Reflective Case Study - WordPress.comAMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 5 of 19 3.4...

Reflective Case Study Revived and the QUTopia Simulation

Tobias Weston – n8324352 6/13/16 AMB240

AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 1 of 19

1.0 Executive Summary

The objective of this reflective case study is to consider the issues which Revived faced

throughout the QUTopia marketing simulation and to reflect on possible solutions. Revived

was a retail business specializing in up cycled home décor products. Many retail stores

operated at QUTopia however Revived tried to focus outside the mainstream markets.

Revived struggled throughout the semester to effectively implement planned marketing

strategies and thus failed to reach break-even after market day two. Although the business

was not considered a failure by the team, only one marketing objective was achieved from

the marketing plan.

1) achieve breakeven end of market day 1 (failed)

2) achieve projected sales end of market day 2 (succeeded)

3) achieve 15% profitability (failed)

4) obtain 25% market share (failed).

Revived’s failure to set a clear goal and marketing objectives was born from the culture in

which the group worked. Group roles within the business were quickly lost as

micromanaging damaged the efficiency of team member’s individual work. As a result

Revived struggled to develop effective promotion and pricing strategies and much time was

spent negotiating product choice.

Based on research and marketing theory it was found that, if repeated, Revived would be

able to function better as a business by considering Belbin’s team role inventory when

forming the business. Building a premium range by effectively bundling products would

have also been helpful for achieving positive profitability. Finally as Revived failed to

instigate a strong promotion campaign, it was suggested that utilizing the digital

environment and building an online forum or blog would have been most effective.


2.0 Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Factual Reflection: Summary of marketing outcomes ............................................................. 3

3.1 Marketing Objectives ....................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Sales and production outcomes ...................................................................................... 3

3.3 Final Profit and Loss statement ....................................................................................... 4

3.4 Marketshare calculations ................................................................................................. 5

4.0 Procedural reflection ................................................................................................................ 6

5.0 Justificatory reflection: Problem identification ........................................................................ 8

5.1 Team Efficiency ................................................................................................................ 8

5.2 Pricing Strategy .................................................................................................................... 9

5.3 Promotion Strategy ........................................................................................................ 10

6.0 Critical Reflection: Statement and Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................... 11

6.1 Balanced leadership styles ............................................................................................. 11

6.2 Belbin team roles ........................................................................................................... 12

6.3 Dynamic Pricing .............................................................................................................. 12

6.4 Premium Pricing Options ............................................................................................... 12

6.5 Viral Marketing .............................................................................................................. 13

6.6 Reaching Online Communities ....................................................................................... 13

6.7 Recommendation Summary .......................................................................................... 14

7.0 Critical Reflection: Recommendations for the future ............................................................ 16

7.1 Team efficiency .............................................................................................................. 16

7.2 Pricing strategy .............................................................................................................. 16

7.3 Promotion strategy ........................................................................................................ 16

8.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 17

9.0 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 19


3.0 Factual Reflection: Summary of marketing outcomes

3.1 Marketing Objectives Table 1. Summary of Market objectives and outcomes

3.2 Sales and production outcomes

Sales and Production Statement

3.1.1 Sales price (per unit average) $23.8

3.1.2 Total number of units produced 80

3.1.3 Total number of units sold 62

3.1.4 Stock on hand 18

Table 2. Summary of sales and production. (See Appendix 1 for individual product layout)

Objectives Outcomes

1. Break Even

Reach breakeven point by the end of market day 1.

At the end of market day 1 Revived had only reached approximately 1/3 of break even.

Breakeven objective was not achieved.

2. Sales Reach projected sales by the end of market day 2.

Revived exceeded projected sales by double, selling 62 units in total.

Sales objective was achieved.

3. Profitability

Achieve 15% business profitability after both market days.

Revived failed to break even after both market days falling short by 175 Q$. Final profitability was -11.86 %

Profitability objective was not achieved.

4. Market Share

Obtain 25% of market share within our industry.

After both market days Revived achieved 13.8 % market share of our industry market.

Market Share objective was not achieved.


3.3 Final Profit and Loss statement

No

tes

($A

UD

)

rea

l

cu

rre

ncy

($Q

)

QU

To

pia

cu

rre

ncy

Su

b T

ota

lT

ota

l20.

