World Cup 2014: A good or bad idea for Brazil?

Brasil-2014-Brazil-2014-Logo-Oficial

The 2014 World Cup will be hosted by Brazil and faces heavy criticism in regards to event logistics and preparation. The risks associated with hosting this event are great, especially given Brazil’s fragile economic, social and political situations.  Stadium construction has experienced delays, there have been numerous funding questions raised even after the project was well under way and safety issues for visitors have become more prominent as a result of protests and violence in Brazil. All these issues surrounding the event leads me to ask the question: why are these issues being addressed now as opposed to when the project was in its conception stage? Is the fact that Brazil is the most successful soccer nation in the world enough of a reason to ignore all the logistical shortcomings the country faces?

The political, social and economic climate of Brazil has not changed much since Brazil was awarded the rights to host the event back in 2006. Given all the issues surrounding Brazil’s candidacy, why was a such a great risk taken by FIFA? Why not award the event to more infra-structurally solid country so as ti minimize risk? For example, Brazil boasts no public transportation system and an entirely new transit system needs to be conceived in order to accommodate the influx of fans. What if the system is not completed on time? What if it not capable of meeting demand? World Cups in recent times have been hosted by countries (Italy in 1990, USA in 1994, France in 1998, South Korea/Japan in 2002 and Germany in 2006) who have reliable existing systems in place: major stadiums to host matches, solid transportation systems and relatively stronger economies to deal with project funding .  On paper the worthiness of Brazil hosting the event is fair. Realistically, a project like this poses major risks as the prospects for problems arising is great, especially with  the level of uncertainty  facing Brazil internally.

South Africa in 2010 was a unique situation as it was both a economically/socially developing country as well as a soccer developing country. Though awarding the tournament to South Africa had good intentions and was successful, the post-tournament fallout was great. South Africa’s debt was large and many of the stadiums were completely dismantled/significantly downgraded. Further, the spike in economic activity local businesses realized subsided and the impact the tournament had on promoting and developing soccer in the country was lackluster. I would think most projects of this stature would consider the long-term as an essential component of its risk assessment plan, especially given the amount of time and money spent coupled with the country’s internal problems. Since soccer is huge in Brazil,  developing the game there is not a  purpose of the event like it was in previously in South Africa, Korea/Japan and the United States.  I would argue the benefits of hosting the World Cup did not outweigh the costs as the long-term effects of the project were ignored.  In turn, Brazil could face many of the same struggles next summer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2013/06/12/can-brazil-really-handle-the-2014-fifa-world-cup/2/

Rugby to the NFL

The NFL hopes to capitalize on New England’s strong Irish roots when it partners with Premier Rugby League to bring the London Irish to Gillette Stadium this summer. (image via S&B Media)

 

 

The NFL is hands down the most popular sport in the United States. From lucrative media contracts and billionaire dollar stadiums, the NFL is also one of the most professional and forward thinking businesses in the U.S. With that being said, as of recent the NFL has teamed up with the Premier Rugby League to create a professional rugby league here in the U.S. Accordingly, scheduling has already been made to have an exhibition game played at the New England Patriots stadium, which will be televised on the NFL Network in August.

 

Not surprisingly, rugby ranks as one of the top sports in the entire world. Seemingly crushing American football in a popularity contest. Consequently, with the heightened growth of the sport in the United States, mainly at the collegiate level, NFL management saw this as an opportunity to capitalize on the market share and potential media assets. For many, this partnership did not come as a shock because in 1970 NFL owners invested in a soccer league, which eventually grew into what is now Major League Soccer (MLS). Essentially, the MLS investment gave birth to the idea of creating this rugby league.

 

What’s even more intriguing about this is the NFL’s plan to use the empty professional stadiums not utilized during the offseason. More or less exploiting already NFL owned properties to pursue the growth of a professional league. While the NFL is by and large a mogul in the marketing department, this would be a crucial time for not only them, but management as well. The issue lies at two decisive parts, which could affect the new founded partnership. First off, management would have to ensure that the quality of play is legitimate for fans to watch. Secondly, they would have to garner television contracts with the likes of FOX and NBC so common people could watch. That being said, getting those contracts won’t be especially hard due to the NFL’s popular track record. However, by just showing rugby on the premium NFL Network channel management may lose potential fans.

 

All of the above issues can be resolved with carefully strategy planning. However, if proper steps to grow the sport are not taken than the NFL with ultimately lose the partnership and potentially the cost to its own market share. Surely then the question arises at wondering whether or not this is a step in the right direction for the NFL and Rugby. Should management have pursued this partnership instead of investing the time and money on developing a larger worldwide audience for the NFL? What other issues can you see with this partnership? In due time we will all find out if this panned out well for the NFL and rugby.

