Management Case Study
C63
CASES
CASE 11 QVC*
When the Mobile Satisfaction Index was released on February 13, 2013, by Foresee, an organization that carries out surveys of customer satisfaction, QVC was ranked as one of the top three e-retailers on the mobile platform. Although the firm has already been recognized for its customer service for its television and Internet home shopping in many other surveys, the Foresee ranking was in the emerging mobile segment. “Customers are using their mobile phones as integrated parts of their shopping experience,” said Eric Feinberg, one of the directors at Foresee.1
Since it was launched in 1986, QVC has rapidly grown to become the largest television shopping network. Although it entered the market a couple of years after rival Home Shopping Network, the channel has managed to build a leading position. By 2012, its reach had extended to over 200 million households all over the world. It regularly ships almost 165 million products annually to customers, resulting in almost $8.5 million in sales (see Exhibits 1 and 2). It has been attracting audiences to watch its shows across the U.S., U.K., Germany, Japan, and since 2010, also in Italy (see Exhibit 3).
EXHIBIT 1 QVC Annual Sales
2012 $10.1 billion
2011 9.6 billion
2010 7.8 billion
2009 7.4 billion
2008 7.3 billion
2007 7.4 billion
2006 7.1 billion
2004 5.7 billion
2001 3.8 billion
1998 2.4 billion
1995 1.6 billion
1992 0.9 billion
1989 0.2 billion
Source: QVC, Liberty Media.
EXHIBIT 2 QVC Income Statement*
Years ended December 31
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Net revenue $8,516 $8,268 $7,807 $7,352 $7,303
Cost of sales (5,419) (5,278) (5,006) (4,719) (4,682)
Gross profit 3,097 2,990 2,801 2,604 2,584
Operating expenses† (715) (744) (715) (684) (703)
S, G, & A expenses (554) (513) (415) (364) (379)
Operating cash flow 1,828 1,733 1,671 1,556 1,502
Stock compensation (34) (22) (18) (16) (15)
Depreciation & amortization‡ (526) (574) (523) (526) (531)
Operating income $1,268 $1,137 $1,130 $1,014 $956
*All figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
† Operating expenses consist of commissions and license fees, order processing and customer service, credit card processing fees, and provision for doubtful accounts.
‡ Depreciation and amortization includes amortization of intangible assets recorded in connection with the purchase of QVC by Liberty Media.
Source: Liberty Media, QVC.
*Case developed by Professor Jamal Shamsie, Michigan State University, with the assistance of Professor Alan B. Eisner, Pace University. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for purposes of class discussion. Copyright © 2013 Jamal Shamsie and Alan B. Eisner.
C64
EXHIBIT 3 Geographical Breakdown of QVC Revenue*
Years Ended December 31
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
U.S. $5,585 $5,412 $5,235 $4,965 $4,911
U.K. 641 626 599 578 660
Germany 956 1,068 956 942 954
Japan 1,247 1,127 1,015 867 778
*All figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: Liberty Media, QVC
The success of QVC is largely driven by its popular television home shopping shows that feature a wide variety of eye-catching products, many of which are unique to the channel. It organizes product searches in cities all over the U.S. in order to continuously find new offerings from entrepreneurs that can be pitched at customers. During these events, the firm has to screen hundreds of products in order to select those that it will offer. In one of its recent searches, QVC had to evaluate the appeal of products such as nail clippers that catch clippings, bicycle seats built for bigger bottoms and novelty items shaped like coffins.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
But QVC is also trying to entice new customers by battling a perception that direct-response TV retailers sell just hokey, flimsy, or kitschy goods. Its jewelry selection features prestigious brands such as Tacori, which is worn by TV stars. It offers clothing from couture designers such as Marc Bouwer, who has made clothing for Angelina Jolie and Halle Berry. And it has recently added exclusive products from reality stars such as Kim Kardashian and Rachel Zoe. Such vendors have introduced thousands to QVC, often through social media like Facebook and Twitter. “Rachel Zoe brings so many new customers it’s staggering,” said CEO Michael George.2
Furthermore, QVC has expanded its shopping experience to the Internet, attracting more than 9.5 million unique monthly visitors by early 2012. It has continued to attract customers from its television channel to its website, making it one of the leading multimedia retailers. Building on this, the firm has been creating a family of mobile shopping applications for smartphones and tablets. Although QVC is still developing this segment, mobile applications are already accounting for almost 5 percent of their sales.
Pursuing a Leading Position
QVC was founded by Joseph Segel in June 1986 and began broadcasting in November of the same year. In early 1986, Segel had tuned in to the Home Shopping Network, which had been launched two years earlier. He had not been particularly impressed with the crude programming and the down-market products of the firm. But Segel was convinced that another televised shopping network would have the potential to attract a large enough client base. He also felt that such an enterprise should be able to produce significant profits, because the operating expenses for a shopping network could be kept relatively low.
Over the next few months, Segel raised $30 million in start-up capital, hired several seasoned television executives, and launched his own shopping network. Operating out of headquarters that were located in West Chester, Pennsylvania, QVC offered 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week television shopping to consumers at home. By the end of its first year of operation, QVC had managed to extend its reach to 13 million homes by satellite and cable systems. 700,000 viewers had already become customers, resulting in the shipping of 3 million orders. Its sales had already topped $100 million, and the firm was actually able to show a small profit.
Segel attributed the instant success of his company to the potential offered by television shopping. “Television’s combination of sight, sound, and motion is the best way to sell a product. It is more effective than presenting a product in print or just putting the product on a store shelf,” he stated. “The cost-efficiency comes from the cable distribution system. It is far more economical than direct mail, print advertising, or traditional retail store distribution.”3
In the fall of 1988, Segel acquired the manufacturing facilities, proprietary technology, and trademark rights of the Diamonique Corporation, which produced a wide range of simulated gemstones and jewelry that could be sold on QVC’s shows. Over the next couple of years, Segel expanded QVC by acquiring competitors, such as the Cable Value Network Shopping channel.
By 1993, QVC had overtaken Home Shopping Network to become the leading televised shopping channel in terms of sales and profits. Its reach extended to over 80 percent of all cable homes and to 3 million satellite dishes. Segel retired during the same year, passing control of the company to Barry Diller. Since then, QVC’s sales have continued to grow at a substantial rate. As a result, it has consistently widened the gap between its sales and those of Home Shopping Network, which has remained its closest competitor.
Striving for Retailing Excellence
Over the years, QVC has managed to establish itself as the world’s preeminent virtual shopping mall that never closes. Its televised shopping channel has become a place where customers around the world can, and do, shop at any hour at the rate of more than five customers per second. It sells a wide variety of products, using a combination of description and demonstration by live program hosts. QVC is extremely selective in choosing its hosts, screening as many as 3,000 applicants annually in order to pick three. New hosts are trained for at least six months before they are allowed to get on a show. In addition, most of the products are offered on regularly scheduled shows, each of which is focused on a particular type of product and a well-defined market. Each of these shows typically lasts for one hour and is based on a theme such as Now You’re Cooking or Cleaning Solutions (see Exhibit 4).
C65
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be
reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C65
EXHIBIT 4 Sample of QVC Programming
Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
12:00 AM
Barbara Bixby Jewelry
Company’s Coming Reed/Barton
Kathy Van Zeeland Accessories
Victor Costa Occasion
Gifts of Style
Bose Sound Innovation
Kitchen Aid
2:00 AM
Tignanello Handbags
Dennis Basso Boutique
T3 Hair Care Tacori for Epiphany Jewelry
Late Night Gifts
Linea by Louis Dell’Olio
Ecclissi Watches
5:00 AM
Savings by Jeanne Bice
Steel by Design Jewelry
Chaz Dean Hair and Body Care
Boyds Bears and Friends
Arte d’Argento Silver
Gold Jewelry Special
Practical Kitchen Aid
9:00 AM
Barbara Bixby Jewelry
Slatkin & Co. Home Accessories
Mary Beth Accessories
Susan Graver Style
Denim & Company
AM Style Great Gifts by KitchenAid
12:00 noon
Q Check Gifts
Q Check Gifts Q Check Gifts Q Check Gifts Q Check Gifts
Judith Ripka Collection
Gifts from David’s Kitchen
3:00 PM
Barbara Bixby Jewelry
Dennis Basso Boutique
Bags and Shoes Great Gifts Gifts of Style
QVC Beauty Exclusives
Gifts from David’s Kitchen
6:00 PM
NFL Shop Enjoyable Entertaining Reed/Barton
Kathy Van Zeeland Accessories
Philosophy Beauty
Great Gifts Gifts for Mom From Dell
8:00 PM
PM Style Kitchen Gifts Reed/Barton
NARS Cosmetics
Northern Nights Bedding
What’s in my beauty bag?
Saturday Night Beauty
From Dell
10:00 PM
Tignanello Handbags
Tuesday Night Gifts Reed/Barton
Designer Couple Handbags
Tacori for Epiphany Jewelry
Gem Fest Special
Temptation Presentable Ovenware
Nintendo featuring Wii
Source: QVC.
QVC frequently entices celebrities, such as clothing designers or book authors, to appear live on special program segments in order to sell their own products. In order to prepare them to succeed, celebrities are given training on how to best pitch their offerings. On some occasions, customers are able to call in and have on-air conversations with program hosts and visiting celebrities. Celebrities are therefore often schooled in QVC’s “backyard-fence” style, which means conversing with viewers the way they would chat with a friendly neighbor. “They’re just so down-home, so it’s like they’re right in your living room demonstrating,” said a long time QVC customer.4
In spite of the folksy presentation, the sales are minutely managed. Behind the scenes, a producer scans nine television and computer screens to track sales of each featured item. “We track new orders per minute in increments of six seconds; we can look backward in time and see what it was that drove that spike,” said Doug Rose, who oversees programming and marketing.5Hosts and guests are prompted to make adjustments in their pitch that might increase sales. A beauty designer was recently asked to rub an eyeliner on her hand, which immediately led to a surge of new orders.
QVC’s themed programs are telecast live 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to millions of households worldwide. The shopping channel transmits its programming live from its central production facilities in Pennsylvania through
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
uplinks to a satellite. The representatives who staff QVC’s four call centers, which handled more than 180 million calls last year, are well trained to take orders.
Of all the orders placed with QVC, more than 90 percent are shipped within 48 hours from one of their distribution centers. The distribution centers have a combined floor space equivalent to the size of over 100 football fields. Finally, everyone at QVC works hard to make sure that every item works as it should before it is shipped and that its packaging will protect it during the shipping process. “Nothing ships unless it is quality-inspected first,” said Paul Day, the logistics manager for QVC. “Since our product is going business-to-consumer, there’s no way to fix or change a product-related problem.”6
C66
Searching for Profitable Products
More than 100 experienced, informed buyers comb the world on a regular basis to search for new products to launch on QVC. The shopping channel concentrates on unique products that can be demonstrated on live television. Furthermore, the price of these products must be high enough for viewers to justify the additional shipping and handling charge. Over the course of a typical year, QVC carries more than 60,000 products. As many as 2,000 items are typically offered in any given week, of which about 15 percent are new products for the network. QVC’s suppliers range from some of the world’s biggest companies to small entrepreneurial enterprises.
All new products must, however, pass through stringent tests that are carried out by QVC’s in-house Quality Assurance Lab. In many cases, this inspection process is carried out manually by the firm’s employees. Only 15 percent of the products pass the firm’s rigorous quality inspection on first try and as many as a third are never offered to the public because they fail altogether. In addition, Jeffrey Rayport, author of a book on customer service, states that “QVC staff look for a product that is complex enough—or interesting enough—that the host can talk about it on air.”7
About a third of QVC’s sales come from broadly available national brands. The firm has been able to build trust among its customers in large part through offering these well-known brands. QVC also relies upon promotional campaigns with a variety of existing firms for another third of its sales. It has made deals with firms ranging from Dell to Target to Bath & Body Works for special limited-time promotional offerings. But QVC has been most successful with products that are exclusively sold on QVC or not readily available through other distribution channels. Although such products account for another third of its sales, the firm has been able to earn higher margins with these proprietary products, many of which come from firms that are either start-ups or new entrants into the U.S. market.
Most vendors are attracted to QVC because they reap higher profits selling through QVC than they would make by selling through physical stores. Stores typically require vendors to help to train or pay the salesforce and participate in periodic sales where prices are discounted. QVC rarely sells products at discount prices. Maureen Kelly, founder of Tarte Cosmetics, said she typically makes more from an eight-minute segment on QVC than she used to make in a month at a high-end department store.
Apart from searching for exclusive products, QVC has also been trying to move away from some product categories, such as home appliances and electronic gadgets, which offer lower margins. It has been gradually expanding into product categories that have higher margins, such as cosmetics, apparel, food, and toys. Several of these new categories have also displayed the strongest rates of growth in sales for the shopping channel over the past couple of years.
Expanding Upon the Customer Base
Since its start-up, QVC’s shopping channel has managed to gradually penetrate almost all of the cable television and broadcast satellite homes in the U.S. But only about 10 percent of the households that it reaches have actually bought anything from the network. However, QVC has developed a large customer base, many of whom make as many as 10 purchases in a year. QVC devotees readily call in to the live segments to offer product testimonials, are up on the personal lives of their favorite program hosts, and generally view the channel as entertaining. “As weird as it may sound, for people who love the network, it’s good company,” said Rayport.8
QVC is also hoping to attract new customers on the basis of the reasonably strong reputation that surveys indicate that it has established among a large majority of its current buyers. By its initials alone, QVC had promised that it would
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
deliver Quality, Value, and Convenience to its viewers. More than three-quarters of the shopping channel’s customers have given it a score of 7 out of 7 for trustworthiness. This has led most of its customers to recommend it to their friends.
QVC has also benefited from the growing percentage of women entering the workforce, resulting in a significant increase in dual-income families. Although the firm’s current customer base spans several socioeconomic groups, it is led by young professional families who have above average disposable income. They also enjoy various forms of “thrill- seeking” activities and rank shopping relatively higher as a leisure activity when compared to the typical consumer.
The firm is also trying to increase sales by making it easier for customers to buy its products by adding features such as an interactive service that would allow them to purchase whatever it is offering on its shopping channel with a single click of the remote. QVC also provides a credit program to allow customers to pay for goods over a period of several months. Everything it sells is also backed by a 30-day unconditional money-back guarantee. Furthermore, QVC does not impose any hidden charges, such as a “restocking fee” for returned merchandise. These policies help the channel to attract customers for products that they can view but are not able to either touch or feel.
In 2012, QVC built on its existing customer base by acquiring Send the Trend, Inc., an e-commerce destination known for trendy fashion and beauty products. It uses proprietary technology to deliver monthly personalized recommendations that can easily be shared by customers over their social networks on an assortment of prestigious brands in jewelry, beauty, and fashion accessories. “The teams at QVC and Share the Trend share a passion for bringing the customer what she wants, in the way she wants it,” said Claire Watts, the U.S.-based CEO
of QVC.9
C67
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C67
Positioning for Future Growth
In spite of its success on television, QVC has not ignored opportunities that are emerging in online shopping. Since 1995, the firm has offered a website to complement its television channel, which has provided it with another form of access to customers. Initially, the site offered more detailed information about QVC offerings. Since then, it has branched out to develop its own customer base by featuring many products that have not been recently shown on its television channel. Over the last few years, QVC has been fine tuning its website by offering mobile phone, interactive-television, and iPad apps.
By 2012, QVC.com, a once-negligible part of the QVC empire, accounted for about a third of the firm’s domestic revenue. CEO Michael George recently stated that 60 percent of QVC’s new customers in the United States buy on the Internet or on mobile devices. “The online business is becoming such a crucial part of the business for QVC,” remarked Douglas Anmuth, an analyst at Barclay’s Capital.10Furthermore, QVC.com is now more profitable than QVC’s television operation. It needs fewer call-center workers, and while QVC must share profits with cable companies on TV orders, it does not have to pay them for online orders for products that have not been featured on the air for 24 hours.
Its online efforts have not led QVC to move its emphasis away from television home shopping. The recent launch of a channel in Italy has proved to be very successful, generating 58 percent more sales than the overall average that it generates from all of its other markets. The firm is making preparations to start a channel in China, providing it with access to a huge developing market. It also has plans to start operations in more European countries.
For many of its loyal consumers, nothing will ever replace shopping on television. The website does not offer the hybrid of talk show and sales pitch that attracts audiences to the QVC shopping channel. Online shoppers also miss out on the interaction between hosts and shoppers and the continuous feedback about the time that they may have to order before an item is sold out. “You know, on Sundays I might find a program on Lifetime Movie Network, but whatever I’m watching, if it’s not QVC, when the commercial comes on I’ll flip it back to QVC,” said one loyal QVC fan. “I’m just stuck on them.”11
ENDNOTES 1. Foresee. 2013. Amazon, QVC, Apple Dominate the ForeSee mobile retail satisfaction index as customer experience improves. PR Newswire,
February 12. 2. Clifford, S. 2010. Can QVC translate its pitch online? New York Times, November 21: B7. 3. QVC. 1988. QVC Annual Report, 1987–1988. 4. Clifford. 2010. Can QVC translate its pitch online? 5. Ibid. 6. Gilligan, E. 2008. The show must go on. Journal of Commerce, April 12: 1. 7. USA Today. 2008. May 5: 2B. 8. Ibid. 9. QVC. 2012. Send the Trend relaunches with QVC to bring shoppers a more personalized e-commerce experience. PR Newswire, October 2.
10. Clifford. 2010. Can QVC translate its pitch online? 11. Ibid.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C68
CASES
CASE 12 WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT*
In February 2013, World Wrestling Entertainment announced that it had attracted one million subscribers to its programming on YouTube, surpassing popular channels such as ESPN, HBO, Comedy Central, and Discovery Networks. Since its launch in 2010, the firm’s YouTube channel has shown remarkable growth, showing a 340 percent increase in subscribers just over the past year. WWE premiered almost 30 hours of original programming on YouTube in 2012, with shows such as Backstage Fallout and Outside the Ring.
The success of WWE on YouTube has helped to further its goal of coupling its live wrestling matches with programming on television, on the Web and on mobile devices, allowing it to become one of the world’s most social brands. The firm added to its presence on the Internet with an exclusive, multiyear agreement to bring WWE programming to Hulu Plus, offering next-day access to its television programs and other exclusive shows. Its apps for smartphones and tablets have also taken off, with the WWE Active being downloaded 3.5 million times since its launch in 2012.
All of these achievements clearly indicate that WWE has moved out of a slump that it had endured between 2001 and 2005. During the 1990s, Vince McMahon had used a potent mix of shaved, pierced, and pumped-up muscled hunks; buxom, scantily clad, and sometimes cosmetically enhanced beauties; and body-bashing clashes of good versus evil to build an empire that claimed over 35 million fans. Furthermore, the vast majority of these fans were males between the ages of 12 and 34, representing the demographic segment that makes most advertisers drool.
Just when it looked like everything was going well, WWE hit a rough patch. The firm’s failure with a football league during 2001, which folded after just one season, was followed by a drop in revenues from its core wrestling businesses. WWE was struggling with its efforts to build new wrestling stars and to introduce new characters into its shows. Some of its most valuable younger viewers were also turning to new reality-based shows on television, such as Survivor, Fear Factor, and Jackass.
Since 2005, however, WWE has been rebuilding its fan base through live shows, television programming, Web and mobile content, and consumer products. The firm has been turning pro wrestling into a perpetual road show that makes millions of fans pass through turnstiles in a growing number of locations around the globe. Its flagship television programs, Raw and Smackdown!, are broadcast in 30 languages in 145 countries, reaching 600 million homes around the world. WWE has been building on its audience with programming such as WWE NXT on its website and WWE Universe-on-the-go on mobile devices. Finally, the firm has been signing pacts with dozens of licensees, including one with toymaker Mattel, to sell DVDs, video games, toys, and trading cards. “We continue to see the distribution of our creative content through various emerging channels,” stated Linda McMahon, who stepped down as president and CEO in 2009 to pursue a career in politics.1
Developing a Wrestling Empire
Most of the success of the WWE can be attributed to the persistent efforts of Vince McMahon. He was a self-described juvenile delinquent who went to military school as a teenager to avoid being sent to a reformatory institution. Around 1970, Vince joined his father’s wrestling company, which operated in northeastern cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. He did on-air commentary, developed scripts, and otherwise promoted wrestling matches. Vince bought the wrestling firm from his father in 1982, eventually renaming it World Wrestling Federation. At that time, wrestling was managed by regional fiefdoms where everyone avoided encroaching on anyone else’s territory. Vince began to change all that by paying local television stations around the country to broadcast his matches. His
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
aggressive pursuit of audiences across the country gradually squeezed out most of the other rivals. “I banked on the fact that they were behind the times, and they were,” said Vince.2
Soon after, Vince broke another taboo by admitting to the public that wrestling matches were scripted. Although he had made this admission in order to avoid the scrutiny of state athletic commissions, wrestling fans appreciated the honesty. The WWF began to draw in more fans through the elaborate story lines and the captivating characters of its wrestling matches. The firm turned wrestlers such as Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant into mainstream icons of pop culture. By the late 1980s, the WWF’s Raw Is War had become a top-rated show on cable, and the firm had also begun to offer pay-per-view shows.
*Case developed by Professor Jamal Shamsie, Michigan State University, with the assistance of Professor Alan B. Eisner, Pace University. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for purposes of class discussion. Copyright © 2013 Jamal Shamsie and Alan B. Eisner.
Vince faced his most formidable competition after 1988, when Ted Turner bought out World Championship Wrestling, one of the few major rivals that was still operating. He spent millions luring away WWF stars, such
C69
as Hulk Hogan and Macho Man Randy Savage. He used these stars to launch a show on his own TNT channel to go up against WWF’s major show, Raw Is War. Although Turner’s new show caused a temporary dip in the ratings for WWF’s shows, Vince fought back with pumped-up scripts, mouthy muscle-men, and lycra-clad women. “Ted Turner decided to come after me and all of my talent,” growled Vince, “and now he’s where he should be.”3
In 2001 Vince was finally able to acquire WCW from Turner’s parent firm, AOL Time Warner, for a bargain price of $5 million. Because of the manner in which he eliminated most of his rivals, Vince has earned a reputation for being as aggressive and ambitious as any character in the ring. Paul MacArthur, publisher of Wrestling Perspective, an industry newsletter, praised his accomplishments: “McMahon understands the wrestling business better than anyone else. He’s considered by most in the business to be brilliant.”4
In 2002 WWF was also hit by a ruling by a British court that their original WWF acronym belonged to the World Wildlife Fund. The firm had to undergo a major branding transition, changing its well-known name and triple logo from WWF to WWE. Although the change in name was costly, it is not clear that it hurt the firm in the long run. “Their product is really the entertainment. It’s the stars. It’s the bodies,” said Larry McNaughton, managing director and principal of CoreBrand, a branding consultancy.5 Vince’s wife, Linda, stated that the new name might actually be beneficial for the firm; “Our new name puts the emphasis on the ‘E’ for entertainment.”6
Creating a Script for Success
After taking over the firm, Vince began to change the entire focus of the wrestling shows. He looked to television soap operas for enhancing the entertainment value of his live events. Vince reduced the amount of actual wrestling and replaced it with wacky, yet somewhat compelling, story lines. He began to develop interesting characters and story lines by employing techniques that were similar to those being used by many successful television shows. There was great deal of reliance on the “good versus evil” or “settling the score” themes in the development of the plots for his wrestling matches. The plots and subplots ended up providing viewers with a mix of romance, sex, sports, comedy, and violence against a backdrop of pyrotechnics.
Over time, the scripts for the matches became tighter, with increasingly intricate story lines, plots, and dialogue. All the details of every match were worked out well in advance, leaving the wrestlers themselves to decide only the manner in which they would dispatch their opponents to the mat. Vince’s use of characters was well thought out, and he began to refer to his wrestlers as “athletic performers,” who were selected on the basis of their acting ability in addition to their physical stamina.
Vince also ensured that his firm owned the rights to the characters that were played by his wrestlers. This would allow him to continue to exploit the characters that he developed for his television shows, even after the wrestler that played that character had left his firm. By now, Vince holds the rights to many characters that have become familiar to audiences around the world.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
By the late 1990s Vince had two weekly shows on television. Besides the original flagship program on the USA cable channel, WWE had added a Smackdown! show on the UPN broadcast channel. He developed a continuous story line using the same characters so that his audience would be driven to both the shows. But the acquisition of the WCW resulted in a significant increase in the number of wrestling stars under contract. Trying to incorporate more than 150 characters into the story lines for WWE’s shows proved to be a challenging task. At the same time, the move of Raw to the Spike TV channel resulted in a loss of viewers.
In October 2005, WWE signed a new agreement with NBC that moved Raw back to its USA channel. Its other show, Smackdown!, is now carried by the Syfy channel, which has been climbing in the charts. Its newest show, The Main Event, is featured on the local channels that are tied to the Ion network. All of these programs have done well in ratings, particularly for male viewers, because of the growth in popularity of a new breed of characters, such as John Cena, Chris Benoit, and Ray Mysterio. The visibility of these characters has also been enhanced through profiles on the WWE website and mobile apps.
Managing a Road Show
A typical work week for the WWE can be grueling for the McMahons, for the talent, and for the crew. The organization is now putting on almost 300 live shows a year, requiring everyone to be on the road most days of the week. The touring crew includes over 200 crew members, including stage hands. All of WWE’s live events, including those that are used for its two long-standing weekly shows, Raw and Smackdown!, as well as the newer ones, are held in different cities. Consequently, the crew is always packing up a dozen 18-wheelers and driving hundreds of miles to get from one performance to the other. Since there are no repeats of any WWE shows, the live performances must be held all year round.
In fact, the live shows form the core of all of WWE’s businesses (see Exhibit 1). They give the firm a big advantage in the entertainment world. Most of the crowd show up wearing WWE merchandise and scream throughout the show. Vince and his crew pay special attention to the response of the audience to different parts of the show. The script for each performance is not set until the day of the show, and sometimes changes are even made in the middle of a show. This allows the crew some flexibility to respond to the emotions of the crowd as they witness the unfolding action. Vince boasted: “We’re in contact with the public more than any entertainment company in the world.”7
C70
EXHIBIT 1 Wrestlemania’s Classic Bouts
ANDRE THE GIANT vs. HULK HOGAN
WrestleMania III, March 29, 1987
• The Lowdown: A record crowd of 93,173 witnessed Andre the Giant, undefeated for 15 years, versus Hulk Hogan, wrestling’s golden boy.
• The Payoff: Hogan body-slammed the 500-pound Giant, becoming the sport’s biggest star and jump-starting wrestling’s first big boom.
THE ROCK vs. STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN
WrestleMania X-7, April 1, 2001
• The Lowdown: The two biggest stars of wrestling’s modern era went toe-to-toe in the culmination of a two-year-long feud.
• The Payoff: Good-guy Austin aligned with “evil” WWE owner Vince McMahon and decimated the Rock to win the title in front of a shocked crowd.
HULK HOGAN vs. THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR
WrestleMania VI, April 1, 1990
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
• The Lowdown: The most divisive feud ever—fan-favorite Hulk Hogan defended his title against up-and-coming phenom the Ultimate Warrior.
• The Payoff: Half the crowd went into cardiac arrest (the other half were in tears) when Hogan missed his patented leg drop and the Warrior won.
BRET HART vs. SHAWN MICHAELS
WrestleMania XII, March 31, 1996
• The Lowdown: Two men who didn’t like each other outside the ring locked up in a 60-minute Iron Man match for the title.
• The Payoff: After an hour, neither man had scored a pinfall. Finally, Michaels, aka the Heartbreak Kid, pinned Hart in overtime to win
the belt.
KURT ANGLE vs. BROCK LESNAR
WrestleMania XIX, March 30, 2003
• The Lowdown: Olympic medalist Angle squared off against former NCAA wrestling champ Lesnar in a punishing bout.
• The Payoff: The 295-pound Lesnar landed on his head after attempting a high-flying attack. But he recovered to pin Angle and capture the championship.
Source: TV Guide.
Although the live shows usually fill up, the money from tickets and the merchandise sold at these shows is only enough to cover the cost of the production. But these live performances become a source for all the other revenue streams. To begin with, they provide content for six hours of original television programming as well as for the growing list of pay-per-view and video-on-demand programming. Plus, these performances create strong demand for WWE merchandise ranging from video games and toys to magazines and home videos. In fact, sales of merchandise have represented a significant and growing portion of the revenues from each of the live shows.
Much of the footage from these live shows is also being used on the WWE website, which is the growth engine for its new digital media business (see Exhibits 2 and 3). The firm even produces a show, WWE NXT, exclusively for the website. WWE also offers content on the apps that it has launched for smartphones and tablets. Finally, fans can also follow programming on Hulu Plus. All of these channels serve to promote the various offerings of the firm and carry many segments from its various other television programs.
The entire operations of WWE are overseen by Vince, along with some help from other members of his family. While the slick and highly toned Vince could be regarded as the creative muscle behind the growing sports entertainment empire, his wife Linda had for many years been quietly managing its day-to-day operation. Throughout its existence, she helped to balance the books, do the deals, and handle the details that were necessary for the growth and development of the WWE franchise. Their son and daughter have also been involved with various activities of
C71
EXHIBIT 2 Breakdown of Net Revenues*
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Live and televised entertainment $353.8 $340.0 $331.8 $335.0 $331.5
Consumer products 87.8 94.9 97.4 99.7 135.7
Digital media 34.5 28.1 28.9 32.8 34.8
WWE Studios 7.9 20.9 19.6 7.7 24.5
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Total 484.0 483.9 477.7 475.2 526.5
*All figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: WWE.
EXHIBIT 3 Breakdown of Operating Income*
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Live and televised entertainment $118.2 $116.8 $119.2 $124.7 $92.4
Consumer products 47.8 50.6 50.0 52.7 76.5
Digital media 8.9 6.0 5.0 5.8 6.2
WWE Studios (5.5) (29.4) (1.8) 2.2 7.2
*All figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: WWE.
the growing enterprise, with Stephanie McMahon holding an executive position in charge of creative development.
Pursuing New Opportunities
In 1999, shortly after going public, WWE launched an eight-team football league called the XFL. Promising full competitive sport, unlike the heavily-scripted wrestling matches, Vince tried to make the XFL a faster-paced, more fan- friendly form of football than the NFL’s brand. Vince was able to partner with NBC, which was looking for a lower- priced alternative to the NFL televised games. The XFL kicked off with great fanfare in February 2001. Although the games drew good attendance, television ratings dropped steeply after the first week. The football venture was folded after just one season, resulting in a $57 million loss for WWE. Both Vince and Linda insist that the venture could have paid off if it had been given enough time. Vince commented, “I think our pals at the NFL went out of their way to make sure this was not a successful venture.”8
Since then, the firm has tried to seek growth opportunities that are driven by its core wrestling business. With more characters at their disposal and different characters being used in each of their shows, WWE has been ramping up the number of live shows, including more in overseas locations. By 2009, the firm was staging almost 70 shows in locations around the world. Over the past year, WWE has introduced live performances in six new countries, such as
UAE and Egypt. These shows have also helped to boost the worldwide revenues that the firm is able to generate from its merchandise, videos, and DVDs. The company has opened offices in six cities around the world to manage its overseas operations. “While it is based in America, the themes are worldwide: sibling rivalry, jealousy. We have had no push-back on the fact it was an American product,” said Linda.9
There has also been considerable excitement generated by the launch of WWE 24/7, a subscriber video-on-demand service. The new service allows the firm to distribute for a fee thousands of content hours consisting of highlights from old shows as well as exclusive new programming. Much of the firm’s programming, both old and new, is also offered on its website, which has continued to show strong growth (see Exhibit 4). By allowing audiences to watch WWE programming whenever they may want to, these new forms of distribution have allowed the firm to reach out to new audiences.
The new push on mobiles and through Hulu has provided even more opportunities for WWE to expand into digital media. The firm believes that offering their programming on smartphones and tablets will lead to a significant growth in revenues, in part from additional sales of their merchandise. “Our fans have proven that they want to consume WWE content day and night and now, through our new mobile app, they can stay completely connected to the action wherever they are,” said Jason Hoch, WWE’s recently appointed senior vice president of digital operations.10
C72
EXHIBIT 4 Percentage Breakdown of Net Revenues
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Live and televised entertainment
Live events 21% 22% 22% 23% 20% 20%
Venue merchandise sales 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Television 29% 27% 28% 24% 19% 19%
Pay per view 17% 16% 15% 17% 17% 20%
Video on demand 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Consumer products
Licensing 10% 10% 11% 9% 11% 10%
Home video 7% 7% 7% 8% 11% 11%
Magazine publishing 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 4%
Digital media
WWE.com 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3%
WWEShop 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4%
WWE Studios
Filmed entertainment 2% 4% 4% 2% 5% 3%
Source: WWE.
Finally, WWE has also become involved with movie production, using its wrestling stars and releasing a few films over the past decade. Recent releases include Steve Austin’s The Condemned and John Cena’s Legendary. WWE just announced that they have started production with Warner Brothers on a Scooby-Doo animated feature, which deals with a mystery at Wrestlemania. WWE superstars and divas will appear in animated form and lend their voices. “Warner Bros. is thrilled to get into the ring with WWE Studios to bring fans an unprecedented animated adventure,” said Jeff Brown of Warner.11Besides generating some box office revenues, these movies provide revenues from home video markets, distribution on premium channels, and offerings on pay-per-view.
Reclaiming the Championship?
Although WWE may find it challenging to keep building on its already formidable fan base, there is no question that it continues to generate a lot of excitement. Most of this excitement is driven by the live shows, which fill up the arenas (see Exhibits 2 and 3). “They have the most excited fans that have come through our doors,” said the director of sales and marketing at one of the arenas that holds WWE matches. “They make signs, dress up and cheer constantly.”12It is the interest in these shows and the characters that appear in them that provide WWE with many other sources of revenue.
The interest in the live matches is most evident each year with the frenzy that is created by Wrestlemania, the annual pop culture extravaganza that began at New York’s Madison Square Garden in 1985. Since then, it has become an almost weeklong celebration of everything wrestling. No wrestler becomes a true star until their performance is featured at WrestleMania, and any true fan must make the pilgrimage at least once in their life. Linda points to the continued popularity of this event to reject any suggestion that the fortunes of WWE may be driven by a fad that is unlikely to last.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
More recently, Vince’s wrestling empire is facing a challenge from mixed martial arts, a growing form of combat sport that combines kickboxing and grappling. Because of its similarity to wrestling, this new combat sport is expected to pull away some of WWE’s fans. Although MMA started in Japan and Brazil, Ultimate Fighting Championship and International Fight League are promoting it as a new type of spectator sport in the U.S. But Dana White, president of U.F.C. said, “People have been trying to count the W.W.E. out for years. They are a powerhouse.”13
In fact, WWE has begun to tone down its sex and violence during recent years in order to expand their audience by making their shows more family friendly. They no longer use fake prop blood and have toned down the use of abusive language in order to get a rating of TV-PG for their television programming. By making such changes, Vince continues to find new ways to exploit wrestling as a form of mass entertainment. In response to critics who question
C73
the value of wrestling matches whose outcomes are rigged, James F. Byrne, senior vice president for marketing, stated, “Wrestling is 100 percent entertainment. There’s no such thing as fake entertainment.”14
Those who understand don’t need an explanation. Those who need an explanation will never understand.
Marty, a 19-year-old wrestling addict, quoted in Fortune, October 6, 2000.
ENDNOTES 1. WWE. 2005. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. reports Q3 results. Press release, February 23. 2. McLean, B. 2000. Inside the world’s weirdest family business. Fortune, October 16: 298. 3. Bradley, D. 2000. Wrestling’s real grudge match. BusinessWeek, January 24: 164. 4. Mooradian, D. 2001. WWF gets a grip after acquisition. Amusement Business, June 4: 20. 5. Oestricher, D., & Steinberg. B. 2002. WW…. E it is, after fight for F nets new name. Wall Street Journal, May 7: B2. 6. Finnigan, D. 2002. Down but not out, WWE is using a rebranding effort to gain strength. Brandweek, June 3: 12. 7. McLean, B. 2000. Inside the world’s weirdest family business: 304. 8. Bradley, D. 2004. Rousing itself off the mat? BusinessWeek, February 2: 73. 9. Masters, B. 2008. Wrestling’s bottom line is no soap opera. Financial Times, August 25: 15.
10. Business Wire. 2012. WWE launches free mobile second screen app. Business Wire, August 17. 11. Business Wire. 2012. Warner Bros. and WWE Studios form tag team to solve a spine-crunching mystery! Business Wire, August 15. 12. Ball, B. 2011. The face of the WWE. McClatchy-Tribune Business News, January 13. 13. Schneiderman, R. M. 2008. Better days, and even the candidates, are coming to WWE. New York Times, April 28: B3. 14. Wyatt, E. 1999. Pro wrestling tries to pin down a share value. New York Times, August 4: C11.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C68
CASES
CASE 12 WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT*
In February 2013, World Wrestling Entertainment announced that it had attracted one million subscribers to its programming on YouTube, surpassing popular channels such as ESPN, HBO, Comedy Central, and Discovery Networks. Since its launch in 2010, the firm’s YouTube channel has shown remarkable growth, showing a 340 percent increase in subscribers just over the past year. WWE premiered almost 30 hours of original programming on YouTube in 2012, with shows such as Backstage Fallout and Outside the Ring.
The success of WWE on YouTube has helped to further its goal of coupling its live wrestling matches with programming on television, on the Web and on mobile devices, allowing it to become one of the world’s most social brands. The firm added to its presence on the Internet with an exclusive, multiyear agreement to bring WWE programming to Hulu Plus, offering next-day access to its television programs and other exclusive shows. Its apps for smartphones and tablets have also taken off, with the WWE Active being downloaded 3.5 million times since its launch in 2012.
All of these achievements clearly indicate that WWE has moved out of a slump that it had endured between 2001 and 2005. During the 1990s, Vince McMahon had used a potent mix of shaved, pierced, and pumped-up muscled hunks; buxom, scantily clad, and sometimes cosmetically enhanced beauties; and body-bashing clashes of good versus evil to build an empire that claimed over 35 million fans. Furthermore, the vast majority of these fans were males between the ages of 12 and 34, representing the demographic segment that makes most advertisers drool.
Just when it looked like everything was going well, WWE hit a rough patch. The firm’s failure with a football league during 2001, which folded after just one season, was followed by a drop in revenues from its core wrestling businesses. WWE was struggling with its efforts to build new wrestling stars and to introduce new characters into its shows. Some of its most valuable younger viewers were also turning to new reality-based shows on television, such as Survivor, Fear Factor, and Jackass.
Since 2005, however, WWE has been rebuilding its fan base through live shows, television programming, Web and mobile content, and consumer products. The firm has been turning pro wrestling into a perpetual road show that makes millions of fans pass through turnstiles in a growing number of locations around the globe. Its flagship television programs, Raw and Smackdown!, are broadcast in 30 languages in 145 countries, reaching 600 million homes around the world. WWE has been building on its audience with programming such as WWE NXT on its website and WWE Universe-on-the-go on mobile devices. Finally, the firm has been signing pacts with dozens of licensees, including one with toymaker Mattel, to sell DVDs, video games, toys, and trading cards. “We continue to see the distribution of our creative content through various emerging channels,” stated Linda McMahon, who stepped down as president and CEO in 2009 to pursue a career in politics.1
Developing a Wrestling Empire
Most of the success of the WWE can be attributed to the persistent efforts of Vince McMahon. He was a self-described juvenile delinquent who went to military school as a teenager to avoid being sent to a reformatory institution. Around 1970, Vince joined his father’s wrestling company, which operated in northeastern cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. He did on-air commentary, developed scripts, and otherwise promoted wrestling matches. Vince bought the wrestling firm from his father in 1982, eventually renaming it World Wrestling Federation. At that time, wrestling was managed by regional fiefdoms where everyone avoided encroaching on anyone else’s territory.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Vince began to change all that by paying local television stations around the country to broadcast his matches. His aggressive pursuit of audiences across the country gradually squeezed out most of the other rivals. “I banked on the fact that they were behind the times, and they were,” said Vince.2
Soon after, Vince broke another taboo by admitting to the public that wrestling matches were scripted. Although he had made this admission in order to avoid the scrutiny of state athletic commissions, wrestling fans appreciated the honesty. The WWF began to draw in more fans through the elaborate story lines and the captivating characters of its wrestling matches. The firm turned wrestlers such as Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant into mainstream icons of pop culture. By the late 1980s, the WWF’s Raw Is War had become a top-rated show on cable, and the firm had also begun to offer pay-per-view shows.
*Case developed by Professor Jamal Shamsie, Michigan State University, with the assistance of Professor Alan B. Eisner, Pace University. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for purposes of class discussion. Copyright © 2013 Jamal Shamsie and Alan B. Eisner.
Vince faced his most formidable competition after 1988, when Ted Turner bought out World Championship Wrestling, one of the few major rivals that was still operating. He spent millions luring away WWF stars, such
C69
as Hulk Hogan and Macho Man Randy Savage. He used these stars to launch a show on his own TNT channel to go up against WWF’s major show, Raw Is War. Although Turner’s new show caused a temporary dip in the ratings for WWF’s shows, Vince fought back with pumped-up scripts, mouthy muscle-men, and lycra-clad women. “Ted Turner decided to come after me and all of my talent,” growled Vince, “and now he’s where he should be.”3
In 2001 Vince was finally able to acquire WCW from Turner’s parent firm, AOL Time Warner, for a bargain price of $5 million. Because of the manner in which he eliminated most of his rivals, Vince has earned a reputation for being as aggressive and ambitious as any character in the ring. Paul MacArthur, publisher of Wrestling Perspective, an industry newsletter, praised his accomplishments: “McMahon understands the wrestling business better than anyone else. He’s considered by most in the business to be brilliant.”4
In 2002 WWF was also hit by a ruling by a British court that their original WWF acronym belonged to the World Wildlife Fund. The firm had to undergo a major branding transition, changing its well-known name and triple logo from WWF to WWE. Although the change in name was costly, it is not clear that it hurt the firm in the long run. “Their product is really the entertainment. It’s the stars. It’s the bodies,” said Larry McNaughton, managing director and principal of CoreBrand, a branding consultancy.5 Vince’s wife, Linda, stated that the new name might actually be beneficial for the firm; “Our new name puts the emphasis on the ‘E’ for entertainment.”6
Creating a Script for Success
After taking over the firm, Vince began to change the entire focus of the wrestling shows. He looked to television soap operas for enhancing the entertainment value of his live events. Vince reduced the amount of actual wrestling and replaced it with wacky, yet somewhat compelling, story lines. He began to develop interesting characters and story lines by employing techniques that were similar to those being used by many successful television shows. There was great deal of reliance on the “good versus evil” or “settling the score” themes in the development of the plots for his wrestling matches. The plots and subplots ended up providing viewers with a mix of romance, sex, sports, comedy, and violence against a backdrop of pyrotechnics.
Over time, the scripts for the matches became tighter, with increasingly intricate story lines, plots, and dialogue. All the details of every match were worked out well in advance, leaving the wrestlers themselves to decide only the manner in which they would dispatch their opponents to the mat. Vince’s use of characters was well thought out, and he began to refer to his wrestlers as “athletic performers,” who were selected on the basis of their acting ability in addition to their physical stamina.
Vince also ensured that his firm owned the rights to the characters that were played by his wrestlers. This would allow him to continue to exploit the characters that he developed for his television shows, even after the wrestler that played
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
that character had left his firm. By now, Vince holds the rights to many characters that have become familiar to audiences around the world.
By the late 1990s Vince had two weekly shows on television. Besides the original flagship program on the USA cable channel, WWE had added a Smackdown! show on the UPN broadcast channel. He developed a continuous story line using the same characters so that his audience would be driven to both the shows. But the acquisition of the WCW resulted in a significant increase in the number of wrestling stars under contract. Trying to incorporate more than 150 characters into the story lines for WWE’s shows proved to be a challenging task. At the same time, the move of Raw to the Spike TV channel resulted in a loss of viewers.
In October 2005, WWE signed a new agreement with NBC that moved Raw back to its USA channel. Its other show, Smackdown!, is now carried by the Syfy channel, which has been climbing in the charts. Its newest show, The Main Event, is featured on the local channels that are tied to the Ion network. All of these programs have done well in ratings, particularly for male viewers, because of the growth in popularity of a new breed of characters, such as John Cena, Chris Benoit, and Ray Mysterio. The visibility of these characters has also been enhanced through profiles on the WWE website and mobile apps.
Managing a Road Show
A typical work week for the WWE can be grueling for the McMahons, for the talent, and for the crew. The organization is now putting on almost 300 live shows a year, requiring everyone to be on the road most days of the week. The touring crew includes over 200 crew members, including stage hands. All of WWE’s live events, including those that are used for its two long-standing weekly shows, Raw and Smackdown!, as well as the newer ones, are held in different cities. Consequently, the crew is always packing up a dozen 18-wheelers and driving hundreds of miles to get from one performance to the other. Since there are no repeats of any WWE shows, the live performances must be held all year round.
In fact, the live shows form the core of all of WWE’s businesses (see Exhibit 1). They give the firm a big advantage in the entertainment world. Most of the crowd show up wearing WWE merchandise and scream throughout the show. Vince and his crew pay special attention to the response of the audience to different parts of the show. The script for each performance is not set until the day of the show, and sometimes changes are even made in the middle of a show. This allows the crew some flexibility to respond to the emotions of the crowd as they witness the unfolding action. Vince boasted: “We’re in contact with the public more than any entertainment company in the world.”7
C70
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C70
EXHIBIT 1 Wrestlemania’s Classic Bouts
ANDRE THE GIANT vs. HULK HOGAN
WrestleMania III, March 29, 1987
• The Lowdown: A record crowd of 93,173 witnessed Andre the Giant, undefeated for 15 years, versus Hulk Hogan, wrestling’s golden boy.
• The Payoff: Hogan body-slammed the 500-pound Giant, becoming the sport’s biggest star and jump-starting wrestling’s first big boom.
THE ROCK vs. STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN
WrestleMania X-7, April 1, 2001
• The Lowdown: The two biggest stars of wrestling’s modern era went toe-to-toe in the culmination of a two-year-long feud.
• The Payoff: Good-guy Austin aligned with “evil” WWE owner Vince McMahon and decimated the Rock to win the title in front of a shocked crowd.
HULK HOGAN vs. THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR
WrestleMania VI, April 1, 1990
• The Lowdown: The most divisive feud ever—fan-favorite Hulk Hogan defended his title against up-and-coming phenom the Ultimate Warrior.
• The Payoff: Half the crowd went into cardiac arrest (the other half were in tears) when Hogan missed his patented leg drop and the Warrior won.
BRET HART vs. SHAWN MICHAELS
WrestleMania XII, March 31, 1996
• The Lowdown: Two men who didn’t like each other outside the ring locked up in a 60-minute Iron Man match for the title.
• The Payoff: After an hour, neither man had scored a pinfall. Finally, Michaels, aka the Heartbreak Kid, pinned Hart in overtime to win
the belt.
KURT ANGLE vs. BROCK LESNAR
WrestleMania XIX, March 30, 2003
• The Lowdown: Olympic medalist Angle squared off against former NCAA wrestling champ Lesnar in a punishing bout.
• The Payoff: The 295-pound Lesnar landed on his head after attempting a high-flying attack. But he recovered to pin Angle and capture the championship.
Source: TV Guide.
Although the live shows usually fill up, the money from tickets and the merchandise sold at these shows is only enough to cover the cost of the production. But these live performances become a source for all the other revenue streams. To begin with, they provide content for six hours of original television programming as well as for the growing list of pay-per-view and video-on-demand programming. Plus, these performances create strong demand for WWE
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
merchandise ranging from video games and toys to magazines and home videos. In fact, sales of merchandise have represented a significant and growing portion of the revenues from each of the live shows.
Much of the footage from these live shows is also being used on the WWE website, which is the growth engine for its new digital media business (see Exhibits 2 and 3). The firm even produces a show, WWE NXT, exclusively for the website. WWE also offers content on the apps that it has launched for smartphones and tablets. Finally, fans can also follow programming on Hulu Plus. All of these channels serve to promote the various offerings of the firm and carry many segments from its various other television programs.
The entire operations of WWE are overseen by Vince, along with some help from other members of his family. While the slick and highly toned Vince could be regarded as the creative muscle behind the growing sports entertainment empire, his wife Linda had for many years been quietly managing its day-to-day operation. Throughout its existence, she helped to balance the books, do the deals, and handle the details that were necessary for the growth and development of the WWE franchise. Their son and daughter have also been involved with various activities of
C71
EXHIBIT 2 Breakdown of Net Revenues*
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Live and televised entertainment $353.8 $340.0 $331.8 $335.0 $331.5
Consumer products 87.8 94.9 97.4 99.7 135.7
Digital media 34.5 28.1 28.9 32.8 34.8
WWE Studios 7.9 20.9 19.6 7.7 24.5
Total 484.0 483.9 477.7 475.2 526.5
*All figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: WWE.
EXHIBIT 3 Breakdown of Operating Income*
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Live and televised entertainment $118.2 $116.8 $119.2 $124.7 $92.4
Consumer products 47.8 50.6 50.0 52.7 76.5
Digital media 8.9 6.0 5.0 5.8 6.2
WWE Studios (5.5) (29.4) (1.8) 2.2 7.2
*All figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: WWE.
the growing enterprise, with Stephanie McMahon holding an executive position in charge of creative development.
Pursuing New Opportunities
In 1999, shortly after going public, WWE launched an eight-team football league called the XFL. Promising full competitive sport, unlike the heavily-scripted wrestling matches, Vince tried to make the XFL a faster-paced, more fan- friendly form of football than the NFL’s brand. Vince was able to partner with NBC, which was looking for a lower-
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
priced alternative to the NFL televised games. The XFL kicked off with great fanfare in February 2001. Although the games drew good attendance, television ratings dropped steeply after the first week. The football venture was folded after just one season, resulting in a $57 million loss for WWE. Both Vince and Linda insist that the venture could have paid off if it had been given enough time. Vince commented, “I think our pals at the NFL went out of their way to make sure this was not a successful venture.”8
Since then, the firm has tried to seek growth opportunities that are driven by its core wrestling business. With more characters at their disposal and different characters being used in each of their shows, WWE has been ramping up the number of live shows, including more in overseas locations. By 2009, the firm was staging almost 70 shows in locations around the world. Over the past year, WWE has introduced live performances in six new countries, such as
UAE and Egypt. These shows have also helped to boost the worldwide revenues that the firm is able to generate from its merchandise, videos, and DVDs. The company has opened offices in six cities around the world to manage its overseas operations. “While it is based in America, the themes are worldwide: sibling rivalry, jealousy. We have had no push-back on the fact it was an American product,” said Linda.9
There has also been considerable excitement generated by the launch of WWE 24/7, a subscriber video-on-demand service. The new service allows the firm to distribute for a fee thousands of content hours consisting of highlights from old shows as well as exclusive new programming. Much of the firm’s programming, both old and new, is also offered on its website, which has continued to show strong growth (see Exhibit 4). By allowing audiences to watch WWE programming whenever they may want to, these new forms of distribution have allowed the firm to reach out to new audiences.
The new push on mobiles and through Hulu has provided even more opportunities for WWE to expand into digital media. The firm believes that offering their programming on smartphones and tablets will lead to a significant growth in revenues, in part from additional sales of their merchandise. “Our fans have proven that they want to consume WWE content day and night and now, through our new mobile app, they can stay completely connected to the action wherever they are,” said Jason Hoch, WWE’s recently appointed senior vice president of digital operations.10
C72
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C72
EXHIBIT 4 Percentage Breakdown of Net Revenues
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Live and televised entertainment
Live events 21% 22% 22% 23% 20% 20%
Venue merchandise sales 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Television 29% 27% 28% 24% 19% 19%
Pay per view 17% 16% 15% 17% 17% 20%
Video on demand 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Consumer products
Licensing 10% 10% 11% 9% 11% 10%
Home video 7% 7% 7% 8% 11% 11%
Magazine publishing 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 4%
Digital media
WWE.com 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3%
WWEShop 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4%
WWE Studios
Filmed entertainment 2% 4% 4% 2% 5% 3%
Source: WWE.
Finally, WWE has also become involved with movie production, using its wrestling stars and releasing a few films over the past decade. Recent releases include Steve Austin’s The Condemned and John Cena’s Legendary. WWE just announced that they have started production with Warner Brothers on a Scooby-Doo animated feature, which deals with a mystery at Wrestlemania. WWE superstars and divas will appear in animated form and lend their voices. “Warner Bros. is thrilled to get into the ring with WWE Studios to bring fans an unprecedented animated adventure,” said Jeff Brown of Warner.11Besides generating some box office revenues, these movies provide revenues from home video markets, distribution on premium channels, and offerings on pay-per-view.
Reclaiming the Championship?
Although WWE may find it challenging to keep building on its already formidable fan base, there is no question that it continues to generate a lot of excitement. Most of this excitement is driven by the live shows, which fill up the arenas (see Exhibits 2 and 3). “They have the most excited fans that have come through our doors,” said the director of sales and marketing at one of the arenas that holds WWE matches. “They make signs, dress up and cheer constantly.”12It is the interest in these shows and the characters that appear in them that provide WWE with many other sources of revenue.
The interest in the live matches is most evident each year with the frenzy that is created by Wrestlemania, the annual pop culture extravaganza that began at New York’s Madison Square Garden in 1985. Since then, it has become an almost weeklong celebration of everything wrestling. No wrestler becomes a true star until their performance is featured at
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
WrestleMania, and any true fan must make the pilgrimage at least once in their life. Linda points to the continued popularity of this event to reject any suggestion that the fortunes of WWE may be driven by a fad that is unlikely to last.
