49
Natureview Farm : Case Analysis

Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

Natureview Farm : Case Analysis

Page 2: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis
Page 3: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis
Page 4: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis
Page 5: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

• Yogurt is consumed by 40% of the population

• Among these people 7 % are women

• Organic foods market was expected to grow by 20-40%

and the yogurt market by 2-4% in the next 5 years

• Different criterias for the regular shoppers and the people

prefering organic foods in the selection of yogurt.

• 46% of organic food buyers bought food at a supermarket

• 29% at natural foods store.

• 25 % at a small health store.

Page 6: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

• Shoppers at natural food stores tend to be more educated, richer and

older than the regular supermarket shoppers.

• They tend to settle in the Northeast and the West.

• Natural stores channel was expected to grow 7 times faster than the

supermarket channel.

• 58% of US households told that they will buy more organic products if

prices were less.

• 44% demanded a larger variety of organic products

Page 7: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

SITUATION

Page 8: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

TO EMPLOY MEASURES TO INCREASE

THE REVENUE FROM $13 MILLION

(YEAR 2000) TO $20 MILLION BY

THE END OF THE YEAR 2001

Page 9: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

DECISION to be made!!

Page 10: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

To expand into the supermarket chains

OR

To strengthen the existing distribution and

marketing strategy to earn greater revenues

Page 11: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

MANUFACTURER

NATURAL FOODS WHOLESALER

CONSUMER

RETAILER

NATURAL FOODS DISTRIBUTOR

NATURAL FOODS CHANNEL

The typical natural foods wholesaler margin was 7%, the distributor margin

was 9%, and the retailer margin was 35%.

Page 12: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

MANUFACTURER

DISTRIBUTOR

CUSTOMER

RETAILER

SUPERMARKET CHANNEL

The typical distributor margin in this channel was 15%, and the typical retailer margin

was 27% and thus prices tended to be lower here than the natural foods stores.

Page 13: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

QUESTIONS

Page 14: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

DECISION OPTIONS

•3 decision options

Page 15: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

DECISION CRITERIAS

• REVENUE GENERATION

• EFFECT ON THE EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS

• ADDITIONAL COSTS

Page 16: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA

•TO MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF REVENUE GENERATION

Page 17: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

DECISION OPTIONS

Page 18: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 1

Page 19: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

To expand 6 SKUs(Stock-keeping units) of 8 oz cups into

1 or 2 selected supermarkets.

Page 20: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

BENEFITS• Great upside potential

• 8 oz cups were the largest source of revenue generation

• Horizon Organic and other competitors were also planning to

enter the supermarkets and they would allow entry of only 1 such

brand

•A modest growth rate(3%).

Page 21: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

RISKS• Fierce competition in the 8 oz cup segment (74% of market share).

• Alienating relations with the existing distribution channel

• Fear of losing trust and in turn shelf place in the the natural food stores.

• Increased costs owing to increased advertising, trade promotions

incement in SG&A costs.

• Higher slotting costs

• Inefficient sales team.

Page 22: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 2

Page 23: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

• To expand 4 SKUs of 32 oz cups nationally in supermarkets.

Page 24: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

BENEFITS

• Potentially gives higher profit margins than the 8 oz cups

• Natureview had competitive advantage because of the longer

shelf life

• Lower marketing, advertising and SG&A cost increments.

• Trade Promotions only twice a year.

Page 25: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

RISKS

• Doubt that they will enter a multi – brand use.

• Inefficiency of the sales team.

•Need to hire additional sales personnel.

• Increased costs for advertising , marketing and half- yearly trade

promotions(though less than option 1).

• The SG&A costs will increase by $160,000.

Page 26: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 3

Page 27: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

• Introduce 2 SKUs of children’s multi-pack in thenatural foods channel.

Page 28: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

BENEFITS

• Established leader in the market(45%).

• Perfect positioning for the launch of children multipacks.

• Attractive long term potential.

• Existing channel relationships would strengthen.

• Effective sales team.

• No additional SG&A costs.

• The natural foods channel was expected to grow 7 times

faster than the supermarket channel.

Page 29: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

RISKS

• Lower revenue generation than either of the 3 options.

• Fears of natural food retailers putting forth the same demands

as a supermarket retailer.

• Fear of falling behind the competitors and losing an important

oppurtunity for expansion and increasing revenue.

Page 30: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

HYPOTHESISand ANALYSIS

Page 31: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

HYPOTHESIS

I hypothise that OPTION 2 shall generate enough revenue so as to

satisfy the objective and at the same time should be more suitable

among the 3 options to satisfy the remaining decision criterias.

Page 32: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis
Page 33: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 2

TARGET OF REVENUE GENERATION =$ 20 MILLION

CURRENT REVENUE GENERATION =$ 13 MILLION

DIFFERENCE TO BE ACHIEVED(in 1 year) =$ 7 MILLION

SELLING PRICE (at the supermarket) =$2.70/cup

DISTRIBUTOR+RETAILER MARGIN =15%+27%=42%

SELLING PRICE FOR NATUREVIEW =$ 1.566/CUP

ANTICIPATED INCREMENT IN SALES UNIT = 5,500,000

INCREASES REVENUE GENERATION = 5,500,000*1.566=$8,613,000

Hence, the revenue generation objective is fulfilled.

