Coffee and Cigarettes, Minus the Cigarettes

Coffee and cigarettes are hand-in-hand products, almost perfect complements to each other; both providing their users with deflated wallets and horrible breath. Walk around any city or town in the early morning and you will undoubtedly observe multiple people enjoying both vices concurrently. There have even be major films entitled ‘Coffee and Cigarettes’. In popular culture, the pair is like Ben and Jerry, Beef & Broccoli, Shoes and socks. Unlike those other relationships, coffee and cigarettes are not a unanimously accepted pair. There are definitely many coffee drinkers who find cigarette smokers repulsive, and perhaps vice versa. Still, with such an inherent blend in product culture, one would assume most coffee shops would welcome cigarette smokers to their establishment without limits. If a company really wanted to thrive, maybe they’d pursue a pack-and-mug combination, giving the fiends their fix in an orderly fashion. Yet Starbucks has recently implemented a polar opposite plan…

On June 1, 2013, Starbucks initiated their ban of smoking on premises. This policy, which prohibits patrons from smoking within 25 feet of a Starbucks establishment, will take affect company-wide immediately. According to the Wall Street Journal, “roughly 7,000 company-operated cafes in the US” have adopted this policy. This does not include “licensed stores” which are those locations found in larger establishments such as Barnes & Noble or Target. Many Starbucks locations contain outdoor seating areas, which provide space for customers to sprawl out, enjoy their coffee, the weather, and finish any pending work. These areas will officially be off-limits to cigarette smoke.

From an organizational standpoint this decision comes as quite a surprise. Although Starbucks consumers, and coffee drinkers for that matter, are primarily mobile customers; many enjoy the comforts of the establishment. As a company, Starbucks promotes itself as inviting and welcoming, allowing customers to make use of their Wi-Fi and use their stores as work sites. One should not presume that all coffee drinkers are cigarette smokers, yet it is a fairly safe assumption that those who consume both make up a rather significant portion of Starbucks’ client base. Starbucks is essentially alienating this faction of their customers through the implementation of this new policy. Many customers may suddenly feel unwelcomed at a place they once visited frequently. This policy states, on the surface, that those customers can take their business elsewhere, or buy their coffee and take it on the road. A Starbucks spokeswoman stated, “we take pride in providing a comfortable environment at our stores where customers and members of the community gather.” In an attempt to appease the community at large, (which is most commonly against smokers) the company has distanced itself from this portion of their customers. It is probably safe to assume that a corporation as prominent as Starbucks did the necessary market research prior to making such a bold decision, but that does not eliminate the chance that this choice could come with major backlash.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/05/31/put-out-your-cigarettes-at-starbucks-even-the-electronic-ones/

Ice Cold Beer Here! (in the U.S)

 

20-jp-BEER-tmagArticleHave you ever wondered, just how much it costs to import the “better quality” beer from around the world like Corona, Modelo or Heineken or where exactly does the beer I drink come from? Most likely you drink a product either made by or distributed by Anheuser-Busch and InBev (ABI) considering they currently have aver 39% of the market share for the American Beer Industry. But just recently ABI has taken actions that will give them a majority of the market share for the American Beer Industry, which includes a 20 billion dollar acquisition of the Groupo Modelo Beer Manufacturing Company of Mexico.  This includes expanding the company internationally to Sounth America and adding the brand names of Modelo, Dos Equis and Corona.  This merger was so large that the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the company in fear of them reaching a stage of monopoly and market leader.  The result of this was for ABI to sell a 50% share of Modelo’s share to the Constellation Corporation, who currently owns about 20% market share of the American Beer Market, for only $5.5 billion.  DOJ says that this will allow for less consolidation and more competition in price in the markets.