More recently, Vince’s wrestling empire is facing a challenge from mixed martial arts, a growing form of combat sport that combines kickboxing and grappling. Because of its similarity to wrestling, this new combat sport is expected to pull away some of WWE’s fans. Although MMA started in Japan and Brazil, Ultimate Fighting Championship and International Fight League are promoting it as a new type of spectator sport in the U.S. But Dana White, president of U.F.C. said, “People have been trying to count the W.W.E. out for years. They are a powerhouse.”13
In fact, WWE has begun to tone down its sex and violence during recent years in order to expand their audience by making their shows more family friendly. They no longer use fake prop blood and have toned down the use of abusive language in order to get a rating of TV-PG for their television programming. By making such changes, Vince continues to find new ways to exploit wrestling as a form of mass entertainment. In response to critics who question
C73
the value of wrestling matches whose outcomes are rigged, James F. Byrne, senior vice president for marketing, stated, “Wrestling is 100 percent entertainment. There’s no such thing as fake entertainment.”14
Those who understand don’t need an explanation. Those who need an explanation will never understand.
Marty, a 19-year-old wrestling addict, quoted in Fortune, October 6, 2000.
ENDNOTES 1. WWE. 2005. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. reports Q3 results. Press release, February 23. 2. McLean, B. 2000. Inside the world’s weirdest family business. Fortune, October 16: 298. 3. Bradley, D. 2000. Wrestling’s real grudge match. BusinessWeek, January 24: 164. 4. Mooradian, D. 2001. WWF gets a grip after acquisition. Amusement Business, June 4: 20. 5. Oestricher, D., & Steinberg. B. 2002. WW…. E it is, after fight for F nets new name. Wall Street Journal, May 7: B2. 6. Finnigan, D. 2002. Down but not out, WWE is using a rebranding effort to gain strength. Brandweek, June 3: 12. 7. McLean, B. 2000. Inside the world’s weirdest family business: 304. 8. Bradley, D. 2004. Rousing itself off the mat? BusinessWeek, February 2: 73. 9. Masters, B. 2008. Wrestling’s bottom line is no soap opera. Financial Times, August 25: 15.
10. Business Wire. 2012. WWE launches free mobile second screen app. Business Wire, August 17. 11. Business Wire. 2012. Warner Bros. and WWE Studios form tag team to solve a spine-crunching mystery! Business Wire, August 15. 12. Ball, B. 2011. The face of the WWE. McClatchy-Tribune Business News, January 13. 13. Schneiderman, R. M. 2008. Better days, and even the candidates, are coming to WWE. New York Times, April 28: B3. 14. Wyatt, E. 1999. Pro wrestling tries to pin down a share value. New York Times, August 4: C11.
C74
CASES
CASE 13
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
EBAY Expanding into China*
Like many U.S. Internet companies, eBay has repeatedly tried to broaden its reach by entering new appealing sectors, such as mobile commerce, and expanding into other geographical sectors, especially in Asia, where local rivals had strong ties to users. With Asia’s population exceeding 4 billion, more than half the world’s population, and Internet usage in the region skyrocketing at 620 percent,1eBay needed to develop a strategy that would successfully adapt to Asian local markets and compete with local competitors such as Taobao, China’s top auction site.
In 2012 Xiu.com and eBay partnered up to launch an online shopping platform, named eBay Style, that aimed to “bring the very best of eBay to Chinese consumers, particularly in fashion.” Xiu.com focuses on the sale of products from overseas to Chinese customers in a way that they are comfortable with. The company is based in Shenzhen and has roughly 800 employees. With the new partnership in place, Chinese consumers are able to access the global collection of products on eBay’s platform, while Xiu.com took control of managing all sales, logistics, and customer service. Xiu.com also took responsibility for curating and translating the inventory and implementing a product search function suitable for Chinese customers. The new eBay Style included only new items from a collection of 5,000 brands across all categories, including apparel, handbags, shoes, accessories, health and beauty products, and other lifestyle categories. At the time of the deal’s fruition, Xiu said it employed almost 1,500 people in China and mentioned new smartphone and tablet apps that were in the making.2 Even with this new deal, eBay Style faced unyielding competition, especially Alibaba’s Taobao.com, the largest Chinese online retailer. Also, Alipay, a payment processing company and another unit of the Alibaba Group, had 300 million users, three times as many as PayPal in China.3
Taobao, eBay Style’s largest threat, consciously portrays itself as a Chinese company. For example, online moderators use screen names imitative of popular characters from Chinese kung-fu novels.4Taobao also strived to implement a more interactive and user-friendly customer service initiative. In 2003 Taobao began using an instant communication tool called Aliwangwang to help buyers and sellers interact with one another. Alipay, an online payment system, was started a year later. By 2010 Taobao assisted over 80 percent of the e-commerce market in China, with roughly 170 million registered users.5At the same time, eBay decided to concentrate its focus on cross-border e-commerce, where Chinese consumers sell to consumers overseas. It currently operates as the leader in that segment.
eBay
Since its inception in 1995, eBay has enjoyed strong revenue growth and been a dominant player in the online auction industry. The company posted net income of $3.2 billion and revenue of $11.65 billion for 2011 (see Exhibit 1).
eBay’s founder, Pierre Omidyar, envisioned a community built on commerce, sustained by trust, and inspired by opportunity. The company’s mission was to “enable individual self-empowerment on a global scale” and employ “business as a tool for social good.” Omidyar cited “trust between strangers” as the social impact tied to eBay’s ability to remain profitable.
The company’s unique business model, which united buyers and sellers in an online marketplace, attracted over 221 million registered users. eBay has enabled e-commerce at multiple levels (local, national, and international) through an array of websites, including eBay Marketplaces, Pay-Pal, Rent.com, Shopping.com, and its newest addition, eBay Style. The company’s range of products and services evolved from collectibles to household products, customer services, automobiles, and the mobile industry. The variety of products attracted a range of users that included students, small businesses, independent sellers, major corporations, and government agencies.
Despite eBay’s outstanding growth performance, the company still faced a number of challenges in both domestic and international markets. The low entry barriers in the online marketplace attracted a number of large dot-com competitors, including Amazon, Yahoo, uBid, and Overstock. Historically, the company had acquired other online competitors, such as Stubhub (tickets), but established players such as Yahoo and Amazon posed a major threat to eBay’s market share and ability to sustain profitability. Still, eBay’s top management felt that the company would end up as a specialty business, an idea suggesting that it would face little threat from these major competitors. The company had no plans for further big acquisitions but intended to expand and identify synergies within existing business lines.
*This case was prepared by Professor Alan B. Eisner and graduate students David J. Morates and Shruti Shrestha of Pace University. This case was solely based on library research and was developed for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2013 Alan B. Eisner.
C75
EXHIBIT 1 Income Statements (in millions, except per-share amounts; year-end December 31)
2009 2010 2011 2012
Net revenues $8,727 $9,156 $11,652 $14,072
Cost of net revenues 2,480 2,565 3,460 4,216
Gross profit 6,248 6,592 8,191 9,856
Operating expenses:
Sales and marketing 1,886 1,947 2,435 2,913
Product development 803 908 1,235 1,573
General and administrative 1,418 1,079 1,364 1,567
Provision for transaction and loan losses 383 392 517 580
Amortization of acquired intangible assets 263 190 267 335
Restructuring 38,187 21,437 (489) —
Total operating expenses 4,791 4,538 5,817 6,968
Income from operations 1,457 2,054 2,373 2,888
Interest and other income, net 1,422 45 1,537 196
Income before income taxes 2,879 2,098 3,910 3,084
Provision for income taxes (490) (297) (681) (475)
Net income $2,389 $1,801 $3,229 $2,609
Net income per share:
Basic $1.85 $1.38 $2.50 $2.02
Diluted $1.83 $1.36 2.46 1.99
Weighted average shares:
Basic 1,289 1,305 1,292 1,292
Diluted 1,304 1,327 1,312 1,313
eBay did however acknowledge its inability to grow and compete in certain international markets. The company created localized sites in 24 countries and established a presence in Latin America through its investment in MercadoLibre.com. However, eBay’s numerous attempts to penetrate the Asia Pacific market, specifically China and Japan, ended in failure, with the company pulling out of Japan and buying out Chinese start-up Eachnet, essentially canceling years of invested work. According to many analysts, the company’s recent interest in its South Korean rival Gmarket Inc. and joint venture with Beijing-based Tom Online were further indications that eBay couldn’t compete in these countries. To remain successful and enjoy the same financial performance as it had in the past, eBay needed to develop an effective strategy to compete in major Asian markets and mitigate the risk of existing local competitors.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Evolution of Auctions
Traditional Auctions According to Greek scribes, the first known auctions occurred in Babylon in 500 BC. At that time, women were sold on the condition of marriage, and it was considered illegal for daughters to be sold outside auctions. Auctions evolved during the French Revolution and throughout the American Civil War, where colonels auctioned goods that were seized by armies.6Although there were various types of auctions, they all provided a forum where sellers could find buyers. Auctions were considered one of the purest markets, because buyers paid what they were willing to spend for an item, thereby determining the true market value of the item. Over time, auction formats evolved, and through technological advances and improved communication they found a new home—the Internet.
C76
Online Auctions The primary difference between traditional and online auctions is that the online auction process occurs over the Internet as opposed to at a specific location where both buyers and sellers were present. Online auctions offer strategic advantages to both parties that are not typically available in traditional auctions. Buyers can select from millions of products and engage in multiple auctions simultaneously. Given the massive inventory of an online auction market, items are usually available in multiple auctions, allowing buyers to compare starting bid prices and search for better prices. Sellers are exposed to millions of buyers, since more buyers have access to the Internet and feel comfortable making purchases online. Thus, the Internet gave buyers and sellers access to a marketplace that spanned the world.
Online auctions also offer the following strategic advantages:
1. No time constraints. A bid can be placed at any time. 2. No geographic constraints. Sellers and buyers can participate from any location with Internet access. 3. Network economies. The large number of bidders attracts more sellers, which attracts more bidders, and so on. This
creates a large system that has more value for both parties. Online auctions also allow businesses to easily sell off excess inventory or discontinued items. This is done through either business-to-business (B2B) or business-to- consumer (B2C) auctions. Offering products and services in an online auction helps small businesses build their brand and reputation by establishing a devoted customer base. Finally, some businesses use the online marketplace as an inexpensive yet effective way to test-market for upcoming products.
E-Commerce
Although Vannevar Bush originally conceived the idea of the Internet in 1945, it wasn’t until the 1990s that the Internet became overwhelmingly popular. According to Internet World Stats, in June 2012 there were over 2.4 billion Internet users in over 150 countries. Exhibit 2 shows world Internet usage and population as of June 30, 2012, and Internet usage growth between 2000 and 2012.
As of 2012, North America was the region most penetrated by the Internet, with approximately 78.6 percent of the population already online. However, Internet usage growth between 2000 and 2012 was considerably less in North America than in other regions. Internet usage growth was highest in developing regions, such as Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia, where penetration was low. Considering that close to 80 percent of the world’s population resides in these areas, it is inevitable that Internet usage growth will continue to increase dramatically in these regions.
Although Asia constituted approximately 56 percent of the world’s population, its penetration rate was only 27.5 percent. Compared to other regions with high usage growth rates, such as Africa and the Middle East, Asia invested more in its technology infrastructure and contained by far the most current Internet users, making it a more attractive market.
As the usage growth of the Internet increased, so did the popularity of e-commerce. E-commerce, or electronic commerce, is the concept of conducting business transactions over the Internet. Like online auctions, e-commerce eliminates boundaries such as time and geography, allowing businesses and customers to interact with one another constantly. As more users were exposed to the Internet, they became comfortable with the idea of conducting
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
transactions online. In correlation with Internet growth usage, revenue generated through e-commerce has increased dramatically since the 1990s.
EXHIBIT 2 World Internet Usage and Population Statistics, as of June 30, 2012
World Regions
Population (millions)
Internet Usage
(millions)
Percentage of Population Penetrated
Usage as Percentage of
World Total Usage Growth, 2000-2012(%)
Africa 1,073,380,925 167.3 15.6 7.0 3,606.7
Asia 3,922,066,987 1076.7 27.5 44.8 841.9
Europe 820,918,446 518.5 63.2 21.5 393.4
Middle East 223,608,203 90.0 40.2 3.7 2,639.9
North America
348,280,154 273.8 78.6 11.4 153.3
Latin America
593,688,638 254.9 42.9 10.6 1,310.8
Australia 35,903,569 24.3 67.6 1.0 218.7
Total 7,017,846,922 2405.5 34.3 100.0 566.4
Source: Internet World Stats. 2012. Usage and Population Statistics, www.internetworldstats.com/.
C77
In Asia, e-commerce has grown rapidly since China’s admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO) on December 11, 2001. Induction into the WTO allowed China to conduct business with other nations more freely by reducing tariffs and eliminating market and government impediments.
Company Background
Computer programmer Pierre Omidyar founded the online auction website in San Jose, California, on September 3, 1995. Omidyar was born in Paris, France, and moved to Maryland with his family when his father took on a residency at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center. Omidyar became fascinated with computers and later graduated from Tufts University with a degree in computer science. While living and working in the San Francisco Bay area, he met his current wife, Pamela Wesley, a management consultant, who later became a driving force in launching the auction website. The couple’s vision was to establish an online marketplace where people could share the same passion and interest as Pamela had for her hobby of collecting and trading Pez candy dispensers.7Omidyar also envisioned an online auction format that would create a fair and open marketplace, where the market truly determined an item’s value. To ensure trust in the open forum, Omidyar based the site on five main values:
1. People are basically good. 2. Everyone has something to contribute. 3. An honest, open environment can bring out the best in people. 4. Everyone deserves recognition and respect as a unique individual. 5. You should treat others the way you want to be treated.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
On Labor Day weekend in 1995, Omidyar launched Auction Web, an online trading platform. After the business exploded, Omidyar decided to dedicate more attention to his new enterprise and work as a consultant under the name Echo Bay Technology Group. When he tried to register a website for his company, Omidyar discovered
Echo Bay was unavailable, so he decided to use the abbreviated version eBay, which also stood for “electronic bay area.” The company’s name was also selected to attract San Francisco residents to the site and prompt them to buy and sell items.
Initially, the company did not charge fees to either buyers or sellers, but as traffic grew rapidly, Omidyar was forced to charge buyers a listing fee to cover Internet service provider costs. When Omidyar noticed that the fees had no effect on the level of bids, he realized the potential for profitability of his business. To handle and manage the company’s day- to-day operations, Omidyar hired Jeffrey Skoll (B.A.Sc. University of Toronto, MBA Stanford University). Skoll was hired as the company’s first president, and he wrote the business plan that eBay later followed from its emergence as a start-up to its maturity as a financial success. The two worked out of Skoll’s living room and various Silicon Valley facilities until they eventually settled in the company’s current location in San Jose, California.
By the middle of 1997, after less than a year under the name eBay, the company was hosting nearly 800,000 auctions a day. 8Although the rapid expansion of eBay’s traffic caused the company to suffer a number of service interruptions, the site remained successful and continued to gain the confidence of its strong customer base. Skoll remained president until early 1998, when the company hired Meg Whitman as president and CEO. At the time, the company had only 30 employees and was solely located in the United States; in a decade the number of employees went up to over 15,000. In September 1998 eBay launched a successful public offering, making both Omidyar and Skoll instant billionaires. By the time eBay went public, less than three years after Omidyar had created the company, the site had more than a million registered users. The company grew exponentially in the late 1990s and, based on its 2011 performance, indicated no sign of stopping. Exhibit 3 highlights the company’s recent growth performance by segments.
Whitman stepped down as the president and CEO of the company on March 31, 2008, but remained on the board of directors. Omidyar, the chairman of the board, said this
C78
about Whitman, “With humor, smarts and unflappable determination, Meg took a small, barely known online auction site and helped it become an integral part of our lives.”9Both Omidyar and Whitman were confident that the new CEO, John Donahoe, was a good choice to lead eBay. Donahoe joined the company in 2005 as president of eBay’s largest division, Marketplaces, and within three years managed to double the revenues and profits for this business unit. Before joining eBay, Donahoe served as the CEO of Bain & Company, an international consulting firm based in Boston. 10“I’m extremely confident in John’s skills and the abilities of John’s veteran management team,” Meg Whitman commented on the transition. 11
EXHIBIT 3 eBay Growth (in millions, year-end December 31)
Supplemental Operating Data 2010 2011 2012
Marketplace Segment:
Gross merchandise volume* $61,819 $60,332 $67,763
Payments Segment:
Net total payment volume† $91,956 $118,758 $144,937
*Total value of all successfully closed items between users on eBay Marketplaces trading platforms during the period, regardless of whether the buyer and seller actually consummated the transaction.
†Total dollar volume of payments, net of payment reversals, successfully completed through eBay payments network or on Bill Me Later accounts during the period, excluding the payment gateway business.
Source: eBay Inc., www.ebayinc.com/.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Whitman’s confidence appears to have been well-founded. In 2012, after 4 years on the job as CEO, Donahoe had helped eBay make impressive progress. Although eBay’s financial outlook was not dreadful when Donahoe took over in March 2008, there was a growing perception that its growth was beginning to decline and that its run as the leader of the e-commerce industry was behind it, as Amazon began to make strides toward becoming the next best thing. During the global financial crisis, eBay’s stock had fallen to almost $10 per share in February 2009, far below the optimistic price of $58 that it reached in 2004. Since 2009, however, the stock has been on a stable uptrend, more than doubling during a 12- month period from 2011 to 2012 and closing at almost $49 in November 2012. “What John Donahoe has accomplished over the past few years is one of the most remarkable feats in the valley’s history,” said Gil Luria, an analyst at Wedbush Securities. So what has the new CEO done to spurt this turnaround? Luria noted that eBay began investing more in technology and was willing to take risks regarding altering the look and feel of the platform’s shopping experience. 12
eBay Now was also implemented to offer same-day delivery of products from online and offline merchants in San Francisco. ThinkEquity analyst Ron Josey wrote, “We view eBay Now as one of the most innovative products eBay has launched in some time.” The new service functions as a mobile app, one representation of Donahoe’s vision for eBay to begin embracing the increasing trend of mobile and offline shopping. “We’ve gone from competing in a $500 billion e-commerce market to now a $10 trillion retail market,” Donahoe recently told analysts. 13
eBay Platforms
eBay’s overall strategy comprised three primary components: products, sense of community, and aggressive expansion. All three components evolved around the various geographic and specialty platforms the company introduced.
Product Categories eBay had an array of product categories and trading platforms that offered a range of pricing formats, such as fixed pricing. Relatively new for the company, establishing a fixed-price format allowed eBay to compete directly with major competitors such as Amazon.com and penetrate new market space. Before fixed pricing, selling prices were solely determined by the highest auction bid, and this took days or weeks, depending on the length of the auction. eBay’s different trading platforms also offered distinct services and target-specific market niches, which allowed eBay to broaden its customer base. The platforms included:
• PayPal: Founded in 1998 and acquired by eBay in 2002, PayPal enabled individuals to securely send payments quickly and easily online. PayPal was considered the global leader in online payments, with tens of millions of registered users. In 2011 Paypal’s president, Scott Thompson, expected revenue to double to $6 billion to $7 billion by 2013. He also predicted that 75 percent to 80 percent of eBay transactions will be done through PayPal by 2013, up from 69 percent in 2010.14
• Rent.com: Acquired by eBay in February 2005, Rent.com was the most visited online apartment listing service in the United States, with more than 20,000 properties listed.
• Online classifieds: By 2009, eBay had the world-leading portfolio of online classifieds sites, including Kijiji, Intoko, Gumtree, LoQUo.com, Marktplaats.nl, and mobile.de. CEO John Donahoe said, “We are the global leader in classifieds, with top positions in Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, and sites in more than 1,000 cities across 20 countries.”15
• Shopping.com: With thousands of merchants and millions of products and reviews, Shopping.com empowered consumers to make informed choices, which drove value for merchants.
• Stubhub.com: StubHub was an online marketplace for selling and purchasing tickets for sports events, concerts, and other live entertainment events.
• eBay Express: eBay Express behaved like a standard Internet shopping site but gave sellers access to over 200 million buyers worldwide. Sellers could design product categories within minutes, and buyers could purchase from multiple sellers by using a single shopping cart.
• eBay Motors: This specialty site was considered the largest marketplace for automobile buyers and sellers. Buyers could purchase anything from automobile parts to new or antique vehicles.
• Skype: Acquired by eBay in October 2005, Skype was the world’s fastest-growing online communication solution, allowing free video and audio communication between users of Skype software. By November 2009, Skype connected more than 480 million registered users.16
Sale of Skype: eBay’s acquisition of Skype was expected to enhance the customer experience by improving
C79
communication between buyers and sellers. When it acquired Skype, eBay said it hoped the service would support its auctions and its PayPal payment service by letting buyers and sellers discuss transactions. But eBay users were not so chatty. In November 2009 eBay sold Skype to a group led by Silver Lake Partners, a private equity firm in Silicon Valley. The deal was made at $2.75 billion, with eBay retaining a 30 percent stake. Mr. Donahoe said eBay did not regret having bought Skype when company executives believed eBay was in a mortal struggle with Google, which was also pursuing the service. He said the spinoff would allow eBay to focus on its core e-commerce and online payment businesses and avoid extra distractions. “We don’t regret having done this at all. We compete in a dynamic market, and you have to move quickly and take risks,” Mr. Donahoe said. “When we bought Skype we thought it had synergies with our other two businesses, and it turns out it did not. But it also turned out that it’s a great stand-alone business.” 17
In May 2011, Microsoft agreed to buy Skype for $8.5 billion from Silver Lake. eBay said it will earn more than a 50 percent return from the firm’s initial investment of $2.6 billion in Skype six years earlier. “With this sale, we have realized a total return of $1.4 billion on our original investment in Skype,” said John Pluhowski, a spokesman for eBay. Considering that eBay had bought Skype in a heavily criticized deal in 2005 and that it was considered a failed acquisition, the latest Microsoft agreement turned out to be good news for eBay, making eBay one of the big winners in the Microsoft and Skype deal.
Sense of Community The underlying key to all eBay sites and trading platforms was creating trust between sellers and buyers. The company created “community values,” and this was why eBay users were willing to send money to strangers across the country. The Feedback Forum was created in February 1996 and encouraged users to post comments about trading partners. Originally, Omidyar handled disputes between buyers and sellers via email by putting the disputing parties in touch with each other to resolve the issue themselves. He soon realized that an open forum where users could post opinions and feedback about one another would create the trust and sense of community the site required. Buyers and sellers were encouraged to post comments (positive, negative, or neutral) about each other at the completion of each transaction. The individual feedback was recorded and amended to a user profile, which ultimately established a rating and reputation for each buyer and seller. eBay users could view this information before engaging in a transaction. The company believed that the feedback forum was critical for creating initial user acceptance for purchasing and selling over the Internet and that it contributed more than anything else to eBay’s success.
Aggressive Expansion To compete effectively and create a global trading platform, the company continued to develop in U.S. and international markets that utilized the Internet. With intense competition in the online auction industry, eBay aimed to increase market share and revenue through acquisitions and partnerships in related and unrelated businesses. For example:
• In June 2000 eBay acquired Half.com for $318 million.
• In August 2001 eBay acquired MercadoLibre, Lokau, and iBazar, Latin American auction sites.
• On August 13, 2004, eBay took a 25 percent stake in Craigslist, an online network of urban communities.
• In September 2005 eBay invested $ 2 million in the Meetup social networking site.
• In August 2006 eBay announced international cooperation with Google.
• In January 2007 eBay acquired online ticket marketplace Stubhub for $310 million.
• In June 2010 eBay acquired RedLaser, a mobile application that would let customers scan bar codes to list items faster on its online auction site and to compare prices.18
• In December 2010 eBay acquired Milo, a leading local shopping engine that provides consumers access to accurate, real-time, local store inventory and pricing, giving them even more choices and flexibility when shopping online.19
• In December 2010 eBay acquired Critical Path Software Inc., a developer of smartphone applications, to accelerate its lead in mobile20 commerce.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Company Business Model
eBay’s business model was based on a person-to-person marketplace on the Internet, where sellers conveniently listed items for sale and interested buyers bid on these items. The objective was to create a forum that allowed buyers and sellers to come together in an efficient and effective manner. The business model overcame the inefficiencies of traditional fragmented marketplaces, which tended to offer a limited variety of goods. According to former CEO Meg Whitman, the company started with commerce and what grew out of that was a community, essentially creating a community-commerce model.21The company’s success relied primarily on establishing a trustworthy environment that attracted a large number of buyers and sellers. As eBay’s reputation grew, so did the number of buyers and sellers, keeping the company in line with Omidyar’s original vision. However, as new competitors entered the online auction business and the popularity of the Internet increased, eBay tweaked its business model to accommodate changes in the fast-paced environment.
The company was aggressively expanding globally and looking for new products and services to offer to
C80
customers. It was also looking closely at the kind of merchants who sold on eBay. In the beginning, eBay focused on a consumer-to-consumer business model, but since some of the individuals became small dealers, the model changed to a mix of consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer. The sellers wanted to maintain their business on eBay, since it was their most profitable distribution channel. eBay wanted new ways to generate revenue as a result of more small dealers and businesses selling their products through the company’s website.
eBay generated revenue through three main channels: marketplaces, payments, and, until 2009, communications. Marketplaces, which generated revenue by charging sellers a fee for every item they sold, accounted for over 65 percent of the company’s revenue. As of December 2011 marketplace revenue was approximately $6.6 billion of the company’s $11.65 billion total revenue. Another $4.4 billion of the company’s revenue came from fees charged through electronic payments made through the company website, primarily via PayPal. The newest source of revenue, until November 2009, was communications (Skype), which produced $620 million of the company’s revenue for that year. Although free, Skype generated revenue through its premium offerings, such as making and receiving calls to and from landline and mobile phones, as well as voice mail, ring tones, and call forwarding. Exhibit 4 shows the company’s recent revenue performance by type.
In addition to the primary revenue sources, there were specific elements of eBay’s business model that made the company a success. eBay’s dominance of the online auction market and the large number of buyers, sellers, and listed items were primary reasons for eBay’s tremendous growth. The trust and safety programs, such as the Feedback Forum, continued to attract and retain new and current eBay users. The cost-effective and convenient trading, coupled with the strong sense of
EXHIBIT 4 Net Revenues by Type (in millions, except percentage changes)
Year Ended December 31, 2010
Year Ended December 31, 2011
Year Ended December 31, 2012
Net Revenues by Type:
Net transaction revenues
Marketplaces 4,800 5,431 6,078
Payments 3,261 4,123 5,146
GSI — 460 850
Total net transaction revenues 8,061 10,014 12,074
Marketing services and other revenues
Marketplaces 921 1,211 1,320
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Payments 174 289 428
GSI — 130 233
Total marketing services and other revenues
1,095 1,638 2,020
Total net revenues $9,156 $11,652 $14,072
Net Revenues by Segment:
Marketplaces $5,721 6,642 7,398
Payments 3,436 4,412 5,574
GSI — 598 1,730
Total net revenues $9,157 $11,652 $14,072
Net Revenues by Geography:
U.S. $4,214 5,484 6,778
International 4,942 6,168 7,294
Total net revenues $9,156 $11,652 $14,072
Source: eBay Inc., www.ebayinc.com/.
C81
community, added further value to the company’s business model. However, as the company continued to grow and new trends evolved, eBay had to continue to adjust its model to remain competitive.
International Expansion
As competition intensified in the online auction industry, eBay expanded its international presence in an effort to create an online global marketplace. Gradually, eBay localized sites in the following countries:
• Asia Pacific: Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.
• Europe: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
• North America: Canada and the United States.
In many of the international websites, eBay provided local language and currency options to gain popularity and ensure the sense-of-community feeling. In most cases, eBay expanded its business by either acquiring or forming a partnership with a local company, as it recently has done with Xiu.com in its re-entry into the Chinese market. This strategy helped eBay better understand local cultures and ensure that the company was meeting specific local needs. This approach proved successful with the company’s equity investment in MercadoLibre.com, which targeted Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. At the end of 2006, MercadoLibre. com reported 18 million registered users who performed 15.8 million transactions worth $1.1 billion.22Other notable international growth acquisitions are listed below.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Asia Pacific • Acquired China-based Eachnet for approximately $150 million. eBay’s failure to manage the company resulted in
its recent partnership with communications company Tom Online.
• Acquired all outstanding shares of India’s Baazee.com, which later became eBay India.
• Acquired Korean rival Internet Auction Co. by purchasing nearly 3 million shares. Acquisition has not proved successful due to intense competition from top Korean auction site Gmarket.
Europe • Acquired Alando auction house for $43 million, a company that later became eBay Germany. Alando was
previously considered Germany’s leading online trading company. Germany became eBay’s second-largest market, accounting for 21 percent of the company’s total listings.
• Acquired Dutch competitor Marktplaats.nl, which had 80 percent of the Netherlands market share.
• Acquired Sweden’s leading online auction company, Tradera.com, for $48 million.
• Acquired Denmark’s leading online classifieds businesses, Den Bla Avis and BilBasen, for $390 million.23
For the most part, eBay was successful in expanding in Europe and Latin America, where it was able to quickly adapt to local needs through its partners. The company was also successful in countries it expanded to from the ground up, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. In 2007 the United Kingdom accounted for 15.5 percent of eBay’s total listings. By engaging the local community in these countries, eBay customized its sites to meet specific local needs while providing access to the online global community.
eBay was considered the leader in each of its markets with the exception of Japan and China, in which it struggled repeatedly to gain market share. In 2002 eBay was forced to pull out of Japan due to rising costs and intense competition by rival Yahoo Japan. eBay also faced fierce competition in Korea, where Gmarket, another investment of Yahoo, dominated the market.
Despite its lack of success in local Asian markets, eBay continued its attempts to expand into the region, recognizing the tremendous growth potential that was available. In June 2006 eBay formed a joint venture with PChome Online in Taiwan. PChome Online was an Internet service provider in Taiwan, with more than 10 million members.24 The company offered services such as Internet portal, e-commerce platform, and telecommunications. The move was expected to provide eBay with the local e-commerce expertise it needed to launch a new trading website that catered to the needs of Taiwan’s Internet users.
In 2006 eBay emphasized its commitment to the Chinese e-commerce market by announcing a new joint venture with Beijing-based Tom Online Inc. Tom Online, which primarily sold cell phone add-on services, such as ring tones and avatars, put in $20 million for a 51 percent share and management control of eBay’s online China site, Eachnet.25In 2002 eBay had purchased a 30 percent stake in Eachnet and within a year bought out local investors. Central management control of Eachnet was maintained in eBay’s San Jose, California, location. Many believed the move to partner with Tom Online was a result of eBay’s failure to adapt to local needs and successfully compete with China’s online auction market leader, Taobao, which controlled approximately 70 percent of the market. Jack Ma, the chief executive of Alibaba.com, Taobao’s parent company, believed eBay’s failure in China was due to an inability to build a community effect in the country, which, according to Ma, begins with customer satisfaction. Ma also felt that since eBay had to adhere to a global platform, meeting specific local needs was difficult because changes
C82
at a global level had to be approved in the United States, which further limited the company’s ability to produce a website tailored to the Chinese market.26
In April 2009 eBay secured agreements to buy a 67 percent stake of South Korea’s Gmarket in a deal estimated to be worth $1.2 billon. The move was part of Donahoe’s effort to increase revenue in coming years. It was expected that Gmarket would help eBay’s push into Asia.27
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Competitors
As eBay’s product offerings and pricing formats evolved, so did its range of competitors. Originally, the company faced competition from alternative auctions or other venues for collectors, such as flea markets and garage sales. However, as the company grew and introduced fixed pricing, the range of competitors included large companies like Walmart and Kmart that also had retail websites. eBay’s product platforms, like eBay Motors, put the company in direct competition with auto dealers and other online auto sites, such as Autobytes. Still, eBay faced the harshest competition from major online companies, including Yahoo and Amazon, which also had online auctions that rivaled eBay’s.
Yahoo! eBay’s larger online competitor was Yahoo, which also had a strong global presence, particularly in Asian markets. Yahoo originally started as a search engine and quickly evolved to include additional products and services, such as Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Maps, and Yahoo! Messenger. The company also offered e-commerce services through Yahoo! Shopping, Yahoo! Autos, Yahoo! Auctions, and Yahoo! Travel. Like eBay, Yahoo’s e-commerce sites allowed users to obtain relevant information and make transactions and purchases online. However, Yahoo’s business model primarily focused on generating revenue through search advertising. In the United States, in response to potential threats from web giant Google, Yahoo and eBay formed an alliance in which Yahoo utilized eBay’s payment system, PayPal, and eBay gained additional advertising through Yahoo searches. Still, Yahoo posed a major competitive threat in foreign markets, particularly the Asia Pacific area, through its partnerships with Gmarket and Taobao.
Gmarket Yahoo’s stake in Korean auction site Gmarket proved successful, with more than 17.2 million unique visitors. Founded in 2000, Gmarket was a Korean online auction and shopping-mall website that generated its revenue by charging a fee based on selling price.28Like Taobao, Gmarket offered fixed prices and provided an option to negotiate prices with sellers on an exclusive basis. This allowed buyers to conduct deals instantly instead of waiting until bids were completed. Gmarket also offered cheaper listings. These options, along with constant new features, allowed Gmarket to dominate the Korean online auction industry.29
Gmarket frequently introduced new marketing initiatives to provide sellers with various options to attract new customers. Gmarket grew financially powerful in 2006 when it launched its IPO, and Yahoo purchased a 9 percent stake in the company.
In 2009 eBay decided to secure an interest in its rival and was granted approval to purchase a combined 67 percent stake in Gmarket from Interpark Corp. and its chairman. In May 2010 eBay announced that it intended to work with Gmarket’s founder to expand Gmarket’s presence in Japan and Singapore. Lorie Norrington, president of eBay Marketplaces commented, “This joint venture is a sign of our continued commitment to help grow and lead ecommerce across Asia by offering more opportunities for sellers and extraordinary buying experiences for consumers.”30
Taobao In 2005 Yahoo entered a strategic partnership with Alibaba.com, Taobao’s parent company, which created an instant threat in the Chinese market. The move created one of the largest Internet companies in China, one with a leading position in business-to-business e-commerce, consumer e-commerce, and online payments. Like Gmarket, Taobao offered buyers and sellers quick and convenient ways to conduct business. Its instant messaging and fixed price arrangements allowed transactions to be conducted quickly. In 2006 the company partnered with Intel to offer customers a wireless platform. This further improved communication and convenience when customers were conducting transactions. In 2011 Taobao was eBay’s largest competitor in China, controlling over 80 percent of the Chinese online auction market.31
In early 2010 eBay announced the partnership of Paypal with China UnionPay, a local intrabank card system operator, which would make it accessible for customers to make online purchases from overseas. This move was made to challenge Alipay, a unit of Alibaba Group, which controlled about 50 percent of the market. This partnership would allow international retailers to sell to a large base of Chinese customers, who, combined, held 2.1 billon China UnionPay cards.32”After years of being the export hub for the world, now China is open for business as an import e-commerce market,” said Scott Thompson, president of PayPal. “PayPal’s partnership with China UnionPay removes an important friction point that exists across borders, and we are thrilled to eliminate the payments barrier so merchants can welcome millions of new Chinese customers to their sites.”33
Amazon Despite not having a huge presence in the online auction industry, Amazon was still considered a fierce online global competitor. Amazon started as Earth’s biggest bookstore and rapidly evolved to selling everything, including toys, electronics, home furnishings, apparel, health and beauty aids, groceries, and so on. Still, books, CDs, and
C83
DVDs accounted for more than 65 percent of the firm’s sales. Although Amazon had a large international presence, the company’s linkage to brick-and-mortar shops in the United States made it a greater threat locally than in foreign markets. Amazon’s international local sites were in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, France, and China. Despite its large online presence, Amazon scaled back its online auction business, cutting staff and shutting down Livebid, as part of an overall corporate restructuring.
The Future of eBay
eBay had a number of opportunities in which it had already taken action. By 2011, eBay had made a number of strategic acquisitions that included Rent.com, international classified websites, Stubhub.com, and Shopping.com. These acquisitions added to and complemented eBay’s product offerings and further diversified the company’s targeted market. With increased competition from Google and other major online companies, eBay had to continue to diversify and provide depth in its product offerings to remain competitive. Creating options and targeting distinct market niches would enable eBay to distinguish itself from competitors. This was particularly important because, as e-commerce and Internet usage rates continued to grow, so would the market opportunity for eBay. Because of its market-leading brand, eBay was in a unique position to capture a significant share of the market at an early stage.
eBay could also expand its existing products and services, such as PayPal. The product was relatively new and had the potential to grow and attract new customers, especially in international markets. Expanding PayPal into international markets would enable eBay to provide a simple way to conduct transactions across market borders. Considering the growth potential in developing markets, such as those in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, expanding PayPal would attract many new customers, thus increasing eBay’s revenue base. In line with e-commerce growth, as more customers felt comfortable with conducting transactions online, PayPal had the potential to be the preferred form of payment over the Internet.
However, for eBay to capitalize on these opportunities, the company would have to overcome the challenges of expanding into large foreign markets such as China and Japan. With almost 79 percent of the North American population using the Internet and only a 27.5 percent usage rate in the Asia Pacific area, eBay had a tremendous opportunity to expand and gain new customers. Considering that the Asia Pacific region had more than 50 percent of the world’s population and was experiencing some of the largest online usage growth percentages in the world, tapping into this market was critical for eBay to expand.
eBay’s operations in China remained small compared to Alibaba Group and other Chinese e-commerce companies, but the company had refocused its energies on export-oriented merchants in China who wanted to reach overseas buyers on its international websites.34Experts viewed eBay’s strategy of forming a partnership with former rival
Alibaba Group as the best way to generate sales from China. All hopes were on Paypal’s acceptance by Chinese partners who were looking to expand international sales. It was critical for eBay to partner with local Chinese companies rather than going alone in the world’s biggest Internet market in order to proceed in the local market.
ENDNOTES 1. Internet World Stats. 2010. Internet Usage Statistics. www.intemetwortdstats.com/stats.htm. 2. Wauters, Robin. 2012, eBay Style: Ecommerce giant inks deal with Chinese fashion site Xiu.com, The Next Web,
http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/11/12/ebay-style-ecommerce-giant-inks-deal-with-chinese-fashion-site-xiu-com/. 3. Galante, J. 2010. PayPal teams with China UnionPay to challenge Alipay. Bloomberg News, March 17, www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=newsarchive&sid=au4i5vaUlMNQ. 4. Mark Greeven, Shengyun Yang, Tao Yue, Eric van Heck and Barbara Krug. March 12, 2012. How Taobao bested Ebay in China. Financial
Times, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52670084-6c2c-11e1-b00f-00144feab49a.html#axzz2E2E0o7wP.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
5. Mark Greeven, Shengyun Yang, Tao Yue, Eric van Heck and Barbara Krug. March 12, 2012. How Taobao bested Ebay in China. Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52670084-6c2c-11e1-b00f-00144feab49a.html#axzz2E2E0o7wP..
6. Doyle, R. A. 2002. The history of auctions. Auctioneer, November 1, www.absoluteauctionrealty.com/history_detail.php?id=5094. 7. Internet Based Moms. 2007. Pierre Omidyar—the man behind eBay. April. 8. Academy of Achievement. 2005. Biography—Pierre Omidyar. November 9, www.achievement.org. 9. eBay Inc. 2008. Meg Whitman to step down.
10. eBay corporate website, ebayinc.com. 11. eBay Inc. 2008. Meg Whitman to step down. 12. O’Brien, Chris. November, 4 2012. Is eBay’s John Donahoe the best CEO in Silicon Valley?. Mercurynews.com,
http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien/ci_21908264/obrien-is-ebays-john-donahoe-best-ceo-silicon 13. O’Brien, Chris. November, 4 2012. Is eBay’s John Donahoe the best CEO in Silicon Valley? Mercurynews.com,
http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien/ci_21908264/obrien-is-ebays-john-donahoe-best-ceo-silicon 14. Galante, J. 2011. PayPal’s revenue will double by 2013, Thompson says. Bloomberg News, February 10,
www.businessweek.com/=news/2011-02-10/paypal-s-revenue-will-double-by-2013-thompson-says.html. 15. eBay Inc. 2008. eBay Inc. buys leading payments and classifieds businesses, streamlines existing organization to improve growth. Press
release, October 6, www.ebayinc.com/content/press_release/20081006005605. 16. eBay Inc. 2009. Annual report. 17. Stone, B. 2009. In a sale, Skype wins a chance to prosper. New York Times, September 1,
www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/technology/companies/02ebay.html?_r=1. 18. MacMillan, D. 2010. EBay buys bar-code app. Bloomberg Businessweek, June 23,
www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc20100623_901174.htm. 19. eBay Inc. 2010. eBay acquires Milo, a leading local shopping engine. Press release, December 2,
www.ebayinc.com/content/press_release/20101202006358. 20. eBay Inc. 2010. eBay acquires industry leading mobile application developer. Press release, December 15,
www.ebayinc.com/content/press_release/20101215006520.
C84
21. Himelstein, L., & “Whitman, M. 1999. Q&A with eBay’s Meg Whitman. BusinessWeek Online, May 31, www.businessweek.com/1999/99_22/b3631008.htm.
22. IT Digest. 2007. Argentina: MercadoLibre has 18mil registered users. January 25, www.infobae.com. 23. eBay Inc. 2008. eBay acquires leading classifieds sites in Denmark. 24. eBay Inc. 2006. eBay and PChome Online to form joint venture in Taiwan. Press release, June 5,
www.ebayinc.com/content/press_release/20060605199313. 25. Knowledge@Wharton. 2007. ebay’s deal with Tom Online offers some timely lessons for managers of global online companies. February 14,
www.knowledgeatwharton.com.cn/index.cfm?fa5view_Article&articleID51562&languageid51. 26. Ma, J. 2005. Alibaba CEO says Taobao will dominate China online auctions. Forbes.com, May 5,
www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2005/05/20/afx2043109.html. 27. Cho, K., & Galante, J. 2009. EBay offers to buy Korea’s Gmarket for $1.2 billion. Bloomberg.com, April 16,
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asyO3.3yVdnE&refer=home. 28. Ihlwan, M. 2006. Gmarket eclipses eBay in Asia. BusinessWeek Online, June 28,
www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2006/gb20060628_910393.htm. 29. BusinessWeek Online. 2006. Out-eBaying eBay in Korea. July 17, www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993080.htm. 30. Caverly, D. 2010. eBay announces new joint venture in Asia. WebProNews.com, May 7, www.webpronews.com/ebay-announces-new-joint-
venture-in-asia-2010-05. 31. Epstein, G. 2010. eBay chief visits his Chinese conqueror. Blogs.Forbes.com, September 9, blogs.forbes.com/gadyepstein/2010/09/09/ebay-
chief-visits-his-chinese-conqueror/. 32. China Tech News. 2010. PayPal works with China UnionPay for online payment services. March 23,
www.chinatechnews.com/2010/03/23/11777-paypal-works-with-china-unionpay-for-online-payment-services. 33. BusinessWire.com.2010. PayPal and China UnionPay open the global marketplace to Chinese consumers. March 17,
www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100317005661/en/PayPal-China-UnionPay-Open-Global-Marketplace-Chinese. 34. Chao, L. 2010. EBay sees a market in China yet. ChinaReal-TimeReport, May 19. blogs.wsj.com/chinareal-time/2010/05/19/ebay-sees-a-
market-in-china-yet/.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C74
CASES
CASE 13 EBAY
Expanding into China* Like many U.S. Internet companies, eBay has repeatedly tried to broaden its reach by entering new appealing sectors, such as mobile commerce, and expanding into other geographical sectors, especially in Asia, where local rivals had strong ties to users. With Asia’s population exceeding 4 billion, more than half the world’s population, and Internet usage in the region skyrocketing at 620 percent,1eBay needed to develop a strategy that would successfully adapt to Asian local markets and compete with local competitors such as Taobao, China’s top auction site.
In 2012 Xiu.com and eBay partnered up to launch an online shopping platform, named eBay Style, that aimed to “bring the very best of eBay to Chinese consumers, particularly in fashion.” Xiu.com focuses on the sale of products from overseas to Chinese customers in a way that they are comfortable with. The company is based in Shenzhen and has roughly 800 employees. With the new partnership in place, Chinese consumers are able to access the global collection of products on eBay’s platform, while Xiu.com took control of managing all sales, logistics, and customer service. Xiu.com also took responsibility for curating and translating the inventory and implementing a product search function suitable for Chinese customers. The new eBay Style included only new items from a collection of 5,000 brands across all categories, including apparel, handbags, shoes, accessories, health and beauty products, and other lifestyle categories. At the time of the deal’s fruition, Xiu said it employed almost 1,500 people in China and mentioned new smartphone and tablet apps that were in the making.2 Even with this new deal, eBay Style faced unyielding competition, especially Alibaba’s Taobao.com, the largest Chinese online retailer. Also, Alipay, a payment processing company and another unit of the Alibaba Group, had 300 million users, three times as many as PayPal in China.3
Taobao, eBay Style’s largest threat, consciously portrays itself as a Chinese company. For example, online moderators use screen names imitative of popular characters from Chinese kung-fu novels.4Taobao also strived to implement a more interactive and user-friendly customer service initiative. In 2003 Taobao began using an instant communication tool called Aliwangwang to help buyers and sellers interact with one another. Alipay, an online payment system, was started a year later. By 2010 Taobao assisted over 80 percent of the e-commerce market in China, with roughly 170 million registered users.5At the same time, eBay decided to concentrate its focus on cross-border e-commerce, where Chinese consumers sell to consumers overseas. It currently operates as the leader in that segment.
eBay
Since its inception in 1995, eBay has enjoyed strong revenue growth and been a dominant player in the online auction industry. The company posted net income of $3.2 billion and revenue of $11.65 billion for 2011 (see Exhibit 1).
eBay’s founder, Pierre Omidyar, envisioned a community built on commerce, sustained by trust, and inspired by opportunity. The company’s mission was to “enable individual self-empowerment on a global scale” and employ “business as a tool for social good.” Omidyar cited “trust between strangers” as the social impact tied to eBay’s ability to remain profitable.
The company’s unique business model, which united buyers and sellers in an online marketplace, attracted over 221 million registered users. eBay has enabled e-commerce at multiple levels (local, national, and international) through an array of websites, including eBay Marketplaces, Pay-Pal, Rent.com, Shopping.com, and its newest addition, eBay Style. The company’s range of products and services evolved from collectibles to household products, customer services,
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
automobiles, and the mobile industry. The variety of products attracted a range of users that included students, small businesses, independent sellers, major corporations, and government agencies.
Despite eBay’s outstanding growth performance, the company still faced a number of challenges in both domestic and international markets. The low entry barriers in the online marketplace attracted a number of large dot-com competitors, including Amazon, Yahoo, uBid, and Overstock. Historically, the company had acquired other online competitors, such as Stubhub (tickets), but established players such as Yahoo and Amazon posed a major threat to eBay’s market share and ability to sustain profitability. Still, eBay’s top management felt that the company would end up as a specialty business, an idea suggesting that it would face little threat from these major competitors. The company had no plans for further big acquisitions but intended to expand and identify synergies within existing business lines.
*This case was prepared by Professor Alan B. Eisner and graduate students David J. Morates and Shruti Shrestha of Pace University. This case was solely based on library research and was developed for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2013 Alan B. Eisner.
C75
EXHIBIT 1 Income Statements (in millions, except per-share amounts; year-end December 31)
2009 2010 2011 2012
Net revenues $8,727 $9,156 $11,652 $14,072
Cost of net revenues 2,480 2,565 3,460 4,216
Gross profit 6,248 6,592 8,191 9,856
Operating expenses:
Sales and marketing 1,886 1,947 2,435 2,913
Product development 803 908 1,235 1,573
General and administrative 1,418 1,079 1,364 1,567
Provision for transaction and loan losses 383 392 517 580
Amortization of acquired intangible assets 263 190 267 335
Restructuring 38,187 21,437 (489) —
Total operating expenses 4,791 4,538 5,817 6,968
Income from operations 1,457 2,054 2,373 2,888
Interest and other income, net 1,422 45 1,537 196
Income before income taxes 2,879 2,098 3,910 3,084
Provision for income taxes (490) (297) (681) (475)
Net income $2,389 $1,801 $3,229 $2,609
Net income per share:
Basic $1.85 $1.38 $2.50 $2.02
Diluted $1.83 $1.36 2.46 1.99
Weighted average shares:
Basic 1,289 1,305 1,292 1,292
Diluted 1,304 1,327 1,312 1,313
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
eBay did however acknowledge its inability to grow and compete in certain international markets. The company created localized sites in 24 countries and established a presence in Latin America through its investment in MercadoLibre.com. However, eBay’s numerous attempts to penetrate the Asia Pacific market, specifically China and Japan, ended in failure, with the company pulling out of Japan and buying out Chinese start-up Eachnet, essentially canceling years of invested work. According to many analysts, the company’s recent interest in its South Korean rival Gmarket Inc. and joint venture with Beijing-based Tom Online were further indications that eBay couldn’t compete in these countries. To remain successful and enjoy the same financial performance as it had in the past, eBay needed to develop an effective strategy to compete in major Asian markets and mitigate the risk of existing local competitors.
Evolution of Auctions
Traditional Auctions According to Greek scribes, the first known auctions occurred in Babylon in 500 BC. At that time, women were sold on the condition of marriage, and it was considered illegal for daughters to be sold outside auctions. Auctions evolved during the French Revolution and throughout the American Civil War, where colonels auctioned goods that were seized by armies.6Although there were various types of auctions, they all provided a forum where sellers could find buyers. Auctions were considered one of the purest markets, because buyers paid what they were willing to spend for an item, thereby determining the true market value of the item. Over time, auction formats evolved, and through technological advances and improved communication they found a new home—the Internet.
C76
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C76
Online Auctions The primary difference between traditional and online auctions is that the online auction process occurs over the Internet as opposed to at a specific location where both buyers and sellers were present. Online auctions offer strategic advantages to both parties that are not typically available in traditional auctions. Buyers can select from millions of products and engage in multiple auctions simultaneously. Given the massive inventory of an online auction market, items are usually available in multiple auctions, allowing buyers to compare starting bid prices and search for better prices. Sellers are exposed to millions of buyers, since more buyers have access to the Internet and feel comfortable making purchases online. Thus, the Internet gave buyers and sellers access to a marketplace that spanned the world.
Online auctions also offer the following strategic advantages:
1. No time constraints. A bid can be placed at any time. 2. No geographic constraints. Sellers and buyers can participate from any location with Internet access. 3. Network economies. The large number of bidders attracts more sellers, which attracts more bidders, and so on. This
creates a large system that has more value for both parties. Online auctions also allow businesses to easily sell off excess inventory or discontinued items. This is done through either business-to-business (B2B) or business-to- consumer (B2C) auctions. Offering products and services in an online auction helps small businesses build their brand and reputation by establishing a devoted customer base. Finally, some businesses use the online marketplace as an inexpensive yet effective way to test-market for upcoming products.
E-Commerce
Although Vannevar Bush originally conceived the idea of the Internet in 1945, it wasn’t until the 1990s that the Internet became overwhelmingly popular. According to Internet World Stats, in June 2012 there were over 2.4 billion Internet users in over 150 countries. Exhibit 2 shows world Internet usage and population as of June 30, 2012, and Internet usage growth between 2000 and 2012.
As of 2012, North America was the region most penetrated by the Internet, with approximately 78.6 percent of the population already online. However, Internet usage growth between 2000 and 2012 was considerably less in North America than in other regions. Internet usage growth was highest in developing regions, such as Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia, where penetration was low. Considering that close to 80 percent of the world’s population resides in these areas, it is inevitable that Internet usage growth will continue to increase dramatically in these regions.
Although Asia constituted approximately 56 percent of the world’s population, its penetration rate was only 27.5 percent. Compared to other regions with high usage growth rates, such as Africa and the Middle East, Asia invested more in its technology infrastructure and contained by far the most current Internet users, making it a more attractive market.
As the usage growth of the Internet increased, so did the popularity of e-commerce. E-commerce, or electronic commerce, is the concept of conducting business transactions over the Internet. Like online auctions, e-commerce eliminates boundaries such as time and geography, allowing businesses and customers to interact with one another constantly. As more users were exposed to the Internet, they became comfortable with the idea of conducting transactions online. In correlation with Internet growth usage, revenue generated through e-commerce has increased dramatically since the 1990s.
EXHIBIT 2 World Internet Usage and Population Statistics, as of June 30, 2012
World Regions
Population (millions)
Internet Usage
(millions)
Percentage of Population Penetrated
Usage as Percentage of
World Total Usage Growth, 2000-2012(%)
Africa 1,073,380,925 167.3 15.6 7.0 3,606.7
Asia 3,922,066,987 1076.7 27.5 44.8 841.9
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Europe 820,918,446 518.5 63.2 21.5 393.4
Middle East 223,608,203 90.0 40.2 3.7 2,639.9
North America
348,280,154 273.8 78.6 11.4 153.3
Latin America
593,688,638 254.9 42.9 10.6 1,310.8
Australia 35,903,569 24.3 67.6 1.0 218.7
Total 7,017,846,922 2405.5 34.3 100.0 566.4
Source: Internet World Stats. 2012. Usage and Population Statistics, www.internetworldstats.com/.
C77
In Asia, e-commerce has grown rapidly since China’s admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO) on December 11, 2001. Induction into the WTO allowed China to conduct business with other nations more freely by reducing tariffs and eliminating market and government impediments.
