Allround Case Summary

“When the simulation began, we felt confident in our team’s vision, goals, and strategic plan. After the first rollover, we quickly became aware that the success of a company relies heavily on the dynamics of the market. The strategic decisions of competitors weigh heavily on the overall direction of a company. Our original plan quickly became obsolete in the tumultuous bike industry, and we were forced to re-evaluate our competitive positioning. To this end, we learned

The picture above reflects the stock price in dollars of our company over the frame of 10 periods. While the stock price of our company has thoroughly and exponentially increased in the overall time period, there are two small dips in the 2nd and 3rd time period. One of the few reasons for these dips could be the reformulation of the brand. The brand previously contained alcohol in its original formulation. Only few of these kinds of changes are positively perceived in the market. Hence, with such drastic changes people might be uncertain if they want to buy the stock price reducing the demand of the stock, decreasing the stock price of Allstar.

After a period of declining sales for Allround, we increased the advertising budget to be consistent with our competitor’s budget. We decided to be very consistent with our strategy over the ten periods; however, in hindsight we should have implemented a more dynamic strategy that factored in the changing

Although the company did show an increased gross profit of $8,255,000 with $6,358,000 less Net Sales in 2013 versus 2012, that increase is due to the reduction in product Cost of Goods Sold by $14,613,000. Since increases in product price will negatively affect sales, one of management’s primary goals is to keep prices stable. This objective is achieved through implementation of cost cutting programs, investing in more efficient equipment, and automation of more steps in the production process.

Additionally, this price model is not only the best terms of maximizing profits, but also aligns with CSP’s historical pricing unit. While “doing it how we’ve always done it” is a bad pricing habit, in this case, the analysis confirms that $125 is the best option. This should make her recommendation easier to “sell” internally as well.

Although the inflation rate was 3.6% we decide not to make any changes in the price and we kept it as what it was $5.29. In this period Ethik announced the introduction of End+ which was$ 5.69 but we still decided to keep our price for Allround+ $4.99 .The prices of Allround and Allround + should have been increased in correlation to inflation .Our stock price went down from $39.32 to $35.14 per share. We purchased sales force, advertising, promotion, channel sales and pricing reports to help us with our decisions in this period.

CCPC is considering how it should account for the Fresh & Bright coupon drop that took place on October 1, 2009. In doing so, CCPC asks for your help. Prepare a memo addressing the following questions. Base your analysis of the following questions on the relevant authoritative literature and discuss the support in that literature for your conclusions. Be sure to cite the relevant components of the Codification (available at: http://asc.fasb.org) in your discussion. Citations are not required for journal entries.

As demonstrated in Exhibit 11, our factory processed 15 orders for materials during the course of the simulation. Had we been able to accurately predict our need for materials at the beginning of the simulation, we could of saved $14,000 through frontloading on inventory and taking advantage of the absence of inventory holding costs. Due to the difficulties of accurately predicting order quantities however, we would have decided to batch our material orders into 2 or 3 batches. Batching material orders would have allowed us to save on fixed order fees and also would have enabled us to respond to order fluctuations with increased/decreased order

After a few months of detailed scrutiny of the numbers, we were able to make pricing decisions more quickly by using the breakeven change in volume to set the new price. Based on our broad

Since quarter one was the first quarter of this simulation, I was unaware of how difficult it was going to be to make all the different decisions. Firstly, I had to choose a Company name. Because I was selling computers, I thought that the name “Dev-Tech” was a perfect fit being that this simulation was about development and technology. Next, I had to choose a target segment. I knew going into this simulation that it would be better to invest in the more expensive goods as it would benefit me in the end. The segment that didn’t care about price was Mercedes, so that is the segment that I made my first priority.

The MSRP for Allround suggested retail was $5.29, according to the PharmaSim case study, “The manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) for Allround is relatively high with volume discounts ranging from 25–40%, not including promotional allowances”. Our pricing decision for the PharmaSim simulation we felt was important because consumers have alternatives to choose from and are better informed. Our initial retail price of $5.45 was an increase from the suggested retail of $5.29 to adjust with inflation rate of 3.1%, which boost sales from $355.3 million to $434 million totaling $78.7 million in sales growth. We purchased survey data to help establish the price. Consumers perceived our product being the most effective in cold relief which allowed Allstar to raise the price incrementally and consumers were still willing to purchase the product.

Initially, our firm’s business position was at a healthy position. In the beginning of the simulation, our overall market share for the automobile industry was 28.2%; the highest in the market. We realized that our primary strength from product contribution came from our economy car Alec with 63.5% market share for economy cars, and from our utility car, awesome with a 48.5% market share for its vehicle class. Thus, it was evident what we needed to do; maintain high market share of our leading cars while conforming our least profitable vehicle class sustainably to coordinate to customer demand.

During wireless auction in 2008, Globalive had won 30 wireless spectrum licenses. Globalive sought a partnership with Orascom to enter into Canada Telecommunications market. Orascom Telecom, a non-Canadian firm, owned 65.1 percent of Globalive’s equity share, controlled and held the wind brand under which Globalive was operated, also held the majority of outstanding debt. Industry Canada conducted confidential review before bidding. With intent to allow foreign entry into the market, review on Globalive’s ownership structure was dealt in a transparent manner by Industry Canada. Later, Globalive changed its legal, capital and operational structures to gain approval from Industry Canada and gained it. In September 2009, the three incumbents requested

After analyzing the results from the previous quarter, it was determined that the prices set for each segment were not sufficient. Product sales priority were also not properly adjusted. With the R&D investments, sales priorities needed to be changed for the main focus to become the most profitable market segments. Prices were not competitive which in turned decreased revenue, market share, and profitability. To become more competitive we altered the prices in each market segment. The Workhorse product was the first to change, the price was lowered to $2500 in an attempt to increase sales; at this price Team 4 was still making a profit on this product, as well as making the price much more competitive. The Workhorse sales priority was also lowered to 3rd in Americas and 4th in APAC and EMEA. This product was not selling as well as we had hoped, and was no longer as profitable as it once was which led to this decision. Next, the Innovator product’s price was adjusted; this involved a price increase to $4100. This price was adjusted to include the new

penetration pricing strategy. All indications are that sales will continue to grow. In response to a