Nu

mb

er

of

un

its

sold

*

62

$

1,4

75

1,4

75

$

*

this

com

es fro

m t

he s

ale

s a

nd p

roduction r

eport

$

-

21.

Ave

rag

e p

rice

pe

r u

nit

[20/1

8]

05.

Wages/

Sala

ries

$

-

1,3

50

$

$23.7

9

$

-

$

1,3

50

22.

Re

al

$ s

pe

nt

pe

r u

nit

0

09.

Sta

ll cost

$

-

$

3

00

* th

is m

ust

not

exceed $

2

$

-

$

-

300

$

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

1,6

50

$

-$

1

75

19.

Est

ima

ted

Pro

fita

bil

ity o

f th

e o

rga

nis

ati

on

Calc

ula

ted a

s p

rofit

/turn

ove

r [1

8 /

02]

-11.8

6%

18.

ES

TIM

AT

ED

PR

OF

IT [

02-1

7]

17.

Tota

l E

xpenses [

16+

21+

27]

11.

Tota

l [9

+10]

12.

Ex

pe

nse

s

13.

Lectu

re p

rom

otion

14.

Mark

et

researc

h

15.

Oth

er

expense 1

(eg.

Sta

ll desig

n/d

ecora

tion)

16.

Oth

er

expense 2

(eg.

sta

ff perform

ance b

onus,

unifo

rms e

tc.)

01.

Est

ima

ted

In

co

me

02.

Turn

ove

r (t

ota

l sale

s)

08.

Dis

trib

uti

on

10.

Deliv

ery

Costs

(e

.g.,

posta

ge)

03.

Co

st o

f S

ale

s (P

rod

ucti

on

)

04.

Mate

rials

(eg.

Pro

duct

costs

, packagin

g)

06.

Tota

l [4

+5]

Figure 1. Profit and loss statement


3.4 Marketshare calculations

Marketshare and competitor analysis, Post-market days

Turnover

(Total sales) Marketshare Profit

Product (No. of units sold)

Profitability %

Price (Av. price per

unit)

Your company: Revived

1,475.00 13.80% - 174.94 62 -11.86% 23.79

Competitor 1: Gent Shed

3,045.00 28.49% 745.11 40 24.47% 76.13

Competitor 2: ReGlassed

2,938.00 27.49% 717.75 61 24.43% 46.60

Competitor 3: Raw Elements

3,230.00 30.22% 1,494.84 75 46.28% 43.07

Total industry 10,688.00 100.00% 2,782.77 238 26.04% 44.91

Average industry profitability

26.04%

Table 3. Summary of Market share Calculations


4.0 Procedural reflection

Table 4. Key issues arising from the QUTopia Simulation

What happened? Were the outcomes positive or

negative?

1.0 Financial Situation

Failed to breakeven (short $175)

Exceeded sales by double (62 units)

Sales forecast was based on forecasting equation however we considered previous similar businesses when preparing products

We did not want to assume our actual number of sales would be higher than forecasted

When forecasting we assumed customers would only purchase a single product however a large portion purchased multiple

Number of sales on first market day was less then hoped and hence average price dropped early on Market day 2

Many people bartered and discounts were introduced and not recorded

Sales recording wasn’t organized well and customer information was not recorded

We assumed that consumers would purchase more of the lower products in groups rather than individually

Positive:

Sales rate increased dramatically on Market day 2

Achieving double the forecasted sales although positive should have prompted price consideration

Negative:

Customer negotiated prices often

Price was lowered too much and break even wasn’t achieved despite high sales

2.0 Company Analysis

Team communication was acceptable

Although deadlines were set they weren’t adhered to by the entire team

Most decisions often negotiated rather than delegated

Team decisions were decided upon majority rule

Stall preparation left until very last minute

Too much time was spent on product build and product decisions

A lot of micromanagement

Positive:

Friendly relationships developed

Communication through social media was effective

Respectful of others ideas Negative:

Constant time pressure was stressful

Because decisions were always negotiated ideas became watered down or didn’t happen at all