Rob Sands, president of the Constellation Corp. says that this is the most transformational deal in the company’s 86-year history. The results of this merger range in variety and benefit both ABI and Constellation.  ABI will now have 46% market share after the acquisition as well as gaining all rights over the Brand Corona and its factories in Mexico.  Granted that they Corona accounts for over 20% of beer sales in some regions ABI distributes to, they will being seeing substantial growth in capital output and profits in the coming years.  Constellation also stands to see a similar amount of growth in the coming years.  They have aquired the brand of Modelo. Constellation makes wines from Robert Mondavi and Clos du Bois, as well as Svedka Vodka. Although they have never brewed beer before Constellation is excited about this endeavor. They will build a new state of the art facility for brewing the Modelo brand on the Texas-Mexico border. This will result in the plants capacity doubling in a matter of a few months. How do you think that these actions will affect other beer manufactures output such as Miller Coor’s? Also how do you think that this acquisition will affect beer prices of domestic, imported and micro brew beer companies?

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/anheuser-busch-reaches-deal-with-antitrust-regulators/

What’s leadership management?

When it comes to management strategies, we are firm on our beliefs and behavior towards the approach we take in managing a staff. We attend classes and read books on the appropriate methods of managing a team, but what if I told you that everything you know about management leadership has been wrong all along.

When you attend a leadership class, you discuss the tools and techniques you can use to alleviate the situations, but the real issue is never address. The major issue is people. When entering the work environment you are forced to work with many different personalities. With all the different personalities, you are bound to clash with someone. In perfect world, we would all agree and get along but unfortunately, this is not the case.  If the issues you have with people are never address, conflicts arise and create big problems. When attending leadership training this issue is often over looked by trainers.

badboss_1881n46-1881n74

In leadership classes, it is clearly defined that leaders have a fundamentally different task from the people they are overseeing. With the title of a leader, you are given an extra power that is linked directly back to fear from your staff.  This is the issue in leadership and corporate leadership.  If fear can be removed from the equation, staff will be more willing to communicate issues and ideas they have. Instead of looking at someone as a threat, you can be viewed as someone that was placed in the position you are in because you have put your time into the company and you are very knowledgeable. What if this was the message that employees received instead of the thought that the person who hired you has absolute power over you. It is no secret that real leaders use influence rather than the use of power to achieve goals, yet corporate America continues to run organizations as if this is unheard of. We have all these large corporate leaders attend these leadership training courses but the common worker is never invited. Why is that? Is it that magical secretes are exchanged and only the elite can understand them?

This style of management is not the way to go. We live in a world now that is so diverse that we can benefit from the exposure of different people, cultures, and ideas. Technology and global markets have given us the window of opportunity to take advantage of this and learn from each other. It is clear that the best people will not follow this style of management, they will not submit to the fear of the manager.  We need to start listening to all the issues and address them from the bottom and go from there. We need to consider everyone and see each other as equals and work together as a team with a common goal. We need to eliminate fear.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-12/everything-you-know-about-leadership-is-wrong

http://au.pfinance.yahoo.com/money-manager/career/article/-/15165315/15-ways-to-spot-a-bad-leader/

Find a Beauty Expert at Your Local Target!

Generic beauty-products2Target is one of our go-to stores when we are in need of practically anything you can think of-a hair brush, a summer dress, groceries, a plasma tv, makeup, face cleansers and much more. Recently, an article in the Chicago Tribune reported that Target would soon be expanding its “beauty concierge” within the Chicago area. The company’s goal is to expand this program from 28 to 44 stores. The uniqueness of this program is that associates are dressed in black aprons equipped with iPads, as well as mirrors and product samples to provide shoppers with guidance and expertise when they are browsing through the aisles of the beauty section looking for beauty products. According to this article, Chicago was selected as the test market for this program due to its shopping population. Specific locations Target is hoping to expand this program include Cicero, Vernon Hills and West Schaumburg while shutting the program in other locations such as Palatine, Bedford Park, Joliet, Villa Park, Oswego, Plainfield, North Aurora and Romeoville. Further, Target is also expected to expand its program into three additional markets: Los Angeles/Orange County, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C

The implementation of Target’s Beauty Concierge program is part of a trend in the beauty industry in which department stores and specialty retailers are helping and giving customers the opportunity to try their products before buying them. Since the skin care market grew 10 percent in 2012, Target is anticipating this program to boost sales. This new personalized beauty service is allowing Target not only to compete with stores such as Walgreens, who offers most of these products, but also to beauty retailers such as Sephora and Ulta Beauty. Hana Ben-Shabat, a partner at a global management consulting group commented on Target’s strategy by saying that at the end of the day fashion is a product and department stores are competing with beauty retailers and vice versa.