 

 

 

Source:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2013/05/17/nfl-plays-offensive-with-move-into-rugby/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Limiting Upgrade Availability

Think back to when the iPhone 5 was introduced to the public.  The expectations of the new device from Apple were at an all time high, and the public’s anticipation to buy the phone was unbelievable.  Sales margins are expected to be higher during periods where new products are introduced, but an aspect that can be overlooked is whether the company will have to provide subsidies for the purchase of the new phone, or if the purchase is made without an available upgrade and at its full retail price.

If a customer has an upgrade available, they may be more likely to purchase a new phone because the company will provide a subsidy that will lower the price.  Without an upgrade the product would be purchased at retail price, and the company earns more.

The service contract is a signed commitment to remain loyal to the provider for 24 months.  This requires that the services on the device, including Internet, text messaging, and phone calls will be paid for throughout the two year time period. An average length of time before a phone upgrade is available is 20 months.  This differs from the signed 24-month contract, and requires that the company provide subsidies more often than the customers renew contracts.

When an account has an available upgrade, the service provider offers a subsidy, deduction of the retail price, towards the purchase of a new phone.  If the customer is upgrading to a smart phone on an account that did not previously require data usage, the service provider will generate revenue on the sale.  This is because the cost of a data plan to the customer is greater than the cost of the subsidy to the service provider.  However, with the increase in smart phones in past years, these sales margins are declining because the customer does not require an increased data usage plan.  While the sales of newly released products increase sales margins, the company often loses out on the subsidy provided to purchase a new phone.

Verizon Wireless has released plans to extend the length of time before upgrade availability to 24 months.  The intent is to lengthen the amount of time between when the company is required to offer upgrade subsidies.  The 24-month period would align with the length of time between contracts and would allow for the company to earn revenues on contracts and acquire subsidy expenses simultaneously. If this change is made, the structure of Verizon’s project management would change.  The company would  likely change its strategy from the introduction of new products to a focus on customer retention.

While this plan would make financial sense for Verizon Wireless, it is different from their competitors. Would lengthening the time between phone upgrades influence your decision to enter into a new contract with Verizon?  How important is the availability of an upgrade to you when considering purchasing a new phone? How could this change in Verizon’s contracting process be debilitating? Would this change give Verizon a competitive advantage?

 http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/04/12/verizon-wireless-delays-phone-upgrade-eligibility-to-24-months/

Jobs Running Away

Jobs Running Away

Outsourcing is something that we are use in the United States because our labor is too expensive. In business, we find the most effective, efficient, and the cheapest way to go with our operating cost. Outsourcing is one way to cut labor cost in production and services and provide the same results.  There are many advantages of outsourcing not just cutting cost but also maintaining a competitive advantage than competitors with the same product. A company like Nike who outsources to China, Indonesia, and Vietnam are gaining an advantage for the price but many disadvantages as well. Outsourcing is an advantage for immediate but in the long run this decreases jobs domestically and creates many risks. Ricks contain ‘inappropriate planning and analysis’ because of corrupt or local government rules, managers that might not be capable, and employees only working because that’s the only earning they will receive. Outsourcing not only impacts domestic jobs but overseas because if the company were to decide to leave that would demolish their economy in some counties.

Indiana is planning to outsource their State Lottery operations, it is currently postponed but like many other operations, they want to pass it to larger vendors. They want to determine if this will be beneficial to them to gain more money or suppress their gain. They want to use outsourcing for their advantage in improving operating and service, and for outside technology and expertise which they believe will bring more people to play the lottery and help the state. Even though many other states have outsourced their lottery services with Indiana will become 95%.

Operations has much to do with maintaining and process where for the overall product or services can provide a better, shorter, and cheaper outcome for the business to grow. Outsourcing is one big operation in which product are shipped overseas for their cheap labor or technology and brought back to be sold domestically. Strategically they have to plan if this will help with the future growth because it is a large investment or they will have to spend even more backsourcing.

I believe a lot of strategic planning that goes into deciding whether a company should outsource. Even though I believe keeping is domestic, will have the local jobs and grow our economy. Even though many companies find it as an advantage to ship the labor I think ethically, paying the workers domestically will help with the current or future recession and avoid the risks and disadvantages that goes into outsourcing. Do you think ethically outsourcing is a good plan for any product or services?

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-26/panel-delays-vote-on-outsourcing-ind-dot-lottery