More from these Authors

• Supplement | HBS Case Collection | November 2019

  Gillette: Cutting Prices to Regain Share

  Benjamin C. Esty and Daniel Fisher

  After losing market share to low-priced competitors such as Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club for several years, Gillette decided to fight back by cutting prices on its razors and blades in April 2017. Bonnie Herzog, an equity analyst at Wells Fargo, must assess how the recently announced price cuts are likely to affect Gillette’s earnings and its parent company’s earnings (Procter & Gamble owns Gillette). As part of her analysis, Herzog must estimate the price elasticity of demand for Gillette’s razors and blades. The case contains scanner data which allows students to calculate both price elasticities for a sample of Gillette products.

  Keywords: Marketing Strategy; Product Positioning; Business Strategy; Competition; Price; Public Equity; Retail Industry; Consumer Products Industry; United States;

  Citation:

  Esty, Benjamin C., and Daniel Fisher. "Gillette: Cutting Prices to Regain Share." Harvard Business School Spreadsheet Supplement 720-853, November 2019.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsPurchase

  Related

• Supplement | HBS Case Collection | November 2019

  Hapag-Lloyd AG: Complying with IMO 2020

  Benjamin C. Esty, Mette Fuglsang Hjortshoej and Emer Moloney

  A new environmental regulation known as IMO 2020 was creating what one industry analyst called “the biggest shakeup for the oil and shipping industries in decades.” According to the new regulation, all ocean-going ships would have to limit their sulfur emissions by January 1, 2020. Senior leaders at Hapag-Lloyd, one of the world’s largest shipping companies, were evaluating three ways their ships could comply with the new regulation: use low sulfur fuel, use high-sulfur fuel but install scrubbers to clean the exhaust, or convert ships to use liquid natural gas (LNG) as fuel. Each of the options had its advantages and disadvantages, and the most attractive option depended on not only the values of key parameters (e.g., future fuel prices and equipment costs), but also the strategies adopted by the owners of the other 60,000 ocean-going ships subject to the regulation. For the industry as a whole, annual compliance could cost as much as $60 billion; for Hapag-Lloyd, annual compliance might cost as much as $1 billion or more. For a company with net income of $34 million (€28 million) in the prior year, and losses in two of the past four years, getting this decision right was of the utmost importance. Senior executives at Hapag-Lloyd had created a proposed compliance plan and were scheduled to present it to the firm’s supervisory board for approval in June 2018. Whether the team had the right plan and whether the board would approve it are the key questions in the case.

  Keywords: Valuation; Ship Transportation; Strategic Planning; Game Theory; Pollution and Pollutants; Supply Chain; Corporate Accountability; Capital Budgeting; Environmental Sustainability; Shipping Industry; Transportation Industry; Germany;

  Citation:

  Esty, Benjamin C., Mette Fuglsang Hjortshoej, and Emer Moloney. "Hapag-Lloyd AG: Complying with IMO 2020." Harvard Business School Spreadsheet Supplement 220-713, November 2019.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsPurchase

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | November 2019

  Hapag-Lloyd AG:Complying with IMO 2020

  Benjamin C. Esty, Mette Fuglsang Hjortshoej and Emer Moloney

  A new environmental regulation known as IMO 2020 was creating what one industry analyst called “the biggest shakeup for the oil and shipping industries in decades.” According to the new regulation, all ocean-going ships would have to limit their sulfur emissions by January 1, 2020. Senior leaders at Hapag-Lloyd, one of the world’s largest shipping companies, were evaluating three ways their ships could comply with the new regulation: use low sulfur fuel, use high-sulfur fuel but install scrubbers to clean the exhaust, or convert ships to use liquid natural gas (LNG) as fuel. Each of the options had its advantages and disadvantages, and the most attractive option depended on not only the values of key parameters (e.g., future fuel prices and equipment costs), but also the strategies adopted by the owners of the other 60,000 ocean-going ships subject to the regulation. For the industry as a whole, annual compliance could cost as much as $60 billion; for Hapag-Lloyd, annual compliance might cost as much as $1 billion or more. For a company with net income of $34 million (€28 million) in the prior year, and losses in two of the past four years, getting this decision right was of the utmost importance. Senior executives at Hapag-Lloyd had created a proposed compliance plan and were scheduled to present it to the firm’s supervisory board for approval in June 2018. Whether the team had the right plan and whether the board would approve it are the key questions in the case.

  Keywords: Valuation; Ship Transportation; Strategic Planning; Game Theory; Pollution and Pollutants; Supply Chain; Corporate Accountability; Capital Budgeting; Environmental Sustainability; Shipping Industry; Transportation Industry; Germany;

  Citation:

  Esty, Benjamin C., Mette Fuglsang Hjortshoej, and Emer Moloney. "Hapag-Lloyd AG:Complying with IMO 2020." Harvard Business School Case 220-003, November 2019.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related