Incorporation of too many ideas sometimes

Inefficient management style

3.0 Marketing System

Objectives were SMART however conflict did occur, breakeven on day 1 would have resulted in achieving forecast sales by day 2 based on pricing strategy

Electric lights arrived after market day 1, electric tea lights were used as backups

Stall was constructed as planned however was not fully constructed before market day 1

Products were constructed to the best of our ability and

Positive:

High number of sales compared to forecast

Brand was consistent from product to stall and packaging

Backup plan successfully worked

Successfully attracted target market


we felt satisfied with the quality relative to competition products

Pricing display wasn’t strong enough on Day 1, was adjusted for day 2

Attracting customers was difficult unless they had an interest in our product already

Very few promotional activities conducted

Packaging branding was adjusted also adjusted (See Appendix 2)

Negative:

Did not create demand for product prior to market days

Did not attract passive shoppers

Only attracted target market

4.0 Customer Analysis

The target market was correctly set and brand image also developed correctly

Did not consider that stores with different products would target same market

We assumed customers would buy cheapest product in groups how ever did not promote correctly

Some customer feedback suggest products not of high enough quality

Positive:

Most sales to target market

People purchased multiple objects

Negative:

Could have consider broader market

Customers purchased more of the less expensive products

5.0 Competitor Analysis

We attempted to differentiate ourselves from our competitor by having different products

For the few products that did overlap, we considered ours of better quality

We didn’t aim to be market leader because we expected our competitors to more aggressive

We expected Gent’s Shed to be most damaging to our business however their stall and products were lacking (See Appendix 3)

Gent’s Shed costs were much higher than ours and surprised us by having such a high profitability, our observations of their business only saw slow sale rate and late roaming sales.

See Section 3.4 for market share and competitor profitability

Our average product price was the lowest

We felt our stall was the strongest visually but also located in slowest traffic area

Positive:

Product quality was competitive

Pricing was competitive

Direct competitors geographically distant

Negative:

Lowest market share


5.0 Justificatory reflection: Problem identification

Throughout the semester Revived as a team always struggled to effectively complete tasks

within the pledged time frames. This was partially due to management of the team as a

whole and individual work styles. As every decision was considered as a team, the

individual roles became nearly meaningless. This management style lead to issues with the

pricing strategy and promotion. Rather than being considered and developed by a

dedicated member, they became encumbered with too many idea inputs and hence were

not implemented as effectively as planned. The marketing plan was also hindered and as a

result the plans themselves were ultimately very rough. In this section I have discussed how

the decision making process lead to slow progress, how the pricing strategy was incorrectly

implemented and how our promotion strategy was too specific to the target market.

Although I don’t consider Revived a business failure, I believe if from the beginning we had

conducted ourselves more effectively we could have finished stronger financially.

5.1 Team Efficiency

The initial issue with team management began with delegation of sections for the marketing

plan. Certain sections of the marketing plan ideally should have been completed by the

designated roles ie, the pricing manager should have completed the budget and relating

forecasting projections. This was not the case and the marketing plan was awkwardly

separated and allocated, this made completion of the marketing plan more challenging as

team members had to wait for other members to complete required sections. At times

communication was challenging and 2 members were stuck in a loop waiting for each other.

Figure 2. Example of communication


As this occurred early in the semester it setup how the team would continue to make

decisions for the rest of the semester. We started with a dedicated leader whose role it was

to manage and effectively delegate but ended up having every member consider every

issue. Sohmen (2013) states 2 skills that exemplify successful team work are having

dedicated roles and giving feedback within the team. One of the things we did really well as

team was to always give positive feedback. Sohmen also suggests leaders must have clear

objectives and build positive trust for teams to be most efficient.

Throughout the semester I tried to retain my role solely as pricing manager however I did

not want to be seen as not contributing after we had developed this culture of

collaboration. I think members in my team maybe lacked confidence in their own ability

and thus thought they required team approval for every decision. The decision making

process is about trust, the leader of the team should always be working to build trust

amongst members (Matthews, 2015). Because we focused too much on feedback we

became too one-dimensional and inefficiently planned and implemented our marketing

strategies. The leadership style used involved too much micromanaging and this lead to

inefficient teamwork and time delays.

