reflective case study - wordpress.comamb240 tobias weston - reflective case study page 5 of 19 3.4...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 2 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 3 of 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.
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 4 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 5 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 6 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 7 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 8 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 9 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 10 of 19
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.
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 11 of 19
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.
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 12 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 13 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 14 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 15 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 16 of 19
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.
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 17 of 19
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
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 18 of 19
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).
AMB240 Tobias Weston - Reflective Case Study Page 19 of 19
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