Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

The University of Texas at Dallas Global Leadership Executive MBA Program

International Marketing Management (IMS 6310) April 21- June 10, 2007

Instructors

Dr. Johny K Johansson,

Email

:

Blackboard

Phone

:

(202) 687.3763

Fax

:

(202) 687.4031

Dr. Jonathan Hochberg,

Email

:

Blackboard

Phone

:

(972) 883.6462

Fax

:

(972) 883.6164

Course Objectives

This course deals with the application of advanced marketing management concepts and tools in global markets. The perspective is that of a marketing decision maker whose firm has established presence in several foreign markets. The course downplays the issues of “country choice” and “foreign entry” covered in Multinational Firm. The focus is on local marketing in different country markets and coordinated management of marketing across existing country markets.

The aim of the course is to help develop students’ ability to solve marketing problems and at the same time handle the complex coordination problems and subtle cultural issues facing the global marketer. It extends existing marketing principles and tools to the global arena. It offers a comprehensive and robust framework within which a number of practical foreign market problems can be analyzed and solved.

To build the framework, the course draws on the concepts introduced in Global Economy, and the organizational issues explored in Multinational Firm. The course will allow students to apply and extend the acquired know-how to analyze dynamic marketing situations.

Learning Outcomes

Students will be able to solve marketing problems and at the same time handle the complex coordination problems and subtle cultural issues facing the global marketer.

Students will learn how to extend existing marketing principles and tools to the global arena

Students will learn how to build a comprehensive and robust framework within which a number of practical foreign market problems can be analyzed and solved.

Resources

Global Marketing: Foreign Entry, Local Marketing, Global Management, 4th ed. Johansson, Johny K., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2006.

Text:

Cases:

Cleopatra

:

in textbook (pp. 341-351)

Dell in China

:

PDF

Ericsson

:

PDF

Stella Artois Banyan Tree

:

PDF in textbook (pp. 583-597)

Power Point Slides:

Power point slides, which follow the textbook, are posted on the GLEMBA program website. Supplemental slides may also be included.

Audio Lectures: Audio lectures accompany the Power Point slides and are intended to create a framework for reading and case analysis.

Evaluation and Grading Rubric

For grading, specific course assignments will be weighted as follows:

Cleopatra --- individually written case

20%

Dell in China --- team written case and Web Conference

15%

Ericsson --- individually written case

20%

Stella Artois --- team written case and Web Conference

15%

Banyan Tree --- final exam case

30%

100%

Written Assignments (Cleopatra, Ericsson, and Banyan Tree)

70%

Evaluation of written assignments and project papers will be based on thoughtful, analytical, well-constructed responses demonstrating knowledge of the topic by citing examples of the key concepts present in the readings or cases.

A ---Excellent: Understanding of all key issues; no important analytical errors or omissions; concise, very well written and organized, makes appropriate use of charts and tables.

B---Good: Understanding of most issues; only a few important issues not discussed; few analytical errors; well-written and well-organized, makes appropriate use of charts and tables.

C---Adequate: Understanding of many issues, but not all important aspects covered; various analytical errors; excessive case recitation unsupported by

analysis; poorly written or organized, makes inappropriate use of charts and table

Web Conference and Presentation Evaluation (Dell and Stella Artois)

30%

Evaluation of Web Conference preparation and presentation (PowerPoint slides) will be based on clear, concise presentation of answers to questions assigned to teams. Responses should demonstrate knowledge of the topic, key concepts and references to text, readings or other sources. During the discussion each team is expected to add value by questioning, exploring or challenging at least one other team’s presentation.

A --- Excellent analysis and presentation --- Clear and concise answer to the question and provides one or more key concepts or evidence from the text, readings or other outside sources to support presentation. Immediately and effectively responds to questions, provide on specific answers and defend points made if challenged by other team members. Presentation slides are clear, concise and well-organized. During Web Conference, team members ask questions or provide evidence that adds value to the other team’s presentation or topic.

B---Good analysis and presentation: Clearly answers the question and provides at least one key concept or supporting evidence from the text or readings to support presentation. Responds to questions with an answer, which clarify or defend points made by others. Presentation slides address key information and are generally organized to support presentation. Team members ask questions or provide evidence that adds some value to the other team’s presentation or topic.

C---Adequate: Answers the question, but provides no key concepts or evidence from the text, readings or other outside sources to support presentation. Presentation slides do not wholly support the presentation. Team members respond to questions generally and provide adequate answers, which may or may not add clarity or defend points made by others. Members do not ask questions or provide evidence that adds value to the other team’s presentation or topic.