5.2 Pricing Strategy

When considering our pricing strategy it is clear that we priced our products slightly too low

based on our high sales number and failing to break even. Our forecasted sales was lower

than what all of our competitors and ourselves achieved and thus suggests that we should

have kept our prices higher rather than lowering them to build demand. Based on our

competitors Reglassed and Raw elements average price and number of sales it would

suggest that demand is inelastic however I would challenge this and suggest demand was

very elastic. This is based on the higher number of purchases of lower priced products. This

for us was ultimately what caused us to fail breaking even. After market day 1 we noted

this, however developed no strategy to balance our product sales range or encourage

purchase of multiple lower priced products. Furthermore introduction of discounts and

lowered prices only but increased demand.

Initially we implemented a cost based approach, we decided not to spend any extra money

on market research or promotion so that we could keep prices as low as possible. Based on


pre cost and forecasting we started an objective of 55Q$ per unit. For the group this was

surprisingly high and members opted for having a larger range of products which gave

consumers more consideration and contrast to value the products themselves. The product

which sold the most was the cheapest product, however the product that made the most

revenue was not the most expensive or most sold. When possible dynamic pricing can be

very effective (Sahay, 2007), in the QUTopia simulation we have a short time in which to

react but should have been able to price our products correctly in relation to demand and

competition. As pricing manager I advised my group as to how we might maintain a positive

profitability however I failed to account for how a large range of products affected pricing

strategy.

5.3 Promotion Strategy

As with our pricing strategy, promotional strategy was considered by the entire team, rather

than established by the promotions manager. As we had decided to limit costs we had

already ruled out in lecture advertising so the majority of our promotions were to take place

on market days and on social media. When considering the cohort of students it was

decided that targeting a specific category of females would give us the largest target market

possible. Our products, stall and customer service were designed with only the target

market in mind and hence we failed to acquire any customers who weren’t within our target

market. Sacklow (1998) states that considering your product or service is the first step

when choosing target market however neglecting the importance of psychographics limited

our reach. We did not prepare for the real possibility that customers could be buying gifts

for others rather than themselves.

When discussing promotion issues we touched upon many strategies with which we could

have used to incorporate other market segments. An effective method of targeting involves

analysis of all target segments and applying a criteria with which to value each segment

(Abari et al, 2012). Although we informally did this we still didn’t consider markets other

than the primary. We discussed gift wrapping options, online discount promotions and

online competitions, none which of we ended up implementing. On market day 1 a roaming

discounter was launched however the action was not planned prior to market day, it lacked

branding and consumer involvement was very low.


Figure 3. Roaming promotion was not successful

In summary our promotional efforts were lacking and our targeting strategy was too

narrow. Our strategy to use digital and social media marketing was never implemented and

thus demand for our brand and product was also never developed. Digital marketing is the

most flexible and creative channel (Katherine, 2012) and I believe we could have developed

a promotional campaign which would have made our brand known at the minimum,

however our team was unable to organize a campaign.

6.0 Critical Reflection: Statement and Evaluation of Alternatives

6.1 Balanced leadership styles

Leaders play a crucial role in the development of effective teams, building a framework to

steer activity and maintaining dedicated roles are but two of the key aspects of leadership

which we lacked (DuBois et al, 2015). Balancing micromanagement and a hands-off

approach is what the marketing manager has to do to maintain an efficient team

throughout the semester. Warner (1999) states that the best leaders will be adaptable with

these two approaches and will know at what time each is required. A hands-off approach

allows creativity whereas micromanaging is best used when situations are changing

consistently. Moran (2013) suggests that leaders should be continuously evaluating team

roles and overall objectives as these are crucial for effectiveness. Regardless of personality

the leadership role requires someone who can adapt their leadership style to the constantly

changing situation that is the market planning and implementation stages of QUTopia.


6.2 Belbin team roles

The Belbin team roles system is one of the earliest in depth management tools used to

identify how an individual might fit into a behavioral role within a team (Belbin, 2012).

