More from these Authors

• Case | HBS Case Collection | December 2019

  JUUL and the Vaping Revolution

  Michael W. Toffel, John Masko and Sarah Mehta

  In late 2019, San Francisco-based electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) maker JUUL Labs (pronounced “jewel”) faced intense pressure. Sales of JUUL products exceeded $1 billion in 2018, dominating the e-cigarette category. While JUUL Labs’ stated goal was to help current smokers switch from traditional cigarettes to e-cigarettes, the company’s products had become popular with high school and even middle school students, among whom “vaping”—the use of e-cigarettes—was rapidly spreading. Some advocacy groups and policymakers speculated that JUUL Labs had purposefully marketed its products to minors, an allegation the company strongly denied. The debate over JUUL Labs’ marketing and products had made 2019 a difficult year for the company, with a number of states and municipalities imposing bans on the sale of flavored e-liquids, and in some cases, on all e-cigarette products. Given that the company was ostensibly founded to reduce the harm of smoking, what more could JUUL Labs do to prevent misuse of its products, restore its reputation, and grow its business more successfully?

  Keywords: electronic cigarettes; E-Cigarettes; vaping; Nicotine Replacement; JUUL; Juuling; Advertising; Online Advertising; Customers; Innovation and Invention; Marketing; Ethics; Brands and Branding; Marketing Communications; Marketing Strategy; Product Marketing; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Social Issues; Technology; Technology Industry;

  Citation:

  Toffel, Michael W., John Masko, and Sarah Mehta. "JUUL and the Vaping Revolution." Harvard Business School Case 620-069, December 2019.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | October 2019

  Nehemiah Mfg. Co.: Providing a Second Chance

  Michael Chu, Brian Trelstad and John Masko

  In 2009, Dan Meyer and Richard Palmer, two veterans of the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) industry, founded Nehemiah Manufacturing to build FMCG brands while providing jobs to Cincinnati, Ohio’s beleaguered urban core. Two years later, the pair made their first “second-chance” hire of a convicted felon, a successful experiment which would grow to define the company. By 2019, Nehemiah’s factory floor, as well as several supervisory and management positions, would be staffed by ex-offenders. With a robust net of social support services and a non-profit foundation for training peer companies in how to hire second-chance employees, Meyer and Palmer advocated using second-chance hiring to decrease turnover and create staff loyalty. This case deals with the challenges and opportunities associated with growing a manufacturing company while prioritizing a social mission, and enables students to evaluate the potential of second-chance hiring programs.

  Keywords: Social Entrepreneurship; Retention; Selection and Staffing; Employment; Human Capital; Growth Management; Brands and Branding; Social Marketing; Mission and Purpose; Prejudice and Bias; City; Urban Scope; Consumer Products Industry; Manufacturing Industry; Ohio; United States;

  Citation:

  Chu, Michael, Brian Trelstad, and John Masko. "Nehemiah Mfg. Co.: Providing a Second Chance." Harvard Business School Case 320-008, October 2019.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | February 2019 (Revised September 2019)

  Theranos: The Unicorn That Wasn't

  Joseph B. Fuller and John Masko

  In 2003, 19-year-old Elizabeth Holmes founded a startup dedicated to making blood testing easier and more affordable. By 2015, her company, Theranos, was worth $9 billion. It boasted a star-studded board and contracts with national pharmacy and supermarket chains Walgreens and Safeway to bring Theranos technology, which could purportedly perform hundreds of tests with a pinprick of blood, to consumers around the country. Over the next few years, however, Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou published a series of articles demonstrating that Theranos’ proprietary technology produced inaccurate results, relied heavily on non-proprietary devices to perform its tests, and violated multiple regulatory standards. In 2018, after a three-year stream of revelations about the company’s operating practices, corporate culture, and technology, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged Theranos with fraud and the company soon collapsed.

  Keywords: Theranos; blood; lab testing; fraud; Holmes; Balwani; Shultz; Carreyrou; Securities and Exchange Commission; Food and Drug Administration; FDA; SEC; Health Testing and Trials; Corporate Accountability; Organizational Culture; Misleading and Fraudulent Advertising; Crime and Corruption; Entrepreneurship; Medical Devices and Supplies Industry;

  Citation:

  Fuller, Joseph B., and John Masko. "Theranos: The Unicorn That Wasn't." Harvard Business School Case 319-068, February 2019. (Revised September 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related