Operation managers at Target are certainly trying to keep up with the industry by coming up with these unique strategies. I think that the implementation of this new service can be a great success in very populated Target stores across the city, for example in downtown Chicago.  As this program matures, I think Target will gain a competitive advantage over other popular department stores such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens and CVS. The success of this program will largely be dependent on the type of associates that are being hired and the level of training they receive. Customers nowadays are always looking for advice when they are shopping for products, especially make up because not everyone is a beauty expert. Having someone to help you choose which specific foundation matches your skin, which mascara would help your lashes stand out, or which lipstick would look nice with an outfit, is certainly a service customers will appreciate. In my perspective, operation managers should place great emphasis on the increase of sales from beauty products to ensure that this project is being managed efficiently and can perhaps be used as a basis to provide a reasonable forecast to other Target stores across the nation.

What is your opinion? Do you think this program would attract more customers?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-target-beauty-concierge-program-20130524,0,7813736.story

Preventive Vs. Corrective

pillsWhile flipping through Pharmaceutical Manufacturing magazine at work, I found an article about what pharmaceutical companies are doing in order to improve quality. The author, Doug Bartholomew, gives reasons why he believes pharmaceutical manufacturing companies are resistant to making changes in the article, “Proactive Compliance: Putting the “P” in CAPA”. CAPA is short for corrective and preventive action, the different processes and systems that are used in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in order to ensure quality by providing basic guidelines on identifying, fixing, and preventing the problem in the future..

A lot of the topics that are covered in the article are related to what we have gone over in class. Continuous improvement is difficult for pharma manufacturing companies because of the regulations that are to assure quality. Just like it is time consuming and expensive to be certified, or registered, to meet one of the quality systems we have learned about in class, the same applies to the different quality standards that are set up in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. Pharma manufactures shy away from making changed to their processes because every little change that is made has to be re-certified.

Over the past decades, pharma manufacturing companies have started to realize the importance of continuous improvement. Bartholomew quotes K.R. Karu, who is the industry solutions director at the quality management and CAPA system distributer, Sparta Systems; on what the manufacturing companies need to do to ensure high quality levels. One of Karu’s suggestions was to consider Juran’s quality thinking of having quality already built in to the process. Since quality is already built into the process, companies only need to monitor the process. Through inspection manufacturers should be able to find or come up with possible problems, and make changes to prevent them from ever happening.

The definition on CAPA is not completely understood the some throughout the industry. Every company interprets the guidelines differently. Preventative measures would be easier to accomplish if there were more guidelines were more descriptive. In the article it says that the problem is the “preventative” measures have all come about because of a “corrective” actions.  A pure example of a preventative measure that is given is the installation of  “state of the art” production line equipment so the number of errors can be reduced. A corrective action would be to update, and/or repair, older equipment after a problem arises, in order to reduce the number of manufacturing errors.  They are working on coming up with preventative measures that are truly preventative, making sure something that is unforeseen does not go wrong.

 

What are some ideas that you have that could improve the confusion between “corrective” verses “preventing” for CAPA?

http://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/2013/1305_Proactive_Compliance.html#

Sears’ CEO Plan For Turnaround

 

6a00d83451db4269e20120a540599f970b-800wiIn February, Edward Lampert became the Chief Executive of Sears Holdings Corporation. Prior to taking this position, he was their longtime chairman and the founder of the large hedge fund, which is the largest investor in the company itself. Over the recent years, the department store, Sears, is one of the many retail stores who have been experiencing a decrease in profits. When Lampert took the position, he mentioned his plans to increase sales and customer visits. He plans included changing the company by accommodating to “hyper-connected shoppers with tablets and mobile phones.”

BearSearsPA_main_0723

The first change included giving iPads to the employees. The company is in the process of developing an app that would allow their customers to ask the employees questions directly through the text or instant messages. The second service added include allowing third parties to sell their products on their online website, otherwise known as Marketplace, which is similar to Amazon. They also reduced the shipping times for online and ship-to-store orders. Lastly, Sears created their “Shop Your Way,” program where they are able to track how their customers’ shopping patterns.