Page 34: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 2(COSTS AND DOWNSIDES)

MARKETING EXPENSES =$120,000/REGION

=$120,000*4

=$480,000

INCREASED SG&A EXPENSES =$160,000

SLOTTING EXPENSES =$X

HALF-YEARLY TRADE PROMOTIONS =$Y

TOTAL EXPENSES = $640,000+$X+$Y

The natural foods stores ,on the other hand, will have a reason less to feel detered and

violated as the 32 oz occupied a smaller portion of market share and hence only a small

source of revenue generation.

The costs , may seem somewhat higher but they are much less than option 1(evaluated next)

Page 35: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

ALTERNATIVES

Page 36: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 1

TARGET OF REVENUE GENERATION =$ 20 MILLION

CURRENT REVENUE GENERATION =$ 13 MILLION

DIFFERENCE TO BE ACHIEVED(in 1 year) =$ 7 MILLION

SELLING PRICE (at the supermarket) =$.74/cup

DISTRIBUTOR+RETAILER MARGIN =15%+27%=42%

SELLING PRICE FOR NATUREVIEW =$ .4292/CUP

ANTICIPATED INCREMENT IN SALES UNIT = 35,000,000

INCREASES REVENUE GENERATION = 35,000,000*.4292=$15,022,000

Hence, the revenue generation objective is fulfilled.

Page 37: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 1(COSTS AND DOWNSIDES)

MARKETING EXPENSES =$1,200,000/REGION

=$1,200,000*4

=$4,800,000=$4.8 MILLION

INCREASED SG&A EXPENSES =$320,000

SLOTTING EXPENSES =$A($10,000/SKU)

QUARTERLY TRADE PROMOTIONS =$B

TOTAL EXPENSES = $5.12 MILLION+$A+$B

The natural foods stores ,on the other hand, will feel detered and

violated as the 8 oz occupied the largest chunk of market and hence was the largest

source of revenue generation.

The costs are way too high than option 2(evaluated earlier).

Also, this was the market segment which faces the most stiff competition and seeing the market

potential, even the supermarket chains were expected to release brands of their own.

Page 38: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 3

TARGET OF REVENUE GENERATION =$ 20 MILLION

CURRENT REVENUE GENERATION =$ 13 MILLION

DIFFERENCE TO BE ACHIEVED(in 1 year) =$ 7 MILLION

SELLING PRICE (at the natural foods store) =$3.35/pack

DISTRIBUTOR+WHOLESALER+RETAILER MARGIN =9%+7%+35%=51%

SELLING PRICE FOR NATUREVIEW =$ 1.6415/PACK

ANTICIPATED INCREMENT IN SALES UNIT = 1,800,000

INCREASES REVENUE GENERATION = 1,800,000*1.6415=$2,954,700

Hence, the revenue generation objective is NOT fulfilled.

Page 39: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

OPTION 3(COSTS AND DOWNSIDES)

MARKETING EXPENSES =$A(same as earlier)

INCREASED SG&A EXPENSES =$0

SLOTTING EXPENSES =$C(same as earlier subjected to change)

TRADE PROMOTIONS =$D(same as earlier)

TOTAL EXPENSES = $A+$C+$D

The relationship with the natural foods store shall in turn, be strengthened and the trust and

The bond between them shall be reinforced.

Also, the costs incurred are significantly lower than the earlier options and the net profit margin

is also high and high profitability is expected in the coming years , but , the immediate

objective of revenue generation remains unfulfilled.

Page 40: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

PROOFand ACTIONS

Page 41: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis
Page 42: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

• Natureview could not risk itself losing the trust of the

natural food stores as they were expected to

grow 7 times faster than the supermarket stores.

“Farm had developed strong relationships with leading

natural foods retailers, including the chainsWhole

Foods ($1.57 billion revenues in 1999) and

Wild Oats ($721 million revenues). The organic

foods market, worth $6.5 billion in 1999, was

predicted to grow to $13.3 billion in 2003.”

Page 43: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

• Also, Natureview had to enter the supermarket

chain as other competitors were also aiming for the

same and Natureview could not risk losing a

significant portion of market segment.

“Supermarket retailers would likely authorize

only one organic yogurt brand.

The first brand to enter the channel could

therefore have a significant first-mover advantage.”

Page 44: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis
Page 45: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

Natureview should therefore go with option 2.

Page 46: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

RECAP

Page 47: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

• Title slide

• Background

• Facts

• Situation

• Decision to be made

• Questions

• Decision options

• Decision criterias

• Most important criteria

• Decision options

• Option 1

• Option 2

• Option 3

• Hypothesis and Analysis

• Hypothesis

• Analysis

• Option 2

• Alternatives

• Option 1

• Option 3

• Proof and Actions

• Proof

• Actions

Page 48: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis

DISCLAIMERThese slides were created by Shreyans Hinger , under the guidance of Prof.

Sameer Mathur , under a summer internship mentored by him.

Page 49: Natureview Farm Harvard Case Analysis