail locations in each of the 34 countries that Starbucks operates in, we can see that they receive a fair amount of benefits; including above-average hourly-wages, a comprehensive health benefit plan, and stock options. (Sancovich, 2002) Increased development and growth will fair well for those with stock in the company, including employees at the retail level. If the scope is broadened however, a very large gap exists between employees at the corporate level and those who produce the raw materials(coffee beans) that the company modulates into packaged or roasted coffee sales. It should be noted that Starbucks prides itself on the sale of Fair Trade Coffee in its stores to benefit the farmers that supply their coffee beans, which certifies that growers and farmers would receive a premium price above the prevailing market price for the sale of the coffee beans they produce (Starbucks. com). It should also then be noted that, according to an author in the ecologist, Starbucks advertises the fact that it bought 1. 1 million pounds of coffee last year at fair trade prices ($1. 27 per pound). This represents less than 0. 5 per cent of the coffee Starbucks buys each year. Fair trade is also highly profitable. While Starbucks pays $1. 27 per pound for fair-trade coffee, one pound of that coffee sells for $11. 45. That’s a 90 per cent mark-up (The Ecologist, Vol. 33, p. 22, 2003) The fact that Starbucks buys Fair Trade coffee in actuality does little to benefit the farmers who grow their beans. Another notable feature of the relationship between the owners, employees, and farmers is the overall disparity between employees at the corporate level and those employed to grow coffee beans, Millions of coffee farmers survive on less than $2 a week. Orin C Smith, Starbucks’ president and CEO, was paid $1,088,269 in 2002, and received a bonus of L1,362,500. Exercising share options in the company made him a further $36,321,643. He stands to make around $8. 5m more on share options granted in 2002. (The Ecologist, Vol. 33, p. 22, 2003) The economic disparity between wages is a direct result of the practices Starbucks engages in, such as markups. The farmers, as well as the retail employees would gain from the continued global development of the company, in that higher demand for coffee would increase the price of coffee for farmers and stock options would benefit regular employees, but would do so to an exponentially smaller degree than the employees at the corporate level of operations.