Even with these added services, Sears, unfortunately, still reported a loss of $279 million dollars in the last quarter. This caused their shares to decrease by 14%. Some of the reasons that may relate to this loss include:

  1. In 2012, Sears’s investments in upgrading the company are far less than other retail stores.
  2. Sears is “behind in terms of their technology.”
  3. Sears is unsure of what they can use their available space for.
  4. Lack of interest from consumers.

The article mentioned Warren Tracy, CEO of Almost There! Inc. and his experience with Sears’ technology. He said that it took him about five months trying to become a third party seller on their website. During this process, he faced many complications and delays. Technology is an important part of Operations Management as it impacts performance directly. More importantly, technology is needed and used in all stages of management. Poor technology will lead to poor management, which will lead to poor performance. Therefore, the company will suffer as a whole.

Overall, it seems like Sears’ plan of creating a shopping experience that accommodates hyper-connected shoppers didn’t work out like planned. Even Mr. Lampert said that the company’s results for the first fiscal quarter were unacceptable. On the brighter side, I look forward to the new app Sears is developing in hopes of making my shopping experience faster and easier.

Do you think that Sears is heading in the right direction to repair their lack of sales? What changes will you implement if you were able to decide? Have you shopped at Sears recently? If so, did you notice these changes? If not, did these changes capture your interest and convince you to shop there more often?

 

Source:

The Wall Street Journal

“At Sears, CEO’s Tech Focus Hasn’t Led to a Turnaround”

Kapner, Suzanne. Wall Street Journal (Online) [New York, N.Y] 28 May 2013

 

 

 

 

Under Armour looking to be BIGGER and BETTER!

under-armour-mobile-wallpaper

Under Armour is one of the newer brands of athletic apparel and are well known for their “moisture wicking” shirts. They are adjusting their plans and goals to increase their sales. North America has been their major contributor to their sales. Their toughest competitors are Nike and Adidas, which both generate at least 59 percent of their revenue outside of North America. Under Armour’s sales outside of North America is only 6 percent, with a new strategy they will increase their sales internationally.

Under Armour has noticed the need to improve their sales outside of North America and have hired a market manager to focus on their international sales. Analysts suspect that Under Armour will introduce their new products at the 2016 summer Olympics held in Brazil to gain international awareness and support.  Their competitors have also use this strategy in the past with successful results.  The Olympics could be the perfect stage for Under Armour to introduce their products because they are different from their competitors’ products. The Under Armour selection of products are known for their moisture wicking and light weightiness.

The strategic importance of location is definitely being recognized by Under Armour. If their products is on trend, the summer Olympics could have great sales. Location, cost, and innovation will be a major factor in deciding where to place their products at the Olympics. The location is great and well tested. Costs of shipping their products to Brazil will be pricy but has greater sale benefits. Innovation is something Under Armour has in abundance since they are such a young company, they have the ability to be creative.

The Under Armor President said that they have focused on their supply chain to ensure they can deliver their product more widely. They are prepared for the influx in sales internationally. This is a good sign because they are prepared to last, in the long run, and deliver their products across the world.

Expansion of the Under Armour brand will include yoga fans, women, and sports bras.  Designing new products in many different areas will be tough but if they can produce a new trendy design people will notice. Under Armour has the ability to be a major competitor in the athletic apparel industry. Right now, they are only 2.5 percent of the athletic apparel market. Success of gaining new customers at the Olympics will make Under Armour a major contender in the athletic apparel industry. With such a huge number of people taking notice of their product, their sales have the ability to by far surpass, their current number, 6 percent.

Is Under Armour spreading themselves too thin by focusing on growing too many different products? Will the Summer Olympics be a good stage for Under Armour to reintroduce themselves to the international market?

