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

• Text: Global Marketing: Foreign Entry, Local Marketing, Global Management,

4th ed. Johansson, Johny K., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2006.

• Cases: Cleopatra : in textbook (pp. 341-351)

Dell in China : PDF
Ericsson : PDF
Stella Artois PDF
Banyan Tree : 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:
ƒ Team assignments are posted File Exchange under your team’s Group Pages
ƒ 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

Dates : April 23 – April 29.
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 2 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapter 3., plus pages 203-210 in Ch.7.
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).
Due date : May 6

Week 3 : Global Products & Global Brands

Dates : May 7 – May 13
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 4 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapter 12 (skim ch.11).

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

Web Conference: Dell Case Discussion

Web Conference Date: Saturday May 12, 8:30 am CST
Peer Evaluation Due: May 14

Week 4 : Global Services, Global Pricing and Distribution

Dates : May 14 – May 20
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 5 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapter 13, Ch.14 (pages 447-449, 460-464) and Ch.15 (478-494).

Week 5 : Global Promotion (including Advertising)

Dates : May 21 – May 27
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 6 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapters 16 & 17

Assignment: Individually written case – Ericsson's Global Brand Campaign

(hard copy).
Due date : May 27
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: Stella Artois Case Discussion

Web Conference Date: Saturday June 2, 8:30 am CST
Peer Evaluation Due: June 4

Week 7 : Final Exam

Dates : June 4 – June 10

Assignment : Individually written Case Final

– Banyan Tree (in textbook, pp.585-597).
Due date : June 10

Course Evaluation Due: June 10

Additional Information:

CASE QUESTIONS

CASE 1: 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.

CASE 2: Team written case and Web Conference

Dell in China (hard copy)
 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.