Company Background
Computer programmer Pierre Omidyar founded the online auction website in San Jose, California, on September 3, 1995. Omidyar was born in Paris, France, and moved to Maryland with his family when his father took on a residency at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center. Omidyar became fascinated with computers and later graduated from Tufts University with a degree in computer science. While living and working in the San Francisco Bay area, he met his current wife, Pamela Wesley, a management consultant, who later became a driving force in launching the auction website. The couple’s vision was to establish an online marketplace where people could share the same passion and interest as Pamela had for her hobby of collecting and trading Pez candy dispensers.7Omidyar also envisioned an online auction format that would create a fair and open marketplace, where the market truly determined an item’s value. To ensure trust in the open forum, Omidyar based the site on five main values:
1. People are basically good. 2. Everyone has something to contribute. 3. An honest, open environment can bring out the best in people. 4. Everyone deserves recognition and respect as a unique individual. 5. You should treat others the way you want to be treated.
On Labor Day weekend in 1995, Omidyar launched Auction Web, an online trading platform. After the business exploded, Omidyar decided to dedicate more attention to his new enterprise and work as a consultant under the name Echo Bay Technology Group. When he tried to register a website for his company, Omidyar discovered
Echo Bay was unavailable, so he decided to use the abbreviated version eBay, which also stood for “electronic bay area.” The company’s name was also selected to attract San Francisco residents to the site and prompt them to buy and sell items.
Initially, the company did not charge fees to either buyers or sellers, but as traffic grew rapidly, Omidyar was forced to charge buyers a listing fee to cover Internet service provider costs. When Omidyar noticed that the fees had no effect on the level of bids, he realized the potential for profitability of his business. To handle and manage the company’s day- to-day operations, Omidyar hired Jeffrey Skoll (B.A.Sc. University of Toronto, MBA Stanford University). Skoll was hired as the company’s first president, and he wrote the business plan that eBay later followed from its emergence as a
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
start-up to its maturity as a financial success. The two worked out of Skoll’s living room and various Silicon Valley facilities until they eventually settled in the company’s current location in San Jose, California.
By the middle of 1997, after less than a year under the name eBay, the company was hosting nearly 800,000 auctions a day. 8Although the rapid expansion of eBay’s traffic caused the company to suffer a number of service interruptions, the site remained successful and continued to gain the confidence of its strong customer base. Skoll remained president until early 1998, when the company hired Meg Whitman as president and CEO. At the time, the company had only 30 employees and was solely located in the United States; in a decade the number of employees went up to over 15,000. In September 1998 eBay launched a successful public offering, making both Omidyar and Skoll instant billionaires. By the time eBay went public, less than three years after Omidyar had created the company, the site had more than a million registered users. The company grew exponentially in the late 1990s and, based on its 2011 performance, indicated no sign of stopping. Exhibit 3 highlights the company’s recent growth performance by segments.
Whitman stepped down as the president and CEO of the company on March 31, 2008, but remained on the board of directors. Omidyar, the chairman of the board, said this
C78
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C78
about Whitman, “With humor, smarts and unflappable determination, Meg took a small, barely known online auction site and helped it become an integral part of our lives.”9Both Omidyar and Whitman were confident that the new CEO, John Donahoe, was a good choice to lead eBay. Donahoe joined the company in 2005 as president of eBay’s largest division, Marketplaces, and within three years managed to double the revenues and profits for this business unit. Before joining eBay, Donahoe served as the CEO of Bain & Company, an international consulting firm based in Boston. 10“I’m extremely confident in John’s skills and the abilities of John’s veteran management team,” Meg Whitman commented on the transition. 11
EXHIBIT 3 eBay Growth (in millions, year-end December 31)
Supplemental Operating Data 2010 2011 2012
Marketplace Segment:
Gross merchandise volume* $61,819 $60,332 $67,763
Payments Segment:
Net total payment volume† $91,956 $118,758 $144,937
*Total value of all successfully closed items between users on eBay Marketplaces trading platforms during the period, regardless of whether the buyer and seller actually consummated the transaction.
†Total dollar volume of payments, net of payment reversals, successfully completed through eBay payments network or on Bill Me Later accounts during the period, excluding the payment gateway business.
Source: eBay Inc., www.ebayinc.com/.
Whitman’s confidence appears to have been well-founded. In 2012, after 4 years on the job as CEO, Donahoe had helped eBay make impressive progress. Although eBay’s financial outlook was not dreadful when Donahoe took over in March 2008, there was a growing perception that its growth was beginning to decline and that its run as the leader of the e-commerce industry was behind it, as Amazon began to make strides toward becoming the next best thing. During the global financial crisis, eBay’s stock had fallen to almost $10 per share in February 2009, far below the optimistic price of $58 that it reached in 2004. Since 2009, however, the stock has been on a stable uptrend, more than doubling during a 12- month period from 2011 to 2012 and closing at almost $49 in November 2012. “What John Donahoe has accomplished over the past few years is one of the most remarkable feats in the valley’s history,” said Gil Luria, an analyst at Wedbush Securities. So what has the new CEO done to spurt this turnaround? Luria noted that eBay began investing more in technology and was willing to take risks regarding altering the look and feel of the platform’s shopping experience. 12
eBay Now was also implemented to offer same-day delivery of products from online and offline merchants in San Francisco. ThinkEquity analyst Ron Josey wrote, “We view eBay Now as one of the most innovative products eBay has launched in some time.” The new service functions as a mobile app, one representation of Donahoe’s vision for eBay to begin embracing the increasing trend of mobile and offline shopping. “We’ve gone from competing in a $500 billion e-commerce market to now a $10 trillion retail market,” Donahoe recently told analysts. 13
eBay Platforms
eBay’s overall strategy comprised three primary components: products, sense of community, and aggressive expansion. All three components evolved around the various geographic and specialty platforms the company introduced.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Product Categories eBay had an array of product categories and trading platforms that offered a range of pricing formats, such as fixed pricing. Relatively new for the company, establishing a fixed-price format allowed eBay to compete directly with major competitors such as Amazon.com and penetrate new market space. Before fixed pricing, selling prices were solely determined by the highest auction bid, and this took days or weeks, depending on the length of the auction. eBay’s different trading platforms also offered distinct services and target-specific market niches, which allowed eBay to broaden its customer base. The platforms included:
• PayPal: Founded in 1998 and acquired by eBay in 2002, PayPal enabled individuals to securely send payments quickly and easily online. PayPal was considered the global leader in online payments, with tens of millions of registered users. In 2011 Paypal’s president, Scott Thompson, expected revenue to double to $6 billion to $7 billion by 2013. He also predicted that 75 percent to 80 percent of eBay transactions will be done through PayPal by 2013, up from 69 percent in 2010.14
• Rent.com: Acquired by eBay in February 2005, Rent.com was the most visited online apartment listing service in the United States, with more than 20,000 properties listed.
• Online classifieds: By 2009, eBay had the world-leading portfolio of online classifieds sites, including Kijiji, Intoko, Gumtree, LoQUo.com, Marktplaats.nl, and mobile.de. CEO John Donahoe said, “We are the global leader in classifieds, with top positions in Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, and sites in more than 1,000 cities across 20 countries.”15
• Shopping.com: With thousands of merchants and millions of products and reviews, Shopping.com empowered consumers to make informed choices, which drove value for merchants.
• Stubhub.com: StubHub was an online marketplace for selling and purchasing tickets for sports events, concerts, and other live entertainment events.
• eBay Express: eBay Express behaved like a standard Internet shopping site but gave sellers access to over 200 million buyers worldwide. Sellers could design product categories within minutes, and buyers could purchase from multiple sellers by using a single shopping cart.
• eBay Motors: This specialty site was considered the largest marketplace for automobile buyers and sellers. Buyers could purchase anything from automobile parts to new or antique vehicles.
• Skype: Acquired by eBay in October 2005, Skype was the world’s fastest-growing online communication solution, allowing free video and audio communication between users of Skype software. By November 2009, Skype connected more than 480 million registered users.16
Sale of Skype: eBay’s acquisition of Skype was expected to enhance the customer experience by improving
C79
communication between buyers and sellers. When it acquired Skype, eBay said it hoped the service would support its auctions and its PayPal payment service by letting buyers and sellers discuss transactions. But eBay users were not so chatty. In November 2009 eBay sold Skype to a group led by Silver Lake Partners, a private equity firm in Silicon Valley. The deal was made at $2.75 billion, with eBay retaining a 30 percent stake. Mr. Donahoe said eBay did not regret having bought Skype when company executives believed eBay was in a mortal struggle with Google, which was also pursuing the service. He said the spinoff would allow eBay to focus on its core e-commerce and online payment businesses and avoid extra distractions. “We don’t regret having done this at all. We compete in a dynamic market, and you have to move quickly and take risks,” Mr. Donahoe said. “When we bought Skype we thought it had synergies with our other two businesses, and it turns out it did not. But it also turned out that it’s a great stand-alone business.” 17
In May 2011, Microsoft agreed to buy Skype for $8.5 billion from Silver Lake. eBay said it will earn more than a 50 percent return from the firm’s initial investment of $2.6 billion in Skype six years earlier. “With this sale, we have realized a total return of $1.4 billion on our original investment in Skype,” said John Pluhowski, a spokesman for eBay. Considering that eBay had bought Skype in a heavily criticized deal in 2005 and that it was considered a failed acquisition, the latest Microsoft agreement turned out to be good news for eBay, making eBay one of the big winners in the Microsoft and Skype deal.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Sense of Community The underlying key to all eBay sites and trading platforms was creating trust between sellers and buyers. The company created “community values,” and this was why eBay users were willing to send money to strangers across the country. The Feedback Forum was created in February 1996 and encouraged users to post comments about trading partners. Originally, Omidyar handled disputes between buyers and sellers via email by putting the disputing parties in touch with each other to resolve the issue themselves. He soon realized that an open forum where users could post opinions and feedback about one another would create the trust and sense of community the site required. Buyers and sellers were encouraged to post comments (positive, negative, or neutral) about each other at the completion of each transaction. The individual feedback was recorded and amended to a user profile, which ultimately established a rating and reputation for each buyer and seller. eBay users could view this information before engaging in a transaction. The company believed that the feedback forum was critical for creating initial user acceptance for purchasing and selling over the Internet and that it contributed more than anything else to eBay’s success.
Aggressive Expansion To compete effectively and create a global trading platform, the company continued to develop in U.S. and international markets that utilized the Internet. With intense competition in the online auction industry, eBay aimed to increase market share and revenue through acquisitions and partnerships in related and unrelated businesses. For example:
• In June 2000 eBay acquired Half.com for $318 million.
• In August 2001 eBay acquired MercadoLibre, Lokau, and iBazar, Latin American auction sites.
• On August 13, 2004, eBay took a 25 percent stake in Craigslist, an online network of urban communities.
• In September 2005 eBay invested $ 2 million in the Meetup social networking site.
• In August 2006 eBay announced international cooperation with Google.
• In January 2007 eBay acquired online ticket marketplace Stubhub for $310 million.
• In June 2010 eBay acquired RedLaser, a mobile application that would let customers scan bar codes to list items faster on its online auction site and to compare prices.18
• In December 2010 eBay acquired Milo, a leading local shopping engine that provides consumers access to accurate, real-time, local store inventory and pricing, giving them even more choices and flexibility when shopping online.19
• In December 2010 eBay acquired Critical Path Software Inc., a developer of smartphone applications, to accelerate its lead in mobile20 commerce.
Company Business Model
eBay’s business model was based on a person-to-person marketplace on the Internet, where sellers conveniently listed items for sale and interested buyers bid on these items. The objective was to create a forum that allowed buyers and sellers to come together in an efficient and effective manner. The business model overcame the inefficiencies of traditional fragmented marketplaces, which tended to offer a limited variety of goods. According to former CEO Meg Whitman, the company started with commerce and what grew out of that was a community, essentially creating a community-commerce model.21The company’s success relied primarily on establishing a trustworthy environment that attracted a large number of buyers and sellers. As eBay’s reputation grew, so did the number of buyers and sellers, keeping the company in line with Omidyar’s original vision. However, as new competitors entered the online auction business and the popularity of the Internet increased, eBay tweaked its business model to accommodate changes in the fast-paced environment.
The company was aggressively expanding globally and looking for new products and services to offer to
C80
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C80
customers. It was also looking closely at the kind of merchants who sold on eBay. In the beginning, eBay focused on a consumer-to-consumer business model, but since some of the individuals became small dealers, the model changed to a mix of consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer. The sellers wanted to maintain their business on eBay, since it was their most profitable distribution channel. eBay wanted new ways to generate revenue as a result of more small dealers and businesses selling their products through the company’s website.
eBay generated revenue through three main channels: marketplaces, payments, and, until 2009, communications. Marketplaces, which generated revenue by charging sellers a fee for every item they sold, accounted for over 65 percent of the company’s revenue. As of December 2011 marketplace revenue was approximately $6.6 billion of the company’s $11.65 billion total revenue. Another $4.4 billion of the company’s revenue came from fees charged through electronic payments made through the company website, primarily via PayPal. The newest source of revenue, until November 2009, was communications (Skype), which produced $620 million of the company’s revenue for that year. Although free, Skype generated revenue through its premium offerings, such as making and receiving calls to and from landline and mobile phones, as well as voice mail, ring tones, and call forwarding. Exhibit 4 shows the company’s recent revenue performance by type.
In addition to the primary revenue sources, there were specific elements of eBay’s business model that made the company a success. eBay’s dominance of the online auction market and the large number of buyers, sellers, and listed items were primary reasons for eBay’s tremendous growth. The trust and safety programs, such as the Feedback Forum, continued to attract and retain new and current eBay users. The cost-effective and convenient trading, coupled with the strong sense of
EXHIBIT 4 Net Revenues by Type (in millions, except percentage changes)
Year Ended December 31, 2010
Year Ended December 31, 2011
Year Ended December 31, 2012
Net Revenues by Type:
Net transaction revenues
Marketplaces 4,800 5,431 6,078
Payments 3,261 4,123 5,146
GSI — 460 850
Total net transaction revenues 8,061 10,014 12,074
Marketing services and other revenues
Marketplaces 921 1,211 1,320
Payments 174 289 428
GSI — 130 233
Total marketing services and other revenues
1,095 1,638 2,020
Total net revenues $9,156 $11,652 $14,072
Net Revenues by Segment:
Marketplaces $5,721 6,642 7,398
Payments 3,436 4,412 5,574
GSI — 598 1,730
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Total net revenues $9,157 $11,652 $14,072
Net Revenues by Geography:
U.S. $4,214 5,484 6,778
International 4,942 6,168 7,294
Total net revenues $9,156 $11,652 $14,072
Source: eBay Inc., www.ebayinc.com/.
C81
community, added further value to the company’s business model. However, as the company continued to grow and new trends evolved, eBay had to continue to adjust its model to remain competitive.
International Expansion
As competition intensified in the online auction industry, eBay expanded its international presence in an effort to create an online global marketplace. Gradually, eBay localized sites in the following countries:
• Asia Pacific: Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.
• Europe: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
• North America: Canada and the United States.
In many of the international websites, eBay provided local language and currency options to gain popularity and ensure the sense-of-community feeling. In most cases, eBay expanded its business by either acquiring or forming a partnership with a local company, as it recently has done with Xiu.com in its re-entry into the Chinese market. This strategy helped eBay better understand local cultures and ensure that the company was meeting specific local needs. This approach proved successful with the company’s equity investment in MercadoLibre.com, which targeted Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. At the end of 2006, MercadoLibre. com reported 18 million registered users who performed 15.8 million transactions worth $1.1 billion.22Other notable international growth acquisitions are listed below.
Asia Pacific • Acquired China-based Eachnet for approximately $150 million. eBay’s failure to manage the company resulted in
its recent partnership with communications company Tom Online.
• Acquired all outstanding shares of India’s Baazee.com, which later became eBay India.
• Acquired Korean rival Internet Auction Co. by purchasing nearly 3 million shares. Acquisition has not proved successful due to intense competition from top Korean auction site Gmarket.
Europe • Acquired Alando auction house for $43 million, a company that later became eBay Germany. Alando was
previously considered Germany’s leading online trading company. Germany became eBay’s second-largest market, accounting for 21 percent of the company’s total listings.
• Acquired Dutch competitor Marktplaats.nl, which had 80 percent of the Netherlands market share.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
• Acquired Sweden’s leading online auction company, Tradera.com, for $48 million.
• Acquired Denmark’s leading online classifieds businesses, Den Bla Avis and BilBasen, for $390 million.23
For the most part, eBay was successful in expanding in Europe and Latin America, where it was able to quickly adapt to local needs through its partners. The company was also successful in countries it expanded to from the ground up, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. In 2007 the United Kingdom accounted for 15.5 percent of eBay’s total listings. By engaging the local community in these countries, eBay customized its sites to meet specific local needs while providing access to the online global community.
eBay was considered the leader in each of its markets with the exception of Japan and China, in which it struggled repeatedly to gain market share. In 2002 eBay was forced to pull out of Japan due to rising costs and intense competition by rival Yahoo Japan. eBay also faced fierce competition in Korea, where Gmarket, another investment of Yahoo, dominated the market.
Despite its lack of success in local Asian markets, eBay continued its attempts to expand into the region, recognizing the tremendous growth potential that was available. In June 2006 eBay formed a joint venture with PChome Online in Taiwan. PChome Online was an Internet service provider in Taiwan, with more than 10 million members.24 The company offered services such as Internet portal, e-commerce platform, and telecommunications. The move was expected to provide eBay with the local e-commerce expertise it needed to launch a new trading website that catered to the needs of Taiwan’s Internet users.
In 2006 eBay emphasized its commitment to the Chinese e-commerce market by announcing a new joint venture with Beijing-based Tom Online Inc. Tom Online, which primarily sold cell phone add-on services, such as ring tones and avatars, put in $20 million for a 51 percent share and management control of eBay’s online China site, Eachnet.25In 2002 eBay had purchased a 30 percent stake in Eachnet and within a year bought out local investors. Central management control of Eachnet was maintained in eBay’s San Jose, California, location. Many believed the move to partner with Tom Online was a result of eBay’s failure to adapt to local needs and successfully compete with China’s online auction market leader, Taobao, which controlled approximately 70 percent of the market. Jack Ma, the chief executive of Alibaba.com, Taobao’s parent company, believed eBay’s failure in China was due to an inability to build a community effect in the country, which, according to Ma, begins with customer satisfaction. Ma also felt that since eBay had to adhere to a global platform, meeting specific local needs was difficult because changes
C82
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C82
at a global level had to be approved in the United States, which further limited the company’s ability to produce a website tailored to the Chinese market.26
In April 2009 eBay secured agreements to buy a 67 percent stake of South Korea’s Gmarket in a deal estimated to be worth $1.2 billon. The move was part of Donahoe’s effort to increase revenue in coming years. It was expected that Gmarket would help eBay’s push into Asia.27
Competitors
As eBay’s product offerings and pricing formats evolved, so did its range of competitors. Originally, the company faced competition from alternative auctions or other venues for collectors, such as flea markets and garage sales. However, as the company grew and introduced fixed pricing, the range of competitors included large companies like Walmart and Kmart that also had retail websites. eBay’s product platforms, like eBay Motors, put the company in direct competition with auto dealers and other online auto sites, such as Autobytes. Still, eBay faced the harshest competition from major online companies, including Yahoo and Amazon, which also had online auctions that rivaled eBay’s.
Yahoo! eBay’s larger online competitor was Yahoo, which also had a strong global presence, particularly in Asian markets. Yahoo originally started as a search engine and quickly evolved to include additional products and services, such as Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Maps, and Yahoo! Messenger. The company also offered e-commerce services through Yahoo! Shopping, Yahoo! Autos, Yahoo! Auctions, and Yahoo! Travel. Like eBay, Yahoo’s e-commerce sites allowed users to obtain relevant information and make transactions and purchases online. However, Yahoo’s business model primarily focused on generating revenue through search advertising. In the United States, in response to potential threats from web giant Google, Yahoo and eBay formed an alliance in which Yahoo utilized eBay’s payment system, PayPal, and eBay gained additional advertising through Yahoo searches. Still, Yahoo posed a major competitive threat in foreign markets, particularly the Asia Pacific area, through its partnerships with Gmarket and Taobao.
Gmarket Yahoo’s stake in Korean auction site Gmarket proved successful, with more than 17.2 million unique visitors. Founded in 2000, Gmarket was a Korean online auction and shopping-mall website that generated its revenue by charging a fee based on selling price.28Like Taobao, Gmarket offered fixed prices and provided an option to negotiate prices with sellers on an exclusive basis. This allowed buyers to conduct deals instantly instead of waiting until bids were completed. Gmarket also offered cheaper listings. These options, along with constant new features, allowed Gmarket to dominate the Korean online auction industry.29
Gmarket frequently introduced new marketing initiatives to provide sellers with various options to attract new customers. Gmarket grew financially powerful in 2006 when it launched its IPO, and Yahoo purchased a 9 percent stake in the company.
In 2009 eBay decided to secure an interest in its rival and was granted approval to purchase a combined 67 percent stake in Gmarket from Interpark Corp. and its chairman. In May 2010 eBay announced that it intended to work with Gmarket’s founder to expand Gmarket’s presence in Japan and Singapore. Lorie Norrington, president of eBay Marketplaces commented, “This joint venture is a sign of our continued commitment to help grow and lead ecommerce across Asia by offering more opportunities for sellers and extraordinary buying experiences for consumers.”30
Taobao In 2005 Yahoo entered a strategic partnership with Alibaba.com, Taobao’s parent company, which created an instant threat in the Chinese market. The move created one of the largest Internet companies in China, one with a leading position in business-to-business e-commerce, consumer e-commerce, and online payments. Like Gmarket, Taobao
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
offered buyers and sellers quick and convenient ways to conduct business. Its instant messaging and fixed price arrangements allowed transactions to be conducted quickly. In 2006 the company partnered with Intel to offer customers a wireless platform. This further improved communication and convenience when customers were conducting transactions. In 2011 Taobao was eBay’s largest competitor in China, controlling over 80 percent of the Chinese online auction market.31
In early 2010 eBay announced the partnership of Paypal with China UnionPay, a local intrabank card system operator, which would make it accessible for customers to make online purchases from overseas. This move was made to challenge Alipay, a unit of Alibaba Group, which controlled about 50 percent of the market. This partnership would allow international retailers to sell to a large base of Chinese customers, who, combined, held 2.1 billon China UnionPay cards.32”After years of being the export hub for the world, now China is open for business as an import e-commerce market,” said Scott Thompson, president of PayPal. “PayPal’s partnership with China UnionPay removes an important friction point that exists across borders, and we are thrilled to eliminate the payments barrier so merchants can welcome millions of new Chinese customers to their sites.”33
Amazon Despite not having a huge presence in the online auction industry, Amazon was still considered a fierce online global competitor. Amazon started as Earth’s biggest bookstore and rapidly evolved to selling everything, including toys, electronics, home furnishings, apparel, health and beauty aids, groceries, and so on. Still, books, CDs, and
C83
DVDs accounted for more than 65 percent of the firm’s sales. Although Amazon had a large international presence, the company’s linkage to brick-and-mortar shops in the United States made it a greater threat locally than in foreign markets. Amazon’s international local sites were in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, France, and China. Despite its large online presence, Amazon scaled back its online auction business, cutting staff and shutting down Livebid, as part of an overall corporate restructuring.
The Future of eBay
eBay had a number of opportunities in which it had already taken action. By 2011, eBay had made a number of strategic acquisitions that included Rent.com, international classified websites, Stubhub.com, and Shopping.com. These acquisitions added to and complemented eBay’s product offerings and further diversified the company’s targeted market. With increased competition from Google and other major online companies, eBay had to continue to diversify and provide depth in its product offerings to remain competitive. Creating options and targeting distinct market niches would enable eBay to distinguish itself from competitors. This was particularly important because, as e-commerce and Internet usage rates continued to grow, so would the market opportunity for eBay. Because of its market-leading brand, eBay was in a unique position to capture a significant share of the market at an early stage.
eBay could also expand its existing products and services, such as PayPal. The product was relatively new and had the potential to grow and attract new customers, especially in international markets. Expanding PayPal into international markets would enable eBay to provide a simple way to conduct transactions across market borders. Considering the growth potential in developing markets, such as those in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, expanding PayPal would attract many new customers, thus increasing eBay’s revenue base. In line with e-commerce growth, as more customers felt comfortable with conducting transactions online, PayPal had the potential to be the preferred form of payment over the Internet.
However, for eBay to capitalize on these opportunities, the company would have to overcome the challenges of expanding into large foreign markets such as China and Japan. With almost 79 percent of the North American population using the Internet and only a 27.5 percent usage rate in the Asia Pacific area, eBay had a tremendous opportunity to expand and gain new customers. Considering that the Asia Pacific region had more than 50 percent of the world’s population and was experiencing some of the largest online usage growth percentages in the world, tapping into this market was critical for eBay to expand.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
eBay’s operations in China remained small compared to Alibaba Group and other Chinese e-commerce companies, but the company had refocused its energies on export-oriented merchants in China who wanted to reach overseas buyers on its international websites.34Experts viewed eBay’s strategy of forming a partnership with former rival
Alibaba Group as the best way to generate sales from China. All hopes were on Paypal’s acceptance by Chinese partners who were looking to expand international sales. It was critical for eBay to partner with local Chinese companies rather than going alone in the world’s biggest Internet market in order to proceed in the local market.
ENDNOTES 1. Internet World Stats. 2010. Internet Usage Statistics. www.intemetwortdstats.com/stats.htm. 2. Wauters, Robin. 2012, eBay Style: Ecommerce giant inks deal with Chinese fashion site Xiu.com, The Next Web,
http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/11/12/ebay-style-ecommerce-giant-inks-deal-with-chinese-fashion-site-xiu-com/. 3. Galante, J. 2010. PayPal teams with China UnionPay to challenge Alipay. Bloomberg News, March 17, www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=newsarchive&sid=au4i5vaUlMNQ. 4. Mark Greeven, Shengyun Yang, Tao Yue, Eric van Heck and Barbara Krug. March 12, 2012. How Taobao bested Ebay in China. Financial
Times, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52670084-6c2c-11e1-b00f-00144feab49a.html#axzz2E2E0o7wP. 5. Mark Greeven, Shengyun Yang, Tao Yue, Eric van Heck and Barbara Krug. March 12, 2012. How Taobao bested Ebay in China. Financial
Times, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52670084-6c2c-11e1-b00f-00144feab49a.html#axzz2E2E0o7wP.. 6. Doyle, R. A. 2002. The history of auctions. Auctioneer, November 1, www.absoluteauctionrealty.com/history_detail.php?id=5094. 7. Internet Based Moms. 2007. Pierre Omidyar—the man behind eBay. April. 8. Academy of Achievement. 2005. Biography—Pierre Omidyar. November 9, www.achievement.org. 9. eBay Inc. 2008. Meg Whitman to step down.
10. eBay corporate website, ebayinc.com. 11. eBay Inc. 2008. Meg Whitman to step down. 12. O’Brien, Chris. November, 4 2012. Is eBay’s John Donahoe the best CEO in Silicon Valley?. Mercurynews.com,
http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien/ci_21908264/obrien-is-ebays-john-donahoe-best-ceo-silicon 13. O’Brien, Chris. November, 4 2012. Is eBay’s John Donahoe the best CEO in Silicon Valley? Mercurynews.com,
http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien/ci_21908264/obrien-is-ebays-john-donahoe-best-ceo-silicon 14. Galante, J. 2011. PayPal’s revenue will double by 2013, Thompson says. Bloomberg News, February 10,
www.businessweek.com/=news/2011-02-10/paypal-s-revenue-will-double-by-2013-thompson-says.html. 15. eBay Inc. 2008. eBay Inc. buys leading payments and classifieds businesses, streamlines existing organization to improve growth. Press
release, October 6, www.ebayinc.com/content/press_release/20081006005605. 16. eBay Inc. 2009. Annual report. 17. Stone, B. 2009. In a sale, Skype wins a chance to prosper. New York Times, September 1,
www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/technology/companies/02ebay.html?_r=1. 18. MacMillan, D. 2010. EBay buys bar-code app. Bloomberg Businessweek, June 23,
www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc20100623_901174.htm. 19. eBay Inc. 2010. eBay acquires Milo, a leading local shopping engine. Press release, December 2,
www.ebayinc.com/content/press_release/20101202006358. 20. eBay Inc. 2010. eBay acquires industry leading mobile application developer. Press release, December 15,
www.ebayinc.com/content/press_release/20101215006520.
C84
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C85
CASES
CASE 14 MICROFINANCE
Going Global … and Going Public?*
In the world of development, if one mixes the poor and nonpoor in a program, the nonpoor will always drive out the poor, and the less poor will drive out the more poor, unless protective measures are instituted right at the beginning.
-Dr. Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank1
More than 2.5 billion people in the world earn less than $2.50 a day. None of the developmental economics theories have helped change this situation. Less than $2.50 a day means that these unfortunate people have been living without clean water, sanitation, or sufficient food to eat, or a proper place to sleep. In Southeast Asia alone, more than 500 million people live under these circumstances. In the past, almost every effort to help the very poor has been either a complete failure or at best partially successful. As Dr. Yunus argues, in every one of these instances, the poor will push the very poor out!
In 1972 Dr. Muhammad Yunus, a young economics professor trained at Vanderbilt, returned home to Bangladesh to take a position at Chittagong University. Upon his arrival, he was struck by the stark contrast between the developmental economics he taught in the classroom and the abject poverty of the villages surrounding the university. Dr. Yunus witnessed more suffering of the poor when, in 1974, inclement weather wiped out food crops and resulted in a widespread and prolonged famine. The theories of developmental economics and the traditional banking institutions, he concluded, were completely ineffectual for lessening the hunger and homelessness among the very poor of that region.
In 1976 Dr. Yunus and his students were visiting the poorest people in the village of Jobra to see whether they could directly help them in any way. They met a group of craftswomen making simple bamboo stools. After paying for their raw materials and financing, the women were left with a profit of just two cents per day. From his own pocket, Dr. Yunus gave $27 to be distributed among 42 craftswomen and rickshaw (human-driven transport) drivers. Little did he know that this simple act of generosity was the beginning of a global revolution in microfinance that would eventually help millions of impoverished and poor begin a transition from destitution to economic self-sufficiency. Dr. Yunus was convinced that a nontraditional approach to financing is the only way to help the very poor to help themselves.
The Grameen Project would soon follow—it officially became a bank under the law in 1983. The poor borrowers own 95 percent of the bank, and the rest is owned by the Bangladeshi government. Loans are financed through deposits only, and there are 8.35 million borrowers, of which 97 percent are women. There are over 2,500 branches serving around 81,000 villages in Bangladesh with a staff of more than 22,000 people. Since its inception, the bank has dispersed more than $10 billion, with a cumulative loan recovery rate of 97.38 percent. The Grameen Bank has been profitable every year since 1976 except three years and pays returns on deposits up to 100 percent to its members.2In 2006 Dr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank shared the Nobel Peace Prize for the concept and methodology of microfinance, also known as micro- credit or microloans.3
What Is Microfinance? Microfinance involves a small loan (US $20-$750) with a high rate of interest (0 to 200 percent), typically provided to poor or destitute entrepreneurs without collateral.4 A traditional loan has two basic components captured by interest rates: (1) risk of future payment, and (2) present value (given the time value of money). Risk of future payments is particularly high when dealing with the poor, who are unlikely to have familiarity with credit. To reduce this uncertainty, many
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
microfinance banks refuse to lend to individuals and only lend to groups. Groups have proven to be an effective source of “social collateral” in the microloan process.
In addition to the risk and time value of money, the value of a loan must also include the transaction costs associated with administering the loan. A transaction cost is the cost associated with an economic exchange and is often considered the cost of doing business.i For banks like the Grameen Bank, the cost of administering ($125) a small loan may exceed the amount of the small loan itself ($120). These transaction costs have been one of the major deterrents for traditional banks.
*This case was developed by Brian C. Pinkham, LL.M., and Dr. Padmakumar Nair, both from the University of Texas at Dallas. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for class discussion. Copyright © 2011 Brian C. Pinkham and Padmakumar Nair.
Consider a bank with $10,000 to lend. If broken into small loans ($120), the available $10,000 can provide about 83 transactions. If the cost to administer a small loan ($120) is $125, its cost per unit is about 104 percent (!),
C86
while the cost of one $10,000 loan is only 1.25 percent. Because of the high cost per unit and the high risk of future payment, the rate of interest assigned to the smaller loan is much higher than the larger loan.
Finally, after these costs are accounted for, there must be some margin (or profit). In the case of microfinance banks, these margins are split between funding the growth of the bank (adding extra branches) and returns on deposits for bank members. This provides even the poorest bank member a feeling of “ownership.”
Microfinance and Initial Public Offerings With the global success of the microfinance concept, the number of private microfinance institutions exploded. Today there are more than 7,000 microfinance institutions, and their profitability has led many of the larger institutions to consider whether or not to “go public.” Many microfinance banks redistribute profits to bank members (the poor) through returns on deposits. Once the bank goes public through an initial public offering (IPO), however, there is a transfer of control to public buyers (typically investors from developed economies). This transfer creates a fiduciary duty of the bank’s management to maximize value for the shareholders.6
For example, Banco Compartamos (Banco) of Mexico raised $467 million in its IPO in 2007. The majority of buyers were leading investment companies from the United States and United Kingdom—the geographic breakdown of the investors was 52 percent U.S., 33 percent Europe, 5 percent Mexico, and 10 percent other Latin American countries. Similarly, Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) raised $480 million in its IPO by listing on multiple stock exchanges in 2003; with the majority of investors who purchased the available 30 percent interest in the bank were from the United States and United Kingdom. The Indonesian government controls the remaining 70 percent stake in BRI. In Kenya, Equity Bank raised $88 million in its IPO in late 2006. Because of the small scale of Equity Bank’s initial listing on the Nairobi Stock Exchange, the majority of the investors were from Eastern Africa.7About one-third of the investors were from the European Union and United States.8
Banco Compartamos9
Banco started in 1990 as a nongovernmental organization (NGO). At the time, population growth in Latin America and Mexico outpaced job growth. This left few job opportunities within the largest population group in Mexico—the low- income. Banco recognized that the payoffs for high-income opportunities were much larger (dollars a day), relative to low-income opportunities that may only return pennies a day. Over the next 10 years, Banco offered larger loans to groups and individuals to help bridge the gap between these low-income and high-income opportunities. However, their focus is to serve low-income individuals and groups, particularly the women who make up 98 percent of Banco’s members.
The bank offers two microfinance options available to women only. The first is the credito mujer (women’s credit). This loan ranges from $115-$2,075, available to groups (12-50) of women. Maturity is four months, and payments are weekly or biweekly.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
If a group of women demonstrates the ability to manage credit through the credito mujer, they have access to credito mejora tu casa (home-improvement loans). This loan ranges from $230-$2,300 with a 6- to 24-month maturity. Payments are either biweekly or monthly.
The average interest rate on these loans is 80 percent. Banco focuses on loans to groups of women and requires the guarantee of the group—every individual in the group is held liable for the payment of the loan. This provides a social reinforcement mechanism for loan payments typically absent in traditional loans. The bank also prefers groups because they are more likely to take larger loans. This has proven effective even in times of economic downturn, when banks typically expect higher demand for loans and lower recovery of loans.
In 2009, with Mexico still reeling from the economic recession of 2008, Banco provided financing to 1.5 million Mexican households. This represented a growth of 30 percent from 2008. The core of the financing was credito mujer, emphasizing the bank’s focus on providing services for the low-income groups. The average loan was 4.6 percent of GDP per capita ($440), compared with an average loan of 54 percent of GDP per capita ($347) at the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.10With pressure from the economic downturn, Banco also reduced its cost per client by more than 5 percent, and continues (in late 2010) to have a cost per client under $125.
Consider two examples of how these microloans are used. Julia Gonzalez Cueto, who started selling candy door-to- door in 1983, used her first loan to purchase accessories to broaden the image of her business. This provided a stepping stone for her decision to cultivate mushrooms and nopales (prickly pear leaves) to supplement her candy business. She now exports wild mushrooms to an Italian restaurant chain. Leocadia Cruz Gomez has had 16 loans, the first in April 2006. She invested in looms and thread to expand her textile business. Today, her workshop has grown, she is able to travel and give classes, and her work is widely recognized.
Beyond the Grameen Bank These are just a few examples of how capitalistic free-market enterprises have helped the world to progress. It is generally accepted that charitable contributions and government programs alone cannot alleviate poverty. More resources and professional management are essential for microfinance institutions to grow further and sustain their mission. An IPO is one way to achieve this goal when deposits alone cannot sustain the demand for loans. At the same time, investors expect a decent return on their investment, and this expectation might work against the most
C87
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C87
important goal of microfinancing, namely, to help the very poor. Dr. Yunus has recently reemphasized his concern of the nonpoor driving out the poor, and talks about microfinance institutions seeking investments from “social-objective- driven” investors with a need to create a separate “social stock market.”11
The Grameen Bank story, and that of microfinancing, and the current enthusiasm in going public raise several concerns. Institutions like the Grameen Bank have to grow and sustain a long-run perspective. The Grameen Bank has not accepted donor money since 1998 and does not foresee a need for donor money or other sources of external capital. The Grameen Bank charges four interest rates, depending on who is borrowing and for what purpose the money is being used: 20 percent for income-generating loans, 8 percent for housing loans, 5 percent for student loans, and interest-free loans for struggling members (unsympathetically called beggars). (Although these rates would appear to be close to what U.S. banks charge, we must point out that the terms of these loans are typically three or four months. Thus, the annualized interest rates would be four or five times the aforementioned rates.)
The Grameen Bank’s “Beggars-As-Members” program is a stark contrast to what has been theorized and practiced in contemporary financial markets—traditional banking would assign high-risk borrowers (like beggars) the highest interest rate compared to more reliable borrowers who are using the borrowed money for generating income. Interestingly, the loan recovery rate is 79 percent from the “Beggars-As-Members” program, and about 20,000 members (out of 110,000) have left begging completely.12However, it is difficult to predict the future, and it is possible that the Grameen Bank might consider expanding its capital base by going public just like its Mexican counterpart.
Most developmental economists question the wisdom of going public, because publicly traded enterprises are likely to struggle to find a balance between fiduciary responsibilities and social good.13The three large IPOs mentioned above (Banco, BRI, and Equity First) all resulted in improved transparency and reporting for stockholders. However, the profits, which were originally distributed to bank members as returns on deposits, are now split between bank members (poor) and stockholders (made up of mostly EU and U.S. investors). Many of these microfinance banks are feeling the pressure of NGOs and bank members requesting lower interest rates.14This trend could potentially erode the large profit margins these banks currently enjoy. When faced with falling profits, publicly traded microfinance institutions will have to decide how best to provide financial services for the very poor and struggling members of the society without undermining their fiduciary duties to stockholders.
ENDNOTES 1. Yunus, M. 2007. Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle against world poverty. New York: PublicAffairs. 2. The Grameen Bank removes funding for administration and branch growth from the initial profits and redistributes the remaining profits to
bank members. This means that a poor bank member who deposits $1 in January may receive up to $1 on December 31! Grameen Bank, www.grameen-info.org.
3. Grameen Bank, www.grameen-info.org. 4. Microfinance banks vary to the extent that the rates of interest are annualized or specified to the term. Grameen Bank, for instance, annualizes
the interest on its microloans. However, many other banks set a periodic rate where, in extreme cases, interest may accrue daily. Grameen Bank, www.grameen-info.org.
5. Chapter 6, pages 213–214. 6. Khavul, S. 2010. Microfinance: Creating opportunities for the poor? Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3): 58–72. 7. Equity Bank, www.equitybank.co.ke. 8. Rhyne, E., & Guimon, A. 2007. The Banco Compartamos initial public offering, Accion: InSight, no. 23: 1-17. resources.
centerforfinancialinclusion.org/insight/IS23en.pdf. 9. Unless otherwise noted, this section uses information from Banco Compartamos, www.compartamos.com.
10. We calculated all GDP per capita information as normalized to current (as of 2010) U.S. dollars using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) website, www.imf.org. The estimated percentages are from Banco Compartamos, www.compartamos.com.
11. Yunus. 2007. Banker to the poor. 12. Grameen Bank, www.grameen-info.org. 13. Khavul. 2010. Microfinance. 14. Rhyne & Guimon. 2007. The Banco Compartamos initial public offering.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C88
CASES
CASE 15 MCDONALD’S*
Although McDonald’s earnings for the fourth quarter of 2012 beat expectations, the world’s largest restaurant chain stated that it will continue to face considerable challenges in 2013. During 2012, the firm reported the first monthly same-store sales decline in nine years, reflecting the effect of the shaky global economy (see Exhibits 1 and 2). On January 23, 2013, Chief Executive Don Thompson, who had stepped into the job just six months before, told investors, “More specifically, growth in the informal eating-out industry has been relatively flat to declining around the world and we expect that to continue.”1
The dip in sales figures came as a surprise to most analysts, because McDonald’s had managed to show consistent performance since 2003, leading to a surge in operating profits and stock price over almost a decade. Most of this could be attributed to the “Plan to Win,” which was first outlined by James R. Cantalupo, who came out of retirement to guide McDonald’s after overexpansion had caused the chain to lose focus. The core of the plan was to increase sales at existing locations by improving the menu, refurbishing the outlets, and extending hours.
In spite of management changes, McDonald’s has remained committed to pushing on various aspects of this plan. The chain has continued to expand its menu over the years, with more sandwiches and salads. It also started to add snacks and drinks, two of the few areas where restaurant sales have still been growing in spite of the economic downturn. Its addition of specialty coffee, ice-cold frappes, and fruit smoothies in its newly added McCafes has helped boosted the average spent by each customer and lured them to its outlets for snacks during slower parts of the day.
Nevertheless, McDonald’s is aware that it is facing a rapidly fragmenting market, where consumers are looking for healthier and even more exotic foods. The chain is facing tougher competition from Burger King and Wendy’s, both of which have been adding to their menus and remodeling their outlets. At the same time, McDonald’s is also losing customers to chains such as Subway, Chipotle, and Taco Bell, which had not previously been viewed as strong competitors. Many analysts therefore believe that the chain must continue to work on its turnaround strategy in order to meet these challenges.
*Case developed by Professor Jamal Shamsie, Michigan State University, with the assistance of Professor Alan B. Eisner, Pace University. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for purposes of class discussion. Copyright © 2013 Jamal Shamsie and Alan B. Eisner.
Thompson has been monitoring pricing in order to make sure the menu stays affordable even though commodity prices have been rising. He believes that the chain was hurt by its increased emphasis on the Extra Value Menu that included items priced higher than a dollar. It has since shifted its focus back to the Dollar Menu, which has continued to generate almost 15 percent of total sales. Steven Kron, an analyst with Goldman Sachs, emphasized the attractiveness of the firm’s
EXHIBIT 1 Income Statements
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Year Ending*
2 Dec. 31, 2012 Dec. 31, 2011 Dec. 31, 2010
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
3 Total revenue 27,567 27,006 24,075
4 Gross profit 10,816 10,687 9,637
5 Operating income 8,605 8,528 7,473
6 EBIT 8,596 8,505 7,451
7 Net income 5,465 5,503 4,946
*Figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: McDonald’s.
EXHIBIT 2 Balance Sheets*
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Year Ending*
2 Dec 31, 2012 Dec 31, 2011 Dec 31, 2010
3 Current assets 4,922 4,403 4,368
4 Total assets 35,386 32,990 31,975
5 Current liabilities 3,403 3,509 2,925
6 Total liabilities 20,093 18,600 17,341
7 Stockholder equity 15,294 14,390 14,634
*Figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: McDonald’s.
C89
affordable Dollar Menu: “When people are seeking value, these guys have a very powerful component.”2
Experiencing a Downward Spiral Since it was founded more than 50 years ago, McDonald’s has been defining the fast-food business. It provided millions of Americans their first jobs even as it changed their eating habits. It rose from a single outlet in a Chicago suburb to become one of the largest chains of outlets spread around the globe. But it gradually began to run into various problems which began to slow down its sales growth (see Exhibit 3).
EXHIBIT 3 McDonald’s Milestones
1948 Brothers Richard and Maurice McDonald open the first restaurant in San Bernadino, California, that sells hamburgers, fries, and milk shakes.
1955
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Ray A.Kroc, 52, opens his first McDonald’s in Des Plaines, Illinois. Kroc, a distributor of milk shake mixers, figures he can sell a bundle of them if he franchises the McDonald’s business and installs his mixers in the new stores.
1961 Kroc buys out the McDonald brothers for $2.7 million.
1963 Ronald McDonald makes his debut as corporate spokesclown, using future NBC-TV weatherman Willard Scott. During the year, the company also sells its 1 billionth burger.
1965 McDonald’s stock goes public at $22.50 a share. It will split 12 times in the next 35 years.
1967 The first McDonald’s restaurant outside the U.S. opens in Richmond, British Columbia. Today there are 31,108 McDonald’s in 118 countries.
1968 The Big Mac, the first extension of McDonald’s basic burger, makes its debut and is an immediate hit.
1972 McDonald’s switches to the frozen variety for its successful french fries.
1974 Fred L. Turner succeeds Kroc as CEO. In the midst of a recession, the minimum wage rises to $2 per hour, a big cost increase for McDonald’s, which is built around a model of young, low-wage workers.
1975 The first drive-through window is opened in Sierra Vista, Arizona.
1979 McDonald’s responds to the needs of working women by introducing Happy Meals. A burger, some fries, a soda, and a toy give working moms a break.
1987 Michael R. Quinlan becomes chief executive.
1991 Responding to the public’s desire for healthier foods, McDonald’s introduces the low-fat McLean Deluxe burger. It flops and is withdrawn from the market. Over the next few years, the chain stumbles several times trying to spruce up its menu.
1992 The company sells its 90 billionth burger and stops counting.
1996 To attract more adult customers, the company launches its Arch Deluxe, a “grownup” burger with an idiosyncratic taste. As with the low-fat burger, it falls flat.
1997 McDonald’s launches Campaign 55, which cuts the cost of a Big Mac to $0.55. It is a response to discounting by Burger King and Taco Bell. The move, which prefigures similar price wars in 2002, is widely considered a failure.
1998 Jack M. Greenberg becomes McDonald’s fourth chief executive. A 16-year company veteran, he vows to spruce up the restaurants and their menu.
1999 For the first time, sales from international operations outstrip domestic revenues. In search of other concepts, the company acquires Aroma Cafe, Chipotle, Donatos, and, later, Boston Market.
2000 McDonald’s sales in the U.S. peak at an average of $1.6 million annually per restaurant, a figure that has not changed since. It is, however, still more than at any other fast-food chain.
2001 Subway surpasses McDonald’s as the fast-food chain with the most U.S. outlets. At the end of the year it had 13,247 stores, 148 more than McDonald’s.
2002 McDonald’s posts its first-ever quarterly loss, of $343.8 million. The stock drops to around $13.50, down 40% from five years earlier.
2003 James R. Cantalupo returns to McDonald’s in January as CEO. He immediately pulls back from the company’s 10%-15% forecast for per-share earnings growth.
2004 Charles H. Bell takes over the firm after the sudden death of Cantalupo. He states that he will continue with the strategies developed by his predecessor.
2005 Jim Skinner takes over as CEO after Bell retires for health reasons.
2006 McDonald’s launches specialty beverages, including coffee-based drinks.
2008 McDonald’s plans to add McCafes to each of its outlets.
2012 Don Thompson succeeds Jim Skinner as CEO of the chain.
Source: McDonald’s.
C90
This decline could be attributed in large part to a drop in McDonald’s once-vaunted service and quality since its expansion in the 1990s, when headquarters stopped grading franchises for cleanliness, speed, and service. By the end of the decade, the chain ran into more problems because of the tighter labor market. McDonald’s began to cut back on training as it struggled to find new recruits, leading to a dramatic falloff in the skills of its employees. According to a 2002 survey by market researcher Global Growth Group, McDonald’s came in third in average service time behind Wendy’s and sandwich shop Chick-fil-A Inc.
McDonald’s also began to fail consistently with its new product introductions, such as the low-fat McLean Deluxe and Arch Deluxe burgers, both of which were meant to appeal to adults. It did no better with its attempts to diversify beyond burgers, often because of problems with the product development process. Consultant Michael Seid, who managed a franchise consulting firm in West Hartford, pointed out that McDonald’s offered a pizza that didn’t fit through the drive-through window and salad shakers that were packed so tightly that dressing couldn’t flow through them.
In 1998, after McDonald’s posted its first-ever decline in annual earnings, CEO Michael R. Quinlan was forced out and replaced by Jack M. Greenberg, a 16-year veteran of the firm. Greenberg cut back on McDonald’s expansion as he tried to deal with some of the growing problems. But his efforts to deal with the decline of McDonald’s were slowed down by his acquisition of other fast-food chains such as Chipotle Mexican Grill and Boston Market.
On December 5, 2002, after watching McDonald’s stock slide 60 percent in three years, the board ousted Greenberg. He had lasted little more than two years. His short tenure had been marked by the introduction of 40 new menu items, none of which caught on big, and the purchase of a handful of nonburger chains, none of which helped the firm to sell more burgers. Indeed, his critics say that by trying so many different things and executing them poorly, Greenberg allowed the burger business to continue with its decline. According to Los Angeles franchisee Reggie Webb, “We would have been better off trying fewer things and making them work.”3
Pushing for a Turnaround By the beginning of 2003, consumer surveys were indicating that McDonald’s was headed for serious trouble. Measures for the service and quality of the chain were continuing to fall, dropping far behind those of its rivals. In order to deal with its deteriorating performance, the firm decided to bring back retired Vice chairman James R. Cantalupo, 59, who had overseen McDonald’s successful international expansion in the 1980s and 1990s. Cantalupo, who had retired only a year earlier, was perceived to be the only candidate with the necessary qualifications, despite shareholder sentiment for an outsider. The board felt that it needed someone who knew the company well and could move quickly to turn things around.
Cantalupo realized that McDonald’s often tended to miss the mark on delivering the critical aspects of consistent, fast, and friendly service and an all-around enjoyable experience for the whole family. He understood that its franchisees and employees alike needed to be inspired as well as retrained on their role in putting the smile back into the McDonald’s experience. When Cantalupo and his team laid out their turnaround plan in 2003, they stressed getting the basics of service and quality right, in part by reinstituting a tough “up or out” grading system that would kick out underperforming franchisees. “We have to rebuild the foundation. It’s fruitless to add growth if the foundation is weak,” said Cantalupo.4
To begin with, Cantalupo cut back on the opening of new outlets, focusing instead on generating more sales from its existing outlets. He shifted the company’s emphasis to obtaining most of its revenue growth from increasing sales in the over 30,000 outlets that were already operating around the world (see Exhibits 4 through 6). In part, McDonalds tried to draw more customers by introducing new products. And it seemed to be working. The chain had a positive response to its increased emphasis on healthier foods, led by a revamped line of fancier salads. The revamped menu was promoted through a worldwide ad slogan, “I’m loving it,” which was delivered by pop idol Justin Timberlake through a set of MTV-style commercials.
EXHIBIT 4 Number of Outlet;
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
A B C D
1 Number of Outlets
2 Total Company Owned Franchised
3 2012 34,480 6,598 27,882
4 2011 33,510 6,435 27,075
5 2010 32,737 6,399 26,338
6 2009 32,478 6,262 26,216
7 2008 31,967 6,502 25,465
Source: McDonald’s.
But the biggest success for the firm came in the form of the McGriddles breakfast sandwich, which was launched nationwide in June 2003. The popular new offering consisted of a couple of syrup-drenched pancakes, stamped with the Golden Arches, which acted as the top and bottom of the sandwich to hold eggs, cheese, sausage, and bacon in three different combinations.
McDonald’s has estimated that the new breakfast addition has been bringing in about one million new customers every day.
C91
EXHIBIT 5 Distribution of Outlet
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F
1 Distribution of Outlets
2 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
3 U.S. 14,157 14,098 14,027 13,980 13,918
4 Europe 7,368 7,156 6,969 6,785 6,628
5 Asia Pacific 9,454 8,865 8,424 8,488 8,255
6 Americas* 3,501 3,391 3,317 3,225 3,166
*Canada & Latin America.
Source: McDonald’s.
EXHIBIT 6 Breakdown of Revenue
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
A B C D E F
1 Breakdown of Revenues*
2 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
3 U.S. 8,814 8,529 8,116 7,043 8,048
4 Europe 10,827 10,886 9,569 9,273 9,923
5 Asia Pacific 6,391 6,019 5,065 4,337 4,231
6 Americas† 1,535 1,572 1,328 1,190 1,290
*Figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
†Canada & Latin America.
Source: McDonald’s.
With his efforts largely directed at a turnaround strategy for McDonald’s, Cantalupo decided to divest the nonburger chains that his predecessor had acquired. Collectively lumped under the Partner Brands, these have consisted of Chipotle Mexican Grill and Boston Market. The purpose of these acquisitions had been to find new growth and to offer the best franchises new expansion opportunities. But these acquired businesses had not fuelled much growth and had actually posted considerable losses in recent years.
Striving for Healthier Offerings When Jim Skinner took over from Cantalupo in 2004, he felt that one of his top priorities was to deal with the growing concerns about the unhealthy image of McDonald’s, given the rise of obesity in the U.S. These concerns were highlighted in the popular documentary Super Size Me, made by Morgan Spurlock. Spurlock vividly displayed the health risks that were posed by a steady diet of food from the fast-food chain. With a rise in awareness of the high fat content of most of the products offered by McDonald’s, the firm was also beginning to face lawsuits from some of its loyal customers.
In response to the growing health concerns, one of the first steps taken by McDonald’s was to phase out supersizing by the end of 2004. The supersizing option allowed customers to get a larger order of French fries and a bigger soft drink by paying a little extra. McDonald’s also announced that it intended to start providing nutrition information on the packaging of its products to inform customers about the calories, fat, protein, carbohydrates, and sodium that are in each product. Finally, McDonald’s also began to remove the artery-clogging trans fatty acids from the oil that it used to make its french fries and announced plans to reduce the sodium content in all of its products by 15 percent.