Discussion Forum Participation Students are expected to post responses that reflect content knowledge, analytical skills and add value to the discussion topic. Grades for discussions forum participation will be based on quality of response.

A: Excellent contribution --- Clear and helpful in furthering of the discussion

B: Good contributions --- Generally addresses key points and issues

C: Acceptable contribution --- Not clear, some error or misunderstanding

Assignment:

The reading material is interspersed by cases to provide realism in the learning and application of principles. The assignments are case based. Each case has a set of questions which are listed below on the syllabus, as well as posted in the Assignments subfolder on Blackboard.

Case questions are prepared for either written or oral discussion or both and may be either an individual or team assignment.

Format for Written Assignments Written assignments should be Word documents (no html formats) that are:

Double-spaced, 12 pt. Arial or Times New Roman font

Citations properly formatted in MLA style

Clearly identified by author or team

o

For an individual assignment, the student name needs to be on the first page of the document AND as part of the document name.i.e. JonesAOL.doc when it is submitted.

o

For a team assignment, the team number and names of team participants on the first page AND the team number as part of the document name i.e. Team2Neilson.doc when it is posted

o

There is no need for a separate cover pages

Submission Assignments should be posted on Blackboard (Bb) within the course area by the due date:

Team assignments are posted File Exchange under your team’s Group Pages Individual assignments are submitted to the Digital Drop Box under Tools tab. Be sure to use the SEND command to submit to the Drop Box. Do not use ADD command to post.

Late Assignments If you need to miss an assignment deadline, you must pre-notify the instructor and course manager before the deadline. You should provide the reason for missing the deadline and an alternative date for submitting the assignment. The instructor and course manager must approve the extension and the new deadline. If you do not pre- notify the instructor, the instructor may determine the appropriate grade deduction for the assignment.

Evaluations:

Peer Evaluation Unless otherwise specified by the instructor, students need to complete a peer evaluation for each team assignment; the peer evaluation is an electronic document whose link is located on Blackboard (Bb) in the course area under the Information button. Students allocate 100 points among the team members to reflect the level of contribution made by each team member on a specific assignment.

Course Evaluation

The completion of a course evaluation is a course requirement. Students need to complete a course evaluation form which is an electronic document whose link is located on Blackboard (Bb) in the course area under the Information button. Students who do not submit a course evaluation by the due date will receive an incomplete grade for the course.

UTD Policy on Cheating:

Students are expected to be above reproach in all scholastic activities. Students who engage in scholastic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the course and dismissal from the university. "Scholastic dishonesty includes but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, collusion, the submission for credit of any work or materials that are attributable in whole or in part to another person, taking an examination for another person, any act designed to give unfair advantage to a student or the attempt to commit such acts." Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter VI, Section 3, Subsection 3.2, Subdivision 3.22. Professors randomly use “Turnitin.com” to screen papers against other published work on the web to insure against plagiarism.

SCHEDULE

Date & Time :

Saturday, April 21, 8:30am – 12:00 noon Course Introduction and Syllabus Overview Basic Marketing Concepts, Globalizing Marketing & Global Expansion

Lecture

:

Power Point Slides and Audio Session 1 on Blackboard

Readings

:

Read chapters 1 and 2 for basic concepts. Skim pages 125-135 in Ch.5, and pages 172-174 in Ch.6.

Discussion case:

Illycaffe (B): The Starbucks Threat (text, pages 189-191)

Questions:

See end of case, p.191.

Week 1

:

Cultural Foundations & Cultural Market Effects April 23 – April 29. Power Point Slides and Audio Session 2 on Blackboard Chapter 3., plus pages 203-210 in Ch.7.

Dates

:

Lecture

:

Readings

:

Week 2

:

Buyer Decision Processes & Market Research

Dates

:

April 30 – May 6

Lecture

:

Power Point Slides and Audio Session 3 on Blackboard

Readings

:

Chapter 7, Ch.8 (pp.235-242), Ch.9 (pp.267-283), Ch. 10 (pp.295-

300).

Assignment:

Individually written case – Colgate-Palmolive: Cleopatra in Quebec? (in text, pp.341- 351). May 6

Due date

:

Week 3

:

Global Products & Global Brands May 7 – May 13 Power Point Slides and Audio Session 4 on Blackboard Chapter 12 (skim ch.11).

Dates

:

Lecture

:

Readings

:

Assignment :

Team written case – Dell Selling Directly, Globally (aka Dell in China (hard copy) May 11 (by 6:00pm)

Due date

:

Web Conference:

Web Conference Date:

Peer Evaluation Due:

Dell Case Discussion Saturday May 12, 8:30 am CST May 14

Week 4

:

Global Services, Global Pricing and Distribution May 14 – May 20 Power Point Slides and Audio Session 5 on Blackboard Chapter 13, Ch.14 (pages 447-449, 460-464) and Ch.15 (478-494).