Belbin devised this system after noticing that teams of high intellect were not guaranteed to

outperform teams of lesser intellect and in fact it was more behavior balanced teams that

succeeded. The framework for the nine behavioral roles is split into two general categories,

“task based” and “relationship based”. Studies by Senior (1997), Batenburg (2013) and

Fisher et al (1998) showed that teams with less members and secondary roles were able to

succeed just as ably as teams with more members. As this system simply shows an

individual which role they might perform best, it is not a flawless method for constructing

teams. If this was used to form businesses for QUTopia, students would be allocated groups

based on their behavioral role scores rather than choosing teams based on interests and

hopeful grade achievement.

6.3 Dynamic Pricing

Dynamic pricing strategy is a pricing method widely used in the travel, tourism and

entertainment industries. The strategy involves having a flexible pricing system that is

developed based on multiple factors including demand and supply and competitor pricing.

Dynamic pricing has been shown to be an effective pricing method within the retail industry

as well (Natter et al, 2007). This pricing strategy is effective for travel and tourism as

consumers are usually comparing products in an online environment and can quickly

compare brands/prices. Although not identical to the QUTopia simulation, consumers have

the ability to easily compare brands and pricing in the same way. This method also allows

the business to engage in predatory pricing, an effective tool for defending market position

or attacking market leaders (Uslay, 2005). Although QUTopia is appropriate for dynamic

pricing, implanting the strategy is difficult as constant monitoring of demand through sales

rates and competitors pricing is required.

6.4 Premium Pricing Options

Our failure to sell premium priced products was one reason we failed to achieve our

financial objectives. Convincing a customer that the premium product is the better choice is

a challenge and our real failure lies within our lack of customer service practice however a

product that is visibly more premium will always be easier to sell (Hockenhull, 2001). One


way we could have increased the visible value of our products is by bundling them. This is

an effective retail strategy often used when selling complementary product such as

furniture and home decorations (Estelami, 1999). Hybrid bundling (selling service and

product together) was effectively used by Mugshot, by selling personalised mugs. This was

an idea we considered with our own products but did not implement. A study by Meyer &

Shankar (2016) suggests that hybrid bundling offers even more encouragement for premium

pricing however consumers are wary of product and service quality and hence pricing

strategy should be cautious.

6.5 Viral Marketing

Viral marketing is the most innovative customer centric digital promotion tool available. As

the main communication tool used by QUTopia businesses and customers was social media

it is the perfect place to implement a viral campaign (Yang, 2012). Viral campaigns have the

benefit of conducting brand marketing whilst building customer value and word of mouth

advertising. In this semester of QUTopia the “Buff boys” videos was an attempt at viral

marketing however based on the consumption pattern feedback it was not as successful as

expected. Viral campaigns require collaboration from every aspect of marketing and

creativity; they are also the most risky campaigns in terms of consumer reaction (Clarke,

2013). Developing a successful campaign takes time and careful analysis of audience, for

Revived a viral campaign could have been used to include other secondary audiences such

as men buying products for partners or family (Sharda & Bharti, 2015). (Similar to old spice

targeting the product purchasers rather than consumers in their viral campaign)

6.6 Reaching Online Communities

As the target market for Revived was the largest niche based consumer, using blogs and

online conversation as a promotional tool could have been very effective. Blogs are cost

effective and utilize the communication of customers to build brand awareness and build

purchase intent (Jones, 2009). Donnelly (2016) states that user generated content is the

most valuable tools for marketers as it considered 50% more trustworthy then brand

generated advertising. As the entire community for QUTopia is connected by a single

facebook page this allows the business behind the blog to connect to every prospective

customer and invite potential input as well. Revived could build a forum or blog for which

QUTopia customers which could compare and discuss retail products and purchases as well


as price and service. Harris and Ray (2010) also discuss the issue of giving to much power to

the consumer when building online communities. Businesses must be authentic when

communicating with consumers to avoid embarrassment. The implementation of a blog or

forum is time consuming but offers more direct communication with consumers.