At the same time, Skinner was also putting out more offerings that customers were likely to perceive to be healthier. McDonalds has continued to build upon its white-meat chicken offerings with products such as Chicken Selects. It has also emphasized its new salad offerings. McDonald’s has carried out extensive experiments and tests with these, deciding to use higher quality ingredients, from a variety of lettuces and tasty cherry tomatoes to sharper cheeses and better cuts of meat. It offered a choice of Newman’s Own dressings, a well-known higher-end brand. “Salads have changed the way people think of our brand,” said Wade Thoma, vice president for menu development in the U.S. “It tells people that we are very serious about offering things people feel comfortable eating.”5
McDonald’s has also been trying to include more fruits and vegetables in its popular Happy Meals. It announced in 2011 that it would reduce the amount of French fries and phase out the caramel dipping sauce that accompanied the apple slices in these meals. The addition of fruits and vegetables has raised the firm’s operating costs, as these are more expensive to ship and store because of their more perishable nature. “We are doing what we can,” said Danya Proud, a spokesperson for the firm. “We have to evolve with the times.”6
C92
The current rollout of new beverages, highlighted by new coffee-based drinks, represents the chain’s biggest menu expansion in almost three decades. Under a plan to add a McCafe section to all of its nearly 14,000 U.S. outlets, McDonald’s has been offering lattes, cappuccinos, ice-blended frappes, and fruit-based smoothies to its customers. “In many cases, they’re now coming for the beverage, whereas before they were coming for the meal,” said Lee Renz, an executive who was responsible for the rollout.7
Revamping the Outlets As part of its turnaround strategy, McDonald’s has also been selling off the outlets that it owned. More than 75 percent of its outlets are now in the hands of franchisees and other affiliates. Skinner is now working with the franchisees to address the look and feel of many of the chain’s aging stores. Without any changes to their décor, the firm is likely to be left behind by other more savvy fast-food and drink retailers. The firm is pushing harder to refurbish—or reimage—all of its outlets around the world. “People eat with their eyes first,” said Thompson. “If you have a restaurant that is appealing, contemporary, and relevant both from the street and interior, the food tastes better.”8
The reimaging concept was first tried in France in 1996 by Dennis Hennequin, an executive in charge of the chain’s European operations, who felt that the effort was essential to revive the firm’s sagging sales. “We were hip 15 years ago, but I think we lost that,” he said.9 McDonald’s has been applying the reimaging concept to its outlets around the world, with a budget of more than half of its total annual capital expenditures. In the U.S., the changes cost an average of $150,000 per restaurant, a cost that is shared with the franchisees when the outlet is not company owned.
One of the prototype interiors being tested out by McDonald’s has curved counters with surfaces painted in bright colors. In one corner, a touch-activated screen allows customers to punch in orders without queuing. The interiors can feature armchairs and sofas, modern lighting, large television screens, and wireless Internet access. The firm is also developing new features for its drive-through customers, which account for 65 percent of all transactions in the U.S. They include music aimed at queuing vehicles and a wall of windows on the drive-through side of the restaurant, allowing customers to see meals being prepared from their cars.
The chain has even been developing McCafes inside its outlets next to the usual fast-food counter. The McCafe concept originated in Australia in 1993 and has been rolled out in many restaurants around the world. McDonald’s has just begun to introduce the concept to the U.S. as it refurbishes many of its existing outlets. In fact, part of the refurbishment has focused on installing a specialty beverage platform across all U.S. outlets. The cost of installing this equipment is running at about $100,000 per outlet, with McDonald’s subsidizing part of this expense.
Eventually, all McCafes will offer espresso-based coffee, gourmet coffee blends, fresh baked muffins, and high-end desserts. Customers will be able to consume these while they relax in soft leather chairs listening to jazz, big band, or blues music. Commenting on this significant expansion of offerings, Marty Brochstein, executive editor of The Licensing Letter, said, “McDonald’s wants to be seen as a lifestyle brand, not just a place to go to have a burger.”10
More Gold in These Arches? Even though McDonald’s recovered from the drop in monthly same-store sales, there were questions about the future of the fast-food chain. The firm was trying out a variety of strategies to increase its appeal to different segments of the market. Through a mix of outlet décor and menu items, McDonald’s attempted to target young adults, teenagers, children, and families. In so doing, it had to ensure that it did not alienate any one of these groups in its efforts to reach out to the other.
Its marketing campaign anchored around the catchy phrase “I’m loving it,” took on different forms in order to target each of the groups that it was seeking. Larry Light, who was the head of global marketing at McDonald’s that pushed for this new campaign, insisted that the firm had to exploit its brand through pushing it in many different directions. The brand could be positioned differently in different locations, at different times of the day and to target different customer segments. In large urban centers, McDonald’s could target young adults for breakfast with its gourmet coffee, egg sandwiches, and fat-free muffins. Light explained the adoption of such a multiformat strategy by saying, “The days of mass-media marketing are over.”11
McDonald’s continued to expand its menu through offerings that performed well in test markets. Its introduction of Cheddar Bacon Onion sandwiches represented an alternative to its traditional line-up of hamburger and chicken items. More recently, the chain tried out Fish McBites, using the same Alaskan Pollock as in its fish sandwiches. Nevertheless,
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
the expansion of the menu beyond the staple of burgers and fries does raise some fundamental questions. Most significantly, it is not clear just how far McDonald’s can stretch its brand while keeping all of its outlets under the traditional symbol of its golden arches.
The long-term success of the firm may well depend on its ability to compete with rival burger chains. “The burger category has great strength,” said David C. Novak, chairman and CEO of Yum! Brands, parent of KFC and Taco Bell. “That’s America’s food. People love hamburgers.”12 But Thompson was under pressure to take more aggressive
C93
action to reenergize the world’s largest fast-food chain. Scott Rothbort, president of an asset management firm that had invested heavily in McDonald’s, said that the verdict on Thompson’s performance was still pending: “What will be the deciding factor is how he deals with some of these short-term setbacks.”13
ENDNOTES 1. Jargon, J. 2013. McDonald’s issues cautious forecast. Wall Street Journal, January 24: B4. 2. Adamy, J. 2009. McDonald’s to expand, posting strong results. Wall Street Journal, January 27: B1. 3. Gogoi, P., & Arndt, M. 2003. Hamburger hell. BusinessWeek, March 3: 106. 4. Gogoi & Arndt. 2003. Hamburger hell: 105. 5. Warner, M. 2005. You want any fruit with that Big Mac? New York Times, February 20: 8. 6. Strom, S. 2011. McDonald’s trims its Happy Meal. July 27: B7. 7. Adamy, J. 2008. McDonald’s coffee strategy is tough sell. Wall Street Journal, October 27: B3. 8. Paynter. B. 2010. Super style me. Fast Company, October: 107. 9. Grant, J. 2006. McDonald’s to revamp UK outlets. Financial Times, February 2: 14
10. Horovitz, B. 2003. McDonald’s ventures beyond burgers to duds, toys. USA Today, November 14: 6B. 11. Economist. 2004. Big Mac’s makeover. October 16: 65. 12. Gogoi & Arndt. 2003. Hamburger hell: 108. 13. Jargon, J. 2012. McDonald’s is feeling fried. Wall Street Journal, November 9: B2.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C88
CASES
CASE 15 MCDONALD’S*
Although McDonald’s earnings for the fourth quarter of 2012 beat expectations, the world’s largest restaurant chain stated that it will continue to face considerable challenges in 2013. During 2012, the firm reported the first monthly same-store sales decline in nine years, reflecting the effect of the shaky global economy (see Exhibits 1 and 2). On January 23, 2013, Chief Executive Don Thompson, who had stepped into the job just six months before, told investors, “More specifically, growth in the informal eating-out industry has been relatively flat to declining around the world and we expect that to continue.”1
The dip in sales figures came as a surprise to most analysts, because McDonald’s had managed to show consistent performance since 2003, leading to a surge in operating profits and stock price over almost a decade. Most of this could be attributed to the “Plan to Win,” which was first outlined by James R. Cantalupo, who came out of retirement to guide McDonald’s after overexpansion had caused the chain to lose focus. The core of the plan was to increase sales at existing locations by improving the menu, refurbishing the outlets, and extending hours.
In spite of management changes, McDonald’s has remained committed to pushing on various aspects of this plan. The chain has continued to expand its menu over the years, with more sandwiches and salads. It also started to add snacks and drinks, two of the few areas where restaurant sales have still been growing in spite of the economic downturn. Its addition of specialty coffee, ice-cold frappes, and fruit smoothies in its newly added McCafes has helped boosted the average spent by each customer and lured them to its outlets for snacks during slower parts of the day.
Nevertheless, McDonald’s is aware that it is facing a rapidly fragmenting market, where consumers are looking for healthier and even more exotic foods. The chain is facing tougher competition from Burger King and Wendy’s, both of which have been adding to their menus and remodeling their outlets. At the same time, McDonald’s is also losing customers to chains such as Subway, Chipotle, and Taco Bell, which had not previously been viewed as strong competitors. Many analysts therefore believe that the chain must continue to work on its turnaround strategy in order to meet these challenges.
*Case developed by Professor Jamal Shamsie, Michigan State University, with the assistance of Professor Alan B. Eisner, Pace University. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for purposes of class discussion. Copyright © 2013 Jamal Shamsie and Alan B. Eisner.
Thompson has been monitoring pricing in order to make sure the menu stays affordable even though commodity prices have been rising. He believes that the chain was hurt by its increased emphasis on the Extra Value Menu that included items priced higher than a dollar. It has since shifted its focus back to the Dollar Menu, which has continued to generate almost 15 percent of total sales. Steven Kron, an analyst with Goldman Sachs, emphasized the attractiveness of the firm’s
EXHIBIT 1 Income Statements
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
1 Year Ending*
2 Dec. 31, 2012 Dec. 31, 2011 Dec. 31, 2010
3 Total revenue 27,567 27,006 24,075
4 Gross profit 10,816 10,687 9,637
5 Operating income 8,605 8,528 7,473
6 EBIT 8,596 8,505 7,451
7 Net income 5,465 5,503 4,946
*Figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: McDonald’s.
EXHIBIT 2 Balance Sheets*
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Year Ending*
2 Dec 31, 2012 Dec 31, 2011 Dec 31, 2010
3 Current assets 4,922 4,403 4,368
4 Total assets 35,386 32,990 31,975
5 Current liabilities 3,403 3,509 2,925
6 Total liabilities 20,093 18,600 17,341
7 Stockholder equity 15,294 14,390 14,634
*Figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Source: McDonald’s.
C89
affordable Dollar Menu: “When people are seeking value, these guys have a very powerful component.”2
Experiencing a Downward Spiral Since it was founded more than 50 years ago, McDonald’s has been defining the fast-food business. It provided millions of Americans their first jobs even as it changed their eating habits. It rose from a single outlet in a Chicago suburb to become one of the largest chains of outlets spread around the globe. But it gradually began to run into various problems which began to slow down its sales growth (see Exhibit 3).
EXHIBIT 3 McDonald’s Milestones
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
1948 Brothers Richard and Maurice McDonald open the first restaurant in San Bernadino, California, that sells hamburgers, fries, and milk shakes.
1955 Ray A.Kroc, 52, opens his first McDonald’s in Des Plaines, Illinois. Kroc, a distributor of milk shake mixers, figures he can sell a bundle of them if he franchises the McDonald’s business and installs his mixers in the new stores.
1961 Kroc buys out the McDonald brothers for $2.7 million.
1963 Ronald McDonald makes his debut as corporate spokesclown, using future NBC-TV weatherman Willard Scott. During the year, the company also sells its 1 billionth burger.
1965 McDonald’s stock goes public at $22.50 a share. It will split 12 times in the next 35 years.
1967 The first McDonald’s restaurant outside the U.S. opens in Richmond, British Columbia. Today there are 31,108 McDonald’s in 118 countries.
1968 The Big Mac, the first extension of McDonald’s basic burger, makes its debut and is an immediate hit.
1972 McDonald’s switches to the frozen variety for its successful french fries.
1974 Fred L. Turner succeeds Kroc as CEO. In the midst of a recession, the minimum wage rises to $2 per hour, a big cost increase for McDonald’s, which is built around a model of young, low-wage workers.
1975 The first drive-through window is opened in Sierra Vista, Arizona.
1979 McDonald’s responds to the needs of working women by introducing Happy Meals. A burger, some fries, a soda, and a toy give working moms a break.
1987 Michael R. Quinlan becomes chief executive.
1991 Responding to the public’s desire for healthier foods, McDonald’s introduces the low-fat McLean Deluxe burger. It flops and is withdrawn from the market. Over the next few years, the chain stumbles several times trying to spruce up its menu.
1992 The company sells its 90 billionth burger and stops counting.
1996 To attract more adult customers, the company launches its Arch Deluxe, a “grownup” burger with an idiosyncratic taste. As with the low-fat burger, it falls flat.
1997 McDonald’s launches Campaign 55, which cuts the cost of a Big Mac to $0.55. It is a response to discounting by Burger King and Taco Bell. The move, which prefigures similar price wars in 2002, is widely considered a failure.
1998 Jack M. Greenberg becomes McDonald’s fourth chief executive. A 16-year company veteran, he vows to spruce up the restaurants and their menu.
1999 For the first time, sales from international operations outstrip domestic revenues. In search of other concepts, the company acquires Aroma Cafe, Chipotle, Donatos, and, later, Boston Market.
2000 McDonald’s sales in the U.S. peak at an average of $1.6 million annually per restaurant, a figure that has not changed since. It is, however, still more than at any other fast-food chain.
2001 Subway surpasses McDonald’s as the fast-food chain with the most U.S. outlets. At the end of the year it had 13,247 stores, 148 more than McDonald’s.
2002 McDonald’s posts its first-ever quarterly loss, of $343.8 million. The stock drops to around $13.50, down 40% from five years earlier.
2003 James R. Cantalupo returns to McDonald’s in January as CEO. He immediately pulls back from the company’s 10%-15% forecast for per-share earnings growth.
2004 Charles H. Bell takes over the firm after the sudden death of Cantalupo. He states that he will continue with the strategies developed by his predecessor.
2005 Jim Skinner takes over as CEO after Bell retires for health reasons.
2006 McDonald’s launches specialty beverages, including coffee-based drinks.
2008 McDonald’s plans to add McCafes to each of its outlets.
2012 Don Thompson succeeds Jim Skinner as CEO of the chain.
Source: McDonald’s.
C90
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C90
This decline could be attributed in large part to a drop in McDonald’s once-vaunted service and quality since its expansion in the 1990s, when headquarters stopped grading franchises for cleanliness, speed, and service. By the end of the decade, the chain ran into more problems because of the tighter labor market. McDonald’s began to cut back on training as it struggled to find new recruits, leading to a dramatic falloff in the skills of its employees. According to a 2002 survey by market researcher Global Growth Group, McDonald’s came in third in average service time behind Wendy’s and sandwich shop Chick-fil-A Inc.
McDonald’s also began to fail consistently with its new product introductions, such as the low-fat McLean Deluxe and Arch Deluxe burgers, both of which were meant to appeal to adults. It did no better with its attempts to diversify beyond burgers, often because of problems with the product development process. Consultant Michael Seid, who managed a franchise consulting firm in West Hartford, pointed out that McDonald’s offered a pizza that didn’t fit through the drive-through window and salad shakers that were packed so tightly that dressing couldn’t flow through them.
In 1998, after McDonald’s posted its first-ever decline in annual earnings, CEO Michael R. Quinlan was forced out and replaced by Jack M. Greenberg, a 16-year veteran of the firm. Greenberg cut back on McDonald’s expansion as he tried to deal with some of the growing problems. But his efforts to deal with the decline of McDonald’s were slowed down by his acquisition of other fast-food chains such as Chipotle Mexican Grill and Boston Market.
On December 5, 2002, after watching McDonald’s stock slide 60 percent in three years, the board ousted Greenberg. He had lasted little more than two years. His short tenure had been marked by the introduction of 40 new menu items, none of which caught on big, and the purchase of a handful of nonburger chains, none of which helped the firm to sell more burgers. Indeed, his critics say that by trying so many different things and executing them poorly, Greenberg allowed the burger business to continue with its decline. According to Los Angeles franchisee Reggie Webb, “We would have been better off trying fewer things and making them work.”3
Pushing for a Turnaround By the beginning of 2003, consumer surveys were indicating that McDonald’s was headed for serious trouble. Measures for the service and quality of the chain were continuing to fall, dropping far behind those of its rivals. In order to deal with its deteriorating performance, the firm decided to bring back retired Vice chairman James R. Cantalupo, 59, who had overseen McDonald’s successful international expansion in the 1980s and 1990s. Cantalupo, who had retired only a year earlier, was perceived to be the only candidate with the necessary qualifications, despite shareholder sentiment for an outsider. The board felt that it needed someone who knew the company well and could move quickly to turn things around.
Cantalupo realized that McDonald’s often tended to miss the mark on delivering the critical aspects of consistent, fast, and friendly service and an all-around enjoyable experience for the whole family. He understood that its franchisees and employees alike needed to be inspired as well as retrained on their role in putting the smile back into the McDonald’s experience. When Cantalupo and his team laid out their turnaround plan in 2003, they stressed getting the basics of service and quality right, in part by reinstituting a tough “up or out” grading system that would kick out underperforming franchisees. “We have to rebuild the foundation. It’s fruitless to add growth if the foundation is weak,” said Cantalupo.4
To begin with, Cantalupo cut back on the opening of new outlets, focusing instead on generating more sales from its existing outlets. He shifted the company’s emphasis to obtaining most of its revenue growth from increasing sales in the over 30,000 outlets that were already operating around the world (see Exhibits 4 through 6). In part, McDonalds tried to draw more customers by introducing new products. And it seemed to be working. The chain had a positive response to its increased emphasis on healthier foods, led by a revamped line of fancier salads. The revamped menu was promoted through a worldwide ad slogan, “I’m loving it,” which was delivered by pop idol Justin Timberlake through a set of MTV-style commercials.
EXHIBIT 4 Number of Outlet;
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Number of Outlets
2 Total Company Owned Franchised
3 2012 34,480 6,598 27,882
4 2011 33,510 6,435 27,075
5 2010 32,737 6,399 26,338
6 2009 32,478 6,262 26,216
7 2008 31,967 6,502 25,465
Source: McDonald’s.
But the biggest success for the firm came in the form of the McGriddles breakfast sandwich, which was launched nationwide in June 2003. The popular new offering consisted of a couple of syrup-drenched pancakes, stamped with the Golden Arches, which acted as the top and bottom of the sandwich to hold eggs, cheese, sausage, and bacon in three different combinations.
McDonald’s has estimated that the new breakfast addition has been bringing in about one million new customers every day.
C91
EXHIBIT 5 Distribution of Outlet
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F
1 Distribution of Outlets
2 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
3 U.S. 14,157 14,098 14,027 13,980 13,918
4 Europe 7,368 7,156 6,969 6,785 6,628
5 Asia Pacific 9,454 8,865 8,424 8,488 8,255
6 Americas* 3,501 3,391 3,317 3,225 3,166
*Canada & Latin America.
Source: McDonald’s.
EXHIBIT 6 Breakdown of Revenue
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F
1 Breakdown of Revenues*
2 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
3 U.S. 8,814 8,529 8,116 7,043 8,048
4 Europe 10,827 10,886 9,569 9,273 9,923
5 Asia Pacific 6,391 6,019 5,065 4,337 4,231
6 Americas† 1,535 1,572 1,328 1,190 1,290
*Figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
†Canada & Latin America.
Source: McDonald’s.
With his efforts largely directed at a turnaround strategy for McDonald’s, Cantalupo decided to divest the nonburger chains that his predecessor had acquired. Collectively lumped under the Partner Brands, these have consisted of Chipotle Mexican Grill and Boston Market. The purpose of these acquisitions had been to find new growth and to offer the best franchises new expansion opportunities. But these acquired businesses had not fuelled much growth and had actually posted considerable losses in recent years.
Striving for Healthier Offerings When Jim Skinner took over from Cantalupo in 2004, he felt that one of his top priorities was to deal with the growing concerns about the unhealthy image of McDonald’s, given the rise of obesity in the U.S. These concerns were highlighted in the popular documentary Super Size Me, made by Morgan Spurlock. Spurlock vividly displayed the health risks that were posed by a steady diet of food from the fast-food chain. With a rise in awareness of the high fat content of most of the products offered by McDonald’s, the firm was also beginning to face lawsuits from some of its loyal customers.
In response to the growing health concerns, one of the first steps taken by McDonald’s was to phase out supersizing by the end of 2004. The supersizing option allowed customers to get a larger order of French fries and a bigger soft drink by paying a little extra. McDonald’s also announced that it intended to start providing nutrition information on the packaging of its products to inform customers about the calories, fat, protein, carbohydrates, and sodium that are in each product. Finally, McDonald’s also began to remove the artery-clogging trans fatty acids from the oil that it used to make its french fries and announced plans to reduce the sodium content in all of its products by 15 percent.
At the same time, Skinner was also putting out more offerings that customers were likely to perceive to be healthier. McDonalds has continued to build upon its white-meat chicken offerings with products such as Chicken Selects. It has also emphasized its new salad offerings. McDonald’s has carried out extensive experiments and tests with these, deciding to use higher quality ingredients, from a variety of lettuces and tasty cherry tomatoes to sharper cheeses and better cuts of meat. It offered a choice of Newman’s Own dressings, a well-known higher-end brand. “Salads have changed the way people think of our brand,” said Wade Thoma, vice president for menu development in the U.S. “It tells people that we are very serious about offering things people feel comfortable eating.”5
McDonald’s has also been trying to include more fruits and vegetables in its popular Happy Meals. It announced in 2011 that it would reduce the amount of French fries and phase out the caramel dipping sauce that accompanied the apple slices in these meals. The addition of fruits and vegetables has raised the firm’s operating costs, as these are more expensive to ship and store because of their more perishable nature. “We are doing what we can,” said Danya Proud, a spokesperson for the firm. “We have to evolve with the times.”6
C92
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C92
The current rollout of new beverages, highlighted by new coffee-based drinks, represents the chain’s biggest menu expansion in almost three decades. Under a plan to add a McCafe section to all of its nearly 14,000 U.S. outlets, McDonald’s has been offering lattes, cappuccinos, ice-blended frappes, and fruit-based smoothies to its customers. “In many cases, they’re now coming for the beverage, whereas before they were coming for the meal,” said Lee Renz, an executive who was responsible for the rollout.7
Revamping the Outlets As part of its turnaround strategy, McDonald’s has also been selling off the outlets that it owned. More than 75 percent of its outlets are now in the hands of franchisees and other affiliates. Skinner is now working with the franchisees to address the look and feel of many of the chain’s aging stores. Without any changes to their décor, the firm is likely to be left behind by other more savvy fast-food and drink retailers. The firm is pushing harder to refurbish—or reimage—all of its outlets around the world. “People eat with their eyes first,” said Thompson. “If you have a restaurant that is appealing, contemporary, and relevant both from the street and interior, the food tastes better.”8
The reimaging concept was first tried in France in 1996 by Dennis Hennequin, an executive in charge of the chain’s European operations, who felt that the effort was essential to revive the firm’s sagging sales. “We were hip 15 years ago, but I think we lost that,” he said.9 McDonald’s has been applying the reimaging concept to its outlets around the world, with a budget of more than half of its total annual capital expenditures. In the U.S., the changes cost an average of $150,000 per restaurant, a cost that is shared with the franchisees when the outlet is not company owned.
One of the prototype interiors being tested out by McDonald’s has curved counters with surfaces painted in bright colors. In one corner, a touch- activated screen allows customers to punch in orders without queuing. The interiors can feature armchairs and sofas, modern lighting, large television screens, and wireless Internet access. The firm is also developing new features for its drive-through customers, which account for 65 percent of all transactions in the U.S. They include music aimed at queuing vehicles and a wall of windows on the drive-through side of the restaurant, allowing customers to see meals being prepared from their cars.
The chain has even been developing McCafes inside its outlets next to the usual fast-food counter. The McCafe concept originated in Australia in 1993 and has been rolled out in many restaurants around the world. McDonald’s has just begun to introduce the concept to the U.S. as it refurbishes many of its existing outlets. In fact, part of the refurbishment has focused on installing a specialty beverage platform across all U.S. outlets. The cost of installing this equipment is running at about $100,000 per outlet, with McDonald’s subsidizing part of this expense.
Eventually, all McCafes will offer espresso-based coffee, gourmet coffee blends, fresh baked muffins, and high-end desserts. Customers will be able to consume these while they relax in soft leather chairs listening to jazz, big band, or blues music. Commenting on this significant expansion of offerings, Marty Brochstein, executive editor of The Licensing Letter, said, “McDonald’s wants to be seen as a lifestyle brand, not just a place to go to have a burger.”10
More Gold in These Arches? Even though McDonald’s recovered from the drop in monthly same-store sales, there were questions about the future of the fast-food chain. The firm was trying out a variety of strategies to increase its appeal to different segments of the market. Through a mix of outlet décor and menu items, McDonald’s attempted to target young adults, teenagers, children, and families. In so doing, it had to ensure that it did not alienate any one of these groups in its efforts to reach out to the other.
Its marketing campaign anchored around the catchy phrase “I’m loving it,” took on different forms in order to target each of the groups that it was seeking. Larry Light, who was the head of global marketing at McDonald’s that pushed for this new campaign, insisted that the firm had to exploit its brand through pushing it in many different directions. The brand could be positioned differently in different locations, at different times of the day and to target different customer segments. In large urban centers, McDonald’s could target young adults for breakfast with its gourmet coffee, egg sandwiches, and fat-free muffins. Light explained the adoption of such a multiformat strategy by saying, “The days of mass-media marketing are over.”11
McDonald’s continued to expand its menu through offerings that performed well in test markets. Its introduction of Cheddar Bacon Onion sandwiches represented an alternative to its traditional line-up of hamburger and chicken items. More recently, the chain tried out Fish McBites, using the same Alaskan Pollock as in its fish sandwiches. Nevertheless, the expansion of the menu beyond the staple of burgers and fries does raise some fundamental questions. Most significantly, it is not clear just how far McDonald’s can stretch its brand while keeping all of its outlets under the traditional symbol of its golden arches.
The long-term success of the firm may well depend on its ability to compete with rival burger chains. “The burger category has great strength,” said David C. Novak, chairman and CEO of Yum! Brands, parent of KFC and Taco Bell. “That’s America’s food. People love hamburgers.”12 But Thompson was under pressure to take more aggressive
C93
action to reenergize the world’s largest fast-food chain. Scott Rothbort, president of an asset management firm that had invested heavily in McDonald’s, said that the verdict on Thompson’s performance was still pending: “What will be the deciding factor is how he deals with some of these short-term setbacks.”13
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
ENDNOTES 1. Jargon, J. 2013. McDonald’s issues cautious forecast. Wall Street Journal, January 24: B4. 2. Adamy, J. 2009. McDonald’s to expand, posting strong results. Wall Street Journal, January 27: B1. 3. Gogoi, P., & Arndt, M. 2003. Hamburger hell. BusinessWeek, March 3: 106. 4. Gogoi & Arndt. 2003. Hamburger hell: 105. 5. Warner, M. 2005. You want any fruit with that Big Mac? New York Times, February 20: 8. 6. Strom, S. 2011. McDonald’s trims its Happy Meal. July 27: B7. 7. Adamy, J. 2008. McDonald’s coffee strategy is tough sell. Wall Street Journal, October 27: B3. 8. Paynter. B. 2010. Super style me. Fast Company, October: 107. 9. Grant, J. 2006. McDonald’s to revamp UK outlets. Financial Times, February 2: 14
10. Horovitz, B. 2003. McDonald’s ventures beyond burgers to duds, toys. USA Today, November 14: 6B. 11. Economist. 2004. Big Mac’s makeover. October 16: 65. 12. Gogoi & Arndt. 2003. Hamburger hell: 108. 13. Jargon, J. 2012. McDonald’s is feeling fried. Wall Street Journal, November 9: B2.
C94
CASES
CASE 16 THE MOVIE EXHIBITION INDUSTRY 2013*
It is apt that 2012’s top grossing film was The Avengers, for movie studios and exhibitors sought to avenge a dismal prior year at the box office. Domestic box office receipts climbed 6 percent from 2011 to a record setting $10.8 billion.1 Three films, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and Skyfall grossed more than $1 billion each in global ticket sales (Exhibit 1). Behind the scenes, the success, even the fundamental health of the exhibition industry, is far less clear. Consider these contradictions:
*This case was prepared by Professor Brett P. Matherne, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Professor Steve Gove, Virginia Tech, and Professor David Thornblad, Virginia Tech. This case was developed for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2013 Brett P. Matherne, Steve Gove, and David Thornblad.
• Domestic ticket sales grew 6 percent in 2012, but that volume ranks just 13th since 1980. The 1.364 billion tickets sold is down 13 percent from the most recent high in 2002 of 1.575 (Exhibit 2).
• 2012’s record revenues resulted from ticket price increases, not more attendees. At $7.94, the average ticket price has risen 24 percent since 2005. But over the long-term, prices keep pace with inflation, raising questions about the creation of differentiated value (Exhibit 3).
• The long-term per-capita trend is negative. In 2012 the average number of films seen per capita was 3.9.2 In 1946, the peak of movie going in America, the industry sold 4 billion tickets and the typical American went to 28 films per year at the theater.
• Movies are more widely available than ever, creating new substitutes for where, when, and how to view movies.
Exhibitors are especially anxious for moviegoers to return to the theater as the industry has invested an estimated $1.6 billion to convert theaters from film to digital projection since 2005 (Exhibit 4). The main promises of digital projection are decreased distribution costs, 3D capability, and the potential to show alternative content. Despite the sizable investment, financial benefits have yet to materialize for exhibitors. Attendance decreased in 5 of the 8 years since conversion began.
EXHIBIT 1 Top 25 Releases of 2012
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
1 Top 25 Releases of 2012
2 Domestic international Total
3 Movie 3D 3D% Studio Genre MPAA Rating
Prod. Budget (mil.)
Gross (mil.) % Rank
Gross (mil.) % Rank
Gross (mil.) Rank
4 The Avengers Yes 52% Buena Vista Act Adv. PG-13 $220.0 $623.4 41% 1 $888.4 59% 1 $1,511.8 1
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
5 The Dark Knight Rises
Warner Bros.
Act Thrl PG-13 250.0 448.1 41% 2 632.9 59% 4 1,081.0 2
6 The Hunger Games LGF Act Adv. PG-13 78.0 408.0 59% 3 278.5 41% 12 686.5 9
7 Skyfall Sony Act PG-13 200.0 300.9 29% 4 737.6 71% 2 1,038.5 3
8
Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2 Summit Rom PG-13 120.0 290.8 35% 5 532.5 65% 6 823.3 6
9 The Hobbit Yes 49% Warner Bros. Fant PG-13 175.0 288.7 31% 6 632.2 69% 5 920.9 4
10 Amazing Spider-Man Yes 44% Sony Act Adv. PG-13 230.0 262.0 35% 7 490.2 65% 8 752.2 7
11 Brave Yes 32% Buena Vista Anim PG 185.0 237.3 44% 8 298.1 56% 10 535.4 11
12 Ted Universal Comedy R 50.0 218.8 43% 9 289.4 57% 11 508.2 12
13 Madagascar 3 Yes 45%
Dream Works / Paramount Anim PG 145.0 216.4 29% 10 525.7 71% 7 742.1 8
14 Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax Yes 50% Universal Anim PG 70.0 214.0 61% 11 134.8 39% 19 348.8 17
15 Wreck-It Ralph Yes 38% Buena Vista Anim PG 165.0 181.4 51% 12 173.4 49% 17 354.8 16
16 Men in Black 3 Yes Sony
Sci-F Com PG-13 225.0 179.0 29% 13 445.0 71% 9 624.0 10
17 Lincoln Buena Vista Hist. Drama PG-13 65.0 161.9 98% 14 3.3 2% 25 165.2 25
18
Ice Age: Continental Drift Yes 35% Fox Anim PG 95.0 161.2 18% 15 714.0 82% 3 875.3 5
19 Snow White & the Huntsman Universal Adv PG-13 170.0 155.3 39% 16 241.3 61% 14 396.6 14
20 Hotel Transylvania Yes Sony Anim PG 85.0 146.6 46% 17 173.8 54% 16 320.4 18
21 Taken 2 Fox Act PG-13 45.0 139.5 38% 18 232.0 62% 15 371.6 15
22 Django Unchained Weinstein West R 100.0 139.4 74% 19 48.4 26% 24 187.8 23
23 21 Jump Street Sony
Act Com. R 42.0 138.4 69% 20 63.1 31% 23 201.6 21
24 Les Miserables Universal Musc PG-13 61.0 131.8 47% 21 150.5 53% 18 282.3 19
25 Prometheus Yes 25% Fox Sci-Fi Act R 130.0 126.5 31% 22 276.9 69% 13 403.4 13
26 Safe House Universal Act Thrl R 85.0 126.4 61% 23 81.7 39% 20 208.1 20
27 The Vow
Screen Gems / Sony Drama PG-13 30.0 125.0 64% 24 71.1 36% 21 196.1 22
28 Argo Warner Bros.
Drama Thrl R 45.0 115.3 62% 25 69.3 38% 22 184.5 24
29 Total for Top 25 $2,891.0 $5,536.3 $8,184.1 $13,720.4
30 Average for Top 25 41% $115.6 $221.5 47% $327.4 53% $548.8
Notes: Data from Boxofficemojo.com, MPAA, National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), and author estimates. 3D revenue is based on opening weekend. Genres as follows: Act = Action; Adv. = Adventure, Anim = Animation; Com = Comedy; Drama = Drama; Fant = Fantasy; Hist = Historical; Musc = Musical; Rom = Romance; Sci-F = Sci-Fi; Thrl = Thriller; West = Western. Some production budgets estimated.
C95
EXHIBIT 2 Domestic Box Office Receipts and Ticket Sales, 1980–2012
Source: Boxofficemojo.com and author estimates. 3D ticket volume estimated based on reported 3D revenues, with ticket prices estimated as 30 percent premium over 2D. A portion of 2012 3D revenue and ticket volume is estimated.
EXHIBIT 3 Ticket Prices, 1980–2012
EXHIBIT 4 U.S. Theater Screens 2000–2011
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
1 U.S. Theater Screens 2000–2011
2 All Screens Analog Screens Digital Screens (incl. 3D) Digital 3D Screens
3 Year
Number of
Screens
Change from Prior Year
Number of
Screens
Change from Prior Year
As % of Total
Screens
Number of
Screens
Change from Prior Year
As % of Total
Screens
Est. Digital Invest. (mil.)
Number of
Screens
Change from Prior Year
As % of Total
Screens
As % of
Digital
Est. 3D
Invest.
4 2000 37,396 37,396 100.0%
5 2001 36,764 -1.7% 36,764 -1.7% 100.0%
6 2002 35,280 -4.0% 35,280 -4.0% 100.0%
7 2003 36,146 2.5% 36,146 2.5% 100.0%
8 2004 36,594 1.2% 36,594 1.2% 100.0%
9 2005 38,852 6.2% 38,862 6.2% 100.0% 200 0.5% $10
10 2006 38,415 -1.1% 36,412 -6.3% 94.8% 2,003 901.5% 5.2% $100
11 2007 38,974 1.5% 34,342 -5.7% 88.1% 4,632 131.3% 11.9% $256 986 2.5% 21.3% $74
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
12 2008 38,843 -0.3% 33,319 -3.0% 85.8% 5,515 19.1% 14.2% $311 1,427 44.7% 3.7% 25.9% $107
13 2009 39,233 1.0% 31,815 -4.5% 81.1% 7,418 34.5% 18.9% $453 3,269 129.1% 8.3% 44.1% $245
14 2010 39,547 0.8% 23,773 -25.3% 60.1% 15,774 112.6% 39.9% $985 7,837 139.7% 19.8% 49.7% $588
15 2011 39,641 0.2% 14,020 -41.0% 35.4% 25,621 62.4% 64.6% $1,606 13,001 65.9% 32.8% 50.7% $975
Notes: Based on author estimates and MPAA reports on number of screens. Estimated investments (cumulative) based on estimated cost of digital screen ($50,000 per installation) and digital 3D ($75,000 per installation). Digital screen counts include digital 3D.
C96
Which represents the current and future state of the movie exhibition industry: the bright lights of a red carpet Hollywood premier or a dimly lit marquee?
The Motion Picture Value Chain
The motion picture industry value chain consists of three stages: studio production, distribution, and exhibition—the theaters that show the films. All stages are undergoing consolidation and technological changes, but the basic three-phase structure is largely unchanged since the 1920s.
Studio Production The studios produce the lifeblood of the industry. They create motion picture content, and content drives attendance. Studios are highly concentrated. The top six studios in 2012 created 17 percent of the films for the year, but these films accounted for 76 percent of the box office gross (Exhibit 5). The top 10 studios constitute over 90 percent of box office receipts. This concentration, coupled with highly differentiated content, gives the studios considerable negotiating and pricing power.
Studios are increasingly managed as profit centers in large corporations. Management is risk adverse, as investments are large and a formula for success elusive. Consider the fate of two comic-book-inspired films in 2011. Warner Bros.’s Green Lantern was considered a flop, grossing $219 million ($116 million domestic, $103 internationally) and ending plans for a series. That same year Para-mount’s Thor grossed $449 million ($181 domestically, $268 internationally), giving the green light to a sequel.
Studios focus on 14–24 year olds, consistently the largest audience for movies. At just 15 percent of the U.S. population, this group purchases 21 percent of all tickets. More narrowly, 10 percent of the population are “frequent” moviegoers who attend more than one movie per month and are responsible for half of all ticket sales.3 Studios target this audience with PG and PG-13 fare, including 19 of 2012’s top 25 releases. However, domestic demographic trends are unfavorable. While the U.S. population will increase 42 percent by 2050, this core audience will increase just 35 percent (19 million) or 475 per existing screen (Exhibit 6).
The risks for studios are significant, as production costs are considerable (Exhibit 1). Studios invested $1.6 billion for the 10 films that ranked among 2012’s highest grossing, an average of $150 million per film. Costs have increased faster than inflation. In 1980 the production budget for the highest-grossing films averaged just $11 million. In the 1990s films turned to special effects, and costs reached $102 million (up 827 percent). Today, special effects alone can top $100 million for a major production. These investments are considerable, yet are no guarantee for success: Green Lantern, the flop, was made for $200 million, while the successful Thor cost $150 million.
Domestic exhibitors were once the sole distribution channel for films. This has changed dramatically. Films must increasingly cross cultural and language boundaries and appeal to the global market. Over 70 percent of U.S. studio revenues are now international (Exhibit 7). Studios see this as the primary opportunity for growth. While domestic receipts increase on flat ticket sales, both ticket sales and dollar volume are rising rapidly internationally. From 2000 to 2012, domestic receipts grew at an average of just 3 percent, while international growth averaged 13 percent annually. The studios are also changing their perspective on ticket prices in large population markets. In India, for example, attendees paid an average of just $0.50. However, Indian exhibitors sold 3.3 billion tickets in 2008. At current growth rates, the attendance volume increase each year in India alone equals total current U.S. annual admissions.4
EXHIBIT 5 Top 6 Studios/Distributors, 2012
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F G H I J K
1 Top 6 Studios/Distributors, 2012
2 2012 2000 % Change 2000–2012
3 Studio/Distributor Rank $ Share Total Gross No. of Films Rank $ Share Total Gross No. of Films Total Gross # Films
4 Sony/Columbia 1 16.6% $1,792 25 7 9.0% $682 29 163% -14%
5 Warner Bros. 2 15.4% $1,665 36 3 11.9% $905 22 84% 64%
6 Buena Vista 3 14.3% $1,551 18 1 15.5% $1,176 21 32% -14%
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
7 Universal 4 12.2% $1,324 17 2 14.1% $1,069 13 24% 31%
8 20th Century Fox 5 9.5% $1,025 19 6 9.5% $723 13 42% 46%
9 Paramount/Dream Works 6 8.5% $914 21 4 10.4% $791 12 16% 75%
10 Total for top 6 $8,273 136 $4,664 81 77% 68%
11 Industry total $10,835 795 $7,661 478 41.4% 66.3%
12 Top 6 as % of industry 76.3% 17.1% 61.4% 16.9% 24.3% 1.0%
Source: Author calculations based on data from boxofficemojocom.
C97
EXHIBIT 6 U.S. Demographic Trends
Segment % of Movie Tickets Purchased (2011)
# in 2010 (mil.)
% of Population (2010)
# in 2050 (mil.)
% of Population (2050)
# Increase
% Change
Under 5 years
21.1 7% 28.1 6% 7.0 33%
5 to 13 yrs 15% 37.1 12% 50.7 12% 13.6 37%
14 to 17 yrs 9% 17.0 5% 22.7 5% 5.7 34%
18 to 24 yrs 12% 30.7 10% 39.5 9% 8.8 29%
25 to 44 yrs 28% 83.1 27% 110.9 25% 27.8 33%
45 to 64 yrs 24% 81.0 26% 98.5 22% 17.5 22%
65 yrs+ 11% 40.2 13% 88.5 20% 48.3 120%
Total (mil.) 310.2 439.0 128.8 42%
Source: U.S. Census, 2008, Table 2, Projections of the Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for the United States: 2010 to 2050 (NP2008-T2); MPAA Theatrical Statistics; and author estimates.
EXHIBIT 7 Domestic and International Box Office Receipts ($ billions)
This trend of content internationalization shows no signs of abating. While the drama of Argo and the humor of Ted cost less to produce, they are risky in international markets. Franchise films, with known characters, made in 3D, and laden with special effects present the least content risk internationally. Yet these films carry their own risk due to large budgets. The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and Skyfall all ranked in the top 10 for worldwide gross. Combined they constituted an investment of $670 million in production costs.
As studios shift their focus to the international market, they are less dependent on domestic exhibitors. This increases the threat of disintermediation through alternative distribution channels. Studios increase revenues through product licensing, DVD sales, and international expansion, at the same time exhibitors—movie theaters—have seen their business decline.
Distribution Distributors are the intermediaries between the studios and exhibitors. Distribution entails all steps following a film’s artistic completion, including marketing, logistics, and administration. Distributors either negotiate a percentage of the gross from the studio for distribution services or purchase rights to films, profiting directly from the box office. Distributors select and market films to exhibitors’ booking agents. They handle collections, audits of attendees, and other administrative tasks. There are over 300 active distributors, but most is done by a few majors, commonly a division of the studios. Disney Pixar, for example, produced Brave, while distribution was done by Disney’s Buena Vista.
Until 2005, the distribution of all motion pictures in the U.S. entailed the physical shipment of reels of 35mm film, a process little changed from the 1940s. Each theater would receive a shipment of physical canisters containing a “release print” of a film. These prints cost $20,000–$30,000 in
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
up-front costs and $1,000–$1,500 for each print. Print costs for a modern major picture opening on 3,500 screens are $3.50–$5.25 million. This is borne by the studios and exhibitors but paid for by movie attendees.
Beginning in 2006, distributors and studios encouraged exhibitors to transition to digital projection technology. The technology works by using high-powered LCD projectors to cast the movie onto a specialized screen. In lieu of film, the movies are delivered on reusable hard
C98
drives or via satellite or high-speed Internet. The threat of piracy is a major concern for the industry, so all files are encrypted. The cost savings of digital distribution over film are considerable: The cost of each hard drive is $150, just 10 percent of the cost of physical film. Additionally, digital projection allows for consistently high-quality images, as there is no physical wear to the film, and enables the exhibition of “alternative content”—images other than motion pictures that are obtained outside of the studio system.
The transition to digital projection involves considerable capital investment. Each digital projection system can serve a single screen and costs $50,000 to $75,000, including the projector, computers and hardware, and a specialized screen. To encourage the transition, distributors offered rebates in the form of virtual print fees (VPSs) for each film received digitally. These fees, as much as 17 percent of rental costs, will expire in 2013.
Exhibition Exhibitors offer a location where audiences can view a motion picture. Early in the 20th century, studios sought vertical integration through theater ownership, giving them greater control over audiences and allowing them to capture more of the exhibition profits. This ended in 1948 with the Supreme Court’s ruling against the studios in United States v. Paramount Pictures. Theaters were soon divested from studios, leaving the two to negotiate film access and rental.
Initially fragmented with many single-theater firms, the capital required for multiscreen locations resulted in consolidation among exhibitors. Four “circuits” now dominate: Regal, AMC, Cinemark, and Carmike.5 These four operate 1,061 theaters in the U.S. (just 19 percent) but control 45 percent of the screens (Exhibit 8). This market concentration provides exhibitors with negotiating power for access to films, prices for films, prices for concessions, and greater access to revenues from national advertisers. However, the real power still rests with the studios, because of differentiated content, the ability to play rival exhibitors against each other, and the increasing potential for disintermediation.
There is, however, little differentiation in the offerings of exhibitors within a market: prices within markets differ little, the same movies are shown at the same times, and the food and service choices are nearly identical. Competition between theaters often comes down to distance from home, convenience of parking, and proximity to restaurants.
EXHIBIT 8 Leading U.S. Circuits, 2012*
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F G
1 Leading U.S. Circuits, 2012*
2 Total
Screens Total
Theaters Screens/Theater Analog (% of
Screens) Digital (% of
Screens) Digital 3D (% of
Screens)
3 AMC (AMC, Loews) 5,128 346 14.5 55.1% 44.9% 31.3%
4 Carmike (Carmike) 2,254 237 9.5 5.6% 94.4% 33.0%
5 Cinemark (Cinemark, Century) 3,878 297 13.1 0.0% 100.0% 48.0%
6 Regal (Regal, United Artists, Edwards) 6,614 527 12.6 28.6% 71.4% 42.1%
7 Total for 4 Largest Circuits 17,874 1,061 12.4 27.1% 72.9% 39.1%
8 Industry Total 39,641 5,697 6.9 35.4% 64.6% 32.8%
9 4 Largest Circuits as % of Industry
10 Total 45.1% 18.6%
*Based on screens entering fiscal 2012.
Source: Data from SEC filings, MPAA, NATO, and author estimates.
Regal, which operates its’ namesake Regal Theaters as well as United Artists and Edwards theaters, is the largest with 6,614 screens in 527 domestic theaters. Regal focuses on mid-size markets using multiplex and megaplexes that average 12 screens per location, with an average ticket price of $8.90. AMC, operating under AMC and Loews chains, is the second largest domestic exhibitor with 5,128 screens in 346 theaters. Averaging nearly 15 screens per location, AMC leads the industry in the operation of large multiplexes. They do so by concentrating on urban areas
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
near large population centers such as those in California, Florida, and Texas. By focusing on 3-D, IMAX, and other premium viewing experiences, AMC achieves the highest ticket prices, averaging $9.04. Cinemark is the 3rd largest player with 3,878 screens in nearly 300 domestic locations under Cinemark and Century brands. Cinemark serves smaller markets, operating as the sole theater in over 80 percent of its markets. Their average ticket price of $6.72 in 2012 was the lowest of the major chains. Carmike concentrates on small to midsized markets, targeting populations of less than 100,000 that have few alternative entertainment options. They do so with fewer screens at each location. With 237 theaters, they have just 2,254 screens, an average of 9.5 per location. Carmike’s ticket price averaged just $6.85. Despite the trend toward internationalization by studios, exhibitors until recently have been domestic players. Cinemark has the largest international presence, with 130 theaters (1,066 screens) in Mexico and seven Central and South American countries. In 2012 AMC, with 346 domestic theaters and 5,128 screens, was acquired by the Chinese conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group Corp.
C99
for a reported $2.6 billion.6 Wanda, with interests in property, entertainment, and tourism, owns and operates 730 screens in China responsible for 15 percent of the Chinese box office and plans to expand to 2,000 screens. The deal will make AMC the largest global exhibition company.
EXHIBIT 9 Typical Revenue and Expenses per Screen at an Eight-Screen Theater
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C
Typical Revenue and Expenses per Screen at an Eight-Screen Theater
2 REVENUES
3 Box office ($285,650/$7.94 = 35,975 admissions; 691/week/screen) $ 285,650 65%
4 Concessions ($135,250/35,975 admissions = $3.75/admission) 135,250 31%
5 Advertising ($21,500/35,975 admissions = $0.60/admission) 21,500 5%
6 Total Revenues ($12.29/admission) $ 442,400 100%
7 EXPENSES
8 Fixed
9 Facility $ 55,000 12%
10 Labor 45,000 10%
11 Utilities 52,500 12%
12 Other SG&A 67,500 16%
13 Total Fixed Costs $ 220,000 50%
14 Variable
15 Film Rental $ 155,000 54%
16 Concession Supplies 21,650 16%
17 Total Variable Costs $ 176,650 40%
18 Total Expenses $ 396,650 90%
19 Operating Income $ 45,750 10%
The Business of Exhibition
Exhibitors have three main revenue sources: box office receipts, concessions, and advertising (Exhibit 9). Managers have low discretion; their ability to influence revenues and expenses is limited. Operating margins average a slim 10 percent. The result is marginal or negative net income. Overall, the business of exhibitors is best described as loss leadership on movies: the firms make money selling concessions and showing ads to patrons who are drawn by the movie.
Box Office Revenues Ticket sales constitute two-thirds of exhibition business revenues. The return, however, is quite small because of the power of the studios. Film costs average 55 percent of box office receipts. Rental fees are based on the size of the circuit and the time and seat commitment made to a film. The
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
revenue retained by the theater increases with each week following an opening. On opening weekend, an exhibitor may pay the distributor 80–90 percent of the box office gross, retaining only 10–20 percent. In subsequent weeks the exhibitor’s portion increases. The record-setting revenues at the box office have resulted from increases in ticket prices; the majority of which has flowed back to the studios.
The complexity of booking is increasing. The majority of revenues historically come from opening weekend. In industry terminology, the “multiple” (the percentage coming after opening weekend) has been declining steadily, falling 25 percent since 2002,7 putting exhibitors at increasing risk. While exhibition used to be a question of which movie to show, it now also involves decisions as to how many theaters to allocate to analog versus digital and 2D versus 3D. All these factors plus the “make or break” nature of opening weekend complicate the exhibitor’s operations.
Concessions Moviegoers frequently lament the high prices for concessions. Concessions average around 30 percent of revenues. Direct costs of just 15 percent make concessions the largest and sometime sole source of exhibitor profit. These profits are influenced by three factors: attendance, pricing, and material costs. The most important is attendance: more attendees equals more concession sales. Per-patron sales are influenced by prices. The $4.50 and $8.00 price points for the large soda and popcorn are not accidental, but the result of market research and profit maximization calculation. Costs are influenced by purchase volume, with larger chains able to negotiation better prices on everything from popcorn and soda pop to cups and napkins.
Advertising The low margins derived from ticket sales cause exhibitors to focus on other sources of revenue. The highest margin, and therefore the most attractive, is advertising. Since 2002, advertising revenues, and the time devoted to them at the start of every feature, have increased dramatically, climbing from $186 to $644 million.8 Exhibitors also generate revenue through preshow and lobby advertising. Though this constitutes just 5 percent of revenues, it is highly profitable (i.e., revenue with no direct monetary costs) and growing. Advertising revenues for exhibitors averaged $16,245 per screen.9 Audiences, however, express dislike for advertising at the theater. Balancing the revenues from ads with audience tolerance is an ongoing struggle for exhibitors. (Exhibit 10)
C100
EXHIBIT 10 Exhibitor Advertising Revenue ($ millions)
Source: NATO press releases, 2005–2012.
Challenges for Exhibitors
Exhibitors are faced with an increasing number of challenges in their operating environment.
Benefiting from Digital Investments Exhibitors have made considerable investments in digital projection technology. At the start of 2012, two-thirds of the 39,641 screens in the U.S. had been converted to digital, with the remainder expected to be converted by 2014. The total investment by exhibitors is $1.6 billion. The benefits of this conversion should manifest themselves in lower exhibitor costs and increased revenues. To date, these do not appear to have accrued to exhibitors.
On the cost side, digital distribution dramatically reduces distribution costs when compared to physical film. Digital distribution is expected to save $1 billion annually on print costs and distribution. Yet there is little evidence to date that exhibitors will benefit from these savings. Film rental fees, which include distribution costs, have held steady despite the transition to digital. On the revenue side, exhibitors have seen significant additional per ticket revenues from surcharges for enhanced viewing experiences, primarily 3D. 3D content requires the cooperation of studios and exhibitors. For studios, 3D adds 15–20 percent to the cost of production. For exhibitors, 3D requires conversion to digital projection and the added costs for 3D-capable equipment. Among domestic digital projection systems, about half are 3D capable. The planned 2009 release of Avatar was used to spur digital installations. The film grossed $750 million domestically, with an estimated 82 percent from 3D viewings. The film was a critical and box office success, introducing audiences to a new age in 3D movies and projection. Avatar’s success led to an increase, perhaps excess, in 3D releases.
EXHIBIT 11 3D as Percentage of a Film’s Opening Weekend Receipts
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Notes: Based on news reports and author estimates. Numbers in parentheses are the number of 3D releases in a year.
The portion of opening weekend receipts from 3D movies averaged 63 percent from 2009 to 2011 (Exhibit 11). Today the 3D portion of major releases shows a worrisome trend. In 2011 only 45 percent of Kung Fu Panda 2’s box office gross came from 3D, and Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean had just 47 percent.10 In 2012 the average across all 3D films released declined to 45 percent. 3D may be an aspect of the theater experience that audiences are only occasionally willing to pay for. Some industry observers caution that the future opportunity to capitalize on 3D- driven revenues may be limited. “Certain movies are doing well in 3-D and others failing terribly,” Bob Greenfield said. “People are getting a lot choosier. I would
C101
be surprised if in 2013 and 2014 we didn’t see a more reduced slate that focuses on the films that deserve it.” Declining 3D attendance is a serious concern for exhibitors. With an average investment of $75,000, the payback period for 3D may be more than
3 years. The extent to which the conversion to digital will benefit exhibitors through cost reductions and revenue enhancement will be determined in the coming years as rental costs and 3D viewership rates are better established.