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324866904578515513925827852.html?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks

 

Hog-wild for Factory Farming: Hot Dogs Made in China

As the Chinese population and economy continue to grow, safer and more efficient industrialization practices are necessary to keep up with the demands of a hot dog hungry China. This is not an exaggeration as China is “the world’s largest consumer of pork.” A recent takeover of Smithfield Foods by Shuanghui Holdings Ltd., “China’s biggest meat processor,” will provide valuable insight into industry practices that are commonplace in the U.S. Current processing methods in China lack quality control as the majority of meat is produced by small farms that process less than 500 hogs per year.

From Hog to HotdogThese “conditions on smaller farms can be squalid, with a lot of physical contact between farmers and animals, which can transmit disease.” This type of environment can become a breeding ground for contamination leading to outbreaks of diseases like swine flu and foot-and-mouth disease, having major health implications on Chinese consumers. Authorities blame irresponsible farming practices and the disjointed meat processing system that is not easy to “regulate and makes it more difficult to avoid bad practices.”

In contrast, the highly sophisticated and streamlined systems of pork production in the U.S. is often viewed negatively by Americans and referred to as “factory farming.” Smithfield’s facilities have the “capacity to slaughter as many as 110,000 hogs a day,” and most U.S. farms are much larger than their Chinese counterparts, raising over 2,000 hogs annually. Ironically, these modern processing techniques are the envy of Chinese authorities who are looking to utilize the “expertise of Smithfield’s management team to enhance its pork-processing facilities.” Skeptics claim that the Shuanghi-Smithfield partnership “will exacerbate such problems as complex supply chains and food-contamination risks.”

Although the trend in U.S. agriculture is to go “back to the start” as expressed in marketing campaigns by environmentally conscious companies like Chipotle Mexican Grill, this is not the reality in China. As health out-breaks are more widespread in this Asian country and regulation lacking, efforts to “control food safety” and create more modernized processing methods are a welcomed site.

In such an industry, operational expertise will prove essential in restructuring the pork processing system in China. They will likely face challenges like determining adequate process and capacity design for farming facilities and distribution channels; forecasting to meet the demands of a growing population; Slaughter Pigs in Chinaand improving inefficient and broken supply chains. Improved product quality will likely be most prominent and follow a manufacturing-based definition as increased standards will ensure a safer finished product.

On a personal note, I am an advocate for more naturally produced food in smaller farming environments, yet I understand that the demands and current conditions in China are quite different from the U.S. All criticism aside, the majority of the U.S. population relies on the safe meat supply provided by corporations like Smithfield to ensure peace-of-mind at the dinner table. How do you think that the new deal between Shuanghi and Smithfield will impact Chinese and U.S. consumers, respectively. Will the Chinese citizens have a similar sentiment toward industrialized farming practices in future decades?

Article Source

 

 

Domestic Flight Leaders Only

The airline carrier line of business has been a very popular topic in the last few years.  Many changes have taken place such as bigger and better planes, new competitors, mergers, and some not so good news.  The U.S. carriers have been dropping in their ranking internationally over the last several years.  Asian and Middle Eastern competitors have been dominating the international market.  However, it was recently noted that the U.S. seems to be switching its gears and is taking a position to head into the international game stronger than it ever has.  The bigger U.S. carriers have closed their mergers and have adjusted their managerial approach and are on the rise again.

While all of these mergers were going on with the U.S. carriers, Asia and the Middle-East took advantage of the time to take over the international air traffic.  Both Asian and Middle-Eastern airlines dominated the international markets while all of this was going on in the U.S.  Also because of all of the mergers that the U.S. carriers have been going through, it has been noted that they have fallen a bit behind on the aircrafts they are using although this may be changing quickly with Boeings new product.

The chart below shows the ranking of airlines done by the World Airline Awards.  The first U.S. airline in the ranking was Virgin America ranked 26th.