6.7 Recommendation Summary

Figure 4. Advantages and disadvantages of managing team efficiency in 2 different ways

Figure 5. Advantages and disadvantages of managing Pricing Strategy in 2 different ways

Team Efficiency

Balanced Leadership Style

- boosted efficiency- leadership has clear

objectives- clear roles for team

members

- less friendly culture- requires person with

leadership skills- leadership and dictatorship

Belbin Team Roles

- boosted efficiency- clear roles

- feedback roles- evaluation roles

- balanced team dynamics

- time needed to test and form teams

- no freedom to choose team

Pricing Strategy

Dynamic Pricing

- QUTopia correct environment

- useful for defensive or offensive tactic

- time demanding- constant adjusting required- estimating demand can be

inaccurate

Premium Options

- higher prices more attractive product

- bundle products various ways

- useful range of products

- may benefit consumer more than business

- selling service as well as product is time consuming


Figure 6. Advantages and disadvantages of managing Promotion Strategy in 2 different ways

Promotion Strategy

Viral Marketing

- develop brand awareness- digital marketing QUTopia

- word of mouth

- requires momentum- possible embarrasment

- careful preanalysis required

Online Communities

- direct to consumers- user made content- brand awareness- word of mouth

- brand embarrasment- hijacking

- time consuming- competition


7.0 Critical Reflection: Recommendations for the future

7.1 Team efficiency

Belbin’s team role theory has been used in business group environments for many years and

has also been shown to be effective for higher education academic group work as well

(Smith & Yates, 2011). For this reason it is perfectly suitable for use when forming teams in

the AMB240 subject. Each student would take Belbin team role inventory test and would be

allocated team based on results. Each team would be made up of balance of various roles

so as to keep equality amongst teams.

7.2 Pricing strategy

Creating demand for premium products was something Revived failed to and this was seen

through the over purchase of our cheapest products. Having a visibly higher valued product

such as product bundle would allow for a more effective premium pricing strategy (Docters

et al, 2006). As we had a relatively large range of products this is something we could have

effectively implemented. Bundles generally attract low involvement consumers (Harris &

Blair, 2006) however flexible bundling options could be used for our target market and

other segments.

7.3 Promotion strategy

Blogs, forums and review pages allow people to build social and business connections, share

information and collaborate on products and projects digitally. The capacity to promote

brands in these spaces is huge (Praise et al, 2008). At QUTopia where the product

competition in retail was very high, consumers and students could have used a forum with

which to discuss and engage with each other. Being the organizer or sponsor of said space

would also give the brand massive power within the market. Consumer generated content

is received much more positively then the brand promotions seen on the QUTopia facebook

page.


8.0 References

Abari, M.K., Nilchi, A.N., Nasri, M. & Hekmatpanah, M. 2012, "Target market selection using fuzzy

analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal

solution (TOPSIS) methods", African Journal of Business Management, vol. 6, no. 20, pp.

6291- 6299.

Batenburg, R., Wouter, v.W. & Wesley in, d.M. 2013, "Belbin role diversity and team performance: is

there a relationship?", The Journal of Management Development, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 901-913.

Belbin, RM 2012, Team Roles at Work (2), Routledge, Burlington, US. Available from: ProQuest

ebrary. [9 June 2016].

Clark, R. 2013, Creating a buzz through viral can be contagious, Hong Kong.

Docters, R., Schefers, B., Durman, C. & Gieskes, M. 2006, "Bundles with sharp teeth: effective

product combinations", The Journal of business strategy, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 10-16.

Donnelly, K. 2016. 7minutebreak: Marketing to Millennials: 5 Massive Trends That Are Leading the

Way2016, , Newstex, Chatham.

DuBois, M., Hanlon, J., Koch, J., Nyatuga, B. & Kerr, N. 2015, "Leadership Styles of Effective Project

Managers: Techniques and Traits to Lead High Performance Teams", Journal of Economic

Development, Management, I T, Finance, and Marketing, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 30-46.

Estelami, H. 1999, "Consumer savings in complementary product bundles", Journal of Marketing

Theory and Practice, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 107-114.

Fisher, S.G., Hunter, T.A. & Macrosson, W.D.K. 1998, "The structure of Belbin's team roles", Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 71, pp. 283-288.

Harris, J. & Blair, E.A. 2006, "Consumer Preference for Product Bundles: The Role of Reduced Search

Costs", Academy of Marketing Science.Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 506-513.

Harris, L. & Rae, A. 2010, "The online connection: transforming marketing strategy for small

businesses", The Journal of business strategy, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 4-12.

Hockenhull, T.A. 2001, "BUSINESSWORLD (PHILIPPINES): Getting the Edge in Professional Selling:

Paying a premium", BusinessWorld, , pp. 1.