Countering the Declining Allure of the Theater Traditionally, the draw of the theater may have been far more important than what film was showing. Moviegoers describe attending the theater as an experience, with the appeal based on:11
• the giant theater screen,
• the opportunity to be out of the house,
• not having to wait to see a particular movie on home video,
• the experience of watching the movie with a theatrical sound system, and
• the theater as a location option for a date.
The ability of theaters to provide these above what audiences can achieve at home appears to be diminishing. Of the reasons why people go to the movies, only the place aspects, the theater as a place to be out of the house and as a place for dating, seem immune from substitution. Few teenagers want a movie and popcorn with their date at home with mom and dad.
The overall “experience” currently offered by theaters falls short for many. Marketing research firm Mintel reports that the reasons for not attending the theater more frequently are largely the result of the declining experience. Specific factors include: the overall cost, at-home viewing options, interruptions such as cell phones in the theater, rude patrons, the overall hassle, and ads prior to the show.12 A recent Wall Street Journal article reported on interruptions ranging from the intrusion of soundtracks in adjacent theaters to cell phones. “The interruptions capped a night of moviegoing already marred by out-of-order ticketing kiosks and a parade of preshow ads so long that, upon seeing the Coca-Cola polar bears on screen, one customer grumbled: ‘This is obscene.’“13 Recounting bad experiences is a lively topic for bloggers. A typical comment: “I say it has gotten worse. I hate paying $9.00 for a ticket and the movie is 90–100 minutes long, people talking on the cell phone, the people who work at the theaters look like they are bored, and when you ask them a question, the answer is very rude.”14
The time allocated to preshow ads can be eye opening, even for industry insiders. Toby Emmerich, New Line Cinema’s head of production, faced a not-so-common choice: attending opening night in a theater or in a screening room at actor Jim Carrey’s house. Said Emmerich in a Los Angeles Times article, “I love seeing a movie with a big crowd, but I had no idea how many obnoxious ads I’d have to endure—it really drove me crazy. After sitting through about 15 minutes of ads, I turned to my wife and said, ‘Maybe we should’ve gone to Jim Carrey’s house after all.’“15
The Home Viewing Substitution For many, home viewing is growing as a viable substitute to theater attendance because of rapid improvements and cost reductions in homeviewing technology and the widespread availability of timely and inexpensive content. The unique value proposition offered by movie theaters’ large screens, the long wait for DVD release, and advantages of theatrical sound systems are also fading.
Home Viewing Technology The average home television set is increasingly a large, high-definition set coupled with an inexpensive yet impressive audio system. Compared to home equipment options of the past, at-home technology increasingly represents a significant substitute for
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
moviegoing. Prior to 2009, television transmissions were formatted as 480 interlaced vertical lines (480i) of resolution, the standard since the 1950s. FCC-ordered changes resulted in all broadcasters converting to digital broadcasts by February 2009, setting the stage for high-definition (HD) digital broadcasts, providing up to 1080 vertical lines of resolution (1080p).16 This transition started a consumer movement to upgrade televisions. The transition also reduced the difference between home technology and the giant theater screen and sound system offered by theaters.
The average television’s size has increased dramatically, from 23 inches in 1997 to 36.8 inches in 2012. As LCD technology became the standard for both computer and television screens, manufacturing costs declined. Wholesale prices for televisions fell 65 percent from the late 1990s to 2007.17
Between 2011 and 2012 alone, the average retail price of a 32-inch TV declined from $546 to $435. Consumers, however, spend more on every television, consistently electing to purchase larger and more advanced sets. In 2012 the average TV sold for $1200.18 Features such as 3D, internet connectivity, and applications for Netflix, Hulu, and other providers are becoming common and add little to retail prices. Sharp, a leading TV manufacturer, predicts that by 2015 the average screen will reach 60 inches.19 Home viewing technology may be reaching its apex. While technologically image size and quality can continue to increase, they are limited by practical realities. The ideal distance for viewing a 42-inch TV is 5 feet, 3 inches. A 70-inch should be viewed from 8 feet, 9 inches. The full benefit of 80-inch or larger sets could be had only from a viewing distance that exceeds the size of most living rooms in which they would be installed.
C102
Large-screen televisions, low-cost high-definition DVD players, and audio and speaker components are commonly packaged as low-cost home theaters. The average Blu-ray DVD player now costs under $125 and 3D players under $150. Bundled home-theater systems offer a movie experience that rivals many theaters, all for under $1,500. Mike Gabriel, Sharp’s head of marketing and communications, stated, “People can now expect a home cinema experience from their TV. Technology that was once associated with the rich and famous is now accessible to homes across the country.20”
Content Availability & Timing The best hardware offers little value without content. Channels for renting or purchasing movies are increasing. “We’re seeing a cultural shift occurring where people are consuming their entertainment from Netflix, the iPad, Hulu,” said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Hollywood. com’s box-office division. “There’s more competition for the eyeballs of consumers.”21
Since the 1980s, studios have relied on VHS then DVD sales to fuel profits. This revenue stream fueled past studio profits, but is now declining. DVD sales peaked at $13.7 billion in 2006.22 In 2011 studio revenues from physical and digital sales totaled $9.5 billion.23 Physical DVDs are widely available, but are now exceeded by digital purchases (e.g., Apple’s iTunes and Amazon). To spur sales, studios have been consistently reducing the time period between theatrical release and the DVD release. This “release window” declined from 166 days in 2000 to 120 days in 2012. Exhibitors express concern that these declines cannibalize theater sales. Studios, meanwhile, continue to seek ways to stem declining DVD sales and increase their return on each film. Decreased sales also result in lower prices for content. DVDs average $25 with upgrades to Blu-ray HD adding $5, and 3D and a digital copy for tablet or PC viewing adding another $3 each. Each sale nets the studio $12 to $15.24 Both studios and exhibitors are facing pressure from streaming and rental services. Once dominated by physical stores, movie rentals expanded into physical DVD channels with subscription (e.g., Netflix and Blockbuster) and one-up (e.g., Redbox and Blockbuster) options as well as subscription streaming (e.g., Netflix and Hulu). These offer attractive prices for consumers but have been identified by studios as a contributing factor for declining DVD sales. Studios net about $1.25 per DVD sold to a rental company.25 This allows Netflix to offer a physical DVD subscription service of 2 DVDs out at any time for under $15 per month. Redbox’s kiosk-based rentals are attractive to occasional viewers, costing as little at $1.25 per night.
Content streaming services grew from $992 million in 2011to $2 billion in 2012.26 Streaming is among the most cost-effective movie-delivery systems for viewers and providers. Estimates put Netflix’s average streaming cost at $0.51 per viewing. This is offset by fewer content options. Apple’s iTunes provides perhaps the greatest selection, but with rentals at $4 to $6 per viewing, it emphasizes selection and HD quality over Netflix’s low cost. Streaming sufficiently cannibalized DVD sales to the point that studios imposed a 28-day delay from the DVD release date to the availability of streaming. Exhibitors expressed strong encouragement when several studios expressed a desire for a 56-day delay to increase DVD sales.
Studios are seeking to increase their share of the rental market, putting them increasingly in direct competition with exhibitors. For the studios, each current video on demand (VOD) showing contributes $3.50 in revenue, far less revenue than DVD sales.27 Studios continue to develop premium VOD as an alternative. The main feature of Premium VOD (P-VOD) is a decreased release window, including simultaneous release on films in theaters and through P-VOD. Exhibitor’s threatened a boycott due to Universal’s plan for a P-VOD release of Tower Heist just three weeks after it opened in theaters. The plan was scrapped due to the threats. While exhibitors won that battle, the potential revenues from the planned $59.99 premium VOD will remain attractive to the studios.
Premium cable networks (e.g., HBO, Starz, etc.) offer both a programmed line-up of movies, albeit at scheduled times and with monthly subscriptions, but at low per-viewing rates. All major cable and satellite providers offer VOD services and carry multiple channels focusing on films. Overall, the availability of content and the visual and audio experience available in the home is rapidly converging with the offerings available at a movie theater. As a blogger on the movie fan site Big Picture posted:
I used to go to the movies all the time-Even my blog is called the Big Picture. Then I started going less-and then less still and now-hardly at all. My screen at home is better, the sound system is better, the picture is in focus, the floors aren’t sticky and the movies start on time. My seat is clean. And there’s no idiot chattering away 2 rows behind me, and (this is my favorite) THERE’S NO CELL PHONES RINGING. EVER.28
Recent Exhibitor Initiatives
Exhibitors are well aware of the increasing number of ways in which to view motion pictures. They have a long tradition of adopting innovations that increase attendance or reduce costs. Exhibitors were among the first commercial adopters of air conditioning, which perhaps drew in as many
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
customers as a refuge from summer heat as for entertainment. Advanced projection systems, screens, and sound systems have been continuously adopted to improve the viewing experience. Others innovations increase experience quality while also lowering costs. Stadium-style seating, now ubiquitous, was originally viewed as an experience differentiator, but equally beneficial is a reduction in the square footage needed per seat. This reduces the size and cost of facilities. Exhibitors continue to pursue a number of strategic initiatives aimed at increasing attendance, increasing the viewer’s willingness to pay, and lowering costs.
C103
Technological Innovations The conversion to digital projection and roll-out of 3D are not the only projection innovations being pursued. Some directors are opting to increase image quality by doubling the number of frames per second (fps) of film from the long-established standard of 24 to 48. Peter Jackson’s 2012 The Hobbit was shown in the 48 fps format to a limited number of screens with the required projection technology. The increased frame rate results in an especially crisp image with no blurring that, while jarring to some, is said to create a sense of being part of live action.
Several circuits offer extra-large-scale screens as a feature.29 Traditionally located only in specially constructed dome-shaped theaters in science museums, the original IMAX format utilized film that was 10 times the size of that used in standard 35 mm projectors. IMAX now operates more than 600 screens. These circuit-based IMAX digital screens are far smaller than the original IMAX screens but can be much larger than the typical theater screen. Located within Regal or AMC theater complexes, the screens are often booked and operated by IMAX. Action films, usually in 3D, are a staple. To capture more of this differentiated revenue, several circuits have begun creating their own super-size screens.
Sound systems are also being upgraded. In the 1980s, theaters impressed viewers with 7.1 sound systems—two rear channels (left and right), two channels mid-screen, two near the screen, one under the screen, and a subwoofer channel for bass. Such systems have long been available for homes. To keep theater sound as a differentiator, Dolby Laboratories has created Atmos, a full-surround system with up to 64 individual channels for speakers in a theater, including multiple ceiling speakers that can truly immerse the audience in sound. Given the number of speakers involved, this may be a technology that is not viable in most homes. For those seeking still more, there is motion seat technology.30 The heavy footsteps of a dinosaur, for example, are simultaneously seen on the screen, heard through the sound system, and felt through a motion seat that rumbles as if being shaken by the footsteps. Both IMAX and motion seats are offered as upgrades, commonly at premiums of $3 to $7 per ticket.
Alternative Content Exhibitors’ transition to digital projection is an enabling technology for alternative content, which consists of virtually any content that is not a motion picture. Revenues for this totaled $112 million in 2010.31 Some estimate this will reach $1 billion annually—10 percent of current box office revenue.
Events have included concerts, live concerts and theater, sporting events, television series premiers and finales, even virtual art gallery tours such as 2012’s Leonardo Live, which was broadcast one night only in 500 U.S. movie theaters.32 The Metropolitan Opera is the most successful alterative content. Now in its seventh season, the series features 12 live events on Saturday afternoons broadcast to nearly 700 domestic theaters. A distribution network for alternative content has emerged, with companies such as National Cinemedia providing a single contract point for a variety of music, sports, television, and other alternative content. Having a large-scale intermediary as distributor is essential for exhibitors, as the cost of pursuing and licensing content is cost prohibitive for all but the largest exhibitor circuits.
Most exhibitors seek to incorporate alternative content in ways that attract new attendees during off-peak times, particularly Monday thru Thursday, when only 5 percent of theater seats are occupied.33 Bud Mayo, CEO of Digiplex Digital Cinema Destinations, describes the approach: “What happens with those [alternative content] performances is that a single event will outgross certainly the lowest-grossing movie playing that theater that day. The relationship has averaged more than 10 times the lowest-grossing movie for the entire day.”34 In marginal dollar terms, alternative content can be a boon on otherwise slow nights. A recent Wednesday showing of Broadway’s West Side Story at a Digitech theater had an average ticket price of $12.50 and grossed $2,425. In comparison, screens showing films that night grossed just $56 to $73. The alternative content also brought in nearly 200 additional potential customers for concessions.35
Dynamic Pricing Movie theaters are among the minority of entertainment outlets that have not incorporated differentials based on content, schedule, and seating options. Most events have multiple pricing levels based on seating, night versus day, and weekday versus weekend. Movie theaters, partly due to existing exhibition contracts, commonly have limited flexibility. Matinee and youth and senior discounts are the primary pricing tiers. Ticketmaster, a leader in event ticket sales, is developing a “dynamic pricing” system that incorporates demand into pricing models. This could mean radical changes, with lower ticker prices for offtime and poorly attended movies and increased prices for prime seats at peak times on opening weekend. Thus far, no studio or exhibitor will acknowledge investigating the technology.36
Concession Initiatives Expanding beyond the standard concession stand offers exhibitors opportunities to capture new revenue streams. Three main formats for concessions have emerged.
Expanded In-Lobby Dining Many theaters have expanded the concession counter beyond candy, popcorn, and soda. This expanded in-lobby dining causes many theater lobbies to resemble mall food courts. In- and off-lobby restaurants operated or licensed by the exhibitor allow for pretheater dining. Taking a page from restaurants, where a primary profit center is often the bar, some theaters
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C104
now configure the lobby around a bar, with expanded and upscale fare, beer, and alcohol service.
In-Theater Dining Many theaters have adopted an in-theater dining format where orders are placed from the seat in the theater through a wait staff. Chunky’s Cinema Pub, with three New England locations, locates theaters in lower-cost, underutilized former retail locations. The dining format combines burger, salad, and sandwich options with beverages, including beer. The format is flat theater with banquet-style tables. The seating is unique: old car seats on castors that allow for easy cleaning. Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas takes a similar approach using a stadium-seating configuration. A single bar-style table in front of each row of seats serves as a table for customers’ orders. In comparison to traditional theaters, these formats see significant increases in food and beverage sales.
Upscale Within-Theater Dining Several circuits are targeting the high end of the theater market, focusing on the experience of the theater with luxurious settings and upscale food. In addition to their standard theaters, AMC has developed Dine-In Theaters with two configurations. Their Fork & Screen theaters are much like the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, with enhanced stadium theater seats and in-theater wait service on an expanded menu. Their Cinema Suite theaters make the experience more intimate. Customers, only 21 and older, purchase tickets for specific seats in smaller theaters with reclining lounge chairs with foot rests and in-theater wait service.
Theater chain iPic offers perhaps the most luxurious theater experience available outside of a private screening room, complete with reclining leather chairs, pillows, and blankets. Lobbies resemble stylish high-end hotels and feature a cocktail lounge and full restaurants. Complete with a membership program, the theaters operate more like social clubs than traditional theaters. Tickets, $16–$27 per seat, are purchased not from a ticket booth but from a concierge.
Advertising Initiatives Exhibitors are keen to expand advertising revenues, but must do so in ways that do not diminish the theater experience. Revenues are generated from advertisements both on- and off-screen. Off-screen advertising, such as promotional videos, lobby events, and sponsored concession promotions, are 9 percent of revenues. The majority, 91 percent, comes from on-screen ads for upcoming releases, companies, and products that play before the feature presentation. Both exhibitors and advertisers seek ways to make on-screen ads more palatable to audiences. Many ads are produced in 3D with production quality rivaling a studio release. Theaters are also incorporating into ads innovative technologies such as crowd gaming, where the movement or sound of the audience controls on-screen actions. In October 2008, audiences in the UK attending Disney’s Ratatouille “drove” an on- screen Volvo XC70 through an obstacle-laden course by waving their arms. They scored points for avoiding obstacles, and each audience’s results were ranked and posted in real-time to audiences in other theaters.37 The equipment required? A wireless video camera placed above the screen, a webenabled laptop containing the game linked to the developer’s website, and specialized motion-sensing technology. These were linked to the theater’s digital projector.
More interactive approaches are on their way. Fans at a formula one race in Singapore played the video game Angry Birds, controlling in-game slingshots used to fling birds at the rivals pigs based on voice volume. The louder the crowd, the further the birds were launched.38 Making ads enjoyable, rather than loathed, may create an opportunity to increase this small but high-margin component of exhibitor revenues.
Bright Lights and Red Carpet or Dimly Lit Marquee?
Are these initiatives enough to return people to the local movie house? Is the future of the movie exhibition industry a return to red carpet glamour? Or will the lights on the marquee dim?
ENDNOTES 1. All ticket sales and box office data in this section are from www.boxofficemojo.com. 2. MPAA 2011 Theatrical Statistics. 3. Ibid. 4. Thakur, A. 2009. India dominates world of films. Times of India, July 29. 5. Data on the firms, theaters and screens, location, etc. from web sites and SEC filings. 6. Kung, M., & Back, A. 2012. Chinese conglomerate buys AMC movie chain in U.S. Wall Street Journal, 2. 7. Fritz, B., & Kaufman, A. 2011. Solid start, fast fade for movies. Los Angeles Times, December 30, latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-box-office-wrap-
20111230,0,2205189.story. 8. NATO press releases, Cinema Advertising, 2005–2012. 9. NATO press releases, 2005–2012.
10. Boorstin, J. 2011. Huge upside and ominous underbelly from a big weekend box office. May 31, www.cnbc.com/id/43228469/. 11. Mintel Report. Movie theaters—US—February 2008—reasons to go to movies over watching a dvd. 12. Mintel Report. Movie theaters—US—February 2008—Reasons why attendance is not higher. 13. Kelly, K., Orwall, B., & Sanders, P. 2005. The multiplex under siege. Wall Street Journal, December 24: P1. 14. Blog comment. N.d. Over the past ten years, the movie theater experience has … Cinema Treasures, cinematreasures.org/polls/22/. 15. Incident reported in Goldstein, P. 2005. Now playing: A glut of ads. Los Angeles Times, July 12: E-1, articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/12/entertainment/et-goldstein12. 16. DuBravac, 17. DuBravac, 2007. 18. Tuttle, B. 2012. TV prices shrink—Yet average TV purchase costs more. Time Magazine. 19. TechDigest. 2008. Average TV size up to 60-inch by 2015 says Sharp. www.techdigest.tv/2008/01/average_tv_size.html.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C105
20. Ibid. 21. Verrier, R. 2012. U.S. theater owners get lump of coal at box office. Los Angeles Times. December 30, latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-theaters-
20111230,0,7228622.story. 22. Kung, M. 2012. Movie magic to leave home for? Wall Street Journal, May 10: D1-D2. 23. Snider, M. 2012. Blu-ray grows, but DVD slide nips home video sales. USA Today, January 9. 24. Jannarone, J. 2012. As studios fight back, will Coinstar box itself into a corner? Wall Street Journal, February 6: C6. 25. Ibid. 26. Zeitchik, S., & Horn, J. 2013. Sundance darlings eye alternative distribution platforms. Los Angeles Timestouch.latimes.com.section/64Uarticle/p2p-74047654/. 27. Jannarone. 2012. As studios fight back. 28. Big Picture. Why is movie theatre revenue attendance declining? bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/07/declining_movie.htm. 29. Dodes, R. 2012. IMAX strikes back. Wall Street Journal, April 19, online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577347940832511540.html. 30. Kung. 2012. Movie magic to leave home for? 31. Sony. 2011. Alternative content for theatres. Sony Digital Cinema 4K: 1. 32. Shubin, M. (Writer). 2012. Alternative content at a theater near you. YouTube: ShubinCafe; Smith, R. 2012. Leonardo’s London blockbuster: The movie. New York Times,
February 15. 33. Cinedigm. 2012. Investor presentation: Jefferies 2012 Global Technology, Media & Telecom Conference. Cinedigm.
files.shareholder.com/downloads/AIXD/2302444840x0x567367/4a21 3e2c-11ae-4cdc-8dd1-970919ac80ac/CIDM%20IR%20deck%20 050712%20Short.pdf. 34. Ellingson, A. 2012. Who’s stressed about digital cinema? Not Digiplex’s Bud Mayo. Business Journal-LA, October 15. 35. Ibid. 36. Lazarus, D. 2012. Movie tickets: Now how much would you pay? Los Angeles Times, April 26. 37. Audience Entertain. 2009. AE Case: Volvo XC70 Launch. January 21, www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYVuLGLnyAAM. 38. Reuters. 2011. Angry Birds to swoop on formula one track. CNBC, September 22, www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-angrybirds-idUSTRE78L1IY20110922.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C94
CASES
CASE 16 THE MOVIE EXHIBITION INDUSTRY 2013*
It is apt that 2012’s top grossing film was The Avengers, for movie studios and exhibitors sought to avenge a dismal prior year at the box office. Domestic box office receipts climbed 6 percent from 2011 to a record setting $10.8 billion.1 Three films, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and Skyfall grossed more than $1 billion each in global ticket sales (Exhibit 1). Behind the scenes, the success, even the fundamental health of the exhibition industry, is far less clear. Consider these contradictions:
*This case was prepared by Professor Brett P. Matherne, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Professor Steve Gove, Virginia Tech, and Professor David Thornblad, Virginia Tech. This case was developed for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2013 Brett P. Matherne, Steve Gove, and David Thornblad.
• Domestic ticket sales grew 6 percent in 2012, but that volume ranks just 13th since 1980. The 1.364 billion tickets sold is down 13 percent from the most recent high in 2002 of 1.575 (Exhibit 2).
• 2012’s record revenues resulted from ticket price increases, not more attendees. At $7.94, the average ticket price has risen 24 percent since 2005. But over the long-term, prices keep pace with inflation, raising questions about the creation of differentiated value (Exhibit 3).
• The long-term per-capita trend is negative. In 2012 the average number of films seen per capita was 3.9.2 In 1946, the peak of movie going in America, the industry sold 4 billion tickets and the typical American went to 28 films per year at the theater.
• Movies are more widely available than ever, creating new substitutes for where, when, and how to view movies.
Exhibitors are especially anxious for moviegoers to return to the theater as the industry has invested an estimated $1.6 billion to convert theaters from film to digital projection since 2005 (Exhibit 4). The main promises of digital projection are decreased distribution costs, 3D capability, and the potential to show alternative content. Despite the sizable investment, financial benefits have yet to materialize for exhibitors. Attendance decreased in 5 of the 8 years since conversion began.
EXHIBIT 1 Top 25 Releases of 2012
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
1 Top 25 Releases of 2012
2 Domestic international Total
3 Movie 3D 3D% Studio Genre MPAA Rating
Prod. Budget (mil.)
Gross (mil.) % Rank
Gross (mil.) % Rank
Gross (mil.) Rank
4 The Avengers Yes 52% Buena Vista Act Adv. PG-13 $220.0 $623.4 41% 1 $888.4 59% 1 $1,511.8 1
5 The Dark Knight Rises
Warner Bros. Act Thrl PG-13 250.0 448.1 41% 2 632.9 59% 4 1,081.0 2
6 The Hunger Games LGF Act Adv. PG-13 78.0 408.0 59% 3 278.5 41% 12 686.5 9
7 Skyfall Sony Act PG-13 200.0 300.9 29% 4 737.6 71% 2 1,038.5 3
8
Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2 Summit Rom PG-13 120.0 290.8 35% 5 532.5 65% 6 823.3 6
9 The Hobbit Yes 49% Warner Bros. Fant PG-13 175.0 288.7 31% 6 632.2 69% 5 920.9 4
10 Amazing Spider-Man
Yes 44% Sony Act Adv. PG-13 230.0 262.0 35% 7 490.2 65% 8 752.2 7
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
11 Brave Yes 32% Buena Vista Anim PG 185.0 237.3 44% 8 298.1 56% 10 535.4 11
12 Ted Universal Comedy R 50.0 218.8 43% 9 289.4 57% 11 508.2 12
13 Madagascar 3 Yes 45%
Dream Works / Paramount Anim PG 145.0 216.4 29% 10 525.7 71% 7 742.1 8
14 Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax Yes 50% Universal Anim PG 70.0 214.0 61% 11 134.8 39% 19 348.8 17
15 Wreck-It Ralph Yes 38% Buena Vista Anim PG 165.0 181.4 51% 12 173.4 49% 17 354.8 16
16 Men in Black 3 Yes Sony
Sci-F Com PG-13 225.0 179.0 29% 13 445.0 71% 9 624.0 10
17 Lincoln Buena Vista Hist. Drama PG-13 65.0 161.9 98% 14 3.3 2% 25 165.2 25
18
Ice Age: Continental Drift Yes 35% Fox Anim PG 95.0 161.2 18% 15 714.0 82% 3 875.3 5
19 Snow White & the Huntsman Universal Adv PG-13 170.0 155.3 39% 16 241.3 61% 14 396.6 14
20 Hotel Transylvania Yes Sony Anim PG 85.0 146.6 46% 17 173.8 54% 16 320.4 18
21 Taken 2 Fox Act PG-13 45.0 139.5 38% 18 232.0 62% 15 371.6 15
22 Django Unchained Weinstein West R 100.0 139.4 74% 19 48.4 26% 24 187.8 23
23 21 Jump Street Sony
Act Com. R 42.0 138.4 69% 20 63.1 31% 23 201.6 21
24 Les Miserables Universal Musc PG-13 61.0 131.8 47% 21 150.5 53% 18 282.3 19
25 Prometheus Yes 25% Fox Sci-Fi Act R 130.0 126.5 31% 22 276.9 69% 13 403.4 13
26 Safe House Universal Act Thrl R 85.0 126.4 61% 23 81.7 39% 20 208.1 20
27 The Vow
Screen Gems / Sony Drama PG-13 30.0 125.0 64% 24 71.1 36% 21 196.1 22
28 Argo Warner Bros.
Drama Thrl R 45.0 115.3 62% 25 69.3 38% 22 184.5 24
29 Total for Top 25 $2,891.0 $5,536.3 $8,184.1 $13,720.4
30 Average for Top 25 41% $115.6 $221.5 47% $327.4 53% $548.8
Notes: Data from Boxofficemojo.com, MPAA, National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), and author estimates. 3D revenue is based on opening weekend. Genres as follows: Act = Action; Adv. = Adventure, Anim = Animation; Com = Comedy; Drama = Drama; Fant = Fantasy; Hist = Historical; Musc = Musical; Rom = Romance; Sci-F = Sci-Fi; Thrl = Thriller; West = Western. Some production budgets estimated.
C95
EXHIBIT 2 Domestic Box Office Receipts and Ticket Sales, 1980–2012
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Source: Boxofficemojo.com and author estimates. 3D ticket volume estimated based on reported 3D revenues, with ticket prices estimated as 30 percent premium over 2D. A portion of 2012 3D revenue and ticket volume is estimated.
EXHIBIT 3 Ticket Prices, 1980–2012
EXHIBIT 4 U.S. Theater Screens 2000–2011
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
1 U.S. Theater Screens 2000–2011
2 All Screens Analog Screens Digital Screens (incl. 3D) Digital 3D Screens
3 Year
Number of
Screens
Change from Prior Year
Number of
Screens
Change from Prior Year
As % of Total
Screens
Number of
Screens
Change from Prior Year
As % of Total
Screens
Est. Digital Invest. (mil.)
Number of
Screens
Change from Prior Year
As % of Total
Screens
As % of
Digital
Est. 3D
Invest.
4 2000 37,396 37,396 100.0%
5 2001 36,764 -1.7% 36,764 -1.7% 100.0%
6 2002 35,280 -4.0% 35,280 -4.0% 100.0%
7 2003 36,146 2.5% 36,146 2.5% 100.0%
8 2004 36,594 1.2% 36,594 1.2% 100.0%
9 2005 38,852 6.2% 38,862 6.2% 100.0% 200 0.5% $10
10 2006 38,415 -1.1% 36,412 -6.3% 94.8% 2,003 901.5% 5.2% $100
11 2007 38,974 1.5% 34,342 -5.7% 88.1% 4,632 131.3% 11.9% $256 986 2.5% 21.3% $74
12 2008 38,843 -0.3% 33,319 -3.0% 85.8% 5,515 19.1% 14.2% $311 1,427 44.7% 3.7% 25.9% $107
13 2009 39,233 1.0% 31,815 -4.5% 81.1% 7,418 34.5% 18.9% $453 3,269 129.1% 8.3% 44.1% $245
14 2010 39,547 0.8% 23,773 -25.3% 60.1% 15,774 112.6% 39.9% $985 7,837 139.7% 19.8% 49.7% $588
15 2011 39,641 0.2% 14,020 -41.0% 35.4% 25,621 62.4% 64.6% $1,606 13,001 65.9% 32.8% 50.7% $975
Notes: Based on author estimates and MPAA reports on number of screens. Estimated investments (cumulative) based on estimated cost of digital screen ($50,000 per installation) and digital 3D ($75,000 per installation). Digital screen counts include digital 3D.
C96
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C96
Which represents the current and future state of the movie exhibition industry: the bright lights of a red carpet Hollywood premier or a dimly lit marquee?
The Motion Picture Value Chain
The motion picture industry value chain consists of three stages: studio production, distribution, and exhibition—the theaters that show the films. All stages are undergoing consolidation and technological changes, but the basic three-phase structure is largely unchanged since the 1920s.
Studio Production The studios produce the lifeblood of the industry. They create motion picture content, and content drives attendance. Studios are highly concentrated. The top six studios in 2012 created 17 percent of the films for the year, but these films accounted for 76 percent of the box office gross (Exhibit 5). The top 10 studios constitute over 90 percent of box office receipts. This concentration, coupled with highly differentiated content, gives the studios considerable negotiating and pricing power.
Studios are increasingly managed as profit centers in large corporations. Management is risk adverse, as investments are large and a formula for success elusive. Consider the fate of two comic-book-inspired films in 2011. Warner Bros.’s Green Lantern was considered a flop, grossing $219 million ($116 million domestic, $103 internationally) and ending plans for a series. That same year Para-mount’s Thor grossed $449 million ($181 domestically, $268 internationally), giving the green light to a sequel.
Studios focus on 14–24 year olds, consistently the largest audience for movies. At just 15 percent of the U.S. population, this group purchases 21 percent of all tickets. More narrowly, 10 percent of the population are “frequent” moviegoers who attend more than one movie per month and are responsible for half of all ticket sales.3 Studios target this audience with PG and PG-13 fare, including 19 of 2012’s top 25 releases. However, domestic demographic trends are unfavorable. While the U.S. population will increase 42 percent by 2050, this core audience will increase just 35 percent (19 million) or 475 per existing screen (Exhibit 6).
The risks for studios are significant, as production costs are considerable (Exhibit 1). Studios invested $1.6 billion for the 10 films that ranked among 2012’s highest grossing, an average of $150 million per film. Costs have increased faster than inflation. In 1980 the production budget for the highest-grossing films averaged just $11 million. In the 1990s films turned to special effects, and costs reached $102 million (up 827 percent). Today, special effects alone can top $100 million for a major production. These investments are considerable, yet are no guarantee for success: Green Lantern, the flop, was made for $200 million, while the successful Thor cost $150 million.
Domestic exhibitors were once the sole distribution channel for films. This has changed dramatically. Films must increasingly cross cultural and language boundaries and appeal to the global market. Over 70 percent of U.S. studio revenues are now international (Exhibit 7). Studios see this as the primary opportunity for growth. While domestic receipts increase on flat ticket sales, both ticket sales and dollar volume are rising rapidly internationally. From 2000 to 2012, domestic receipts grew at an average of just 3 percent, while international growth averaged 13 percent annually. The studios are also changing their perspective on ticket prices in large population markets. In India, for example, attendees paid an average of just $0.50. However, Indian exhibitors sold 3.3 billion tickets in 2008. At current growth rates, the attendance volume increase each year in India alone equals total current U.S. annual admissions.4
EXHIBIT 5 Top 6 Studios/Distributors, 2012
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
A B C D E F G H I J K
1 Top 6 Studios/Distributors, 2012
2 2012 2000 % Change 2000
–2012
3 Studio/Distributor Rank $
Share Total Gross
No. of Films Rank
$ Share
Total Gross
No. of Films
Total Gross
# Films
4 Sony/Columbia 1 16.6% $1,792 25 7 9.0% $682 29 163% -14%
5 Warner Bros. 2 15.4% $1,665 36 3 11.9% $905 22 84% 64%
6 Buena Vista 3 14.3% $1,551 18 1 15.5% $1,176 21 32% -14%
7 Universal 4 12.2% $1,324 17 2 14.1% $1,069 13 24% 31%
8 20th Century Fox 5 9.5% $1,025 19 6 9.5% $723 13 42% 46%
9 Paramount/Dream Works 6 8.5% $914 21 4 10.4% $791 12 16% 75%
10 Total for top 6 $8,273 136 $4,664 81 77% 68%
11 Industry total $10,835 795 $7,661 478 41.4% 66.3%
12 Top 6 as % of industry 76.3% 17.1% 61.4% 16.9% 24.3% 1.0%
Source: Author calculations based on data from boxofficemojocom.
C97
EXHIBIT 6 U.S. Demographic Trends
Segment
% of Movie Tickets
Purchased (2011)
# in 2010 (mil.)
% of Population
(2010)
# in 2050 (mil.)
% of Population
(2050) #
Increase %
Change
Under 5 years
21.1 7% 28.1 6% 7.0 33%
5 to 13 yrs 15% 37.1 12% 50.7 12% 13.6 37%
14 to 17 yrs
9% 17.0 5% 22.7 5% 5.7 34%
18 to 24 yrs
12% 30.7 10% 39.5 9% 8.8 29%
25 to 44 yrs
28% 83.1 27% 110.9 25% 27.8 33%
45 to 64 yrs
24% 81.0 26% 98.5 22% 17.5 22%
65 yrs+ 11% 40.2 13% 88.5 20% 48.3 120%
Total (mil.) 310.2 439.0 128.8 42%
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Source: U.S. Census, 2008, Table 2, Projections of the Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for the United States: 2010 to 2050 (NP2008-T2); MPAA Theatrical Statistics; and author estimates.
EXHIBIT 7 Domestic and International Box Office Receipts ($ billions)
This trend of content internationalization shows no signs of abating. While the drama of Argo and the humor of Ted cost less to produce, they are risky in international markets. Franchise films, with known characters, made in 3D, and laden with special effects present the least content risk internationally. Yet these films carry their own risk due to large budgets. The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, and Skyfall all ranked in the top 10 for worldwide gross. Combined they constituted an investment of $670 million in production costs.
As studios shift their focus to the international market, they are less dependent on domestic exhibitors. This increases the threat of disintermediation through alternative distribution channels. Studios increase revenues through product licensing, DVD sales, and international expansion, at the same time exhibitors—movie theaters—have seen their business decline.
Distribution Distributors are the intermediaries between the studios and exhibitors. Distribution entails all steps following a film’s artistic completion, including marketing, logistics, and administration. Distributors either negotiate a percentage of the gross from the studio for distribution services or purchase rights to films, profiting directly from the box office. Distributors select and market films to exhibitors’ booking agents. They handle collections, audits of attendees, and other administrative tasks. There are over 300 active distributors, but most is done by a few majors, commonly a division of the studios. Disney Pixar, for example, produced Brave, while distribution was done by Disney’s Buena Vista.
Until 2005, the distribution of all motion pictures in the U.S. entailed the physical shipment of reels of 35mm film, a process little changed from the 1940s. Each theater would receive a shipment of physical canisters containing a “release print” of a film. These prints cost $20,000–$30,000 in up-front costs and $1,000–$1,500 for each print. Print costs for a modern major picture opening on 3,500 screens are $3.50–$5.25 million. This is borne by the studios and exhibitors but paid for by movie attendees.
Beginning in 2006, distributors and studios encouraged exhibitors to transition to digital projection technology. The technology works by using high-powered LCD projectors to cast the movie onto a specialized screen. In lieu of film, the movies are delivered on reusable hard
C98
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C98
drives or via satellite or high-speed Internet. The threat of piracy is a major concern for the industry, so all files are encrypted. The cost savings of digital distribution over film are considerable: The cost of each hard drive is $150, just 10 percent of the cost of physical film. Additionally, digital projection allows for consistently high-quality images, as there is no physical wear to the film, and enables the exhibition of “alternative content”—images other than motion pictures that are obtained outside of the studio system.
The transition to digital projection involves considerable capital investment. Each digital projection system can serve a single screen and costs $50,000 to $75,000, including the projector, computers and hardware, and a specialized screen. To encourage the transition, distributors offered rebates in the form of virtual print fees (VPSs) for each film received digitally. These fees, as much as 17 percent of rental costs, will expire in 2013.
Exhibition Exhibitors offer a location where audiences can view a motion picture. Early in the 20th century, studios sought vertical integration through theater ownership, giving them greater control over audiences and allowing them to capture more of the exhibition profits. This ended in 1948 with the Supreme Court’s ruling against the studios in United States v. Paramount Pictures. Theaters were soon divested from studios, leaving the two to negotiate film access and rental.
Initially fragmented with many single-theater firms, the capital required for multiscreen locations resulted in consolidation among exhibitors. Four “circuits” now dominate: Regal, AMC, Cinemark, and Carmike.5 These four operate 1,061 theaters in the U.S. (just 19 percent) but control 45 percent of the screens (Exhibit 8). This market concentration provides exhibitors with negotiating power for access to films, prices for films, prices for concessions, and greater access to revenues from national advertisers. However, the real power still rests with the studios, because of differentiated content, the ability to play rival exhibitors against each other, and the increasing potential for disintermediation.
There is, however, little differentiation in the offerings of exhibitors within a market: prices within markets differ little, the same movies are shown at the same times, and the food and service choices are nearly identical. Competition between theaters often comes down to distance from home, convenience of parking, and proximity to restaurants.
EXHIBIT 8 Leading U.S. Circuits, 2012*
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F G
1 Leading U.S. Circuits, 2012*
2 Total
Screens Total
Theaters Screens/Theater Analog (% of
Screens) Digital (% of
Screens) Digital 3D (% of Screens)
3 AMC (AMC, Loews) 5,128 346 14.5 55.1% 44.9% 31.3%
4 Carmike (Carmike) 2,254 237 9.5 5.6% 94.4% 33.0%
5 Cinemark (Cinemark, Century) 3,878 297 13.1 0.0% 100.0% 48.0%
6 Regal (Regal, United Artists, Edwards) 6,614 527 12.6 28.6% 71.4% 42.1%
7 Total for 4 Largest Circuits 17,874 1,061 12.4 27.1% 72.9% 39.1%
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
8 Industry Total 39,641 5,697 6.9 35.4% 64.6% 32.8%
9 4 Largest Circuits as % of Industry
10 Total 45.1% 18.6%
*Based on screens entering fiscal 2012.
Source: Data from SEC filings, MPAA, NATO, and author estimates.
Regal, which operates its’ namesake Regal Theaters as well as United Artists and Edwards theaters, is the largest with 6,614 screens in 527 domestic theaters. Regal focuses on mid-size markets using multiplex and megaplexes that average 12 screens per location, with an average ticket price of $8.90. AMC, operating under AMC and Loews chains, is the second largest domestic exhibitor with 5,128 screens in 346 theaters. Averaging nearly 15 screens per location, AMC leads the industry in the operation of large multiplexes. They do so by concentrating on urban areas near large population centers such as those in California, Florida, and Texas. By focusing on 3-D, IMAX, and other premium viewing experiences, AMC achieves the highest ticket prices, averaging $9.04. Cinemark is the 3rd largest player with 3,878 screens in nearly 300 domestic locations under Cinemark and Century brands. Cinemark serves smaller markets, operating as the sole theater in over 80 percent of its markets. Their average ticket price of $6.72 in 2012 was the lowest of the major chains. Carmike concentrates on small to midsized markets, targeting populations of less than 100,000 that have few alternative entertainment options. They do so with fewer screens at each location. With 237 theaters, they have just 2,254 screens, an average of 9.5 per location. Carmike’s ticket price averaged just $6.85. Despite the trend toward internationalization by studios, exhibitors until recently have been domestic players. Cinemark has the largest international presence, with 130 theaters (1,066 screens) in Mexico and seven Central and South American countries. In 2012 AMC, with 346 domestic theaters and 5,128 screens, was acquired by the Chinese conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group Corp.
C99
for a reported $2.6 billion.6 Wanda, with interests in property, entertainment, and tourism, owns and operates 730 screens in China responsible for 15 percent of the Chinese box office and plans to expand to 2,000 screens. The deal will make AMC the largest global exhibition company.
EXHIBIT 9 Typical Revenue and Expenses per Screen at an Eight-Screen Theater
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C
Typical Revenue and Expenses per Screen at an Eight-Screen Theater
2 REVENUES
3 Box office ($285,650/$7.94 = 35,975 admissions; 691/week/screen) $ 285,650 65%
4 Concessions ($135,250/35,975 admissions = $3.75/admission) 135,250 31%
5 Advertising ($21,500/35,975 admissions = $0.60/admission) 21,500 5%
6 Total Revenues ($12.29/admission) $ 442,400 100%
7 EXPENSES
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
8 Fixed
9 Facility $ 55,000 12%
10 Labor 45,000 10%
11 Utilities 52,500 12%
12 Other SG&A 67,500 16%
13 Total Fixed Costs $ 220,000 50%
14 Variable
15 Film Rental $ 155,000 54%
16 Concession Supplies 21,650 16%
17 Total Variable Costs $ 176,650 40%
18 Total Expenses $ 396,650 90%
19 Operating Income $ 45,750 10%
The Business of Exhibition
Exhibitors have three main revenue sources: box office receipts, concessions, and advertising (Exhibit 9). Managers have low discretion; their ability to influence revenues and expenses is limited. Operating margins average a slim 10 percent. The result is marginal or negative net income. Overall, the business of exhibitors is best described as loss leadership on movies: the firms make money selling concessions and showing ads to patrons who are drawn by the movie.
Box Office Revenues Ticket sales constitute two-thirds of exhibition business revenues. The return, however, is quite small because of the power of the studios. Film costs average 55 percent of box office receipts. Rental fees are based on the size of the circuit and the time and seat commitment made to a film. The revenue retained by the theater increases with each week following an opening. On opening weekend, an exhibitor may pay the distributor 80–90 percent of the box office gross, retaining only 10–20 percent. In subsequent weeks the exhibitor’s portion increases. The record-setting revenues at the box office have resulted from increases in ticket prices; the majority of which has flowed back to the studios.
The complexity of booking is increasing. The majority of revenues historically come from opening weekend. In industry terminology, the “multiple” (the percentage coming after opening weekend) has been declining steadily, falling 25 percent since 2002,7 putting exhibitors at increasing risk. While exhibition used to be a question of which movie to show, it now also involves decisions as to how many theaters to allocate to analog versus digital and 2D versus 3D. All these factors plus the “make or break” nature of opening weekend complicate the exhibitor’s operations.
Concessions Moviegoers frequently lament the high prices for concessions. Concessions average around 30 percent of revenues. Direct costs of just 15 percent make concessions the largest and sometime sole source of exhibitor profit. These profits are influenced by three factors: attendance, pricing, and material costs. The most important is attendance: more attendees equals more concession sales. Per-patron sales are influenced by prices. The $4.50 and $8.00 price points for the large soda and popcorn are not accidental, but the result of market research and profit maximization calculation. Costs are influenced by purchase volume, with larger chains able to negotiation better prices on everything from popcorn and soda pop to cups and napkins.
Advertising The low margins derived from ticket sales cause exhibitors to focus on other sources of revenue. The highest margin, and therefore the most attractive, is advertising. Since 2002, advertising revenues, and the time devoted to them at the start of every feature, have increased dramatically, climbing from $186 to $644 million.8 Exhibitors also generate revenue through preshow and lobby advertising. Though this constitutes just 5 percent of revenues, it is highly profitable (i.e., revenue with no direct monetary costs) and growing. Advertising revenues for exhibitors averaged $16,245 per screen.9
Audiences, however, express dislike for advertising at the theater. Balancing the revenues from ads with audience tolerance is an ongoing struggle for exhibitors. (Exhibit 10)
C100
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C100
EXHIBIT 10 Exhibitor Advertising Revenue ($ millions)
Source: NATO press releases, 2005–2012.
Challenges for Exhibitors
Exhibitors are faced with an increasing number of challenges in their operating environment.
Benefiting from Digital Investments Exhibitors have made considerable investments in digital projection technology. At the start of 2012, two-thirds of the 39,641 screens in the U.S. had been converted to digital, with the remainder expected to be converted by 2014. The total investment by exhibitors is $1.6 billion. The benefits of this conversion should manifest themselves in lower exhibitor costs and increased revenues. To date, these do not appear to have accrued to exhibitors.
On the cost side, digital distribution dramatically reduces distribution costs when compared to physical film. Digital distribution is expected to save $1 billion annually on print costs and distribution. Yet there is little evidence to date that exhibitors will benefit from these savings. Film rental fees, which include distribution costs, have held steady despite the transition to digital. On the revenue side, exhibitors have seen significant additional per ticket revenues from surcharges for enhanced viewing experiences, primarily 3D. 3D content requires the cooperation of studios and exhibitors. For studios, 3D adds 15–20 percent to the cost of production. For exhibitors, 3D requires conversion to digital projection and the added costs for 3D-capable equipment. Among domestic digital projection systems, about half are 3D capable. The planned 2009 release of Avatar was used to spur digital installations. The film grossed $750 million domestically, with an estimated 82 percent from 3D viewings. The film was a critical and box office success, introducing audiences to a new age in 3D movies and projection. Avatar’s success led to an increase, perhaps excess, in 3D releases.
EXHIBIT 11 3D as Percentage of a Film’s Opening Weekend Receipts
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Notes: Based on news reports and author estimates. Numbers in parentheses are the number of 3D releases in a year.
The portion of opening weekend receipts from 3D movies averaged 63 percent from 2009 to 2011 (Exhibit 11). Today the 3D portion of major releases shows a worrisome trend. In 2011 only 45 percent of Kung Fu Panda 2’s box office gross came from 3D, and Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean had just 47 percent.10 In 2012 the average across all 3D films released declined to 45 percent. 3D may be an aspect of the theater experience that audiences are only occasionally willing to pay for. Some industry observers caution that the future opportunity to capitalize on 3D-driven revenues may be limited. “Certain movies are doing well in 3-D and others failing terribly,” Bob Greenfield said. “People are getting a lot choosier. I would
C101
be surprised if in 2013 and 2014 we didn’t see a more reduced slate that focuses on the films that deserve it.” Declining 3D attendance is a serious concern for exhibitors. With an average investment of $75,000, the payback
period for 3D may be more than 3 years. The extent to which the conversion to digital will benefit exhibitors through cost reductions and revenue enhancement will be determined in the coming years as rental costs and 3D viewership rates are better established.
Countering the Declining Allure of the Theater Traditionally, the draw of the theater may have been far more important than what film was showing. Moviegoers describe attending the theater as an experience, with the appeal based on:11
• the giant theater screen,
• the opportunity to be out of the house,
• not having to wait to see a particular movie on home video,
• the experience of watching the movie with a theatrical sound system, and
• the theater as a location option for a date.
The ability of theaters to provide these above what audiences can achieve at home appears to be diminishing. Of the reasons why people go to the movies, only the place aspects, the theater as a place to be out of the house and as a place for dating, seem immune from substitution. Few teenagers want a movie and popcorn with their date at home with mom and dad.
The overall “experience” currently offered by theaters falls short for many. Marketing research firm Mintel reports that the reasons for not attending the theater more frequently are largely the result of the declining experience. Specific factors include: the overall cost, at-home viewing options, interruptions such as cell phones in the theater, rude patrons, the overall hassle, and ads prior to the show.12 A recent Wall Street Journal article reported on interruptions ranging from the intrusion of soundtracks in adjacent theaters to cell phones. “The interruptions capped a night of moviegoing already
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
marred by out-of-order ticketing kiosks and a parade of preshow ads so long that, upon seeing the Coca-Cola polar bears on screen, one customer grumbled: ‘This is obscene.’“13 Recounting bad experiences is a lively topic for bloggers. A typical comment: “I say it has gotten worse. I hate paying $9.00 for a ticket and the movie is 90–100 minutes long, people talking on the cell phone, the people who work at the theaters look like they are bored, and when you ask them a question, the answer is very rude.”14
The time allocated to preshow ads can be eye opening, even for industry insiders. Toby Emmerich, New Line Cinema’s head of production, faced a not-so-common choice: attending opening night in a theater or in a screening room at actor Jim Carrey’s house. Said Emmerich in a Los Angeles Times article, “I love seeing a movie with a big crowd, but I had no idea how many obnoxious ads I’d have to endure—it really drove me crazy. After sitting through about 15 minutes of ads, I turned to my wife and said, ‘Maybe we should’ve gone to Jim Carrey’s house after all.’“15
The Home Viewing Substitution For many, home viewing is growing as a viable substitute to theater attendance because of rapid improvements and cost reductions in homeviewing technology and the widespread availability of timely and inexpensive content. The unique value proposition offered by movie theaters’ large screens, the long wait for DVD release, and advantages of theatrical sound systems are also fading.
Home Viewing Technology The average home television set is increasingly a large, high-definition set coupled with an inexpensive yet impressive audio system. Compared to home equipment options of the past, at-home technology increasingly represents a significant substitute for moviegoing. Prior to 2009, television transmissions were formatted as 480 interlaced vertical lines (480i) of resolution, the standard since the 1950s. FCC-ordered changes resulted in all broadcasters converting to digital broadcasts by February 2009, setting the stage for high-definition (HD) digital broadcasts, providing up to 1080 vertical lines of resolution (1080p).16 This transition started a consumer movement to upgrade televisions. The transition also reduced the difference between home technology and the giant theater screen and sound system offered by theaters.
The average television’s size has increased dramatically, from 23 inches in 1997 to 36.8 inches in 2012. As LCD technology became the standard for both computer and television screens, manufacturing costs declined. Wholesale prices for televisions fell 65 percent from the late 1990s to 2007.17 Between 2011 and 2012 alone, the average retail price of a 32-inch TV declined from $546 to $435. Consumers, however, spend more on every television, consistently electing to purchase larger and more advanced sets. In 2012 the average TV sold for $1200.18 Features such as 3D, internet connectivity, and applications for Netflix, Hulu, and other providers are becoming common and add little to retail prices. Sharp, a leading TV manufacturer, predicts that by 2015 the average screen will reach 60 inches.19 Home viewing technology may be reaching its apex. While technologically image size and quality can continue to increase, they are limited by practical realities. The ideal distance for viewing a 42-inch TV is 5 feet, 3 inches. A 70-inch should be viewed from 8 feet, 9 inches. The full benefit of 80-inch or larger sets could be had only from a viewing distance that exceeds the size of most living rooms in which they would be installed.
C102
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C102
Large-screen televisions, low-cost high-definition DVD players, and audio and speaker components are commonly packaged as low-cost home theaters. The average Blu-ray DVD player now costs under $125 and 3D players under $150. Bundled home-theater systems offer a movie experience that rivals many theaters, all for under $1,500. Mike Gabriel, Sharp’s head of marketing and communications, stated, “People can now expect a home cinema experience from their TV. Technology that was once associated with the rich and famous is now accessible to homes across the country.20”
Content Availability & Timing The best hardware offers little value without content. Channels for renting or purchasing movies are increasing. “We’re seeing a cultural shift occurring where people are consuming their entertainment from Netflix, the iPad, Hulu,” said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Hollywood. com’s box-office division. “There’s more competition for the eyeballs of consumers.”21
Since the 1980s, studios have relied on VHS then DVD sales to fuel profits. This revenue stream fueled past studio profits, but is now declining. DVD sales peaked at $13.7 billion in 2006.22 In 2011 studio revenues from physical and digital sales totaled $9.5 billion.23 Physical DVDs are widely available, but are now exceeded by digital purchases (e.g., Apple’s iTunes and Amazon). To spur sales, studios have been consistently reducing the time period between theatrical release and the DVD release. This “release window” declined from 166 days in 2000 to 120 days in 2012. Exhibitors express concern that these declines cannibalize theater sales. Studios, meanwhile, continue to seek ways to stem declining DVD sales and increase their return on each film. Decreased sales also result in lower prices for content. DVDs average $25 with upgrades to Blu-ray HD adding $5, and 3D and a digital copy for tablet or PC viewing adding another $3 each. Each sale nets the studio $12 to $15.24 Both studios and exhibitors are facing pressure from streaming and rental services. Once dominated by physical stores, movie rentals expanded into physical DVD channels with subscription (e.g., Netflix and Blockbuster) and one-up (e.g., Redbox and Blockbuster) options as well as subscription streaming (e.g., Netflix and Hulu). These offer attractive prices for consumers but have been identified by studios as a contributing factor for declining DVD sales. Studios net about $1.25 per DVD sold to a rental company.25 This allows Netflix to offer a physical DVD subscription service of 2 DVDs out at any time for under $15 per month. Redbox’s kiosk-based rentals are attractive to occasional viewers, costing as little at $1.25 per night.
Content streaming services grew from $992 million in 2011to $2 billion in 2012.26 Streaming is among the most cost- effective movie-delivery systems for viewers and providers. Estimates put Netflix’s average streaming cost at $0.51 per viewing. This is offset by fewer content options. Apple’s iTunes provides perhaps the greatest selection, but with rentals at $4 to $6 per viewing, it emphasizes selection and HD quality over Netflix’s low cost. Streaming sufficiently cannibalized DVD sales to the point that studios imposed a 28-day delay from the DVD release date to the availability of streaming. Exhibitors expressed strong encouragement when several studios expressed a desire for a 56-day delay to increase DVD sales.