Dates

:

Lecture

:

Readings

:

Week 5

:

Global Promotion (including Advertising) May 21 – May 27 Power Point Slides and Audio Session 6 on Blackboard Chapters 16 & 17

Dates

:

Lecture

:

Readings

:

Assignment:

Individually written case – Ericsson's Global Brand Campaign (hard copy). May 27

Due date

:

Week 6

:

Organizing for Global Marketing & Wrap-up

Dates

:

May 28 – June 3

Lecture

:

Power Point Slides and Audio Session 7 on Blackboard

Readings

:

Chapter 18.

Assignment :

Team written case – The Global Branding of Stella Artois (hard copy)

Due date

:

June 1 (by 6:00pm)

Web Conference:

Web Conference Date:

Peer Evaluation Due:

Stella Artois Case Discussion Saturday June 2, 8:30 am CST June 4

Week 7

:

Final Exam

Dates

:

June 4 – June 10

Assignment :

Individually written Case Final

Due date

:

Banyan Tree (in textbook, pp.585-597). June 10

Course Evaluation Due:

June 10

Additional Information:

CASE 1:

CASE QUESTIONS

Individually written Cleopatra in Quebec (in textbook, pp.341-351).

Focal issue :

Standardization vs. Adaptation to local culture

The Cleopatra case shows how expansion into a culturally similar but competitive market may or may not prove successful depending on the degree of adaptation needed.

Questions

:

See end of case, p.351.

Focal issue :

Distribution channels in China

The Dell case deals with the company’s entry into China. In the Web Conference discussion we will attempt to answer the questions at the end of the case, about the overall best entry strategy into China. For the write- up, however, I want you to concentrate on the following questions:

Questions

:

1. What are the functions that need to be carried out in the distribution of PCs? How are these distribution functions carried out in Dell’s direct channel? What are the advantages and disadvantages of Dell’s approach compared of the indirect approach?

2. How attractive is the China market for PCs? What are the differences between the office market and the home market?

3. Is Dell's model more or less mobile than indirect distribution? Explain. To what extent does China offer middlemen and infrastructure for Dell's direct model?

4. Why would (or wouldn't) Dell's approach be particularly useful in China? What should Dell's strategy be, the same as elsewhere or how should it be modified?

CASE 3:

Individually written case Ericsson's Global Brand Campaign (hard copy)

Focal issue : How companies build global brands

The Ericsson case shows how a B2B focused technology company has attempted to use promotion and a common theme to develop a unified global brand vision among customers and employees.

Questions:

1. What is the role of a brand for a technology consumer product? For a

technology B2B product? When is the brand not important?

2. Why does Ericsson need a global brand? Why would Ericsson want to

take money away from product promotions to do a global brand campaign

without a product shown? Does this decision explain the lukewarm reception of the campaign within the organization?

3. Judging from the initial market research in the case, what are the target

segments for the campaign? The pre-test reports are positive, but how acceptable do you think the campaign theme "Make Yourself Heard" is

across the audience segments? Across cultures?

4. Should Ericsson continue to develop its global brand? Should it

continue with the campaign in its present form? Any alternative ideas?

CASE 4:

Team written case and Web Conference The Global Branding of Stella Artois (hard copy)

Focal issue : Why and how companies build global brands

The Stella Artois case shows how a global but fragmented company built through acquisition of local brands has a difficult time developing a truly global brand.

Questions:

1. What are the motivational factors behind Interbrew's drive towards a

global brand? Marketing? Financials? Competitive? Anything else.

Explain fully.

2. Given its growth-through-acquisition strategy, does the strategy make

sense for Interbrew? What are the obstacles that could be foreseen in

implementing a global branding strategy?

3. Does Stella Artois appear to be the right choice as the company’s

flagship brand? Why, why not? Any alternatives?

4. How would you describe the positioning and competitive (dis-)

advantages of Stella Artois relative to other global brands?

5. Compare the initial launch effort by Interbrew and the later modified strategy? Do you agree with the changes? Why, why not? What would you propose next?

CASE 5:

Final Case, individually written Banyan Tree Hotels and Resorts: Building a global brand. (in textbook, pp.585-597).

Focal issue: Should and can a small Asian company build a global brand?

The Banyan Tree case raises the issue of whether a relatively small company should endeavor to develop a global brand.

Questions: See end of case, page 597.