2012

 

2011

2012

 

2011

1

Qatar Airways

1

11

Garuda Indonesia

19

2

Asiana Airlines

3

12

Virgin Australia

32

3

Singapore Airlines

2

13

EVA Air

16

4

Cathay Pacific Airways

4

14

Lufthansa

15

5

ANA All Nippon Airways

11

15

Qantas Airways

8

6

Etihad Airways

6

16

Korean Air

24

7

Turkish Airlines

9

17

Air New Zealand

7

8

Emirates

10

18

Swiss Int’l Air Lines

13

9

Thai Airways International

5

19

Air Canada

21

10

Malaysia Airlines

12

20

Hainan Airlines

23

The issue now is for the U.S. to enter the international market and make its presence known.  Latin America and Africa both had an increase in demand for air traffic but the U.S. missed the opportunity to enter the market during that team.  It seems that with all of the upgrades to the U.S. carriers, they should be able to hit the international market much more effectively the next time an opportunity like that arises.  It would be interesting to see how the U.S. carriers choose to enter the international market considering the different routes they can take to do it.  One of their many options is to rush into the situation to try and make an impact as soon as possible.  The concern with this is that they may try to cut corners to enter the market quicker.  This type of strategy usually comes at the cost of the customer.  Another option they have is to upgrade their fleets and then enter the market.  The downfall with this is time.  While they are upgrading their fleets, other international carriers may be upgrading their own fleets and pulling farther ahead which would make it more difficult for the U.S. to enter later.  They would also have to take into consideration the opportunity cost of taking an even longer time than they already have been.

If you were a U.S. carrier, what strategy would you use to enter the international market?  This does not have to be one of the methods listed above and can be your own idea.

Would you even consider waiting any longer to enter the market considering the state of carriers currently?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-02/u-s-carriers-ready-to-go-on-attack-after-mergers-iata-predicts.html

http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Awards_2012/Airline2012_top40.htm

Imported from Detroit

8446515678_08867c39f9_z

In the last year Chrysler launched TV ads that featured the tagline, “Imported from Detroit.”  These ads immediately helped Chrysler’s image, as they were praised for breathing new life into the company and many people were left believing that they were actually producing cars in the US.  The ads weren’t too far off, but in fact most Chrysler’s are built just over the border in Canada, with engines coming from Mexico.  Although Chrysler may not have actually moved its manufacturing plants to the US it benefited greatly in public relations.

In the last few months we’ve also seen a “Back to U.S.” trend from technology manufacturers.  But unlike Chrysler, three technological giants have actually been slowly moving production back into the United States.  Apple, Lenovo, and Google’s Motorola have been opening brand new plants within US borders, the latest being Motorola’s brand new smartphone factory in Texas.  These decisions come after almost a decade in which the flow was almost exclusively in the other direction – with millions of jobs going to East Asian factories known for low wages and minimal labor protections.

Manufacturing has moved into a highly technical and highly automated environment.  This reduces the need for manual labor, which in turn reduces cost.  These associated costs are still cheaper in China than they are in the US, but for larger companies, like those mentioned in the technology sector, the costs to produce are far more even between countries.  And when we factor in shipping costs and timing, moving manufacturing back to the United States begins to look more appealing, and cost efficient.

But, in fact there are many cost unrelated benefits to relocating production back into the US:

  • High quality materials are more readily available
  • A highly skilled and educated workforce
  • Fast and efficient turnaround
  • Management is closer to customers, as well as factories and suppliers.
  • Quicker reaction time

Motorola Mobility was a division that was bought out by Google last year for $12.5 billion.  The new smartphone, the Moto X, will be the first designed entirely under Google ownership.  It will also be the first smartphone assembled in significant numbers in the United States since the launch of the iPhone.

However, many say that these shifts are motivated less by long-term manufacturing needs than by public-relations strategy.  Recently tech firms have been under fire from Washington, D.C. for their tax strategies, privacy policies and, in the case of Motorola parent company Google, allegations of monopolistic behavior.  But governors and members of Congress typically are avid protectors of major manufacturing employers, and even more so when they create jobs in lawmakers’ home districts.

Do you think that the recent push by technology companies to brings manufacturing jobs back into the United States for positive publicity is underhanded in its intent?

Benefits that can’t be measured in dollars are also really important when considering where to produce products.  How can companies justify higher costs to investors who might not be aware of these benefits?

Sources:

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2021098211_googlemotorolatexasplantxml.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10092271/Forget-China-technology-manufacturing-is-coming-home.html