Studios are seeking to increase their share of the rental market, putting them increasingly in direct competition with exhibitors. For the studios, each current video on demand (VOD) showing contributes $3.50 in revenue, far less revenue than DVD sales.27 Studios continue to develop premium VOD as an alternative. The main feature of Premium VOD (P-VOD) is a decreased release window, including simultaneous release on films in theaters and through P-VOD. Exhibitor’s threatened a boycott due to Universal’s plan for a P-VOD release of Tower Heist just three weeks after it opened in theaters. The plan was scrapped due to the threats. While exhibitors won that battle, the potential revenues from the planned $59.99 premium VOD will remain attractive to the studios.
Premium cable networks (e.g., HBO, Starz, etc.) offer both a programmed line-up of movies, albeit at scheduled times and with monthly subscriptions, but at low per-viewing rates. All major cable and satellite providers offer VOD services and carry multiple channels focusing on films. Overall, the availability of content and the visual and audio experience available in the home is rapidly converging with the offerings available at a movie theater. As a blogger on the movie fan site Big Picture posted:
I used to go to the movies all the time-Even my blog is called the Big Picture. Then I started going less-and then less still and now-hardly at all. My screen at home is better, the sound system is better, the picture is in
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
focus, the floors aren’t sticky and the movies start on time. My seat is clean. And there’s no idiot chattering away 2 rows behind me, and (this is my favorite) THERE’S NO CELL PHONES RINGING. EVER.28
Recent Exhibitor Initiatives
Exhibitors are well aware of the increasing number of ways in which to view motion pictures. They have a long tradition of adopting innovations that increase attendance or reduce costs. Exhibitors were among the first commercial adopters of air conditioning, which perhaps drew in as many customers as a refuge from summer heat as for entertainment. Advanced projection systems, screens, and sound systems have been continuously adopted to improve the viewing experience. Others innovations increase experience quality while also lowering costs. Stadium-style seating, now ubiquitous, was originally viewed as an experience differentiator, but equally beneficial is a reduction in the square footage needed per seat. This reduces the size and cost of facilities. Exhibitors continue to pursue a number of strategic initiatives aimed at increasing attendance, increasing the viewer’s willingness to pay, and lowering costs.
C103
Technological Innovations The conversion to digital projection and roll-out of 3D are not the only projection innovations being pursued. Some directors are opting to increase image quality by doubling the number of frames per second (fps) of film from the long- established standard of 24 to 48. Peter Jackson’s 2012 The Hobbit was shown in the 48 fps format to a limited number of screens with the required projection technology. The increased frame rate results in an especially crisp image with no blurring that, while jarring to some, is said to create a sense of being part of live action.
Several circuits offer extra-large-scale screens as a feature.29 Traditionally located only in specially constructed dome- shaped theaters in science museums, the original IMAX format utilized film that was 10 times the size of that used in standard 35 mm projectors. IMAX now operates more than 600 screens. These circuit-based IMAX digital screens are far smaller than the original IMAX screens but can be much larger than the typical theater screen. Located within Regal or AMC theater complexes, the screens are often booked and operated by IMAX. Action films, usually in 3D, are a staple. To capture more of this differentiated revenue, several circuits have begun creating their own super-size screens.
Sound systems are also being upgraded. In the 1980s, theaters impressed viewers with 7.1 sound systems—two rear channels (left and right), two channels mid-screen, two near the screen, one under the screen, and a subwoofer channel for bass. Such systems have long been available for homes. To keep theater sound as a differentiator, Dolby Laboratories has created Atmos, a full-surround system with up to 64 individual channels for speakers in a theater, including multiple ceiling speakers that can truly immerse the audience in sound. Given the number of speakers involved, this may be a technology that is not viable in most homes. For those seeking still more, there is motion seat technology.30 The heavy footsteps of a dinosaur, for example, are simultaneously seen on the screen, heard through the sound system, and felt through a motion seat that rumbles as if being shaken by the footsteps. Both IMAX and motion seats are offered as upgrades, commonly at premiums of $3 to $7 per ticket.
Alternative Content Exhibitors’ transition to digital projection is an enabling technology for alternative content, which consists of virtually any content that is not a motion picture. Revenues for this totaled $112 million in 2010.31 Some estimate this will reach $1 billion annually—10 percent of current box office revenue.
Events have included concerts, live concerts and theater, sporting events, television series premiers and finales, even virtual art gallery tours such as 2012’s Leonardo Live, which was broadcast one night only in 500 U.S. movie theaters.32
The Metropolitan Opera is the most successful alterative content. Now in its seventh season, the series features 12 live events on Saturday afternoons broadcast to nearly 700 domestic theaters. A distribution network for alternative content has emerged, with companies such as National Cinemedia providing a single contract point for a variety of music, sports, television, and other alternative content. Having a large-scale intermediary as distributor is essential for exhibitors, as the cost of pursuing and licensing content is cost prohibitive for all but the largest exhibitor circuits.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Most exhibitors seek to incorporate alternative content in ways that attract new attendees during off-peak times, particularly Monday thru Thursday, when only 5 percent of theater seats are occupied.33 Bud Mayo, CEO of Digiplex Digital Cinema Destinations, describes the approach: “What happens with those [alternative content] performances is that a single event will outgross certainly the lowest-grossing movie playing that theater that day. The relationship has averaged more than 10 times the lowest-grossing movie for the entire day.”34 In marginal dollar terms, alternative content can be a boon on otherwise slow nights. A recent Wednesday showing of Broadway’s West Side Story at a Digitech theater had an average ticket price of $12.50 and grossed $2,425. In comparison, screens showing films that night grossed just $56 to $73. The alternative content also brought in nearly 200 additional potential customers for concessions.35
Dynamic Pricing Movie theaters are among the minority of entertainment outlets that have not incorporated differentials based on content, schedule, and seating options. Most events have multiple pricing levels based on seating, night versus day, and weekday versus weekend. Movie theaters, partly due to existing exhibition contracts, commonly have limited flexibility. Matinee and youth and senior discounts are the primary pricing tiers. Ticketmaster, a leader in event ticket sales, is developing a “dynamic pricing” system that incorporates demand into pricing models. This could mean radical changes, with lower ticker prices for offtime and poorly attended movies and increased prices for prime seats at peak times on opening weekend. Thus far, no studio or exhibitor will acknowledge investigating the technology.36
Concession Initiatives Expanding beyond the standard concession stand offers exhibitors opportunities to capture new revenue streams. Three main formats for concessions have emerged.
Expanded In-Lobby Dining Many theaters have expanded the concession counter beyond candy, popcorn, and soda. This expanded in-lobby dining causes many theater lobbies to resemble mall food courts. In- and off-lobby restaurants operated or licensed by the exhibitor allow for pretheater dining. Taking a page from restaurants, where a primary profit center is often the bar, some theaters
C104
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C104
now configure the lobby around a bar, with expanded and upscale fare, beer, and alcohol service.
In-Theater Dining Many theaters have adopted an in-theater dining format where orders are placed from the seat in the theater through a wait staff. Chunky’s Cinema Pub, with three New England locations, locates theaters in lower-cost, underutilized former retail locations. The dining format combines burger, salad, and sandwich options with beverages, including beer. The format is flat theater with banquet-style tables. The seating is unique: old car seats on castors that allow for easy cleaning. Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas takes a similar approach using a stadium-seating configuration. A single bar-style table in front of each row of seats serves as a table for customers’ orders. In comparison to traditional theaters, these formats see significant increases in food and beverage sales.
Upscale Within-Theater Dining Several circuits are targeting the high end of the theater market, focusing on the experience of the theater with luxurious settings and upscale food. In addition to their standard theaters, AMC has developed Dine-In Theaters with two configurations. Their Fork & Screen theaters are much like the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, with enhanced stadium theater seats and in-theater wait service on an expanded menu. Their Cinema Suite theaters make the experience more intimate. Customers, only 21 and older, purchase tickets for specific seats in smaller theaters with reclining lounge chairs with foot rests and in-theater wait service.
Theater chain iPic offers perhaps the most luxurious theater experience available outside of a private screening room, complete with reclining leather chairs, pillows, and blankets. Lobbies resemble stylish high-end hotels and feature a cocktail lounge and full restaurants. Complete with a membership program, the theaters operate more like social clubs than traditional theaters. Tickets, $16–$27 per seat, are purchased not from a ticket booth but from a concierge.
Advertising Initiatives Exhibitors are keen to expand advertising revenues, but must do so in ways that do not diminish the theater experience. Revenues are generated from advertisements both on- and off-screen. Off-screen advertising, such as promotional videos, lobby events, and sponsored concession promotions, are 9 percent of revenues. The majority, 91 percent, comes from on- screen ads for upcoming releases, companies, and products that play before the feature presentation. Both exhibitors and advertisers seek ways to make on-screen ads more palatable to audiences. Many ads are produced in 3D with production quality rivaling a studio release. Theaters are also incorporating into ads innovative technologies such as crowd gaming, where the movement or sound of the audience controls on-screen actions. In October 2008, audiences in the UK attending Disney’s Ratatouille “drove” an on-screen Volvo XC70 through an obstacle-laden course by waving their arms. They scored points for avoiding obstacles, and each audience’s results were ranked and posted in real-time to audiences in other theaters.37 The equipment required? A wireless video camera placed above the screen, a webenabled laptop containing the game linked to the developer’s website, and specialized motion-sensing technology. These were linked to the theater’s digital projector.
More interactive approaches are on their way. Fans at a formula one race in Singapore played the video game Angry Birds, controlling in-game slingshots used to fling birds at the rivals pigs based on voice volume. The louder the crowd, the further the birds were launched.38 Making ads enjoyable, rather than loathed, may create an opportunity to increase this small but high-margin component of exhibitor revenues.
Bright Lights and Red Carpet or Dimly Lit Marquee?
Are these initiatives enough to return people to the local movie house? Is the future of the movie exhibition industry a return to red carpet glamour? Or will the lights on the marquee dim?
ENDNOTES 1. All ticket sales and box office data in this section are from www.boxofficemojo.com. 2. MPAA 2011 Theatrical Statistics.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
3. Ibid. 4. Thakur, A. 2009. India dominates world of films. Times of India, July 29. 5. Data on the firms, theaters and screens, location, etc. from web sites and SEC filings. 6. Kung, M., & Back, A. 2012. Chinese conglomerate buys AMC movie chain in U.S. Wall Street Journal, 2. 7. Fritz, B., & Kaufman, A. 2011. Solid start, fast fade for movies. Los Angeles Times, December 30,
latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-box-office-wrap-20111230,0,2205189.story. 8. NATO press releases, Cinema Advertising, 2005–2012. 9. NATO press releases, 2005–2012.
10. Boorstin, J. 2011. Huge upside and ominous underbelly from a big weekend box office. May 31, www.cnbc.com/id/43228469/. 11. Mintel Report. Movie theaters—US—February 2008—reasons to go to movies over watching a dvd. 12. Mintel Report. Movie theaters—US—February 2008—Reasons why attendance is not higher. 13. Kelly, K., Orwall, B., & Sanders, P. 2005. The multiplex under siege. Wall Street Journal, December 24: P1. 14. Blog comment. N.d. Over the past ten years, the movie theater experience has … Cinema Treasures, cinematreasures.org/polls/22/. 15. Incident reported in Goldstein, P. 2005. Now playing: A glut of ads. Los Angeles Times, July 12: E-1,
articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/12/entertainment/et-goldstein12. 16. DuBravac, 17. DuBravac, 2007. 18. Tuttle, B. 2012. TV prices shrink—Yet average TV purchase costs more. Time Magazine. 19. TechDigest. 2008. Average TV size up to 60-inch by 2015 says Sharp. www.techdigest.tv/2008/01/average_tv_size.html.
C105
20. Ibid. 21. Verrier, R. 2012. U.S. theater owners get lump of coal at box office. Los Angeles Times. December 30,
latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-theaters-20111230,0,7228622.story. 22. Kung, M. 2012. Movie magic to leave home for? Wall Street Journal, May 10: D1-D2. 23. Snider, M. 2012. Blu-ray grows, but DVD slide nips home video sales. USA Today, January 9. 24. Jannarone, J. 2012. As studios fight back, will Coinstar box itself into a corner? Wall Street Journal, February 6: C6. 25. Ibid. 26. Zeitchik, S., & Horn, J. 2013. Sundance darlings eye alternative distribution platforms. Los Angeles
Timestouch.latimes.com.section/64Uarticle/p2p-74047654/. 27. Jannarone. 2012. As studios fight back. 28. Big Picture. Why is movie theatre revenue attendance declining? bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/07/declining_movie.htm. 29. Dodes, R. 2012. IMAX strikes back. Wall Street Journal, April 19,
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577347940832511540.html. 30. Kung. 2012. Movie magic to leave home for? 31. Sony. 2011. Alternative content for theatres. Sony Digital Cinema 4K: 1. 32. Shubin, M. (Writer). 2012. Alternative content at a theater near you. YouTube: ShubinCafe; Smith, R. 2012. Leonardo’s London blockbuster:
The movie. New York Times, February 15. 33. Cinedigm. 2012. Investor presentation: Jefferies 2012 Global Technology, Media & Telecom Conference. Cinedigm.
files.shareholder.com/downloads/AIXD/2302444840x0x567367/4a21 3e2c-11ae-4cdc-8dd1-970919ac80ac/CIDM%20IR%20deck%20 050712%20Short.pdf.
34. Ellingson, A. 2012. Who’s stressed about digital cinema? Not Digiplex’s Bud Mayo. Business Journal-LA, October 15. 35. Ibid. 36. Lazarus, D. 2012. Movie tickets: Now how much would you pay? Los Angeles Times, April 26. 37. Audience Entertain. 2009. AE Case: Volvo XC70 Launch. January 21, www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYVuLGLnyAAM. 38. Reuters. 2011. Angry Birds to swoop on formula one track. CNBC, September 22, www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-angrybirds-
idUSTRE78L1IY20110922.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C106
CASES
CASE 17 IS DIPPIN’ DOTS FROZEN OUT?*
In May 2012, Dippin’ Dots LLC, a newly formed company based in Oklahoma and funded by private capital, acquired the Paducah, Kentucky-based Dippin’ Dots Inc. A motion to approve the proposed sale was filed in April 2012 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Louisville, Kentucky In November 2011, Dippin’ Dots Inc. had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in federal court in Kentucky, due to a combination of reasons, including owing millions to lenders from costly patent litigation, as well as increased operating costs and plummeting sales. In the bankruptcy filing, the company listed about $20.2 million in assets and more than $12 million in liabilities.1 The acquisition was approved shortly after, in May of the same year.
Dippin’ Dots employed approximately 165 workers at their facility in Paducah, Kentucky, and Scott Fischer, president of Dippin’ Dots LLC, had no particular plan to move the facility or let go of any existing employees. This buyer was unaffiliated with the existing Dippin’ Dots Inc. Scott Fischer said, “We are looking forward to working with the Dippin’ Dots management team and employees to maximize the opportunity of the business and realize the company’s growth potential in a global market. We are committed to ensuring that Dippin’ Dots reclaims its status, not as a novelty of the past, but as the ice cream of the future. This transaction has become a very equitable solution to the parties involved, and we expect a very smooth transition.”2
Scott Fischer took the opportunity to acquire Dippin’ Dots Inc. in order to rescue the frozen novelty and keep it afloat. Fischer added, “We are looking forward to rolling up our sleeves and personally meeting with all of the employees, franchisees, and business associates of the company and moving forward in a very stable and productive manner. We see substantial value in the Dippin’ Dots brand, one of the most well-known brand names in the retail market.”3
Showing their enthusiasm for growth, in January 2013, Scott Fischer and the new executive team decided to invest over $3.1 million in the company’s home facility in Kentucky, expanding operations and creating 30 new fulltime jobs. Prior to the expansion, Dippin’ Dots employed 170 workers, 60 of whom lived in the Paducah area.
*This case was prepared by Professor Alan B. Eisner of Pace University and graduate student Brian R. Callahan of Pace University as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2013 Alan B. Eisner.
Fischer stated, “This investment underscores our long-term commitment to market the wonderful Dippin’ Dots brand, introduce new products to complement existing ones, and maintain the historic ties to Kentucky.”4 Other improvements will include purchasing energy-efficient equipment, upgrading processes, and renovating the facility. Dippin’ Dots products, all of which are manufactured in Paducah, are distributed in 48 states and 11 countries. Available in many tastes and types—such as Original Dots, Dots ‘n Cream, Coffee, and Dot Treats—Dippin’ Dots’s innovative take on the frozen food has changed the public’s way of looking at ice cream.
Yet despite their unique twist on the classic frozen novelty, prior to the acquisition, Dippin’ Dots had recently been encountering abysmal revenues and was having trouble maintaining attention in the market. Feeling the pressure, product innovation became the hope for a turnaround. By 2010, Dippin’ Dots had expanded its product line from ice creams to uniquely brewed coffees. Founder Curt Jones took a similar colder-than-cold instant-freezing process that made Dippin’ Dots ice creams so delectable and redirected that technology to fresh brewed coffee. Just as he had dubbed Dippin’ Dots the “ice cream of the future” two decades earlier, he said the new “coffee dots” would adopt the slogan “coffee of the future.” Real espresso was made from fresh, high-quality Arabica beans then flash frozen into dots immediately, capturing the flavor and aroma. Named “Forty Below Joe edible coffee,” the coffee dots could be eaten with a spoon, heated with water and milk to make a hot “fresh-brewed” coffee without brewing, or blended with Frappé beads to make a Dippin’ Dots Frappé. Jones’s once-kid-targeted dots now had a very adult twist. As of April 2011, four flavors of
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
edible coffee dots—Espresso, Caramel Frappé, Mocha Frappé, and Vanilla Frappé—were available at various locations of Dippin’ Dots. Jones hoped that this new product would take Dippin’ Dots outside the arena of seasonal treats.
However, Jones was also thinking about more kid-friendly treats. For years Jones had been thinking of coming out with low-calorie, low-fat Dippin’ Dots that could meet the nutrition requirements and regulations to be sold at public schools. The result was “Chillz,” a lower-calorie alternative to ice cream introduced in 2010. Dippin’ Dots Chillz was a low-fat frozen-beaded dessert made with Truvia, an all-natural sweetener. This healthier alternative to ice cream was also an excellent source of Vitamin C
C107
and was available in three flavors: Sour Blue Razz, Wango Rainbo, and Chocolate.5 “We’re starting to distribute Chillz through the vending channel. We already have two contracts underway and expect to get more. Vending companies know and love the Dippin’ Dots brand. With Chillz and other products, it’s a great opportunity for them. Schools need that revenue. They’ve thrown out a lot of products in recent times that have no nutritional value. So we feel bullish about Chillz,” said Dippin’ Dots’ vice president of sales, Michael Barrette, in 2010.6
History
Founded by Curt Jones and incorporated in 1988, Dippin’ Dots Inc., headquartered in Paducah, Kentucky, was the company that made the “ice cream of the future.”7 The company’s chief operation was the sale of BB-size pellets of flash-frozen ice cream in some two dozen flavors to franchisees and national accounts throughout the world. As a Six Flags customer commented, “I gotta say, man, they’re pretty darn good…. Starts off like a rock candy but ends up like ice cream.”8
Dippin’ Dots was the marriage between old-fashioned handmade ice cream and space-age technology. Dippin’ Dots were tiny round beads of ice cream that were made at super-cold temperatures, served at subzero temperatures in a soufflé cup, and eaten with a spoon. The super-cold freezing of Dippin’ Dots ice cream, done by liquid nitrogen, cryogenically locked in both flavor and freshness in a way that no other manufactured ice cream could offer. The process virtually eliminated the presence of trapped ice and air, giving the ice cream a fresh flavor and a hard texture. Not only had Jones discovered a new way of making ice cream, but many felt his product proved to be much more flavorful and richer than regular ice cream. According to Jones, “I created a way … [to] get a quicker freeze so the ice cream wouldn’t get large ice crystals…. About six months later, I decided to quit my job and go into business.”
Jones was a microbiologist by trade, with an area of expertise in cryogenics. His first job was researching and engineering as a microbiologist for ALLtech Inc., a bioengineering company based in Lexington, Kentucky. During his days at ALLtech, Jones worked with different types of bacteria to find new ways of preserving them so that they could be transported throughout the world. He applied a method of freezing using super-cold temperatures with substances such as liquid CO2 and liquid nitrogen—the same method he later used to create Dippin’ Dots.
One process Jones developed was “microencapsulating” the bacteria by freezing their medium with liquid nitrogen. Other scientists thought he was crazy, because nothing like that had ever been done before. Jones, however, was convinced his idea would work. He spent months trying to perfect the process and continued to make progress. While Jones was working over 80 hours a week in
ALLtech’s labs to perfect the microencapsulating process, he made the most influential decision of his life. He took a weekend off and attended a family barbeque at his parents’ house. It just so happened that his mother was making ice cream the day of the barbeque. Jones began to reminisce about homemade ice cream prepared the slow, old-fashioned way. Then Jones wondered if it was possible to flash-freeze ice cream. Instead of using a bacteria medium, was it possible to microencapsulate ice cream?
The answer was yes. After virtually reinventing a frozen dessert that had been around since the second century BC,9
Jones patented his idea to flash-freeze liquid cream, and he opened the first Dippin’ Dots store.10 Once franchising was offered in 2000, the “Ice Cream of the Future” could be found at thousands of shopping malls, amusement parks, water parks, fairs, and festivals worldwide. Dippin’ Dots ice cream was transported coast to coast and around the world by truck, train, plane, and ship. In addition to being transported in specially designed cryogenic transport containers, the product was transported in refrigerated boxes known as pallet reefers. Both types of containers ensured fast and efficient
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
delivery to franchisees around the world. The product was served in 4-, 5-, and 8-ounce cups and in 5-ounce vending prepacks.
Product Specifics
Dippin’ Dots were flash-frozen beads of ice cream typically served in a cup or vending package. The ice cream averaged 90 calories per serving, depending on the flavor, and had 9 grams of fat. The ice cream was produced by a patented process that introduced flavored liquid cream into a vat of —325-degree liquid nitrogen, where it was flash-frozen to produce the bead or dot shape. Once frozen, the dots were collected and either mixed with other flavors or packaged separately for delivery to retail locations. The product had to be stored at subzero temperatures to maintain the consistency of the dots. Subzero storage temperatures were achieved by utilizing special equipment and freezers supplemented with dry ice. Although storage was a challenge for international shipping, the beads could maintain their shape for up to 15 days in their special containers. To maintain product integrity and consistency, the ice cream had to be served at 10 to 20 degrees below zero. A retail location had to have special storage and serving freezers. Because the product had to be stored and served at such low temperatures, it was unavailable in regular frozen-food cases and could not be stored in a typical household freezer. Therefore, it could be consumed only at or near a retail location, unless stored with dry ice to maintain the necessary storage temperature.
Industry Overview
The frozen dairy industry has traditionally been occupied by family-owned businesses such as Dippin’ Dots,
C108
full-line dairies, and a couple of large international companies that focused on only a single sales region. The year 2008 was a relatively flat year for the production and sale of ice cream, as volume in traditional varieties remained flat and new types of ice cream emerged. Despite higher ingredient costs, manufacturers were continually churning out new products, though at a slower rate than in the previous year. These ranged from super-premium selections to good-for-you varieties to cobranded packages and novelties. Most novelty ice creams could be found together in supermarket freezer cases, in small freezers in convenience stores, and in carts, kiosks, or trucks at popular summertime events. Ice cream makers had been touched by consolidation trends affecting the overall food and beverage industry that extended beyond their products, as even the big names were folded into global conglomerates.
The ice cream segment in the United States had become a battleground for two huge international consumer-product companies seeking to corner the ice cream market. Those two industry giants were Nestlé SA of Switzerland, the world’s largest food company, with more than $90 billion in annual sales, and Unilever PLC of London and Rotterdam, with over $52 billion in annual revenues. Both had been buying into U.S. firms for quite a while, but Nestlé, which already owned the Häagen-Dazs product line, upped the ante with its June 2003 merger with Dreyer’s Grand/Edy’s Ice Cream Inc. of Oakland, California. But even as the two giants dominated the U.S. ice cream industry, about 500 small businesses continued to produce and distribute frozen treats. As one commentator said, “Like microbrewers and small-scale chocolate makers, entrepreneurs are drawn to ice cream as a labor of love.”11 Some of the better-known brands were regional ones, such as Blue Bell, based in Brenham, Texas (see Exhibit 1).
EXHIBIT 1 Top 10 Ice Cream Brands for the 52 weeks ending May 13, 2012
Sales in Dollars
(millions)
Sales in Dollars from One Year
Ago
Percentage Change vs. Year
Ago Market
Share (%) Unit Sales (millions)
Total category $3,498.1 $3,167.7 10.4% 56.8% $1,370.0
Private label (ice cream) 1,100 812.8 35.3 16.7 285.9
Blue Bell 421.6 253.2 66.5 4.7 196.7
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Breyers 421.3 638.8 –34.1 4.6 130.9
Ben & Jerry’s 362.1 207.6 74.4 3.4 83.4
Häagen-Dazs 313.8 287.3 9.2 8.8 76.8
Dreyer’s/Edy’s Slow Churned
273.7 284 –3.6 12.0* 75.0
Wells’ Blue Bunny 168 122 37.7 4.4 67.8
Dreyer’s/Edy’s Grand 159.9 445.1 –64.1 12.0* 34.6
Turkey Hill 149.8 116.9 28.1 2.2 41.8
Dreyer’s/Edy’s Fun Flavors (now part of the Grand line)
127.9 — — 12.0* 27.3
*Total U.S. FDMxC—supermarkets, drugstores, gas/C-stores and mass market retailers, excluding Walmart, club stores and liquor stores. *Brand total.
Source: SymphonyIRI Group
More than $11.1 billion was spent on ice cream in 2012, and ice cream and related frozen desserts were consumed by more than 90 percent of households in the United States.12 Consumers spent $8.9 billion on products for at-home consumption, while $13.9 billion went toward away-from-home purchases. Harry Balzar, of the market research firm NPD Group, said about ice cream in general, “It’s not a small category, but one that has remained flat for more than a decade, and is not likely to grow.”13 The challenge for producers was to woo customers away from competitors and sustain a loyal fan base by continuing to innovate. The trend toward more healthy treats had spurred the major players, Nestlé and Unilever, to develop reduced-fat product lines that still had the taste and texture of full-fat ice cream. Edy’s/Dreyer’s, Breyers, and Häagen-Dazs had all continued to experiment, and the
C109
“slow churned,” “double-churn,” and “light” products were seeing increased sales since their introduction in 2004.14
In October 2002 it was announced that Good Humor-Breyers Ice Cream of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Ben & Jerry’s of Vermont had formed a unified retail sales division named Unilever Ice Cream. The new organization brought together both companies and represented the five Unilever North American ice cream brands, which include Ben & Jerry’s, Breyers, Good Humor, Popsicle, and Klondike. Good Humor-Breyers had created several new cobranded novelties specifically for convenience-store and vending locations. The company had also set out to expand the availability of single-serve novelties by placing freezers of its products in Blockbuster video stores and Breyers-branded kiosks in 30 Chicago-area Loews theaters. In addition to prepackaged products, freshly scooped ice cream was served at the kiosks. The new sales team would focus solely on the out-of-home ice cream business and, therefore, exclude grocery channels.
Another novelty product delivery system in the independent scoop shop was the “slab” concept. Employees at franchises such as Marble Slab Creamery, Cold Stone Creamery, and Maggie Moo’s worked ingredients on a cold granite or marble slab to blend premium ice cream with the customer’s choice of tasty additives, such as crumbled cookies, fruits, and nuts, before serving it in a cup or cone. The novelty was the entertainment of watching the preparation. All three chains ranked in Entrepreneur’s list of the top 500 franchise opportunities in 2006, but commentators were skeptical of their sustainability once the novelty wore off, especially since the average price was $5 for a medium serving.15 As of 2011, both Cold Stone Creamery and Marble Slab Creamery were able to maintain spots in Entrepreneur magazine’s list of the top 500 franchises, ranked in the 54th and 147th positions, respectively.16
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Industry Segmentation
Frozen desserts come in many forms. Each of the following foods has its own definition, and many are standardized by federal regulations.17
• Ice cream consists of a mixture of dairy ingredients, such as cream, milk, and nonfat milk, and ingredients for sweetening and flavoring, such as fruits, nuts, and chocolate chips. Functional ingredients, such as stabilizers and emulsifiers, are often included in the product to promote proper texture and enhance the eating experience. By federal law, ice cream must contain at least 10 percent butterfat before the addition of bulky ingredients, and it must weigh a minimum of 4.5 pounds to the gallon.
• Novelties are separately packaged single servings of a frozen dessert, such as ice cream sandwiches, fudge sticks, and juice bars, which may or may not contain dairy ingredients.
• Frozen custard or french ice cream must also contain a minimum of 10 percent butterfat as well as at least 1.4 percent egg yolk solids.
• Sherbets have a butterfat content of between 1 and 2 percent and have a slightly higher sweetener content than ice cream. Sherbet weighs a minimum of 6 pounds to the gallon and is flavored either with fruit or other characterizing ingredients.
• Gelato is characterized by an intense flavor and is served in a semifrozen state. Gelato contains sweeteners, milk, cream, egg yolks, and flavoring.
• Sorbet and water ices are similar to sherbets, but they contain no dairy ingredients.
• A quiescently frozen confection is a frozen novelty such as a water-ice novelty on a stick.
• Frozen yogurt consists of a mixture of dairy ingredients, such as milk and nonfat milk, that have been cultured, as well as ingredients for sweetening and flavoring.
Dippin’ Dots’ Growth18
The growth of Dippin’ Dots Inc. had been recognized in the United States and the world by industry watchdogs such as Inc. magazine, which ranked Dippin’ Dots as one of the 500 fastest-growing companies two years in a row, 1996 and 1997. Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. ranked number four on Entrepreneur magazine’s 2004 list of the top 50 new franchise companies, and it achieved the 101st spot on Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 for 2004. In 2005 Dippin’ Dots ranked number two as a top new franchise opportunity and climbed to number 93 on the Franchise 500 list. By the end of 2009, Dippin’ Dots had slid to 175th position on Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 list.19 And by 2011 Dippin’ Dots had fallen off the list. Exhibit 2 shows the growth of franchises for Dippin’ Dots.
Despite the company’s initial success, the achievements of Curt Jones and Dippin’ Dots have not come without obstacles. Once Jones had perfected his idea, he needed to start a company for the new process of flash-freezing ice cream. Like many new entrepreneurs, Jones enlisted the help of his family to support his endeavor. It was essential to start selling his product, but he had no protection for his idea from competitors.
The first obstacle confronting Jones was the need to locate funding to accomplish his goals. He needed money for the patent to protect his intellectual property and needed seed money to start manufacturing the ice cream once the patent was granted. At the same time that Jones was perfecting the flash-freezing process for his ice cream, he was also working on a Small Business Administration
C110
(SBA) loan to convert the family farm into one that would manufacture ethanol. However, instead of using the farm to produce the alternative fuel, Jones’s parents took out a first, and then a second, mortgage to help fund Jones’s endeavor. Thus, Jones initiated the entire venture by self-funding his company with personal and family assets.
EXHIBIT 2 Dippin’ Dots Franchise Growth
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Year U.S. Franchises Canadian Franchises Foreign Franchises Company Owned
2012 183 1 0 1
2011 *284 1 0 1
2010 *385 1 0 1
2009 486 1 0 1
2008 420 0 0 2
2007 441 0 0 3
2006 448 1 0 2
2005 635 1 0 2
2004 618 1 0 2
2003 598 0 0 2
2002 580 0 0 2
2001 569 0 0 3
2000 525 0 0 1
*author estimates
Unfortunately, the money from Jones’s parents was only enough to pay for the patent and some crude manufacturing facilities (a liquid nitrogen tank in his parent’s garage). He next had to open a store, and doing so required even more money—money that Jones and his family did not have. They were unable to get the SBA loan because, while the product was novel and looked promising, there was no proof that it would sell. So Jones and his newly appointed CFO (his sister) went to an alternative lender who lent them cash at an exorbitant interest rate that was tacked onto the principal weekly if unpaid.
Now in possession of the seed money they needed, Curt Jones and his family opened their first store. Its summertime opening created a buzz in the community. The store was mobbed every night, and Dippin’ Dots was legitimized by public demand. With the influx of cash, Jones was able to move his manufacturing operation from his family’s garage into a vacant warehouse. There he set up shop and personally made flash-frozen ice cream for 12 hours every day to supply the store.
After the store had been operating for a few months, the Joneses were able to secure small business loans from local banks to cover the expenses of a modest manufacturing plant and office. At the same time, Jones’s sister made calls to fairs and other events to learn whether Dippin’ Dots products could be sold at them. Luckily for the Joneses, the amusement park at Opryland in Nashville, Tennessee, was willing to have them as a vendor. Unfortunately, the first Dippin’ Dots stand was placed in front of a roller coaster, and people generally did not want ice cream before they went on a ride. After a few unsuccessful weeks, Jones moved the stand and business picked up considerably. Eventually, the Joneses were able to move to an inline location, which was similar to a store, where Dip-pin’ Dots had its own personnel and sitting area to serve customers.
Through word of mouth, interest in Curt Jones and Dippin’ Dots spread. Soon other entrepreneurs contacted Jones about opening up stores to sell Dippin’ Dots. In 1991 a dealership network was developed to sell ice cream to authorized vendors and provide support with equipment and marketing. During that time, Jones employed friends in corporate jobs. Dippin’ Dots grew into a multimillion dollar company with authorized dealers operating in all 50 states and internationally (see Exhibit 3).
By the end of the 1990s, Jones was happy with his company, but he felt as if Dippin’ Dots had hit a plateau and needed to reach the “next level” to continue to prosper. He began working with his friend and now controller
C111
and director of franchising, Chad Wilson, to develop the franchise system. By January 2000, all existing Dippin’ Dots dealers were required to sign a franchise agreement and pay the associated franchise fees for any location they operated or planned to operate.
EXHIBIT 3 Milestones
1988 Dippin’ Dots is established as a company in Grand Chain, Illinois.
1989 First amusement park account debuts at Opryland USA in Nashville.
1990 Production facility moves to Paducah, Kentucky.
1991 Dealer network is established for fair, festival, and commercial retail locations.
1994 First international licensee is set up (Japan).
1995 New 32,000-square-foot production facility opens in Paducah.
1997 Production facility expands by 20,000 square feet; company earns spot on Inc. 500 list of fastest-growing private companies in the United States.
2000 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. is established, and first franchise is offered; litigation against competitors is initiated to protect patent.
2001 Dippin’ Dots enlists 30 new franchisees. Franchise Times magazine lists Dippin’ Dots third in the United States in number of ice cream franchise locations behind Baskin Robbins and Dairy Queen.
2002 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. achieves 112th spot on Entrepreneur magazine’s Franchise 500 list, ranks 69th on their list of the fastest-growing franchise companies, and is named the number 1 new franchise company. Dippin’ Dots becomes a regular menu offering at McDonald’s restaurants in the San Francisco Bay area.
2003 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. achieves 144th spot on Entrepreneur magazine’s Franchise 500 list and number 4 on Entrepreneur’s list of the top 50 new franchise companies. Dippin’ Dots opens the Ansong manufacturing plant, 80 miles south of Seoul, South Korea.
2004 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. ranks number 4 on Entrepreneur’s Top 50 New Franchise Companies list and achieves 101st spot on Entrepreneur magazine’s Franchise 500 list. Curt Jones and Dippin’ Dots are featured on a segment of the Oprah Winfrey Show, appearing in 110 countries. Dippin’ Dots is featured among the top 10 ice cream palaces on the Travel Channel. Curt Jones is quoted in Donald Trump’s best-selling The Way to the Top (p. 131).
2005 International Dairy Foods Association names Dippin’ Dots Best in Show for Dot Delicacies. Dippin’ Dots also wins three awards for package design. Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. ranks number one on Franchise Times magazine’s Fast 55 list of the fastest-growing young franchises in the nation. Ice cream cake and ice cream sandwiches (Dotwiches) are introduced to launch the Dot Delicacies program.
2006 Company leadership is restructured. Curt Jones becomes chairman of the board. Tom Leonard becomes president of Dippin’ Dots Inc. Dots ‘n Cream, conventional ice cream enhanced by beads of Dippin’ Dots, is introduced for market testing in Kroger stores in the Midwest. The 200th franchisee begins operations.
2007 Dippin’ Dots is available in Colombia, and www.dippindots.com V.5 is launched.
2008 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. ranks 112th on Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 list.
2009 Curt Jones returns to running the day-to-day operations of the firm. Dippin’ Dots slides to 175th on Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 list.
2010 Dippin’ Dots has 3 million Facebook fans.
2011 On November 4, 2011, Dippin’ Dots files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
2012 On May 18, 2012, the purchase of Dippin’ Dots by Scott Fischer, president of Dippin’ Dots LLC, is approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Source: Dippin’ Dots Inc. n.d. History. www.dippindots.com/more-info/history.html.
A franchise location was any mall, fair, national account, or large family entertainment center. According to the franchising information in 2011, the initial franchise fee was $12,500, with an estimated initial investment range from $80,428 to $235,250.20 The result was a cash inflow
C112
for Dippin’ Dots franchising. Franchisees were required to pay a 4 percent royalty fee and contribute 0.5 percent of their gross incomes to an advertising fund, which Jones said had greatly enhanced marketing.
The Ice Cream of the Future
Dippin’ Dots was counting on youthful exuberance to expand growth. “Our core demographic was pretty much 8- to 18- year-olds,” said Terry Reeves, former corporate communications director. “On top of that, we’re starting to see a generation of parents who grew up on Dippin’ Dots and are starting to introduce the products to their kids.” Although Dippin’ Dots seems to appeal more to youngsters, the product still has to have staying power as customers grow older. As one individual commented, “How can this stuff keep continuing to call itself the ‘ice cream of the future’? Well the future is now, folks, and they have been pushing this sorry excuse for ice cream off on me at amusement parks and zoos since I was a little kid.”21
In 2002 McDonald’s reportedly spent $1.2 million on advertising to roll out Dippin’ Dots in about 250 restaurants in the San Francisco area. Jones called the deal “open-ended” if it worked favorably for both firms. “I think both companies are proceeding with the impression that nothing was going to be overcommitted,” he said. “We’re growing at a 10 to 15 percent annual rate and we’re excited about the potential of McDonald’s, but it’s too early to tell.” However, by 2007 Dippin’ Dots was available only at a few McDonald’s franchises in southern California. Storage and transportation issues were problematic, and the price of the product, 5 ounces for $5, was too steep for all but the die-hard Dippin’ Dots fans.
In other marketing efforts, Dippin’ Dots ads had been running in issues of Seventeen and Nickelodeon magazines. Reeves said the company had been “inundated with e-mails” after the June 2002 issue of Seventeen hit the newsstands. Additionally, Dippin’ Dots had hired a Hollywood firm to place its ice cream in the background of television and movie scenes, including the 2003 Cheaper by the Dozen. In 2002 the Food Network’s Summer Foods: Unwrapped showcased Dippin’ Dots as one of the most unique and coolest ice cream treats. ‘N Sync member Joey Fatone ordered a Dippin’ Dots freezer for his home after seeing a Dots vending machine at a theater the band rented in Orlando. Caterers also sought Dippin’ Dots for their star clients. A birthday party at the home of NBA star Shaquille O’Neal featured Dippin’ Dots ice cream. Dippin’ Dots continued to pursue the celebrity word-of-mouth route by serving Dippin’ Dots products at events such as the MTV awards and celebrity charity functions.
According to Jones, almost half of Dippin’ Dots’ sales came from national accounts such as stadiums, theaters, and theme parks like Six Flags; the rest of the estimated $50 million income came from approximately 150 franchisees, many with multiple locations.22
Dippin’ Dots had met increased competition in the out-of-home ice cream market. The major threats to Dippin’ Dots were other franchise operations, such as Ben & Jerry’s, Häagen-Dazs, Baskin-Robbins, Carvel, Dairy Queen, and newcomers such as Cold Stone Creamery, Maggie Moo’s, and Marble Slab Creamery (see Exhibit 4).
In addition, a similar type of flash-frozen ice cream called Frosty Bites was introduced in the spring of 2000 by eight disenfranchised former dealers of Dippin’ Dots. Another company, Mini Melts, was also manufacturing a similar product, and two brothers who were formerly part of the Dippin’ Dots dealer network brought this flash-frozen ice cream into the competitive mix. In 2002 Jones had thought that introducing a formal franchising agreement would provide protection against copycats and unify the company’s public image, since Dippin’ Dots was often unrecognizable under its unstructured dealership network of locations. Terry Reeves said,
The stronger and more unified Dippin’ Dots retail offering became through franchising, the more [franchisees] were able to be considered for better retail properties (high-end malls, better locations, and so on). This obviously strengthened our system and bolstered overall sales for the company and for our franchisees. While franchise fees and royalties were a new income source, much of the profit was put back into the business to promote future growth.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Although one dealer commented that Dippin’ Dots used incoming franchise fees from royalties on sales for its own corporate means rather than to improve franchise support, most dealers did convert to the new franchise system. Dip-pin’ Dots Franchising Inc. grandfathered existing dealers’ locations by issuing a franchise and waiving the franchise fee for the first contract period of five years. Many dealers had to renew their contracts in 2004; while many were initially apprehensive of converting to a franchised system, less than 2 percent left the system, and the firm showed franchise growth.
Meltdown?
In an attempt to counteract the copycat threats from Frosty Bites and Mini Melts, Dippin’ Dots brought a patent infringement lawsuit against them in 2005. However, during the jury trial, Dippin’ Dots’ testimony in support of the original patent revealed that Jones had made sales of the beaded ice cream product to over 800 customers more than a year before submitting the patent application. Even though Jones argued that these sales were for the purpose of market testing and that the production method had subsequently been further refined, and therefore deserving of a patented process, the court rendered the patent nonen-forceable because these sales were not disclosed to the Patent Office. An appeal by Dippin’ Dots was denied in 2007, and the patent was declared invalid.23
C113
EXHIBIT 4 Ice Cream Franchises, 2013
Franchise Name and Description Start-Up Costs ($ thousands)
Number of Franchises
Abbott’s Frozen Custard Frozen custard 120–126.8 20
All American Specialty Restaurants Inc. Ice cream, frozen yogurt, deli sandwiches, espresso
171–485 30
Applegate Inc. Ice cream 137.7–322 7
Baskin-Robbins USA Co. Ice cream, frozen yogurt, frozen beverages
46–401 2,597
Ben & Jerry’s Ice cream parlor 143.3–446.2 340
Blue Sky Creamery Ice cream, gourmet coffees, desserts 98.8–157.5 7
Bruster’s Real Ice Cream Homemade ice cream 201–1,273 225
California Quivers Carts and kiosks serving fresh-fruit ices 45–149.3 3
Carvel Ice cream, ice cream cakes 261.8–350.7 417
Cefiore Frozen yogurt 196.5–425 27
Cold Stone Creamery Ice cream, Italian sorbet 292.4–440.2 1,163
Culver Franchising System Inc. Frozen custard, specialty burgers 1,600–2,800 412
Dairy Queen Soft-serve dairy products, sandwiches 382–1,800 4,451
Dippin’ Dots Franchising Specialty ice cream, frozen yogurt, ices, sherbet
80.4–235.3 183
Fiji Yogurt Frozenyogurt 163.3–368.5 0
Freddy’s Frozen Custard LLC Frozen custard, steakburgers, hot dogs
332–788 22
165.7–386.2 16
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
FreshBerry Natural Frozen Yogurt Natural frozen yogurt, smoothies, yogurt popsicles
Golden Spoon Franchising Frozen yogurt 365.5–442.5 2
Häagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. Inc. Ice cream, frozen yogurt 143.9–428.1 250
Happy Joe’s Pizza, pasta, ice cream 113.7–1,200 50
La Paletera Franchise Systems Inc. Fruit bars and cups, smoothies, ice cream
94.5–185.7 35
MaggieMoo’s Intl. LLC Ice cream, smoothies, cakes 225.7–354.5 139
Marble Slab Creamery Inc. Ice cream, frozen yogurt, baked goods 250–403 261
Melt Inc. Gelato, Italian coffees, crepes 200–400 8
Menchie’s Self-serve frozen yogurt 241.5–574.5 38
Paciugo Gelato & Caffe Gelato 177.7–475.5 42
Red Mango Franchising Co. Frozen yogurt 252.1–496.6 65
Repicci’s Italian Ice Italian ice 50–143.3 48
Ricky’s Italian Ice Italian ice, soft serve ice cream, desserts 98.7–195 0
Rita’s Italian Ice Italian ices, frozen custard, gelati 199.4–378.4 561
Ritter’s Frozen Custard Frozen custard 249–818 62
Scandinavian Shave Ice Shaved ice, ice cream, coffee 131.4–297.7 0
Shake’s Frozen Custard Frozen custard 168–800 30
Spoon Me Franchising LLC Frozen yogurt 183–491 8
Strickland’s Homemade ice cream, related products 253.7–431.4 14
Sub Zero Ice Cream Frozen desserts 98.5–202.5 7
Tasti D-Lite Frozen desserts 253.7–431.4 51
TCBY Frozen yogurt 143.8–343.4 438
Yogurtland Franchising Inc. Self-serve frozen yogurt 228.9–521.5 96
Source: Entrepreneur. n.d. Ice cream franchises. www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/categories/ffqicecr.html.
C114
Mini Melts, released from the lawsuit, continued to expand manufacturing facilities throughout the world; it had plants in South Korea, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, and China as well as the United Kingdom and the United States. Instead of having franchises, Mini Melts sold dealerships for vending machines and kiosks carrying its products. Mini Melts CEO Tom Mosey was nominated by Ernst and Young as Entrepreneur of the Year and has been listed in the Inc. 500 for two separate ventures over the years.
By 2009 Dippin’ Dots had billed itself as the ice cream of the future for over 20 years. However, Dippin’ Dots was close to a meltdown. Founder Curt Jones said that Dippin’ Dots “just got hit by a perfect storm” of soaring operating costs and plummeting sales. Jones then resumed daily control over the troubled Dippin’ Dots after a three-year break from operations. Jones let go of President Tom Leonard, who had run Samsonite before joining Dippin’ Dots in August
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
2006, and Operations Vice President Dominic Fontana, who had spent about 17 years with Häagen-Dazs. Jones described the separations as amicable and regrettable.
In spite of these challenges, Jones, always the inventor, was investing in R&D to create a conventional ice cream product that had super-frozen dots embedded in it. He was developing a new product that could withstand conventional freezers while preserving the super-frozen dots in the ice cream. Called Dots ‘n Cream and available in berry crème, caramel cappuccino, mint chocolate, orange crème de la crème, vanilla bean, vanilla over the rainbow, wild about chocolate, and banana split, this product was introduced for market testing in Kroger stores in the Midwest in 2006. Thus, Dippin’ Dots could finally have a take-home ice cream option. As of April 2011, the Dots ‘n Cream product was still only available in a few locations and could be bought online.
The other new product introduced by Dippin’ Dots was Dot Delicacies. The new product to be introduced in this category was named Dot Treats. As of April 2011, there were seven different Dot Treats: Solar Freeze, sundaes, floats, shakes, Clusterz, Quakes, and LOL (lots of layers). These products were available at most of the retail locations where Dippin’ Dots ice cream was sold.
By 2010, Dippin’ Dots had started an online venture by selling some of its products through its website. Customers could order ice creams, yogurts, and sherbets online, and they would be delivered to their doors. The company had also branched out and released a series of coffee-based products. The “coffee dots” were new concepts in coffee—frappé and espresso that could be eaten by spoon or could be made into hot coffee drinks by just adding water and milk. Another untapped market Jones and his team tried to enter was the market of healthy ice cream. The low-fat frozen beaded dessert named
“Chillz,” made with all-natural sweetener, was introduced by Dippin’ Dots as a healthier alternative to ice cream. This product was developed with public schools in mind and was being distributed in schools through vending channels.
Despite the development of new products, the company’s experience and resource base are clearly in the ice cream manufacturing and scoop-shop retailing businesses. Dealing with supermarket chains and vending distribution firms is an ongoing challenge for this relatively small firm. However, with new ownership in place and a new source of capital available, Dippin’ Dots is optimistic about the future, focusing on what they’re good at and looking to recapture attention in the frozen novelty industry.
ENDNOTES 1. www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/dippin-dots-maker-declares-bankruptcy-ice-cream-future-files-chapter-11-reorganization-
article-1.973683 2. www.dippindots.com/news/2012/04/Purchase-Agreement.html 3. Ibid. 4. www.dippindots.com/news/2013/01/Expand-Manufacturing.html. 5. Dippin’ Dots Inc. 2010. Dippin’ Dots Chillz frozen treat. VendingMarketWatch.com, January 7,
www.vendingmarketwatch.com/product/10110602/dippin-dots-chillz-frozen-treat. 6. Perna, G., & Fairbanks, B. 2010. From the future to the present. Food and Drink Digital, March 24,
www.foodanddrinkdigital.com/reports/dippin’-dots-future-present. 7. Information, unless otherwise stated, is derived from the Dippin’ Dots website (www.DippinDots.com), the Dippin’ Dots 10-year anniversary
video, and the self-published Dippin’Dots Corporate Profile. 8. Associated Press. 2006. Business blazing for supercold Dippin’ Dots. July 23, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14001806. 9. Ice cream’s origins are known to reach back as far as the second century BC, although no specific date of origin is known and no inventor has
been indisputably credited with its discovery. We know that Alexander the Great enjoyed snow and ice flavored with honey and nectar. Biblical references also show that King Solomon was fond of iced drinks during harvesting. During the Roman Empire, Nero (AD 54–86) frequently sent runners into the mountains for snow, which was then flavored with fruits and juices. Information from International Dairy Foods Association, Ice Cream Media Kit.
10. The idea of using liquid nitrogen to make ice cream had been around in scientific circles for some time. To learn how to make ice cream this way at home, see www.polsci.wvu.edu/henry/icecream/icecream.html. See also Scientific American. 1994. April: 66–71; and www.subzeroicecream.com/press/coldfacts2006.pdf.
11. Anderson, G. 2005. America’s favorite ice cream. CNN/Money.com, July 29, money.cnn.corn/2C)05/07/25/pf/goodlife/summer_ice_cream. 12. Author estimates; and Dairy Facts, International Ice Cream Association, www.idfa.org. 13. Murphy, K. 2006. Slabs are joining scoops in ice cream retailing. New York Times, October 26,
www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/business/26sbiz.html. 14. Moskin, J. 2006. Creamy, healthier ice cream? What’s the catch? New York Times, July 26,
www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/dining/26cream.html. Note: Slow churned and double churned refer to a process called low-temperature extrusion, which significantly reduces the size of the fat globules and ice crystals in ice cream.
C115
15. Murphy. 2006. Slabs are joining scoops in ice cream retailing. 16. Entrepreneur. 2011. 2011 Franchise 500 rankings. www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/rankings/franchise500-115608/2011,-2.html. 17. All definitions are taken from International Dairy Foods Organization (IDFA). n.d. What’s in the ice cream aisle?
www.idfa.org/news—views/media-kits/ice-cream/whats-in-the-ice-cream-aisle/. 18. Dippin’ Dots 10th anniversary promotional video. 19. Entrepreneur. 2009. 2009 Franchise 500 rankings. www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/rankings/franchise500-115608/2009,-4.html. 20. Dippin’ Dots Inc. n.d. Franchising. www.dippindots.com/business/franchising.html. 21. Michelle, S. 2006. Review. Yelp Reviews-Chicago, November 17, www.yelp.com/biz/qnA4ml7Lu-9W4SDJOF1YPA. 22. Associated Press. 2006. Business blazing for supercold Dippin’ Dots. 23. Jones, L. 2010. Dippin’ Dots spends millions on patent invalidity. Noro IP, November 15, www.noroip.com/news-blog/dippin-dots-spends-
millions-on-patent-invalidity/.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C106
CASES
CASE 17 IS DIPPIN’ DOTS FROZEN OUT?*
In May 2012, Dippin’ Dots LLC, a newly formed company based in Oklahoma and funded by private capital, acquired the Paducah, Kentucky-based Dippin’ Dots Inc. A motion to approve the proposed sale was filed in April 2012 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Louisville, Kentucky In November 2011, Dippin’ Dots Inc. had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in federal court in Kentucky, due to a combination of reasons, including owing millions to lenders from costly patent litigation, as well as increased operating costs and plummeting sales. In the bankruptcy filing, the company listed about $20.2 million in assets and more than $12 million in liabilities.1 The acquisition was approved shortly after, in May of the same year.
Dippin’ Dots employed approximately 165 workers at their facility in Paducah, Kentucky, and Scott Fischer, president of Dippin’ Dots LLC, had no particular plan to move the facility or let go of any existing employees. This buyer was unaffiliated with the existing Dippin’ Dots Inc. Scott Fischer said, “We are looking forward to working with the Dippin’ Dots management team and employees to maximize the opportunity of the business and realize the company’s growth potential in a global market. We are committed to ensuring that Dippin’ Dots reclaims its status, not as a novelty of the past, but as the ice cream of the future. This transaction has become a very equitable solution to the parties involved, and we expect a very smooth transition.”2
Scott Fischer took the opportunity to acquire Dippin’ Dots Inc. in order to rescue the frozen novelty and keep it afloat. Fischer added, “We are looking forward to rolling up our sleeves and personally meeting with all of the employees, franchisees, and business associates of the company and moving forward in a very stable and productive manner. We see substantial value in the Dippin’ Dots brand, one of the most well-known brand names in the retail market.”3
Showing their enthusiasm for growth, in January 2013, Scott Fischer and the new executive team decided to invest over $3.1 million in the company’s home facility in Kentucky, expanding operations and creating 30 new fulltime jobs. Prior to the expansion, Dippin’ Dots employed 170 workers, 60 of whom lived in the Paducah area.