Jones, G. 2009, Brands turn to sponsored blogs, Haymarket Business Publications Ltd, London

Katherine, T.S. 2012, "Longitudinal study of digital marketing strategies targeting Millennials", The

Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 86-92.

Matthews, R. & McLees, J. 2015, "Building Effective Projects Teams and Teamwork", Journal of

Information Technology and Economic Development, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 20-30.

Meyer, J. & Shankar, V. 2016, "Pricing Strategies for Hybrid Bundles: Analytical Model and

Insights", Journal of Retailing, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 133-146.

Moran ,G. 2013, “3 ingredients for building effective teams”, Retrieved at

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226063

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226063


Natter, M., Reutterer, T., Mild, A. & Taudes, A. 2007, "An Assortmentwide Decision-Support System

for Dynamic Pricing and Promotion Planning in DIY Retailing",Marketing Science, vol. 26, no.

4, pp. 576-583,586-587.

Parise, S., Guinan, P.J. & Weinberg, B.D. 2008, Business Insight (A Special Report): Marketing --- The

Secrets of Marketing In a Web 2.0 World: Consumers are flocking to blogs, social-networking

sites and virtual worlds; And they are leaving a lot of marketers behind, Eastern edition edn,

New York, N.Y.

Sacklow, H. 1998, "Identifying your target market finds the customers you want", Capital District

Business Review, , pp. 22.

Sahay, A. 2007, "How Dynamic Pricing Leads to Higher Profits", MIT Sloan Management Review, vol.

48, no. 4, pp. 53.

Senior, B. 1997, "Team roles and team performance: Is there 'really' a link?", Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 241-258.

Sharda, J.H. & Bharti, B.M. 2015, "Gender Difference in Consumer Perception towards Online Viral

Marketing Communication", International Journal of Marketing & Business

Communication, vol. 4, no. 3.

Smith, G. & Yates, P. 2011, "Team role theory in higher education", Training Journal, , pp. 37-40.

Sohmen, V.S. 2013, "Leadership and Teamwork: Two Sides of the Same Coin", Journal of Information

Technology and Economic Development, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1-18.

Uslay, C. 2005, The role of pricing strategy in market defense, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Warner, S. 1999, "Successfully balancing the leadership", SuperVision, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 10-11.

Yang, X. 2012, Viral marketing A new branding strategy to influence consumers, University of Ottawa

(Canada).


9.0 Appendices

Appendix 1. Sales and production statements

Appendix 2. Adjusted Packaging

Appendix 3. Direct Competitor Gents Shed

QUTopia Sales and Production Report

8.0 Total Sales 62

9.0 Overall Total Turnover $1,475

10.0 Average unit price 23.8

Small Jars

Notes

No. of

units

($Q)

QUTopia

currency

Bottles

Notes

No. of

units

($Q)

QUTopia

currency

Large

JarsNotes

No. of

units

($Q)

QUTopia

currency

01. Sales 01. Sales 01. Sales

02. Sales price per unit $36 02. Sales price $33 02. Sales $4803. Total number of units

produced 10

03. Total number

of units produced 7

03. Total

number of 15

04. Total number of units sold 7

04. Total number

of units sold 4

04. Total

number of 1305. Stock on-hand (left over

inventory) 3

05. Stock on-hand

(left over inventory) 3

05. Stock

on-hand 2

[03 - 04] [03 - 04] [03 - 04]

07. Total turnover $255 07. Total $130 07. Total $630

[2 x 4]

Tea Lights

Notes

No. of

units

($Q)

QUTopia

currency

Lanterns

Notes

No. of

units

($Q)

QUTopia

currency

01. Sales 01. Sales

02. Sales price per unit $12

02. Sales price

per unit $12

03. Total number of units

produced 8

03. Total number

of units produced 40

04. Total number of units sold 8

04. Total number

of units sold 30

05. Stock on-hand (left over

inventory) 0

05. Stock on-hand

(left over inventory) 10

[03 - 04] [03 - 04]

07. Total turnover $96

07. Total

turnover $365

Date post:	28-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Reflective Case Study - WordPress.comAMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 5 of 19 3.4...

Documents