Atlantic Computer Solution

Acer has a degree of control over its prices and a considerable amount of non-price competitions exists, which ultimately leads to price discrimination (University of Phoenix, 2011). As such, Acer should focus on attaining and retaining loyal customers. Their non-pricing strategy should be focused on the development of products that are unique

service to other companies and organizations. It was necessary for these two companies to be

The company’s decision to defer revenues came at a time of significant growth in revenues—suggesting that the company’s decision to defer revenues was partially to dampen or “smooth” the company’s revenue growth. The company’s decision to defer revenue had the effect of reducing reported revenue growth from 88% to 64% in the first quarter of 1996 and increasing revenue growth from 4% to 15% in the first quarter of 1997. Even as reported the first quarter of 1997 represented the lowest quarterly revenue growth in the company’s history. While the timing of the company’s decision to defer revenues appears particularly opportune, the introduction of Windows 95 to the market provides a legitimate reason for the decision. As described in the case, the company expected to integrate its Internet technologies into both Windows 95 and Office 97 “at no additional cost to customers.” Arguably, then, sales of these products were improved by these

To determine the optimal prices for the UriCap products, the team used competitive pricing, both indirect and direct, custom willingness –to-pay, cost plus pricing based on distribution channel partner needs, and economic value analysis. Direct competitor pricing, which was only applicable to the UriCap-M product, was determine through secondary research. On the other hand, primary research was used to determine indirect competitor, or substitute, pricing. A combination of primary research and secondary research was used during economic value analysis while customer willingness-to-pay (WTP) was determined through an online survey.

a. Based on an analysis of sales, total assets, and pretax net income, an amount of $70,000 will be used as a measure of planning materiality.

Pricing is a pertinent issue in procurement and acquisition in organizations. Consumers buying the commodities of an entity should get clarity on pricing related issues. There is uncertainty in Pro

Clearwater Technologies’ problem is that end-user pricing for a capacity upgrade to the QTX server needed to be agreed upon in the upcoming meeting. Finance wants to increase revenue, sales wants to keep prices fair and management wants prices to stay within the margin model.

An organization’s pricing strategy will vary depending on multiple factors. An organization needs to understand their competition and market share, the distribution chain, and ultimate goal of customer retention. This paper will review the pricing strategies of Intuit.

In order to determine if leasing the hardware and software for 24 months would be beneficial, we first calculated the NPV and EAC for two different scenarios.  The first scenario consists of computing the NPV and EAC of

TABLE OF CONTENTSQuestion 1a ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3b ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3c ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....4Question 2 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5Question 3 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6Question 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7QUESTION 1a.Calculate the cost of the activities for France.

Salesforce.com (NYSE:CRM) has successfully redefined the economics of enterprise software market and generated $3B in revenue and a $256M loss followed by a record quarter of $892M in their latest fiscal period (Salesforce.com Investor Relations, 2013). Salesforce.com is the global leader in enterprise CRM software sales, and has successfully redefined the economics of the market to see operating expense (OPEX) spending as the means to pay for software that would otherwise have to be paid through capital expenses (CAPEX) and lengthy financing cycles. The following is a SWOT analysis of Salesforce.com.

We knew that while making our product we had to keep in mind that different type of customers wanted different things all depending on how much they were willing to spend on the product. For example, Our Workhorse demanded more Easy to use, Low price, has a distinct look, able to store a lot of data, After-sale service and support, can link with other computers, Fast and powerful. They needed something reliable and less expensive since they are the hardworking people that don not have too much money to spend The chart here explains a little better on the Workhorse needs and want. The price that the workhorse was willing to pay for the product was 2,500.

Because of inconformity in target customers and price strategy, reducing price may increase demand of M5, but it will not be a big change for M5 because it already has a large loyalty customer base.

Free PESA Software with Purchase. Rather than regarding the PESA R&D as a sunk cost, I chose to distribute the costs to every server. The price under this route was determined to be $2,122 (see Appendix B). The primary drawback is that a customer who would have normally purchased the Tronn without the software would be charged a higher price ($2,122 vs. $2,000). Continuing with the tradition and norm of free software, staff would not have to be retrained and customers will not feel alienated. Furthermore, the one-bundle price could easily be transitioned to on-line sales, and the low price will increase market share. The “free” software could create an illusion of low perceived value. Finally, the lower price will result in lower profit margins, and it does not take into consideration the value advantage received by the customer.

PC industry is characterized by fast declining ASP year over year. Together with the increasing component costs from 2009, both Dell and HP are facing squeezing profit margins (HP 2010; Dell 2010). In the first quarter of 2011, HP’s gross margin for its Personal System Group (PSG) is as low as 6.4% (Epstein 2011). Similarly, Dell’s gross margin of PCs is often 3 to 5% (Wang 2010). This indicates that if both