*This case was prepared by Professor Alan B. Eisner of Pace University and graduate student Brian R. Callahan of Pace University as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2013 Alan B. Eisner.
Fischer stated, “This investment underscores our long-term commitment to market the wonderful Dippin’ Dots brand, introduce new products to complement existing ones, and maintain the historic ties to Kentucky.”4 Other improvements will include purchasing energy-efficient equipment, upgrading processes, and renovating the facility. Dippin’ Dots products, all of which are manufactured in Paducah, are distributed in 48 states and 11 countries. Available in many tastes and types—such as Original Dots, Dots ‘n Cream, Coffee, and Dot Treats—Dippin’ Dots’s innovative take on the frozen food has changed the public’s way of looking at ice cream.
Yet despite their unique twist on the classic frozen novelty, prior to the acquisition, Dippin’ Dots had recently been encountering abysmal revenues and was having trouble maintaining attention in the market. Feeling the pressure, product innovation became the hope for a turnaround. By 2010, Dippin’ Dots had expanded its product line from ice creams to uniquely brewed coffees. Founder Curt Jones took a similar colder-than-cold instant-freezing process that made Dippin’ Dots ice creams so delectable and redirected that technology to fresh brewed coffee. Just as he had dubbed Dippin’ Dots the “ice cream of the future” two decades earlier, he said the new “coffee dots” would adopt the slogan “coffee of the future.” Real espresso was made from fresh, high-quality Arabica beans then flash frozen into dots immediately, capturing the flavor and aroma. Named “Forty Below Joe edible coffee,” the coffee dots could be eaten with a spoon,
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
heated with water and milk to make a hot “fresh-brewed” coffee without brewing, or blended with Frappé beads to make a Dippin’ Dots Frappé. Jones’s once-kid-targeted dots now had a very adult twist. As of April 2011, four flavors of edible coffee dots—Espresso, Caramel Frappé, Mocha Frappé, and Vanilla Frappé—were available at various locations of Dippin’ Dots. Jones hoped that this new product would take Dippin’ Dots outside the arena of seasonal treats.
However, Jones was also thinking about more kid-friendly treats. For years Jones had been thinking of coming out with low-calorie, low-fat Dippin’ Dots that could meet the nutrition requirements and regulations to be sold at public schools. The result was “Chillz,” a lower-calorie alternative to ice cream introduced in 2010. Dippin’ Dots Chillz was a low-fat frozen-beaded dessert made with Truvia, an all-natural sweetener. This healthier alternative to ice cream was also an excellent source of Vitamin C
C107
and was available in three flavors: Sour Blue Razz, Wango Rainbo, and Chocolate.5 “We’re starting to distribute Chillz through the vending channel. We already have two contracts underway and expect to get more. Vending companies know and love the Dippin’ Dots brand. With Chillz and other products, it’s a great opportunity for them. Schools need that revenue. They’ve thrown out a lot of products in recent times that have no nutritional value. So we feel bullish about Chillz,” said Dippin’ Dots’ vice president of sales, Michael Barrette, in 2010.6
History
Founded by Curt Jones and incorporated in 1988, Dippin’ Dots Inc., headquartered in Paducah, Kentucky, was the company that made the “ice cream of the future.”7 The company’s chief operation was the sale of BB-size pellets of flash-frozen ice cream in some two dozen flavors to franchisees and national accounts throughout the world. As a Six Flags customer commented, “I gotta say, man, they’re pretty darn good…. Starts off like a rock candy but ends up like ice cream.”8
Dippin’ Dots was the marriage between old-fashioned handmade ice cream and space-age technology. Dippin’ Dots were tiny round beads of ice cream that were made at super-cold temperatures, served at subzero temperatures in a soufflé cup, and eaten with a spoon. The super-cold freezing of Dippin’ Dots ice cream, done by liquid nitrogen, cryogenically locked in both flavor and freshness in a way that no other manufactured ice cream could offer. The process virtually eliminated the presence of trapped ice and air, giving the ice cream a fresh flavor and a hard texture. Not only had Jones discovered a new way of making ice cream, but many felt his product proved to be much more flavorful and richer than regular ice cream. According to Jones, “I created a way … [to] get a quicker freeze so the ice cream wouldn’t get large ice crystals…. About six months later, I decided to quit my job and go into business.”
Jones was a microbiologist by trade, with an area of expertise in cryogenics. His first job was researching and engineering as a microbiologist for ALLtech Inc., a bioengineering company based in Lexington, Kentucky. During his days at ALLtech, Jones worked with different types of bacteria to find new ways of preserving them so that they could be transported throughout the world. He applied a method of freezing using super-cold temperatures with substances such as liquid CO2 and liquid nitrogen—the same method he later used to create Dippin’ Dots.
One process Jones developed was “microencapsulating” the bacteria by freezing their medium with liquid nitrogen. Other scientists thought he was crazy, because nothing like that had ever been done before. Jones, however, was convinced his idea would work. He spent months trying to perfect the process and continued to make progress. While Jones was working over 80 hours a week in
ALLtech’s labs to perfect the microencapsulating process, he made the most influential decision of his life. He took a weekend off and attended a family barbeque at his parents’ house. It just so happened that his mother was making ice cream the day of the barbeque. Jones began to reminisce about homemade ice cream prepared the slow, old-fashioned way. Then Jones wondered if it was possible to flash-freeze ice cream. Instead of using a bacteria medium, was it possible to microencapsulate ice cream?
The answer was yes. After virtually reinventing a frozen dessert that had been around since the second century BC,9
Jones patented his idea to flash-freeze liquid cream, and he opened the first Dippin’ Dots store.10 Once franchising was offered in 2000, the “Ice Cream of the Future” could be found at thousands of shopping malls, amusement parks, water parks, fairs, and festivals worldwide. Dippin’ Dots ice cream was transported coast to coast and around the world by
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
truck, train, plane, and ship. In addition to being transported in specially designed cryogenic transport containers, the product was transported in refrigerated boxes known as pallet reefers. Both types of containers ensured fast and efficient delivery to franchisees around the world. The product was served in 4-, 5-, and 8-ounce cups and in 5-ounce vending prepacks.
Product Specifics
Dippin’ Dots were flash-frozen beads of ice cream typically served in a cup or vending package. The ice cream averaged 90 calories per serving, depending on the flavor, and had 9 grams of fat. The ice cream was produced by a patented process that introduced flavored liquid cream into a vat of —325-degree liquid nitrogen, where it was flash-frozen to produce the bead or dot shape. Once frozen, the dots were collected and either mixed with other flavors or packaged separately for delivery to retail locations. The product had to be stored at subzero temperatures to maintain the consistency of the dots. Subzero storage temperatures were achieved by utilizing special equipment and freezers supplemented with dry ice. Although storage was a challenge for international shipping, the beads could maintain their shape for up to 15 days in their special containers. To maintain product integrity and consistency, the ice cream had to be served at 10 to 20 degrees below zero. A retail location had to have special storage and serving freezers. Because the product had to be stored and served at such low temperatures, it was unavailable in regular frozen-food cases and could not be stored in a typical household freezer. Therefore, it could be consumed only at or near a retail location, unless stored with dry ice to maintain the necessary storage temperature.
Industry Overview
The frozen dairy industry has traditionally been occupied by family-owned businesses such as Dippin’ Dots,
C108
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C108
full-line dairies, and a couple of large international companies that focused on only a single sales region. The year 2008 was a relatively flat year for the production and sale of ice cream, as volume in traditional varieties remained flat and new types of ice cream emerged. Despite higher ingredient costs, manufacturers were continually churning out new products, though at a slower rate than in the previous year. These ranged from super-premium selections to good-for-you varieties to cobranded packages and novelties. Most novelty ice creams could be found together in supermarket freezer cases, in small freezers in convenience stores, and in carts, kiosks, or trucks at popular summertime events. Ice cream makers had been touched by consolidation trends affecting the overall food and beverage industry that extended beyond their products, as even the big names were folded into global conglomerates.
The ice cream segment in the United States had become a battleground for two huge international consumer-product companies seeking to corner the ice cream market. Those two industry giants were Nestlé SA of Switzerland, the world’s largest food company, with more than $90 billion in annual sales, and Unilever PLC of London and Rotterdam, with over $52 billion in annual revenues. Both had been buying into U.S. firms for quite a while, but Nestlé, which already owned the Häagen-Dazs product line, upped the ante with its June 2003 merger with Dreyer’s Grand/Edy’s Ice Cream Inc. of Oakland, California. But even as the two giants dominated the U.S. ice cream industry, about 500 small businesses continued to produce and distribute frozen treats. As one commentator said, “Like microbrewers and small-scale chocolate makers, entrepreneurs are drawn to ice cream as a labor of love.”11 Some of the better-known brands were regional ones, such as Blue Bell, based in Brenham, Texas (see Exhibit 1).
EXHIBIT 1 Top 10 Ice Cream Brands for the 52 weeks ending May 13, 2012
Sales in Dollars
(millions)
Sales in Dollars from One Year
Ago
Percentage Change vs. Year
Ago Market
Share (%) Unit Sales (millions)
Total category $3,498.1 $3,167.7 10.4% 56.8% $1,370.0
Private label (ice cream) 1,100 812.8 35.3 16.7 285.9
Blue Bell 421.6 253.2 66.5 4.7 196.7
Breyers 421.3 638.8 –34.1 4.6 130.9
Ben & Jerry’s 362.1 207.6 74.4 3.4 83.4
Häagen-Dazs 313.8 287.3 9.2 8.8 76.8
Dreyer’s/Edy’s Slow Churned
273.7 284 –3.6 12.0* 75.0
Wells’ Blue Bunny 168 122 37.7 4.4 67.8
Dreyer’s/Edy’s Grand 159.9 445.1 –64.1 12.0* 34.6
Turkey Hill 149.8 116.9 28.1 2.2 41.8
Dreyer’s/Edy’s Fun Flavors (now part of the Grand line)
127.9 — — 12.0* 27.3
*Total U.S. FDMxC—supermarkets, drugstores, gas/C-stores and mass market retailers, excluding Walmart, club stores and liquor stores. *Brand total.
Source: SymphonyIRI Group
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
More than $11.1 billion was spent on ice cream in 2012, and ice cream and related frozen desserts were consumed by more than 90 percent of households in the United States.12 Consumers spent $8.9 billion on products for at-home consumption, while $13.9 billion went toward away-from-home purchases. Harry Balzar, of the market research firm NPD Group, said about ice cream in general, “It’s not a small category, but one that has remained flat for more than a decade, and is not likely to grow.”13 The challenge for producers was to woo customers away from competitors and sustain a loyal fan base by continuing to innovate. The trend toward more healthy treats had spurred the major players, Nestlé and Unilever, to develop reduced-fat product lines that still had the taste and texture of full-fat ice cream. Edy’s/Dreyer’s, Breyers, and Häagen-Dazs had all continued to experiment, and the
C109
“slow churned,” “double-churn,” and “light” products were seeing increased sales since their introduction in 2004.14
In October 2002 it was announced that Good Humor-Breyers Ice Cream of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Ben & Jerry’s of Vermont had formed a unified retail sales division named Unilever Ice Cream. The new organization brought together both companies and represented the five Unilever North American ice cream brands, which include Ben & Jerry’s, Breyers, Good Humor, Popsicle, and Klondike. Good Humor-Breyers had created several new cobranded novelties specifically for convenience-store and vending locations. The company had also set out to expand the availability of single-serve novelties by placing freezers of its products in Blockbuster video stores and Breyers-branded kiosks in 30 Chicago-area Loews theaters. In addition to prepackaged products, freshly scooped ice cream was served at the kiosks. The new sales team would focus solely on the out-of-home ice cream business and, therefore, exclude grocery channels.
Another novelty product delivery system in the independent scoop shop was the “slab” concept. Employees at franchises such as Marble Slab Creamery, Cold Stone Creamery, and Maggie Moo’s worked ingredients on a cold granite or marble slab to blend premium ice cream with the customer’s choice of tasty additives, such as crumbled cookies, fruits, and nuts, before serving it in a cup or cone. The novelty was the entertainment of watching the preparation. All three chains ranked in Entrepreneur’s list of the top 500 franchise opportunities in 2006, but commentators were skeptical of their sustainability once the novelty wore off, especially since the average price was $5 for a medium serving.15 As of 2011, both Cold Stone Creamery and Marble Slab Creamery were able to maintain spots in Entrepreneur magazine’s list of the top 500 franchises, ranked in the 54th and 147th positions, respectively.16
Industry Segmentation
Frozen desserts come in many forms. Each of the following foods has its own definition, and many are standardized by federal regulations.17
• Ice cream consists of a mixture of dairy ingredients, such as cream, milk, and nonfat milk, and ingredients for sweetening and flavoring, such as fruits, nuts, and chocolate chips. Functional ingredients, such as stabilizers and emulsifiers, are often included in the product to promote proper texture and enhance the eating experience. By federal law, ice cream must contain at least 10 percent butterfat before the addition of bulky ingredients, and it must weigh a minimum of 4.5 pounds to the gallon.
• Novelties are separately packaged single servings of a frozen dessert, such as ice cream sandwiches, fudge sticks, and juice bars, which may or may not contain dairy ingredients.
• Frozen custard or french ice cream must also contain a minimum of 10 percent butterfat as well as at least 1.4 percent egg yolk solids.
• Sherbets have a butterfat content of between 1 and 2 percent and have a slightly higher sweetener content than ice cream. Sherbet weighs a minimum of 6 pounds to the gallon and is flavored either with fruit or other characterizing ingredients.
• Gelato is characterized by an intense flavor and is served in a semifrozen state. Gelato contains sweeteners, milk, cream, egg yolks, and flavoring.
• Sorbet and water ices are similar to sherbets, but they contain no dairy ingredients.
• A quiescently frozen confection is a frozen novelty such as a water-ice novelty on a stick.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
• Frozen yogurt consists of a mixture of dairy ingredients, such as milk and nonfat milk, that have been cultured, as well as ingredients for sweetening and flavoring.
Dippin’ Dots’ Growth18
The growth of Dippin’ Dots Inc. had been recognized in the United States and the world by industry watchdogs such as Inc. magazine, which ranked Dippin’ Dots as one of the 500 fastest-growing companies two years in a row, 1996 and 1997. Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. ranked number four on Entrepreneur magazine’s 2004 list of the top 50 new franchise companies, and it achieved the 101st spot on Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 for 2004. In 2005 Dippin’ Dots ranked number two as a top new franchise opportunity and climbed to number 93 on the Franchise 500 list. By the end of 2009, Dippin’ Dots had slid to 175th position on Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 list.19 And by 2011 Dippin’ Dots had fallen off the list. Exhibit 2 shows the growth of franchises for Dippin’ Dots.
Despite the company’s initial success, the achievements of Curt Jones and Dippin’ Dots have not come without obstacles. Once Jones had perfected his idea, he needed to start a company for the new process of flash-freezing ice cream. Like many new entrepreneurs, Jones enlisted the help of his family to support his endeavor. It was essential to start selling his product, but he had no protection for his idea from competitors.
The first obstacle confronting Jones was the need to locate funding to accomplish his goals. He needed money for the patent to protect his intellectual property and needed seed money to start manufacturing the ice cream once the patent was granted. At the same time that Jones was perfecting the flash-freezing process for his ice cream, he was also working on a Small Business Administration
C110
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C110
(SBA) loan to convert the family farm into one that would manufacture ethanol. However, instead of using the farm to produce the alternative fuel, Jones’s parents took out a first, and then a second, mortgage to help fund Jones’s endeavor. Thus, Jones initiated the entire venture by self-funding his company with personal and family assets.
EXHIBIT 2 Dippin’ Dots Franchise Growth
Year U.S. Franchises Canadian Franchises Foreign Franchises Company Owned
2012 183 1 0 1
2011 *284 1 0 1
2010 *385 1 0 1
2009 486 1 0 1
2008 420 0 0 2
2007 441 0 0 3
2006 448 1 0 2
2005 635 1 0 2
2004 618 1 0 2
2003 598 0 0 2
2002 580 0 0 2
2001 569 0 0 3
2000 525 0 0 1
*author estimates
Unfortunately, the money from Jones’s parents was only enough to pay for the patent and some crude manufacturing facilities (a liquid nitrogen tank in his parent’s garage). He next had to open a store, and doing so required even more money—money that Jones and his family did not have. They were unable to get the SBA loan because, while the product was novel and looked promising, there was no proof that it would sell. So Jones and his newly appointed CFO (his sister) went to an alternative lender who lent them cash at an exorbitant interest rate that was tacked onto the principal weekly if unpaid.
Now in possession of the seed money they needed, Curt Jones and his family opened their first store. Its summertime opening created a buzz in the community. The store was mobbed every night, and Dippin’ Dots was legitimized by public demand. With the influx of cash, Jones was able to move his manufacturing operation from his family’s garage into a vacant warehouse. There he set up shop and personally made flash-frozen ice cream for 12 hours every day to supply the store.
After the store had been operating for a few months, the Joneses were able to secure small business loans from local banks to cover the expenses of a modest manufacturing plant and office. At the same time, Jones’s sister made calls to fairs and other events to learn whether Dippin’ Dots products could be sold at them. Luckily for the Joneses, the amusement park at Opryland in Nashville, Tennessee, was willing to have them as a vendor. Unfortunately, the first Dippin’ Dots stand was placed in front of a roller coaster, and people generally did not want ice cream before they went on a ride. After a few unsuccessful weeks, Jones moved the stand and business picked up considerably. Eventually, the Joneses were able to move to an inline location, which was similar to a store, where Dip-pin’ Dots had its own personnel and sitting area to serve customers.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Through word of mouth, interest in Curt Jones and Dippin’ Dots spread. Soon other entrepreneurs contacted Jones about opening up stores to sell Dippin’ Dots. In 1991 a dealership network was developed to sell ice cream to authorized vendors and provide support with equipment and marketing. During that time, Jones employed friends in corporate jobs. Dippin’ Dots grew into a multimillion dollar company with authorized dealers operating in all 50 states and internationally (see Exhibit 3).
By the end of the 1990s, Jones was happy with his company, but he felt as if Dippin’ Dots had hit a plateau and needed to reach the “next level” to continue to prosper. He began working with his friend and now controller
C111
and director of franchising, Chad Wilson, to develop the franchise system. By January 2000, all existing Dippin’ Dots dealers were required to sign a franchise agreement and pay the associated franchise fees for any location they operated or planned to operate.
EXHIBIT 3 Milestones
1988 Dippin’ Dots is established as a company in Grand Chain, Illinois.
1989 First amusement park account debuts at Opryland USA in Nashville.
1990 Production facility moves to Paducah, Kentucky.
1991 Dealer network is established for fair, festival, and commercial retail locations.
1994 First international licensee is set up (Japan).
1995 New 32,000-square-foot production facility opens in Paducah.
1997 Production facility expands by 20,000 square feet; company earns spot on Inc. 500 list of fastest-growing private companies in the United States.
2000 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. is established, and first franchise is offered; litigation against competitors is initiated to protect patent.
2001 Dippin’ Dots enlists 30 new franchisees. Franchise Times magazine lists Dippin’ Dots third in the United States in number of ice cream franchise locations behind Baskin Robbins and Dairy Queen.
2002 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. achieves 112th spot on Entrepreneur magazine’s Franchise 500 list, ranks 69th on their list of the fastest-growing franchise companies, and is named the number 1 new franchise company. Dippin’ Dots becomes a regular menu offering at McDonald’s restaurants in the San Francisco Bay area.
2003 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. achieves 144th spot on Entrepreneur magazine’s Franchise 500 list and number 4 on Entrepreneur’s list of the top 50 new franchise companies. Dippin’ Dots opens the Ansong manufacturing plant, 80 miles south of Seoul, South Korea.
2004 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. ranks number 4 on Entrepreneur’s Top 50 New Franchise Companies list and achieves 101st spot on Entrepreneur magazine’s Franchise 500 list. Curt Jones and Dippin’ Dots are featured on a segment of the Oprah Winfrey Show, appearing in 110 countries. Dippin’ Dots is featured among the top 10 ice cream palaces on the Travel Channel. Curt Jones is quoted in Donald Trump’s best-selling The Way to the Top (p. 131).
2005 International Dairy Foods Association names Dippin’ Dots Best in Show for Dot Delicacies. Dippin’ Dots also wins three awards for package design. Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. ranks number one on Franchise Times magazine’s Fast 55 list of the fastest-growing young franchises in the nation. Ice cream cake and ice cream sandwiches (Dotwiches) are introduced to launch the Dot Delicacies program.
2006 Company leadership is restructured. Curt Jones becomes chairman of the board. Tom Leonard becomes president of Dippin’ Dots Inc. Dots ‘n Cream, conventional ice cream enhanced by beads of Dippin’ Dots, is introduced for market testing in Kroger stores in the Midwest. The 200th franchisee begins operations.
2007 Dippin’ Dots is available in Colombia, and www.dippindots.com V.5 is launched.
2008 Dippin’ Dots Franchising Inc. ranks 112th on Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 list.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
2009 Curt Jones returns to running the day-to-day operations of the firm. Dippin’ Dots slides to 175th on Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500 list.
2010 Dippin’ Dots has 3 million Facebook fans.
2011 On November 4, 2011, Dippin’ Dots files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
2012 On May 18, 2012, the purchase of Dippin’ Dots by Scott Fischer, president of Dippin’ Dots LLC, is approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Source: Dippin’ Dots Inc. n.d. History. www.dippindots.com/more-info/history.html.
A franchise location was any mall, fair, national account, or large family entertainment center. According to the franchising information in 2011, the initial franchise fee was $12,500, with an estimated initial investment range from $80,428 to $235,250.20 The result was a cash inflow
C112
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C112
for Dippin’ Dots franchising. Franchisees were required to pay a 4 percent royalty fee and contribute 0.5 percent of their gross incomes to an advertising fund, which Jones said had greatly enhanced marketing.
The Ice Cream of the Future
Dippin’ Dots was counting on youthful exuberance to expand growth. “Our core demographic was pretty much 8- to 18- year-olds,” said Terry Reeves, former corporate communications director. “On top of that, we’re starting to see a generation of parents who grew up on Dippin’ Dots and are starting to introduce the products to their kids.” Although Dippin’ Dots seems to appeal more to youngsters, the product still has to have staying power as customers grow older. As one individual commented, “How can this stuff keep continuing to call itself the ‘ice cream of the future’? Well the future is now, folks, and they have been pushing this sorry excuse for ice cream off on me at amusement parks and zoos since I was a little kid.”21
In 2002 McDonald’s reportedly spent $1.2 million on advertising to roll out Dippin’ Dots in about 250 restaurants in the San Francisco area. Jones called the deal “open-ended” if it worked favorably for both firms. “I think both companies are proceeding with the impression that nothing was going to be overcommitted,” he said. “We’re growing at a 10 to 15 percent annual rate and we’re excited about the potential of McDonald’s, but it’s too early to tell.” However, by 2007 Dippin’ Dots was available only at a few McDonald’s franchises in southern California. Storage and transportation issues were problematic, and the price of the product, 5 ounces for $5, was too steep for all but the die-hard Dippin’ Dots fans.
In other marketing efforts, Dippin’ Dots ads had been running in issues of Seventeen and Nickelodeon magazines. Reeves said the company had been “inundated with e-mails” after the June 2002 issue of Seventeen hit the newsstands. Additionally, Dippin’ Dots had hired a Hollywood firm to place its ice cream in the background of television and movie scenes, including the 2003 Cheaper by the Dozen. In 2002 the Food Network’s Summer Foods: Unwrapped showcased Dippin’ Dots as one of the most unique and coolest ice cream treats. ‘N Sync member Joey Fatone ordered a Dippin’ Dots freezer for his home after seeing a Dots vending machine at a theater the band rented in Orlando. Caterers also sought Dippin’ Dots for their star clients. A birthday party at the home of NBA star Shaquille O’Neal featured Dippin’ Dots ice cream. Dippin’ Dots continued to pursue the celebrity word-of-mouth route by serving Dippin’ Dots products at events such as the MTV awards and celebrity charity functions.
According to Jones, almost half of Dippin’ Dots’ sales came from national accounts such as stadiums, theaters, and theme parks like Six Flags; the rest of the estimated $50 million income came from approximately 150 franchisees, many with multiple locations.22
Dippin’ Dots had met increased competition in the out-of-home ice cream market. The major threats to Dippin’ Dots were other franchise operations, such as Ben & Jerry’s, Häagen-Dazs, Baskin-Robbins, Carvel, Dairy Queen, and newcomers such as Cold Stone Creamery, Maggie Moo’s, and Marble Slab Creamery (see Exhibit 4).
In addition, a similar type of flash-frozen ice cream called Frosty Bites was introduced in the spring of 2000 by eight disenfranchised former dealers of Dippin’ Dots. Another company, Mini Melts, was also manufacturing a similar product, and two brothers who were formerly part of the Dippin’ Dots dealer network brought this flash-frozen ice cream into the competitive mix. In 2002 Jones had thought that introducing a formal franchising agreement would provide protection against copycats and unify the company’s public image, since Dippin’ Dots was often unrecognizable under its unstructured dealership network of locations. Terry Reeves said,
The stronger and more unified Dippin’ Dots retail offering became through franchising, the more [franchisees] were able to be considered for better retail properties (high-end malls, better locations, and so on). This obviously strengthened our system and bolstered overall sales for the company and for our franchisees. While franchise fees and royalties were a new income source, much of the profit was put back into the business to promote future growth.
Although one dealer commented that Dippin’ Dots used incoming franchise fees from royalties on sales for its own corporate means rather than to improve franchise support, most dealers did convert to the new franchise system. Dip-pin’ Dots Franchising Inc. grandfathered existing dealers’ locations by issuing a franchise and waiving the franchise fee for the first contract period of five years. Many dealers had to renew their contracts in 2004; while many were initially
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
apprehensive of converting to a franchised system, less than 2 percent left the system, and the firm showed franchise growth.
Meltdown?
In an attempt to counteract the copycat threats from Frosty Bites and Mini Melts, Dippin’ Dots brought a patent infringement lawsuit against them in 2005. However, during the jury trial, Dippin’ Dots’ testimony in support of the original patent revealed that Jones had made sales of the beaded ice cream product to over 800 customers more than a year before submitting the patent application. Even though Jones argued that these sales were for the purpose of market testing and that the production method had subsequently been further refined, and therefore deserving of a patented process, the court rendered the patent nonen-forceable because these sales were not disclosed to the Patent Office. An appeal by Dippin’ Dots was denied in 2007, and the patent was declared invalid.23
C113
EXHIBIT 4 Ice Cream Franchises, 2013
Franchise Name and Description Start-Up Costs ($ thousands)
Number of Franchises
Abbott’s Frozen Custard Frozen custard 120–126.8 20
All American Specialty Restaurants Inc. Ice cream, frozen yogurt, deli sandwiches, espresso
171–485 30
Applegate Inc. Ice cream 137.7–322 7
Baskin-Robbins USA Co. Ice cream, frozen yogurt, frozen beverages
46–401 2,597
Ben & Jerry’s Ice cream parlor 143.3–446.2 340
Blue Sky Creamery Ice cream, gourmet coffees, desserts 98.8–157.5 7
Bruster’s Real Ice Cream Homemade ice cream 201–1,273 225
California Quivers Carts and kiosks serving fresh-fruit ices 45–149.3 3
Carvel Ice cream, ice cream cakes 261.8–350.7 417
Cefiore Frozen yogurt 196.5–425 27
Cold Stone Creamery Ice cream, Italian sorbet 292.4–440.2 1,163
Culver Franchising System Inc. Frozen custard, specialty burgers 1,600–2,800 412
Dairy Queen Soft-serve dairy products, sandwiches 382–1,800 4,451
Dippin’ Dots Franchising Specialty ice cream, frozen yogurt, ices, sherbet
80.4–235.3 183
Fiji Yogurt Frozenyogurt 163.3–368.5 0
Freddy’s Frozen Custard LLC Frozen custard, steakburgers, hot dogs
332–788 22
FreshBerry Natural Frozen Yogurt Natural frozen yogurt, smoothies, yogurt popsicles
165.7–386.2 16
Golden Spoon Franchising Frozen yogurt 365.5–442.5 2
Häagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. Inc. Ice cream, frozen yogurt 143.9–428.1 250
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Happy Joe’s Pizza, pasta, ice cream 113.7–1,200 50
La Paletera Franchise Systems Inc. Fruit bars and cups, smoothies, ice cream
94.5–185.7 35
MaggieMoo’s Intl. LLC Ice cream, smoothies, cakes 225.7–354.5 139
Marble Slab Creamery Inc. Ice cream, frozen yogurt, baked goods 250–403 261
Melt Inc. Gelato, Italian coffees, crepes 200–400 8
Menchie’s Self-serve frozen yogurt 241.5–574.5 38
Paciugo Gelato & Caffe Gelato 177.7–475.5 42
Red Mango Franchising Co. Frozen yogurt 252.1–496.6 65
Repicci’s Italian Ice Italian ice 50–143.3 48
Ricky’s Italian Ice Italian ice, soft serve ice cream, desserts 98.7–195 0
Rita’s Italian Ice Italian ices, frozen custard, gelati 199.4–378.4 561
Ritter’s Frozen Custard Frozen custard 249–818 62
Scandinavian Shave Ice Shaved ice, ice cream, coffee 131.4–297.7 0
Shake’s Frozen Custard Frozen custard 168–800 30
Spoon Me Franchising LLC Frozen yogurt 183–491 8
Strickland’s Homemade ice cream, related products 253.7–431.4 14
Sub Zero Ice Cream Frozen desserts 98.5–202.5 7
Tasti D-Lite Frozen desserts 253.7–431.4 51
TCBY Frozen yogurt 143.8–343.4 438
Yogurtland Franchising Inc. Self-serve frozen yogurt 228.9–521.5 96
Source: Entrepreneur. n.d. Ice cream franchises. www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/categories/ffqicecr.html.
C114
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C114
Mini Melts, released from the lawsuit, continued to expand manufacturing facilities throughout the world; it had plants in South Korea, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, and China as well as the United Kingdom and the United States. Instead of having franchises, Mini Melts sold dealerships for vending machines and kiosks carrying its products. Mini Melts CEO Tom Mosey was nominated by Ernst and Young as Entrepreneur of the Year and has been listed in the Inc. 500 for two separate ventures over the years.
By 2009 Dippin’ Dots had billed itself as the ice cream of the future for over 20 years. However, Dippin’ Dots was close to a meltdown. Founder Curt Jones said that Dippin’ Dots “just got hit by a perfect storm” of soaring operating costs and plummeting sales. Jones then resumed daily control over the troubled Dippin’ Dots after a three-year break from operations. Jones let go of President Tom Leonard, who had run Samsonite before joining Dippin’ Dots in August 2006, and Operations Vice President Dominic Fontana, who had spent about 17 years with Häagen-Dazs. Jones described the separations as amicable and regrettable.
In spite of these challenges, Jones, always the inventor, was investing in R&D to create a conventional ice cream product that had super-frozen dots embedded in it. He was developing a new product that could withstand conventional freezers while preserving the super-frozen dots in the ice cream. Called Dots ‘n Cream and available in berry crème, caramel cappuccino, mint chocolate, orange crème de la crème, vanilla bean, vanilla over the rainbow, wild about chocolate, and banana split, this product was introduced for market testing in Kroger stores in the Midwest in 2006. Thus, Dippin’ Dots could finally have a take-home ice cream option. As of April 2011, the Dots ‘n Cream product was still only available in a few locations and could be bought online.
The other new product introduced by Dippin’ Dots was Dot Delicacies. The new product to be introduced in this category was named Dot Treats. As of April 2011, there were seven different Dot Treats: Solar Freeze, sundaes, floats, shakes, Clusterz, Quakes, and LOL (lots of layers). These products were available at most of the retail locations where Dippin’ Dots ice cream was sold.
By 2010, Dippin’ Dots had started an online venture by selling some of its products through its website. Customers could order ice creams, yogurts, and sherbets online, and they would be delivered to their doors. The company had also branched out and released a series of coffee-based products. The “coffee dots” were new concepts in coffee—frappé and espresso that could be eaten by spoon or could be made into hot coffee drinks by just adding water and milk. Another untapped market Jones and his team tried to enter was the market of healthy ice cream. The low-fat frozen beaded dessert named
“Chillz,” made with all-natural sweetener, was introduced by Dippin’ Dots as a healthier alternative to ice cream. This product was developed with public schools in mind and was being distributed in schools through vending channels.
Despite the development of new products, the company’s experience and resource base are clearly in the ice cream manufacturing and scoop-shop retailing businesses. Dealing with supermarket chains and vending distribution firms is an ongoing challenge for this relatively small firm. However, with new ownership in place and a new source of capital available, Dippin’ Dots is optimistic about the future, focusing on what they’re good at and looking to recapture attention in the frozen novelty industry.
ENDNOTES 1. www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/dippin-dots-maker-declares-bankruptcy-ice-cream-future-files-chapter-11-reorganization-
article-1.973683 2. www.dippindots.com/news/2012/04/Purchase-Agreement.html 3. Ibid. 4. www.dippindots.com/news/2013/01/Expand-Manufacturing.html. 5. Dippin’ Dots Inc. 2010. Dippin’ Dots Chillz frozen treat. VendingMarketWatch.com, January 7,
www.vendingmarketwatch.com/product/10110602/dippin-dots-chillz-frozen-treat. 6. Perna, G., & Fairbanks, B. 2010. From the future to the present. Food and Drink Digital, March 24,
www.foodanddrinkdigital.com/reports/dippin’-dots-future-present. 7. Information, unless otherwise stated, is derived from the Dippin’ Dots website (www.DippinDots.com), the Dippin’ Dots 10-year anniversary
video, and the self-published Dippin’Dots Corporate Profile. 8. Associated Press. 2006. Business blazing for supercold Dippin’ Dots. July 23, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14001806.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
9. Ice cream’s origins are known to reach back as far as the second century BC, although no specific date of origin is known and no inventor has been indisputably credited with its discovery. We know that Alexander the Great enjoyed snow and ice flavored with honey and nectar. Biblical references also show that King Solomon was fond of iced drinks during harvesting. During the Roman Empire, Nero (AD 54–86) frequently sent runners into the mountains for snow, which was then flavored with fruits and juices. Information from International Dairy Foods Association, Ice Cream Media Kit.
10. The idea of using liquid nitrogen to make ice cream had been around in scientific circles for some time. To learn how to make ice cream this way at home, see www.polsci.wvu.edu/henry/icecream/icecream.html. See also Scientific American. 1994. April: 66–71; and www.subzeroicecream.com/press/coldfacts2006.pdf.
11. Anderson, G. 2005. America’s favorite ice cream. CNN/Money.com, July 29, money.cnn.corn/2C)05/07/25/pf/goodlife/summer_ice_cream. 12. Author estimates; and Dairy Facts, International Ice Cream Association, www.idfa.org. 13. Murphy, K. 2006. Slabs are joining scoops in ice cream retailing. New York Times, October 26,
www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/business/26sbiz.html. 14. Moskin, J. 2006. Creamy, healthier ice cream? What’s the catch? New York Times, July 26,
www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/dining/26cream.html. Note: Slow churned and double churned refer to a process called low-temperature extrusion, which significantly reduces the size of the fat globules and ice crystals in ice cream.
C115
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C116
CASES
CASE 18 JOHNSON & JOHNSON*
Information presented on January 25, 2013, during an ongoing trial, revealed that executives from health care conglomerate Johnson & Johnson had known about a critical design flaw with an artificial hip but decided to conceal this information from physicians and patients. Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics unit kept selling the hip replacement, called the Articular Surface Replacement, although its design flaw caused it to shed large quantities of metallic debris after implantation. The firm finally recalled the unit in 2010, almost five years after problems had begun to surface. Johnson & Johnson may now face more than 10,000 lawsuits in the U.S. as a result of one of the largest medical failures in recent history.
The problems with the artificial hip represented yet another problem for Johnson & Johnson, which has struggled to emerge from a swarm of product recalls, manufacturing lapses, and government inquiries that have tarnished the name of one of the nation’s most trusted brands.
*Case developed by Professor Jamal Shamsie, Michigan State University, with the assistance of Professor Alan B. Eisner, Pace University. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for purposes of class discussion. Copyright © 2013 Jamal Shamsie and Alan B. Eisner.
Serious problems surfaced a couple of years ago at McNeil Consumer Healthcare, which has had to recall many of its products—including the biggest children’s drug recall of all time—that were potentially contaminated with dark particles. The Food and Drug Administration also slapped one of McNeil’s plants with a scalding inspection report, causing the company to close down the factory to bring it up to federal standards.
Much of the blame for Johnson & Johnson’s stumbles fell on William C. Weldon, who stepped down as CEO in April 2012 after presiding over one of the most tumultuous decades in the firm’s history (See Exhibits 1 and 2). Critics said the company’s once vaunted attention to quality had slipped under his watch. Weldon, who had started out as a sales representative at the firm, was believed to have been obsessed with meeting tough performance targets, even by cutting costs that might affect quality. Erik Gordon, who teaches business at the University of Michigan, elaborated on this philosophy: “We will make our numbers for the analysts, period.”1
EXHIBIT 1 Income Statement*
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Income Statement*
2 Year Ending
3 Dec. 30, 2012 Dec. 31, 2011 Jan. 1, 2011
4 Total Revenue 67,224 65,030 61,587
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
5 Cost of Revenue 21,658 20,360 18,792
6 Gross Profit 45,566 44,670 42,795
7 Operating Expenses
8 Research & development 7,665 7,548 6,844
9 Selling, general, and administrative 20,869 20,969 19,424
10 Nonrecurring 1,163 569 –
11 Operating Income or Loss 15,869 15,584 16,527
12 Income from Continuing Operations
13 Total other income/expenses net (1,562) (2,652) 875
14 Earnings before interest and taxes 14,307 12,932 17,402
15 Interest expense 532 571 455
16 Income before tax 13,775 12,361 16,947
17 Income tax expense 3,261 2,689 3,613
18 Minority interest 339 – –
19 Net Income 10,853 9,672 13,334
Net Income Applicable to Common Shares 10,853 9,672 13,334
*Figures in millions of dollars.
Source: finance.yahoo.com.
Weldon was replaced by Alex Gorsky, who had headed the medical devices and diagnostics unit. The division generates the largest amount of sales for
C117
Johnson & Johnson and is expected to grow further with the acquisition in 2012 of Synthes, a Swiss-American medical- device maker. Like his predecessor, Gorsky worked his way up by meeting tough performance targets as a sales representative and continues the firm’s 126-year tradition of hiring leaders from within. “The future of Johnson & Johnson is in very capable hands,” said Weldon.2
EXHIBIT 2 Balance Sheets*
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Balance Sheets*
2 Year Ending
3 Dec. 30, 2012 Dec. 31, 2011 Jan. 1, 2011
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
4 Assets
5 Current Assets
6 Cash and cash equivalents 14,911 24,542 19,355
7 Short-term investments 6,178 7,719 8,303
8 Net receivables 14,448 13,137 11,998
9 Inventory 7,495 6,285 5,378
10 Other current assets 3,084 2,633 2,273
11 Total Current Assets 46,116 54,316 47,307
12 Property plant and equipment 16,097 14,739 14,553
13 Goodwill 22,424 16,138 15,294
14 Intangible assets 28,752 18,138 16,716
15 Other assets 3,417 3,773 3,942
16 Deferred long-term asset charges 4,541 6,540 5,096
17 Total Assets 121,347 113,644 102,908
18 Liabilities
19 Current liabilities
20 Accounts payable 19,586 16,153 15,455
21 Short/current long-term debt 4,676 6,658 7,617
22 Total Current Liabilities 24,262 22,811 23,072
23 Long-term debt 11,489 12,969 9,156
24 Other liabilities 17,634 18,984 12,654
25 Deferred long-term liability charges 3,136 1,800 1,447
26 Total Liabilities 56,521 56,564 46,329
27 Stockholders' Equity
28 Common stock 3,120 3,120 3,120
29 Retained earnings 85,992 81,251 77,773
30 Treasury stock (18,476) (21,659) (20,783)
31 Other stockholder equity (5,810) (5,632) (3,531)
32 Total Stockholder Equity 64,826 57,080 56,579
33 Net Tangible Assets 13,650 22,804 24,569
*Figures in millions of dollars.
Source: finance.yahoo.com.
At the same time, the decision to hire another insider may indicate that Johnson & Johnson was not serious about changing the corporate culture that had created so many of its recent problems. “As somebody steeped in J.&J. culture, I would be very surprised to see big changes,” said Les Funtleyder, a portfolio manager at a firm that owns the firm’s stock. Furthermore, even if Gorsky attempted to make changes that would address the growing list of problems, it would be a daunting task. “It’s so big that it would take a very long time to move a big battleship like that,” added Funtleyder.3
Cultivating Entrepreneurship Johnson & Johnson has relied heavily upon acquisitions to enter and to expand in a wide range of businesses that fall broadly under the category of health care. It has purchased more than 70 different firms over the past decade. In 2008 it paid $1.1 billion to acquire Mentor Corporation, a leading supplier of products for the global aesthetic market. It topped this last year with a $20 billion purchase of Synthes, a leading player in trauma surgery. A person familiar with the industry remarked that this latest acquisition of a maker of orthopedic devices was “a good match for them.”4
As it has grown, Johnson & Johnson has developed into an astonishingly complex enterprise, made up of over 250 different businesses that have been broken down into three different divisions. The most widely known of these is the division that makes consumer products, such as Johnson & Johnson baby care products, Band-Aid adhesive strips, and Visine eye drops. The division grew substantially after J&J acquired the consumer health unit of Pfizer in 2006
C118
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C118
for $16.6 billion, the biggest in its 120-year history. The acquisition allowed the firm to add well-known products to its line up such as Listerine mouthwash and Benadryl cough syrup.
But Johnson & Johnson has reaped far more sales and profits from its other two divisions. Its pharmaceuticals division sells several blockbuster drugs, such as anemia drug Procit and schizophrenia drug Risperdal. A new drug, named Zytiga, prescribed to treat prostate cancer has been selling well. Its medical devices division is responsible for best- selling products such as Depuy orthopedic joint replacements and Cyper coronary stents. These two divisions tend to generate operating profit margins of around 30 percent, almost double those generated by the consumer business.
To a large extent, however, Johnson & Johnson’s success across its three divisions and many different businesses has hinged on its unique structure and culture. Most of its far-flung business units were acquired because of the potential demonstrated by some promising new products in its pipeline. Each of these units was therefore granted near-total autonomy to develop and expand upon their best-selling products (See Exhibit 3). That independence has fostered an entrepreneurial attitude that has kept J&J intensely competitive as others around it have faltered. The relative autonomy that is accorded to the business units has also provided the firm with the ability to respond swiftly to emerging opportunities.
Johnson & Johnson has been quite proud of the considerable freedom that it has given to its different business units to develop and execute their own strategies. Besides developing their strategies, these units have also been allowed to work with their own resources. Many of the businesses even have their own finance and human resources departments. While this degree of decentralization has led to relatively high overhead costs, none of the executives that have run J&J, Weldon included, had ever thought that this was too high a price to pay. “J&J is a huge company, but you didn’t feel like you were in a big company,” recalled a scientist who used to work there.5
Pushing for More Collaboration The entrepreneurial culture that Johnson & Johnson has developed over the years has allowed it to be successful with its various businesses. Indeed, Johnson & Johnson has top-notch products in each of the areas in which it operates (see Exhibit 4). It has been spending heavily on research and development for many years, taking its position among the world’s top spenders (see Exhibit 5). It currently spends about 12 percent of its sales on about 9,000 scientists working in research laboratories around the world. This allows each of the three divisions to continually introduce promising new products.
In spite of the benefits that Johnson & Johnson has derived from giving its various enterprises considerable autonomy, there have been growing concerns that they can no longer be allowed to operate in near isolation. Weldon had begun to realize that J&J is in a strong position to exploit new opportunities by drawing on the diverse skills of its various business units across the three divisions. In particular, he was aware that his firm could benefit from the combination of its knowledge in drugs, devices, and diagnostics, since few companies were able to match its reach and strength in these basic areas.
This required him to find ways to make its fiercely independent businesses work together. In his own words: “There is a convergence that will allow us to do things we haven’t done before.”6 Through pushing the various far-flung units of the firm to pool their resources, Weldon believed that the firm could become one of the few that may actually be able to attain that often-promised, rarely delivered idea of synergy. He created a corporate office that would get business units to work together on promising new opportunities. “It’s a recognition that there’s a way to treat disease that’s not in silos,” Weldon stated, referring to the need for collaboration between J&J’s largely independent businesses.7
For the most part, Weldon confined himself to fostering better communication and more frequent collaboration among Johnson & Johnson’s disparate operations. But the company had to take care that these attempts to achieve synergy through collaboration among the business units did not quash the entrepreneurial spirit that has spearheaded most of the firm’s growth to date. Jerry Caccott, managing director of consulting firm Strategic Decisions Group, emphasized that cultivating those alliances “would be challenging in any organization, but particularly in an organization that has been so successful because of its decentralized culture.”8
These collaborative efforts have led to the introduction of some highly successful products. Even the company’s fabled consumer brands have been starting to show growth as a result of increased collaboration between the consumer
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
products and pharmaceutical divisions. Its new liquid Band-Aid is based on a material used in a wound-closing product sold by one of J&J’s hospital-supply businesses. And J&J has used its prescription antifungal treatment, Nizoral, to develop a dandruff shampoo. In fact, products that have developed in large part out of such a form of cross-fertilization have allowed the firm’s consumer business to experience considerable internal growth.
Confronting Quality Issues Even as Johnson & Johnson has been trying to get more involved with the efforts of its business units, it ran into problems with quality control with several over-the-counter drugs made by McNeil Consumer Healthcare. Since 2008, FDA inspectors have found significant violations of manufacturing standards at two McNeil plants, leading to the temporary closure of one of these. These problems have forced the firm to make several recalls of some of its best-selling products. Weldon admitted that problems
C119
had surfaced, but he insisted that these were confined to McNeil. In a recent interview he stated, “This is one of the most difficult situations I’ve ever had to personally deal with. It hits at the core of who J&J is. Our first responsibility is to the people who use our products. We’ve let them down.”9
EXHIBIT 3 Sales and Profits by Segment and Region* Johnson & Johnson is made up of over 250 different companies. These individual companies have been assigned to three different divisions: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Sales and Profits by Segment and Region*
2 Sales to Customers
3 2012 2011 2010
4 Consumer –
5 United States $ 5,046 5,151 5,519
6 International 9,401 9,732 9,071
7 Total 14,447 14,883 14,590
8 Pharmaceutical –
9 United States 12,421 12,386 12,519
10 International 12,930 11,982 9,877
11 Total 25,351 24,368 22,396
12 Medical Devices and Diagnostics –
13 United States 12,363 11,371 11,412
14 International 15,063 14,408 13,189
15 Total 27,426 25,779 24,601
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
16 Worldwide total $ 67,224 65,030 61,587
17 Pre-Tax Profit
18 2012 2011 2010
19 Consumer $ 1,693 2,096 2,342
20 Pharmaceutical 6,075 6,406 7,086
21 Medical Devices and Diagnostics 7,187 5,263 8,272
22 Total 14,955 13,765 17,700
23 Less: Expanse not allocated to Segments 1,180 1,404 753
24 Worldwide total $ 13,775 12,361 16,947
*Figures in millions of dollars.
Source: Johnson & Johnson.
Quality problems have arisen before, but they were usually fixed on a regular basis. Analysts suggest that the problems at McNeil may have been exacerbated in 2006 when J&J decided to combine it with the newly acquired consumer health care unit from Pfizer. The firm believed that it could achieve $500 to $600 million in annual savings
C120
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C120
by merging the two units. After the merger, McNeil was also transferred from the heavily regulated pharmaceutical division to the marketing-driven consumer products division, headed by Collen Goggins. Because these consumer
executives lacked pharmaceutical experience, they began to demand several changes at McNeil that led to a reduced emphasis on quality control.
EXHIBIT 4 Key Brands
PHARMACEUTICALS
RISPERDAL for schizophrenia
PROCRIT for anemia
REMICADE for rheumatoid arthritis
TOPAMIX for epilepsy
DURAGESIC for chronic pain
DOXIL for ovarian cancer
HALDOL for psychosis
NATRECOR for heart failure
ELMIRON for bladder pain
MEDICAL DEVICES
DEPUY orthopedic joint reconstruction products
CORDIS CYPHER stents
ETHICON surgery products
LIFESCAN diabetic testing products
VERIDEX diagnostic devices
ANIMAS insulin pumps
ACUVUE contact lenses
CONSUMER PRODUCTS
BAND AID bandages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON baby care products
NEUTROGENA skin and hair care products
LISTERINE oral health care
TYLENOL pain killers
ROLAIDS antacids
BENADRYL cold and cough syrups
BEN GAY pain relief ointments
TUCK’S hemorrhoidal ointments
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
VISINE eye drops
ROGAINE hair regrowth treatments
STAY FREE women’s health products
SPLENDA sweeteners
Source: Johnson & Johnson.
EXHIBIT 5 Research Expenditures*
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B
Research Expenditures*
2 2012 $ 7,665
3 2011 7,548
4 2010 6,844
5 2009 6,986
6 2008 7,577
7 2007 7,680
8 2006 7,125
9 2005 6,462
*Figures in millions of dollars.
Source: Johnson & Johnson.
Weldon was aware of the threat faced by Johnson & Johnson as a result of its problems with quality. He was especially concerned about the allegation by the FDA that the firm initially tried to hide the problems that it found with Motrin in 2009, hiring a contractor to quietly go around from store to store, buying all of the packets off the shelves. McNeil’s conduct surrounding the recalls led to an inquiry by both the House Committee on Oversight and Investigations and by the FDA’s office of criminal investigations.
Various changes were made at McNeil to resolve these quality issues. Goggins was pushed out of her post as senior executive in charge of all consumer businesses. Weldon allocated more than $100 million to upgrade McNeil’s plants and equipment, appoint new manufacturing executives, and hire a third-party consulting firm to improve procedures and systems. Bonnie Jacobs, a McNeil spokeswoman, wrote in a recent email, “We will invest the necessary resources and make whatever changes are needed to do so, and we will take the time to do it right.”10
The problems at McNeil, coupled with growing problems with its artificial hips and contact lenses, led Johnson & Johnson to make changes to its corporate oversight of its supply chain and manufacturing. In August 2010, the firm appointed Ajit Shetty, a longtime executive, to oversee a new system of companywide quality control that involves a single framework for quality across all of the operating units and a new reporting system. The need for these changes was highlighted by Erik Gordon, a professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan: “Nothing is more valuable to Johnson & Johnson than the brand bond of trust with consumers.”11
Addressing New Problems In April 2013, Johnson & Johnson appointed Alex Gorsky to lead the health care conglomerate out of the difficulties that it has faced over the past few years. He had been with the firm since 1988, holding positions in its pharmaceutical
C121
businesses across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East before leaving for a few years to work at Novartis. Shortly after his return to Johnson & Johnson in 2008, he took over its medical device and diagnostic group. Because of his extensive background with the firm, and with the division that was being investigated about its faulty hip replacements, Gorsky might have been regarded as the ideal person to take over the job.
When he took over, DePuy, the firm’s orthopedic unit was already running into trouble with its newest artificial hip. It was facing resistance from the Food and Drug Administration even as complaints about the device were mounting from doctors and regulators around the world. Gorsky moved quickly to phase out the defective hip replacements, although he did not publicly disclose the problems that it had been experiencing with the FDA over the sale of these. The decision not to publicize the agency’s findings to doctors, patients, and others while continuing to market the device has exposed Johnson & Johnson to the lawsuits that can tarnish its reputation.
DePuy finally recalled the artificial hip in August 2010, amid growing concerns about its failure among those who had received the implant. Until then, however, executives from the firm had repeatedly insisted that the device was safe. Gorsky continued to state publicly that Johnson & Johnson had decided to drop it because of declining sales rather than out of safety concerns. Andrew Ekdahl, the president of DePuy, recently reiterated that position. “This was purely a business decision,” he said.12
In the trial in Los Angeles Superior Court regarding the defective hip replacement, however, Michael A. Kelly, the lawyer making the case against Johnson & Johnson, suggested that company executives might have concealed information out of concern for firm profits. DePuy officials, for example, never told doctors that the device had failed an internal performance test. “They changed the test and tested it against other things until they found one it could beat,” he stated.13
In spite of all these issues, Johnson & Johnson has not attempted to clarify what information Gorsky may have had about the problems associated with the artificial hip. Under these circumstances, his promotion to lead the firm surprised Dr. Robert Hauser, a cardiologist and an advocate for improved safety of medical devices. “He’s been overseeing one of the major J.&J. quality issues and the board of J.&J. sees fit to name him the new C.E.O.?” he questioned.14
Is There a Cure Ahead? Moving forward, Gorsky must try to maintain a balance at Johnson & Johnson between the controls throughout the firm that are necessary to protect its reputation and the freedom for the business units that can allow it to keep growing. Quality problems have persisted, as the firm announced in early 2012 that it would recall about a half-million bottles of liquid Infants’ Tylenol because of a faulty dosing system. Additionally, McNeil is still working with the FDA to bring the plant that was the source of many of the over-the-counter recalls up to federal standards.
In order to repair the damage to its consumer brands from the recalls, Johnson & Johnson recently announced that it would remove a host of potentially harmful chemicals, like formaldehyde, from its line of consumer products by the end of 2015. It is the first major consumer products company to make such a widespread commitment. “We’ve never really seen a major personal care product company take the kind of move that they are taking with this,” said Kenneth A. Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.15
Even as its DePuy unit is trying to recover from its problems with the faulty artificial hips, Johnson & Johnson is completing its biggest ever acquisition that would reinvigorate its device business. Its $20 billion purchase of Synthes would make the firm a dominant player in a major segment of the medical device market. Synthes, a maker of equipment used in trauma surgery, accounts for nearly 50 percent of sales of plates and screws that are used to treat broken bones. The $5.5 billion trauma category grew 8 percent last year, according to estimates by Wells Fargo Securities.
Even as he tries to provide more direction and assert more control, Gorksy is also aware that much of its success has resulted from the relative autonomy that Johnson & Johnson has granted to each of its business units. Like others before him, Gorsky knows that even as he pushes for more control and direction, he does not want to threaten the entrepreneurial spirit that has served his firm so well. But he must also decide how much to push on its business units to try to work more closely together than they have done in the past. Johnson & Johnson must be able to tap into many more opportunities when it tries to bring together the various skills that it has managed to develop across different divisions.
But it is clear that the health care giant has to rethink the process by which it manages its diversified portfolio of companies in order to ensure that there are no further threats to its reputation. “This is a company that was purer than
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Caesar’s wife, this was the gold standard, and all of a sudden it just seems like things are breaking down,” said William Trombetta, a professor of pharmaceutical marketing at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadephia.16
ENDNOTES 1. Thomas, K. 2012. J.&J.’s next chief is steeped in sales culture. New York Times, February 24: B6. 2. Thomas, K., & Abelson, R. 2012. J.&J. chief to resign one role. New York Times, February 22: B8. 3. Thomas. 2012. J.&J.’s next chief: B1. 4. Rockoff, J. D. 2011. J&J, Synthes hold talks. Wall Street Journal, April 18: B1. 5. Loftus, P., & Wang, S. S. 2009. J&J sales show health care feels the pinch. Wall Street Journal, January 21: B1.
C122
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C123
CASES
CASE 19 ZYNGA*
Zynga, located in San Francisco, California, has become a dominant player in the online gaming field, almost entirely through the use of social media platforms. The company name was established by the CEO, Mark Pincus, to pay tribute to his late beloved pet bulldog named Zinga. Although this seems whimsical, Zynga was actually quite a powerful company. To exemplify Zynga’s prominence, Facebook, which in 2012 had revenues exceeding $3.7 billion, was reported to have earned roughly 12 percent of that revenue from the operations of Zynga’s virtual merchandise sales.1
No other direct competitor is close to this revenue lead. Zynga’s collection of games continues to increase, with more and more success stories emerging. Being a relatively new company to the market, their quick success is astonishing, something that not many others have been able to mimic. However, Zynga’s impressive financials may be at risk because of what may be considered questionable decision making. Many of Zynga’s competitors, and even some partners, are displeased with their actions and have begun to show it in the form of litigation. Agin-court, a plaintiff of a recent lawsuit brought against Zynga, was quoted as saying, “Zynga’s remarkable growth has not been driven by its own ingenuity. Rather it has been widely reported that Zynga’s business model is to copy creative ideas and game designs from other game developers and then use its market power to bulldoze the games’ originators.”2 If these lawsuits and other ethical issues continue to arise for Zynga as often as they have been, Zynga’s powerful bulldog may start looking more like a poodle.
The Product With a newfound abundance of software developers, the ability to create and distribute these games is increasing by the day, and the demand to play them is equally high. However, while many people find these games fun, and better yet therapeutic, others can’t understand the hype. The best way to illuminate the sudden infatuation is to observe it as a relaxation method. In the movies, often you see large executive offices with putting greens, dart boards, or even a bar full of alcoholic beverages. These all mean to serve the same purpose: to relieve stress during a hard day’s work. We’ve all been there and all look for a way to cope. However, few of us have the opportunity to use such things as putting greens to unwind at the workplace. And even if we did, how long could we really afford to partake in such an activity before being pulled back to our desks? This is one of the many purposes that these virtual games fulfill. No need to leave your desk. No need to make others around you aware of your relaxation periods. Better yet, no need to separate the task of relaxation from sitting at your computer while you work. The ability to log onto these games from the very same screen and “relax” here and there as the day goes by makes it all the more enticing. This, of course, is just one of many uses for the games. Others play it after work or at the end of a long day. With the takeover of smartphones, people of all ages can play these games on the go throughout the day. Sitting on the bus, in the waiting room of a doctor’s office, or at the DMV, it has never been easier to interact through gameplay that is readily available with the click of a button.
*This case was developed by graduate student Eric S. Engelson and Professor Alan B. Eisner, Pace University. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for class discussion. Copyright © 2013 Alan B. Eisner.
Market Size Compared to other game developers with games present on the Facebook platform, Zynga is a dominant force. It ranks first in market share at about 39 percent and first in revenue generation at over $500 million. It has 38 percent of the daily Facebook game players, and about 240 million monthly users, roughly 18 percent of all Facebook’s users as of 2012 (see
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Exhibits 1 and 2). Zynga’s nearest competitor, EA Play-fish, recorded just an estimated $90 million in revenue, or 6.5 percent of the market (as of 2010).3 Zynga has gained almost all of its following through Facebook and its users, and this has led to a substantial portion of Zynga’s profits.
Zynga’s virtual games give the opportunity for constant build-up and improvements, offering the user virtual goods and services to increase their gaming experience. These items can be purchased using a credit card and are often needed to accomplish fast progressions in the games. These goods are advertised throughout the games and entice you by offering price cuts for larger purchases. On top of its lucrative business model selling virtual goods and advertisements, Zynga also recently raised approximately $1 billion in capital, during its initial public offering when it began trading on NASDAQ in December 2011 (see Exhibits 3 and 4).
Zynga’s virtual games can be played both remotely and through social media platforms, most commonly Facebook. As of February 2012, Zynga’s games had over 240 million monthly users on Facebook.4 Five of Zynga’s games, FarmVille, CityVille, Empire and Allies, CastleVille, and Texas HoldEm Poker, continue to be some of
C124
the most popular games on Facebook. CityVille had over 54 million active monthly users in February 2012.5 On July 1, 2011, Zynga filed with the SEC with intentions of raising up to $1 billion in its IPO, and began trading on NASDAQ December 16, 2011.6
EXHIBIT 1 Virtual Gaming Revenue and Market Share
2010 Rank Company 2010 Market Peformance* Market Share
1 Zynga $544 39.1%
2 EA Playfish $90 6.5%
3 Disney Playdom $77 5.5%
4 Crowdstar $59 4.2%
5 RockYou $36 2.6%
*Market performance figures in millions of dollars.
Source: assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/seattle/zyngamarketsharechartblog.jpg?site=techflash.com.
EXHIBIT 2 Daily Users of Facebook Gaming, 2012
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Source: www.gamesindustryblog.com/2012/03/zynga-is-top-dog-in-the-facebook-gaming-market/.
EXHIBIT 3 Zynga Income Statements
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Zynga Income Statements
2 Year Ended
3 Non-GAAP Results 2012 2011 2010
4 Bookings $1,147,627 $1,155,509 $838,896
5 Adjusted EBITDA $213,233 $303,274 $392,738
6 Non-GAAP net income $58,178 $182,483 $238,900
7 Non-GAAP earnings per share $0.07 $0.24 $0.38
8 GAAP Results
9 Revenue $1,281,267 $1,140,100 $597,459
10 Net income (loss) ($209,448) ($404,316) $90,595
11 Diluted net income (loss) per share ($0.28) ($1.40) $0.11
Of course, Zynga is not the only virtual gaming company striving for this degree of success. In fact, there are many others, in what currently seems to be one of the fastest growing industries. The capability to create these games is widespread. Creativity and innovation are the grounds on which competing companies challenge each other. Consequently, when all competitors are after the same audience, you can be certain that the industry is prone to a significant amount of head-butting rivalry.
Background of Competitors RockYou was founded in 2005 by Lance Tokuda and Jia Shen. Their first product was a slide-show service, crafted
C125
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C125
to work as an application widget. In 2007 RockYou was one of the companies invited by Facebook to participate in the F8 event, in which Facebook announced the start of an open platform that would allow third parties to develop and run their own applications on Facebook. RockYou then shifted toward producing more in-depth social application games, such as Toyland, Zoo World, Hero World, and MyCasino. Its most played game, Zoo World, is a free social media application where users try to build the best zoo they can. In October 2010, the company underwent sizable layoffs, but continued to work on new and improved games.7
EXHIBIT 4 Zynga Balance Sheets
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C
1 Zynga Balance Sheets
2 Zynga Inc. Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands, unaudited)
3 December 31, 2012 December 31, 2011
4 Assets
5 Current assets:
6 Cash and cash equivalents $ 385,949 $1,582,343
7 Marketable securities 898,821 225,165
8 Accounts receivable 106,327 135,633
Income tax receivable 5,607 18,583
10 Deferred tax assets 30,122 23,515
11 Restricted cash 28,152 3,846
12 Other current assets 29,392 34,824
13 Total current assets 1,484,370 2,023,909
14
15 Long-term marketable securities 367,543 110,098
16 Goodwill 208,955 91,765
17 Other intangible assets, net 33,663 32,112
18 Property and equipment, net 466,074 246,740
19 Restricted cash – 4,082
20 Other long-term assets 15,715 7,940
21 Total assets $ 2,576,320 $ 2,516,646
22
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
23 Liabilities and stockholders' equity
24 Current liabilities:
25 Accounts payable $ 23,298 $ 44,020
26 Other current liabilities 146,883 167,271
27 Deferred revenue 338,964 457,394
28 Total current liabilities 509,145 668,685
29
30 Long-term debt 100,000 –
31 Deferred revenue 8,041 23,251
32 Deferred tax liabilities 24,584 13,950
33 Other non-current liabilities 109,047 61,221
34 Total liabilities 750,817 767,107
35
36 Stockholders' equity:
37 Common stock and additional paid-in capital 2,725,605 2,426,168
38 Treasury stock (295,113) (282,897)
39 Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (1,447) 362
40 Accumulated deficit (603,542) (394,094)
41 Total stockholders' equity 1,825,503 1,749,539
42 Total liabilities and stockholders' equity $ 2,576,320 $ 2,516,646
GameHouse is a developer, publisher, and distributor of casual games based in Seattle, Washington. In 2004, Game- House was acquired by RealNetworks for $14.6 million cash and about 3.3 million shares of RNWK common stock, which had an estimated worth of $21 million at the time.8 Prior to this acquisition, GameHouse generated their impressive amount of revenue through the sale of games on their own website, www.gamehouse.com, along with third- party affiliates and other distributors. In November 2009 GameHouse and RealArcade merged their websites into one portal in an effort to create one massive distribution center. RealArcade delivers their games on a downloadable demo basis with a 60-minute trial time for most games. When the trial expires, the user must purchase the full version to continue playing. Users also have the option of purchasing a membership package for a monthly fee. As of November 2009 GameHouse began offering the full version of many of its games, supported by the sale of in-game advertising.9
C126
EA Playfish, a subsidiary of Electronic Arts, is a developer of social network games that are free to play. Who Has the Biggest Brain? was the company’s first success and the gateway into their ability to raise funding. The company, like many of its competitors, generates revenue by selling virtual goods inside its games. On November 9, 2009, Electronic Arts acquired Playfish for US$400 million. As of January 2011, Playfish drew approximately 55 million users a month, with over 37 million of those users coming from Facebook.10 Users can purchase “Playfish Cards” at Walmart, Walgreens, and Toys ‘R’ Us stores, at which point they can register on the Playfish website to begin earning “Playfish Cash” to use to purchase virtual goods within the games. On April 19, 2011, Playfish announced the change from Playfish Cash to individual cash for all games (except Crazy Planets at that time) and allowed users to trade for the new cash.11
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
CrowdStar, based in Burlingame, California. is another developer of social games. Founded by Suren Markosian and Jeff Tseng, it has the fourth most monthly active users for Facebook applications.12 Its most popular titles are Happy Aquarium and Happy Pets. CrowdStar turned down an offer by Microsoft to acquire the company for more than $200 million.13 In May 2011 the company raised an additional $23 million and plans on using the money to double their workforce and increase expansion on a global scale. CrowdStar plans to add about a hundred employees, including game developers, server developers, artists, producers, business analysts, and content managers. Peter Relan, CrowdStar’s CEO, said the company needed to raise money to exploit opportunities for global expansion in places such as Japan, China, Eastern Europe, and Brazil.14
Background of the CEO Mark Jonathan Pincus is the entrepreneur behind Zynga. He is also the founder of Freeloader, Inc., Tribe Networks, and Support.com.15 In 2009 Mark was named “CEO of the Year” in The Crunchies awards,16 and in 2011 was named Founder of the Year for 2010.17 Prior to his entrepreneurial endeavors, Pincus worked in venture capital and financial services for several years. After graduating from Wharton, he went on to obtain his Master’s degree from Harvard Business School in 1993. In 1995 Pincus launched his first start-up, Freeloader, Inc., a Web-based push technology service. Individual, Inc. acquired the company only seven months later for $38 million.18 In 2003 he founded his third start-up, Tribe.net, one of the first social networks. Tribe.net focused on partnerships with major yet local newspapers and was supported by The Washington Post, Knight Ridder Digital, and Mayfield Fund.19 Unfortunately for him, Mark’s impressive background holds no merit with his irritated competitors, who have made their feelings widely known through a laundry list of threats and lawsuits.
Intellectual Property and Ethical Issues In September 2009 Zynga was threatened with a lawsuit. Nissan claimed that their trademarks were used without consent in Zynga’s game Street Racing. Zynga consequently changed the thumbnail images and renamed all cars that were branded Nissan and Infiniti to “Sindats” and “Fujis.”20 In October 2010 Zynga was criticized on Hacker News as well as other social media sites for filing a patent application involving the ability to obtain virtual currency for cash on gambling and other gaming websites. Many said that the concept was not new and that in fact significant prior art for the concept already existed.21 The unveiling of Mafia Wars generated a lawsuit from the creators of Mob Wars. An attorney of the parent company of Mob Wars said that by making Mafia Wars, Zynga “copied virtually every important aspect of the game.”22 The lawsuit was later settled out of court for somewhere between $7 and $9 million.23
California-based web developer SocialApps also brought Zynga to court, seeking damages for alleged “copyright infringement, violation of trade secrets, breach of written contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, and breach of confidence.” SocialApps claimed to have entered into an agreement with Zynga, allowing Zynga access to the source code for SocialApps’ Facebook game MyFarm in exchange for an undisclosed form of compensation. According to the suit, Zynga was given the code, at which point Zynga failed to pay SocialApps. SocialApps claimed that MyFarm’s source code was the foundation of Farmville, as well as many of Zynga’s similar games.24 Following Zynga’s January 2012 release of the game Hidden Chronicles, Forbes’s Paul Tassi wrote that Zynga “refuses to innovate in any way, and is merely a follower when it comes to ideas and game design.”25
Ethical issues, although less tangible and therefore less definable than intellectual property, are equally as troubling when assessing Zynga’s operations. A former employee of the company revealed quotes that he heard firsthand from CEO Mark Pincus, such as: “You’re not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers.” One contractor said he was presented freelance work from Zynga related to imitating a competitor’s application and was given precise instructions to “copy that game.”26 Furthermore, other past employees have spoken out, even those at the senior level, to give insight into the corrupt ways that Pincus decided to operate the business. One of these past employee revealed a saying, “Do Evil,” that was commonly used by employees in the office as a playful twist on the Google motto, “Don’t Be Evil.”27
Unfortunately, Zynga’s problems go beyond their lack of respect for other companies. The wrath of Zynga’s business decisions has even been harshly felt internally. A former high-level Zynga employee came forth to tell about a situation he encountered when a group of designers brought a new and innovative idea to the table, only to
C127
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
C127
have it turned down by Pincus because of his wariness to attempt a new idea that didn’t fit the “tried-and-true” mold of other successes.28
Zynga has also been accused of taking advantage of their end consumers, particularly pertaining to a lack of security and safekeeping of consumer information. In May 2010 the Norwegian Consumer Council filed a complaint against Zynga to the Data Inspectorate concerning breaches of the Data Protection Act. According to the Consumer Council of Norway, Zynga’s terms of use “do not offer a clear description of what is being collected in terms of information or what this information is being used for. Nor do they state how long the information is stored for or how it is protected against unauthorized access.” They went even further with their forewarning, saying, “Many of the gravest examples of unreasonable and one-sided terms of use can be found in games providers such as Zynga.”29
Zynga Going Forward Despite all the back-end controversy, Zynga’s main concern had always been the end consumer and their satisfaction with the games that Zynga put forward. Although Zynga game users tended to be pleased with Zynga’s games, many users also noted that there seemed to be recurring obstacles that limited that pleasure. For instance, a vast population of Zynga users complained of lag time while playing the games. Even more people complained that when problems arose, Zynga support staff was nowhere to be found. They had no customer service initiative and forced users to resort to sending their claim through email—which many people believe was ignored or never read. Furthermore, many believed that the company had made it too difficult to make real strides in the games without spending ridiculous sums of money. Based on their experiences, many users had come to believe the claim that Zynga was all about revenue generation and that everything else came second.
As Zynga looks to the future, where will their next big hit come from? With all of the acquisitions surrounding Zynga’s past games, will they continue on the same path they have become so notoriously known for today and reap further accusations of imitating their competitors’ existing games? Or will Zynga change their approach, gain a reputation for intellectual integrity, and begin creating true one-of-a-kind games—showing their capabilities as a leader in the industry rather than a follower? With all eyes on them as the market leader, it is certain that it will not be easy for Zynga to get away with some of their earlier stunts, especially now as a public company. The newly implemented board of directors has already announced their intention to assure proper decision making going forward, particularly regarding corporate governance.30 With all of the changes and concerns that must be accounted for as a public company, Zynga must watch its step or prepare to feel the wrath of its shareholders.
ENDNOTES 1. http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/06/mark-pincus-farmville-201106. 2. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20093473-261/zynga-targeted-in-patent-infringement-lawsuit/. 3. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385443,00.asp. 4. http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/15/zyngas-hybrid-zcloud-lets-it-get-rid-of-two-out-of-every-three-servers/. 5. http://www.appdata.com/apps/facebook/291549705119-cityville. 6. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/us-zynga-ipo-idUSTRE7AT2FJ20111130. 7. http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/15/rockyou-rocked-by-layoffs-as-it-switches-focus-to-social-games/. 8. http://investor.realnetworks.com/faq.cfm?faqid=2. 9. http://www.gamehouse.com/.
10. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32496/Playfish_Social_Games_Reaching_55_Million_Monthly_Players.php. 11. http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2011/04/19/exclusive-playfish-ending-playfish-cash-going-almost-all-in-on-facebook-credits/. 12. http://www.appdata.com/devs/30679-crowdstar. 13. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-31/crowdstar-said-to-break-off-talks-to-be-bought-by-microsoft.html. 14. http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/23/social-game-leader-crowdstar-raises-23m-from-intel-and-time-warner/. 15. http://company.zynga.com/about/leadership-team/zynga-management. 16. http://venturebeat.com/2010/01/11/crunchies-winners-facebook-bing/. 17. http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/21/congratulations-crunchies-winners-twitter-takes-best-startup-of-2010/. 18. http://startup2startup.com/2009/06/24/june29-markpincus-zynga/.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
19. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/technology/03social.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5088&en=f718f182170673a4&ex=1330578000. 20. http://mafiawars.wikia.com/wiki/Zynga. 21. http://allfacebook.com/zynga-patent-currency_b20985. 22. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/07/13/story7.html. 23. http://techcrunch.com/2009/09/13/zynga-settles-mob-wars-litigation-as-it-settles-in-to-playdom-war/. 24. http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/18/lawsuit-filed-against-zynga-over-farmville-source-code/. 25. http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/01/06/zynga-stock-falls-as-second-post-ipo-game-fails-to-impress/. 26. http://blog.games.com/2010/09/08/zynga-ceo-to-employees-i-dont-f-ing-want-innovation/. 27. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/zynga_corporate_culture.php. 28. http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-09-08/news/farmvillains/4/. 29. http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2010/Facebook_and_Zynga_reported_to_the_Data_Inspectorate. 30. http://investor.zynga.com/governance.cfm.
C128
CASES
CASE 20 THE BOSTON BEER COMPANY*
The Boston Beer Company, known for its Samuel Adams brand, is the largest craft brewery in the United States, holding a 1 percent stake in the overall beer market.1 It faces growing competitive threats from other breweries, both large and small. In the past several years, the beer industry as a whole has been on a decline, while sales of wines and spirits have increased. The Boston Beer Company competes within the premium beer industry, which includes craft beer and premium imported beers like Heineken and Corona. Although the beer industry has been on a decline, the premium beer industry has seen a small amount of growth, and the craft beer industry has seen a surge in popularity. Because of this success of the craft breweries in particular the major breweries have taken notice and many new craft breweries have sprung up.
Anheuser-Busch Inbev and MillerCoors, LLC, account for over 80 percent of the beer market in the United States.2
They have caught on to the current trend in the beer industry toward higher quality beers and have started releasing their own higher quality beers. For example, Anheuser-Busch Inbev has released Bud Light Wheat and Bud Light Platinum in an effort to provide quality beers to their loyal customers. MillerCoors makes Blue Moon beer, which is the most popular craft beer in the United States. Anheuser-Busch Inbev released ShockTop to combat the popularity of Blue Moon. These companies have also begun to purchase smaller craft breweries, whose products have been rising in popularity. Anheuser-Busch Inbev purchased Goose Island Brewing Company in March 2011. MillerCoors has started a group within the company titled Tenth and Blake Beer Company for the purpose of creating and purchasing craft breweries. According to MillerCoors CEO Tom Lang, the plan is to grow Tenth and Blake Beer Company by 60 percent within the next three years.3 The two major companies plan to use their massive marketing budgets to tell people about their craft beers.
According to the Brewers Association, 1,940 craft breweries and 1,989 total breweries operated in the United States for some or all of 2011. While craft breweries account for over 97 percent of all the breweries in the United States, they only produce approximately 25 percent of all beer sold.4 However, with the rise in popularity of premium beers, the craft breweries will continue to grab more of the market. As the country’s largest craft brewery, the Boston Beer Company had revenue of over $500 million in 2011 and sold over 2 million barrels of beer. Other large craft breweries include New Belgium Brewing Company and Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, which sold over 580,000 and 720,000 barrels of beer in 2011, respectively.5 In addition, some smaller breweries have been merging to take advantage of economies of scale and enhance their competitive position.
According to the Boston Beer Company, there are approximately 770 craft breweries that ship their product domestically, up from 420 in 2006. There are also an expected 800 craft breweries in the planning stage, expecting to be
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
operational within the next 2–3 years. Boston Beer Company assumes that 300 of those 800 will be shipping breweries (i.e., breweries that sell their product beyond their local market). Thus, within the next few years, Samuel Adams beer may be competing with over 1,000 other craft breweries around the country.
The Boston Beer Company competes not only with domestic craft breweries but also with premium beer imports, such as Heineken and Corona, which sell beer in a similar price range. Like Anheuser-Busch Inbev and MillerCoors, Heineken and Corona have large financial resources and can influence the market. It is projected that premium imported beers will grow by 6 percent over the next five years.
The Brewers Association defines a craft brewery as brewing less than six million barrels per year and being less than 25 percent owned or controlled by another economic interest. Maintaining status as a craft brewery can be important for image and, therefore, sales. Thus, MillerCoors purchased less than a 25 percent stake in Terrapin Beer, still allowing it to maintain its craft brewery status.6 The size of the Boston Beer Company, however, is an issue. With continued growth, the brewery could potentially increase its volume output to more than 6 million barrels per year, thus losing its craft brewery status. Furthermore, with the size of the company and their ability to market nationwide, the company runs the risk of alienating itself from other craft breweries who believe Samuel Adams no longer fits the profile. Many craft breweries already believe the company, which has been public since 1995, is more concerned with making money than with providing quality beer and educating the public on craft beers.
*This case was developed by graduate students Peter J. Courtney and Eric S. Engelson and Professor Alan B. Eisner, Pace University. Material has been drawn from published sources to be used for class discussion. Copyright © 2013 Alan B. Eisner.
Size does have advantages, of course, with more money for marketing and, especially in the beer business, with distribution. A heavy complaint for all craft breweries is
C129
the difficulty they have distributing their product in the current three-tier system (discussed in a later section). The large breweries have power over the independent distributors because they account for most of their business. Thus, they can influence the distributors and make it difficult for craft breweries to sell their product. Because of its size, the Boston Beer Company has fewer problems with distributors than its smaller competitors do. Consequently, the company has less in common with other craft breweries and more with the major breweries in regards to distribution. This is good for Boston Beer Company’s distribution, but might be bad for its image. One brewer from The Defiant Brewing Company in Pearl River, New York, said that The Boston Beer Company was becoming too large to be considered a craft brewery and that their substantial connections with distributors contributed to this notion.7
As the above discussion makes clear, The Boston Beer Company is facing a difficult competitive environment. They are facing direct competition from both larger and smaller breweries and from premium imported beers. Some of the smaller craft breweries are growing quickly and want to be larger than the Boston Beer Company. Other craft breweries feel that the Boston Beer Company is too large already. Thus, while further growth would be beneficial in terms of revenue, growing too large could negatively affect the company’s status as a craft brewery and the perceptions of its customers. The company must pay close attention to maintaining its image for the growing customer base of premium beer drinkers.
Company Background Jim Koch started the Boston Beer Company in 1984 along with fellow Harvard MBA graduates Harry Rubin and Lorenzo Lamadrid. The company began with the sale of the now popular Samuel Adams Boston Lager, named after the famous American patriot who was known to have been a brewer himself. The recipe for the lager was passed down from generation to generation in Koch’s family, dating back to the 1860s. Koch began home brewing the beer in his own kitchen and soliciting local establishments in Boston to purchase and sell it. Just one year after its initial sales, Samuel Adams Boston Lager was voted “Best Beer in America” at the Great American Beer Festival in Denver, Colorado. In 1985 Samuel Adams grew immensely and sold 500 barrels of beer in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and West Germany.8
To avoid the high up-front capital costs of starting a brewery, Koch contracted with several existing breweries to make his beer. This allowed the production of the Boston Lager to grow quickly from the relatively small quantities Koch
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
could brew himself. Growth continued after that, and in 1988 the Boston Beer Company opened a brewery in Boston. By 1989 the Boston Beer Company produced 63,000 barrels of Samuel Adams beer annually.
The company went public in 1995, selling Class A Common stock to potential investors. The stock was sold at two different prices, $15 to loyal customers and $20 through an IPO run by Goldman-Sachs. Koch decided to reward his loyal customers by advertising the stock offering on the packages of his six-packs, estimating that 30,000 buyers would be interested. He believed that those who enjoyed the beer and supported it should be the ones who have a stake in the company. After 100,000 potential investors sent checks in, Koch randomly chose 30,000.9 Managers from Goldman- Sachs were upset that they did not receive the lowest-price offering. Koch owns 100 percent of Class B Common stock, of which all major decisions for the company are made. This is seen as a risk to potential investors because Koch can make important decisions on the strategy for the company without receiving approval.
Continued success for the business led to the purchase of a large brewery in Cincinnati in 1997. Since 2000, Samuel Adams has won more awards in international beer tasting competitions than any other brewery in the world. In 2008 the Boston Beer Company purchased a world-class brewery in Lehigh, Pennsylvania, to support growth.
As of 2013, the Boston Beer Company was the largest craft brewery in the United States, brewing over two million barrels of Samuel Adams beer, but still only made up approximately 1 percent of the total U.S. beer market. The company has expanded its selections to over 50 beer flavors, including seasonal and other flavorful beers, such as Samuel Adams Summer Ale, Samuel Adams Cherry Wheat, and Samuel Adams Octoberfest, as well as the non-beer brands Twisted Tea and HardCore Cider. The Boston Beer Company planned to use the profits gained from its non-beer brands to invest in Samuel Adams and build a stronger portfolio. Revenue for the company grew from $380 million in 2007 to over $500 million in 2011, while operating costs grew from $150 million to $180 million. Net income tripled from $22 million to $66 million in the same period (see Exhibits 1 and 2). In July 2012, the company was selling at $113, nearly $100 over the initial public offering from 1995.
The goal of the Boston Beer Company was to become the leading brewer in the premium beer market. As of 2013, it was the largest craft brewery, but it trailed Crown Imports, LLC, and Heineken USA in the premium beer market. The company planned to surpass the large importers by increasing brand availability and awareness through advertising, drinker education, and the support of its over 300-member salesforce. The salespeople for the company have a high level of product knowledge about beer and the brewing process and use this to educate distributors and the public on the benefits of Samuel Adams. In 2011 the Boston Beer Company formed a subsidiary called Alchemy & Science to seize new opportunities in the craft brewing industry. The purpose of this group will be to identify better beer ingredients, methods for better brewing, and purchasing opportunities for any breweries that would help the business grow. One of these instances occurred in
C130
EXHIBIT 1 Income Statements
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Income Statements
2
3 Period Ending Dec 28, 2012 Dec 30, 2011 Dec 24, 2010
4 Total Revenue 580,222 513,000 463,798
5 Cost of Revenue 265,012 228,433 207,471
6 Gross Profit 315,210 284,567 256,327
7 Operating Expenses
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
8 Selling General and Administrative 219,477 180,246 174,849
9 Nonrecurring 149 666 300
10 Operating Income or Loss 95,584 103,655 81,178
11 Income from Continuing Operations
12 Total Other Income/Expenses Net (98) (209) (149)
13 Earnings Before Interest And Taxes 95,517 103,500 81,108
14 Income Before Tax 95,517 103,500 81,108
15 Income Tax Expense 36,050 37,441 30,966
16 Net Income From Continuing Ops 59,467 66,059 50,142
17 Net Income 59,467 66,059 50,142
All numbers in $ thousands
Source: Boston Beer Company.
EXHIBIT 2 Balance Sheets
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
1 Balance Sheets
2
3 Period Ending Dec 28, 2012 Dec 30, 2011 Dec 24, 2010
4 Assets
5 Current Assets
6 Cash And Cash Equivalents 74,463 49,450 48,969
7 Net Receivables 36,890 27,596 23,665
8 Inventory 44,361 34,072 26,614
9 Other Current Assets 6,628 14,605 12,756
10 Total Current Assets 162,342 125,723 112,004
11 Property Plant and Equipment 189,948 143,586 142,889
12 Goodwill 2,538 1,377 1,377
13 Other Assets 4,656 1,802 2,260
14 Total Assets 359,484 272,488 258,530
15 Liabilities
16 Current Liabilities
17 Accounts Payable 88,832 67,049 72,199
18 Short/Current Long Term Debt 62 – –
19 Total Current Liabilities 88,894 67,049 72,199
20 Long Term Debt 566 – –
21 Other Liabilities 4,470 3,345 3,656
22 Deferred Long Term Liability Charges 20,463 17,349 17,087
23 Total Liabilities 114,393 87,743 92,942
24 Stockholders' Equity
25 Common Stock 128 128 134
26 Retained Earnings 88,541 47,119 43,876
27 Capital Surplus 157,305 138,336 122,016
28 Other Stockholder Equity (883) (838) (438)
29 Total Stockholder Equity 245,091 184,745 165,588
30 Net Tangible Assets 242,553 183,368 164,211
All numbers in $ thousands
Source: Boston Beer Company.
C131
early 2012, when the group purchased Southern California Brewing. The company continues to invest in efficiency initiatives to lower cost within its breweries and increase margins. One
large program that the company is employing is its Freshest Beer Program. Typically, bottled and canned beer sits in a distributor’s warehouse for three to five weeks, while kegs sit for three to four weeks. In an effort to reduce storage time in the distributor warehouses by approximately two weeks and consequently increase freshness of the beer in retailers, the company focused on better on-time service, forecasting, production planning, and great coordination and cooperation with distributors. In 2011 the company had 50 percent of its beer on the Freshest Beer Program, with the goal of expanding that number to 75 percent in 2012 by investing $50 million into the program.
While expansion and growth are more commonly deemed positive attributes, Boston Beer Co. is aware of the many possible risks in the growth of its business. With the acquisition of the Lehigh brewery in 2008, the Boston Beer Company now brews over 90 percent of its beer from its own breweries. With capital tied up in large investments, there was a potential for the business to falter if an unexpected event affected one of the breweries and halted production at that facility. The company had also put forth a sizable investment to increase product offerings and another to keep its beer fresh during distribution. However, with its reliance on independent distributors, a mishap in its relationship with major distributors could lead to complications within their supply chain. The Boston Beer Company also depended on foreign suppliers of raw material ingredients for its beer. An unexpected shortage of a crop might lead to a drop in production volume. In effect, the image of the company would diminish if its products were not available to loyal fans whose enjoyment of the brand relies on the wide accessibility of a craft beer. With the surge of an enormous number of other craft beer choices, customers had many options to choose from.
Industry Although Samuel Adams was sold in other countries, the United States was where the majority of the product was sold and where they held the most prominence in the beer market. Within the beer industry, Samuel Adams fell into the craft beer category. In terms of volume of beer sold, the Boston Beer Company was the largest craft brewery in the country, but only the seventh largest brewery overall in 2013. The beer market consists mainly of standard and economy lagers, which account for nearly 75 percent of all volume sold. Samuel Adams brand beers were more costly than standard lagers, and were counted with the premium beers, which together account for the other 25 percent of all beer sold.
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
In 2011 there were over 200 million barrels of beer sold in the United States. Anheuser-Busch Inbev dominated the beer industry, totaling over 48 percent of the market. MillerCoors also had a large share of the market at just over 30 percent. Together these two companies sold approximately 8 out of every 10 beers purchased in the United States. The third largest brewer in terms of volume of beer sold was the Mexican-owned Crown Imports LLC, which accounted for less than 6 percent of the market. As the seventh largest brewery in the country, the Boston Beer Company had a 1.1 percent share of the market.
Changes in Drinking Habits The consumption habits of beer drinkers appear to have changed in recent years. From 2006 to 2011, the beer industry as a whole declined by approximately 3 percent.10 This was mostly due to the decline in the consumption of standard lager by 10 percent and economy lager by 3 percent. Even though the volume of beer sold declined, the craft brew market had in fact exploded. Within the same period, dark ales grew by 67 percent and premium lagers grew by 27 percent. Wheat beers (a segment of dark ales) experienced an especially large growth of over 150 percent. The Boston Beer Company brewed the Samuel Adams Cherry Wheat beer in this category, which was one of the company’s popular beers. According to Euromonitor International, projected beer volume sales would decline by 1 percent during 2013 to 2017, but craft beers were projected to grow by 3 percent. As shown in Exhibit 3, dark beers, low-alcohol beers, and domestic premium lagers were the only beer categories to grow from 2007–2011.
The Three-Tier System In 2011, 75 percent of the volume of beer was sold at off-trade value in supermarkets, beer distributors, and such, while the other 25 percent was sold in bars and restaurants. Despite the vast difference in volume sold, the value of beer sold for both off-trade and on-trade were equal because of the premium charged for purchasing beer at a bar or a restaurant.
Breweries are not permitted to own either off-trade or on-trade establishments, so their beer has to be distributed. Before prohibition however, beer was sold in tavernlike establishments called “tied houses,” which supplied and sold their own beer. There were no regulations regarding brewing companies owning all of the retail “tied houses” and only selling their own beer. After prohibition, a system was put in place to discourage monopolies in the supply and sale of beer. This system was titled the Three-Tier System and divided the beer industry into suppliers, distributors, and retailers, all independent of each other. Aside from the brewpub, breweries cannot own retailers or distributors, thus ensuring a level of competition in the brewing industry.11
Although the three categories of the industry are separate, they each have a large influence on one another. For instance, Anheuser-Busch Inbev and MillerCoors sell 80 percent of the beers in the country. That means that 80 percent of distributors’ volume, and consequently
C132
revenue, is from these two companies. Hence, the distributors value the business of Anheuser-Busch Inbev and MillerCoors to a higher degree, in fear of losing their business. In an effort to maintain its dominant position in the industry, Anheuser-Busch Inbev has contracted with several distributors on the condition that they cannot work with any other breweries. Likewise, the other large breweries impose restrictions on their distributors on what other breweries they can work with as well.
EXHIBIT 3 Total Sales of Beer, 2007–2012 (Millions of Barrels)
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D E F G
1 Total Sales of Beer, 2007–2012 (Millions of Barrels)
2 Type of Beer 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012*
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
3 Amber Ale 0.78 0.81 0.97 1.10 1.11 1.12
4 Other Ale 1.57 1.60 1.63 1.78 1.94 2.09
5 Pale Ale 1.32 1.35 1.37 1.51 1.73 1.86
6 Wheat Beer 1.69 1.95 2.26 2.97 3.30 3.70
7 Other Dark Beer 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
8 Subtotal Dark Beers 5.45 5.80 6.32 7.44 8.17 8.85
9 Domestic Premium Lager 13.76 15.55 15.74 15.40 15.58 15.76
10 Imported Premium Lager 27.29 26.75 25.04 25.40 25.71 26.03
11 Standard Lager 110.28 109.71 105.37 100.11 98.07 95.60
12 Economy Lager 50.88 51.68 52.66 51.43 48.85 44.40
13 Subtotal Lagers 202.22 203.69 198.81 192.34 188.21 181.79
14 Low Alcohol Beer 1.06 1.08 1.93 2.73 2.57 2.41
15 Stout 1.15 1.16 1.14 1.16 1.27 1.35
16 Total 209.88 211.72 208.20 203.67 200.21 194.40
*Author estimates.
Source: Global Market Information Database.
The distributors act as the intermediary in the beer industry, providing the beer to retailers. The beer that is available from retailers is a result of the products that their distributors carry. The distributors are major decision makers for what beer taps will be available in bars, as well as the location of beer selections in supermarkets. Small breweries do not like the system because the distributors are heavily influenced by the major breweries. This makes it difficult for the small breweries to compete and achieve growth if distributors have no incentive to treat them as an equal business partner. Consequently, it is difficult for a small brewery to gain widespread recognition in the industry. Despite the challenges, the Boston Beer Company had made a name for itself and sold its beer to a network of approximately 400 distributors.
Competition The Boston Beer Company mainly competes with other beers sold in the United States. Samuel Adams belongs to the craft beer category, which has been rapidly growing over the last several years. The company faces competition from other craft brewers, premium import brewers, and the two major domestic breweries, Anheuser-Busch Inbev and MillerCoors.
The U.S. Open Beer Championship is a highly recognized nationwide beer competition that includes professional breweries as well as home brewers. In 2012 more than 1,650 beers in 65 different categories were submitted. The top 10 brewers were named based on receiving the highest overall grade in the most categories collectively. Exhibit 4 shows the top 10 brewers for 2012 according to the U.S. Open Beer Championship. The Boston Beer Company received the second-place ribbon, an impressive feat with so many breweries participating.12
EXHIBIT 4 Top 10 Brewers, U.S. Open Beer Championship, 2012
Rank Brewery Location
1 Sweetwater Brewing Georgia
2 Boston Beer Company Massachusetts
3 Deschutes Brewery Oregon
4 Cigar City Brewing Florida
5 Black Tooth Brewing Wyoming
6 Niagara College Ontario
7 Full Sail Brewing Oregon
8 Sprecher Brewing Wisconsin
9 Morgan Street Brewing Missouri
10 Maui Brewing Hawaii
Source: U.S. Open Beer Championship.
Home brewing has become an extremely popular hobby and in many instances has led home brewers to pursue their passion in the form of an actual brewery. The Homebrewers Association was founded in 1978 and includes more than 30,000 beer-enthusiastic members. Exhibit 5 shows a
C133
ranked list of the top 10 beers, top 10 breweries, and top 10 most diverse breweries.13
EXHIBIT 5 Top 10 Beer Categories in 2012
Best Beer Best Brewery Best Portfolio
Russian River Pliny the Elder Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Boston Beer Company (41 beers)
Bell’s Two Hearted Ale Dogfish Head Craft Brewery Dogfish Head Craft Brewery (34 beers)
Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA Stone Brewing Company New Glarus Brewing Company (28 beers)
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale Russian River Brewing Company Rogue Ales (27 beers)
Stone Arrogant Bastard Ale Bell’s Brewery Bell’s Brewery (26 beers)
Bell’s Hopslam New Belgium Brewing Company New Belgium Brewing Company (26 beers)
Sierra Nevada Celebration Firestone Walker Brewing Company Sierra Nevada Brewing Company (25 beers)
Stone Ruination IPA Deschutes Brewery Three Floyds Brewing Company (25 beers)
Sierra Nevada Torpedo Lagunitas Brewing Company Goose Island Brewing Company (23 beers)
North Coast Old Rasputin Founders Brewing Company Great Divide Brewing Company (23 beers)
Samuel Adams Boston Lager (31st) Boston Beer Company (11th)
Source: Homebrewers Association.
The Boston Beer Company also competes with the noncraft breweries that sell premium imports and standard and economy lagers. In regards to dollar sales, a list of the top 20 beers in the United States is shown in Exhibit 6, followed by a list of the top imports in Exhibit 7. Samuel Adams did not crack the top 20 list.14
EXHIBIT 6 Top Dollar Sales of Beers in the United States
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C D
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
1 Top Dollar Sales of Beers in the United States
2 Rank Beer Dollar Sales Brewery
3 1 Bud Light $5,327,145,000 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
4 2 Budweiser $2,072,380,000 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
5 3 Coors Light $1,946,762,000 MillerCoors
6 4 Miller Lite $1,672,598,000 MillerCoors
7 5 Natural Light $1,089,709,000 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
8 6 Corona Extra $ 964,968,900 Crown Imports
9 7 Busch Light $ 735,397,100 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
10 8 Busch $ 684,463,700 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
11 9 Heineken $ 577,453,300 Heineken USA
12 10 Michelob Ultra Light $ 518,075,100 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
13 11 Miller High Life $ 498,743,900 MillerCoors
14 12 Keystone Light $ 484,396,900 MillerCoors
15 13 Natural Ice $ 363,154,400 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
16 14 Modelo Especial $ 331,697,700 Crown Imports
17 15 Bud Light Lime $ 299,320,300 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
18 16 Icehouse $ 239,119,900 MillerCoors
19 17 Bud Ice $ 221,357,000 Anheuser-Busch Inbev
20 18 Pabst Blue Ribbon $ 204,409,400 Pabst Brewing Company
21 19 Yuengling Lager $ 185,332,400 Yuengling Brewery
22 20 Corona Light $ 168,556,600 Crown Imports
Source: SymphonyIRI Group.
Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Ken Grossman and Paul Camusi started the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company in 1980. It is the second largest craft brewery behind the Boston Beer Company and the 10th largest brewery in the United States. It was also voted the best craft brewery by the Homebrewers Association. Sierra Nevada makes a pale ale that is the highest-selling pale ale in the country. The company sold approximately
C134
865,000 barrels of beer in 2012 and distributes in all 50 states. Sierra Nevada was one of the earliest craft breweries, and its founders are consequently referred to as pioneers in the craft brewing industry. The company plans to open another brewing facility within the next few years to continue growth of the business. They create goodwill by promoting the craft beer industry and by their efforts to be environmentally friendly in their beer’s production. One of Sierra Nevada Brewing’s goals is to overtake the Boston Beer Company as the largest craft brewery in the country.15
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
EXHIBIT 7 Top Dollar Sales of Imported Beers in the United States (millions of dollars)
Go to library tab in Connect to access Case Financials.
A B C
1 Top Dollar Sales of Imported Beers in the United States (millions of dollars)
2 Beer Sales
3 1 Corona Extra $422.90
4 2 Heineken $275.40
5 3 Corona Light $129.10
6 4 Tecate $ 95.90
7 5 Modelo Especial $ 90.50
8 6 Stella Artois Lager $ 67.80
9 7 Heineken Premium Light Lager $ 58.30
10 8 Dos Equis XX Lager Especial $ 56.40
11 9 Newcastle Brown Ale $ 56.20
12 10 Guinness Draught $ 47.20
13 11 Beck's $ 45.00
14 12 Pacifico $ 42.70
15 13 Labatt Blue $ 42.10
16 14 Labatt Blue Light $ 33.40
17 15 Amstel Light $ 30.20
18 16 Foster’s Lager $ 27.30
19 17 Red Stripe $ 24.80
20 18 Negra Modelo $ 22.40
21 19 Dos Equis XX Ambar Lager $ 20.40
22 20 St. Pauli Girl $ 19.90
Source: Global Market Information Database, “Sales of the leading imported beer brands of the United States in 2011,” www.statista.com.
New Belgium Brewing Company Jeff Lebesch founded New Belgium Brewing Company in Fort Collins, Colorado, in 1991. New Belgium Brewing Company is the third largest craft brewery in the United States behind the Boston Beer Company and Sierra Nevada, and the 8th largest brewery in the country. The company’s flagship beer is an amber ale called Fat Tire, but it has over 25 different beers in production. In 2012 the company sold over 700,000 barrels of beer and was distributed in 29 states. Over the last several years, the company has seen growth of approximately 15 percent. New Belgium has plans to build a $100 million brewery in North Carolina by 2015 to compete with the other major breweries. Like Sierra Nevada, New Belgium focuses on energy-efficient practices. New Belgium Brewing also hopes to become the largest craft brewery in the country.16
Crown Imports, LLC Crown Imports, LLC, is a joint venture between Grupo Modelo and Constellation Brands. Crown Imports has a portfolio of beers that includes Corona Extra, Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Pacifico, and others. Crown Imports controls approximately 6 percent of the market and has the number one import into the United States with Corona Extra, which brought in almost $1 billion in revenue in 2012. It is the third largest brewing company in the United States behind Anheuser-Busch Inbev and Miller-Coors. The beer brands are owned by the public company Constellation Brands. Constellation owns over 200 brands of beer, wine, and spirits and had sales of almost $3 billion in 2012. With such a large financial backing, Crown Imports wants to remain the number one import in the country and close the gap in market share from the top two breweries. Due to its large amount of capital, Crown Imports is able to advertise its brands nationally. Crown also hosts several charitable events.17 Crown recently started a campaign to make Corona Extra the most liked beer in America.
Heineken Heineken is the second largest import brewing company and the fourth largest brewing company in the United States. The company has had approximately 4 percent of the market for the last several years. The company was founded in 1873 and resides in 71 countries worldwide. Heineken imports popular brands such as Heineken, Amstel Light, Sol, Dos Equis, and Newcastle. The Heineken beer alone collected more than $590 million in sales in 2012. With Heineken’s large size and reputation, it has the ability to advertise its products nationally. The Dos Equis brand has grown by over 10 percent since the popular “Most Interesting Man in the World” commercials began airing. Most of the brands offered by Heineken are in the price range of Samuel Adams, making them a close competitor.18
Anheuser-Busch Inbev NV Anheuser-Busch Inbev is one of the largest beer companies in the world, with roughly $40 billion in revenue in 2012. The brewing portion of the company remains the largest brewery in the country and has an approximate 50 percent stake in the United States beer industry.19 They have the two best-selling beers in the country with Bud Light and Budweiser and the fifth best-selling beer with Natural Light. However, they have seen the sale of their products decline over the last several years. In an effort to combat the lower volume of sales, they have raised the prices of their beer.
Additionally, the company has also been witness to the explosive growth of the craft beer industry. Although it could never be considered a craft brewery because of its size, Anheuser-Busch plans to make more craftlike beers, as it has done with its brand Shock Top. They also plan
C135
to invest in and purchase small craft breweries, like that of Goose Island, which makes the popular beer 312. The company is also not opposed to merging with other large breweries. In June of 2012, the company was partaking in talks with the maker of Corona to purchase the company. The size and influence that Anheuser-Busch has pose a threat to the Boston Beer Company because their substantial lead in available capital.
EXHIBIT 8 Map of Domestic Beer Brands*
Domestic Beers Alcohol by volume (%) Avg. Price for a 6 Package of Beer Market Share
Bud Light 4.20 $4.99 0.198
Coors Light 4.20 $4.99 0.097
Budweiser 5.00 $4.99 0.074
Miller Light 4.20 $4.99 0.041
Corona Extra 4.60 $7.99 0.035
Natural Light 4.20 $3.49 0.035
Busch Light 4.10 $3.99 0.032
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Busch 4.60 $4.49 0.029
Miller High Life 4.70 $3.99 0.024
Keystone Light 4.13 $3.49 0.022
Blue Moon Belgian White 5.36 $8.49 0.015
Heineken 5.00 $5.99 0.010
Samuel Adams Boston Lager 4.90 $8.49 0.009
Shock Top Belgian White 5.20 $8.49 0.008
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale 5.60 $8.49 0.008
New Belgium Fat Tire 5.20 $8.99 0.007
Yuengling Lager 4.40 $6.49 0.005
Dogfish Head Pale Ale 5.00 $8.99 0.004
Brooklyn Brewery Lager 5.20 $7.99 0.004
*Some shares are estimated due to undisclosed information.
Source: Global Market Information Database.
Millercoors, LLC MillerCoors, LLC, is the second largest brewing company in the country, a joint venture between the Miller and Coors brands, accounting for approximately 30 percent of the market. They have two out of the top five most popular beers with Miller Lite and Coors Light, and would like to catch up with Anheuser-Busch Inbev. The company trades publicly as Molson Coors Brewing Company and SAB Miller, and were sold for over $40 and $2,600 respectively in July of 2012. MillerCoors would also like to push its craft beers after witnessing the growth in the market. They have the most popular craftlike beer with Blue Moon Belgian White. They have also started the group Tenth and Blake to focus on the craft beer industry and premium imports and plan to expand the group by 60 percent over the next few years. Some of their other premium beers include Leinenkugel’s Honey Weiss, George Killian’s Irish Red, Batch 19, Henry Weinhard’s IPA, Colorado Native, Pilsner Urquell, Peroni Nastro Azzurro, and Grolsch.20
Thinking about the Future for Beer The Boston Beer Company created high-quality craft beers and sold them at a higher prices than standard and economy lagers. It was the largest craft brewery in the country and the seventh largest overall brewery. While Boston Beer was delighted to be the largest craft brewery, the goal was to become the third largest overall brewery in the country. Brand recognition is key to any business, and it is especially obvious in the beer industry. Anheuser-Busch Inbev and MillerCoors spend enormous amounts of capital each year to advertise their products. Due in large part to Anheuser- Busch Inbev and MillerCoors, beer has become synonymous with sports, and nowhere is this more
C136
apparent than the Super Bowl. Anheuser-Busch Inbev was one of the main sponsors of the Super Bowl in 2012, and beer commercials were apparent throughout the game. The challenge for craft brewers is to gain the attention of potential customers while these large brewers spend a great deal of money vying for these same consumers. One might argue that the larger brewers’ beers do not encompass the same amount of flavor or high-quality taste as the craft beers do, but it is hard to be heard in a crowded space.
Jim Koch and the Samuel Adams team emphasize the amount of hops and flavor that their products have and they want to get “better beer” to potential customers. Boston Beer even tried to help the craft beer movement as a whole, with the potential of hurting their own Samuel Adams line of business. In 2008 the company sold excess hops to small
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
brewers who were struggling to pay for the rising cost. Boston Beer also partnered with Accion to provide microloans to small businesses trying to start up breweries and to help small breweries in distress.21
Over the last several years, the craft brewing industry has grown at the expense of standard and economy lagers. The major breweries have taken notice and have started to build up their craft-style beer portfolios. In the past, the Boston Beer Company had an advantage as being one of the only craft breweries that was nationally recognized. With other craft breweries on a steady rise, the Boston Beer Company has to position itself to remain in front. Exhibit 8 shows the pricing and alcohol by volume for popular U.S. beers.
The Boston Beer Company made an effort to move away from contract brewing and toward brewing its own beer with the purchase of the large brewery in Pennsylvania. They had also put a focus on growing the brand in other countries outside the United States. In 2009 the company established a relationship with Moosehead Breweries in Canada to expand the Samuel Adams brand presence there. In addition, with the increase in popularity of other alcoholic beverages besides beer, Boston Beer has positioned their Twisted Teas and HardCore Cider products to be recognized nationwide as well.
Boston Beer Company was in a tough position, as both the smaller craft breweries and the larger breweries wanted to compete with them. Only time will unfold whether Boston Beer will continue to brew flavorful beers that people enjoy, in order to maintain a loyal customer base and see continued growth in the future.
ENDNOTES 1. Global Market Information Database. 2012. The Boston Beer Company, in alcoholic drinks (USA). February. 2. Global Market Information Database. 2012. Beer in the US. February. 3. Los Angeles Times. 2011. MillerCoors CEO Tom Long seeks growth with craft beers. August. 4. www.brewersassociation.org. 5. Washington Times. 2012. Top Ten: Craft beers of 2011. January 6 Rotunno, Tom. October 31, 2011. MillerCoors Crafts Small Beer Strategy.
CNBC.com, http://www.cnbc.com/id/45079554 7. Personal Interview with Woody from Defiant Brewery in Pearl River, New York, June 2012. 8. www.bostonbeer.com. 9. The New York Times. 2012. An IPO that is customer-friendly. February.
10. Euromonitor International and author estimates 11. www.abdi.org. 12. www.usopenbeer.com. 13. The Homebrewers Association 14. Dayton Business Journal. 2012. Top 20 selling beers of 2011. January. 15. www.sierranevada.com. 16. www.newbelgium.com. 17. www.crownimportsllc.com. 18. www.heineken.com. 19. www.ab-inbev.com. 20. www.millercoors.com. 21. Anonymous. 2008. Sharing beers: Largest craft brewer offers scarce hops to rivals. Associated Press, April 06, 2008. In
http://www.pantagraph.com/business/article_3f06ff0a-44a8-53c2-bd18-52b5e6e25977.html.