MGF3684 Business Strategy, Semester 2, 2021

Information on the Case Analysis Assignment

You will conduct three individual case analyses. The three case assignments together are worth 50
marks, accounting for 50% of the total marks of the unit. All three cases are from those covered in
this unit. The specific cases used will be disclosed at about 2PM on the Friday of Week 12, via Moodle,
and the assignment will be due at 5PM on the following Tuesday (26th of October).

Case 1: TBD
Case 2: TBD
Case 3: TBD

The general task in these assignments is for you to show your understanding of what happened in the
case, in terms of the strategies involved and theoretical logics behind the strategies. As such, it will
be necessary to analyze the cases in light of the theories/readings covered in the week when the case
was discussed, or other relevant theories/readings.

Each case question can be most efficiently answered in 400–800 words. You can of course provide
lengthier answers, but you should not just copy and paste all the facts in the original case or all aspects
of the theories/readings that you can think of. For instance, if you are asked to explain what strategy
theory week X’s case illustrates, you cannot copy and paste all the theoretical points we covered in
week X—please address the question directly, in a way you would in an exam, with some moderate
elaboration.

The key criteria for assessment are:

1) have you summarized the major strategic actions/events of the case firm (or firms in industry) (of
the many actions/events described in the case, which ones are of strategic significance in terms of the
theories we have covered)?

2) have you identified the relevant strategy concepts/theories (which concepts/theories can explain the
strategic actions/events described in the case)?

3) have you outlined the concepts/theories (how do the concepts/theories explain the actions/events)?
and,

4) have you provided any of your own assessment (what do you think of the actions/events and
concepts/theories, especially if there is any debate/controversy involved)?

The first three are particularly important. If you have covered most of the relevant actions/events
matched with the right concepts/theories, you’ll be given HD; if you get some of these right, you’ll
have a D or C; and if you get most of these wrong, or if you are unable to link strategies to theories
(e.g., you have itemized the actions/events in the case but are unable to discuss their theoretical
meanings, or use the wrong theories to explain these strategic actions), you will be given a P or N
mark.

The best preparation for this assignment is to read each case thoroughly, with the guiding questions
in mind, and participate in case discussion. The theories covered in the readings/ppt would also be
relevant.

There is no need to use extra headings, references, or appendices. Grammar, spelling, and other
formalities are less important than concepts, theories, and ideas for this assignment. Use Times New
Roman 12, 1.5 line spacing, and margins of 2.54 cm on all sides. Submit your assignment in Word
via Moodle (under “Assessment (Individual) - Case Analyses”) by the deadline noted above. In the
event of any technical problem that prevents you from submitting your assignment via Moodle, please
email it by the same deadline to your tutorial teaching staff.

Case Analysis Example: Yellow Tail

The Casella family firm and their US importer, the Deutsch family firm, priced the Yellow Tail wine
at 6 US dollars a bottle in the US market. The wine was meant to be an easy-going wine,
uncomplicated, fun to drink. It was thought to be better tasting and a better value than the price would
indicate.

This product positioning reflects a strategy that is absent in Michael Porter’s original generic business
strategy framework. Michael Porter’s framework contains two dimensions: the cost versus uniqueness
dimension and the broad versus narrow scope dimension. Combining these two dimensions leads to
four generic strategy types: broad or narrow cost leadership, and broad or narrow differentiation. An
important implication of this framework is that along the cost-uniqueness dimension there is no room
for a strategy that is between (or combines) cost leadership and differentiation.

Porter’s framework has been criticized by some scholars who believe such a strategy does exist and
is viable in the real business world. They point out that many companies that take a middle ground
between cost leadership and differentiation have successfully integrated these two strategies, leading
to a strategy type that does not exist in Porter’s framework but can be termed as “integrated strategy”,
“combination strategy”, or “best cost strategy”. One example of such a combination strategy is
Japanese auto companies that offer superior quality couple with low price. Whereas Porter beliefs
such a strategy represents a “stuck-in-the-middle” situation, these scholars are convinced that it should
be included as a legitimate strategy type, in addition to cost leadership and differentiation strategies.

Yellow Tail’s price reflected such a combination strategy. The wine was priced substantially lower
than the higher end of the market (at $15 and up); it also offered a unique taste and style that allowed
it to be differentiated from the lower end, with wines priced at $2 or $3 and sold in jugs and boxes.
The combination of these two elements allowed the company to occupy a vast middle ground. On the
other generic strategy dimension, broad versus narrow, the position of the wine suggested that it could
potentially focus on the young, unsophisticated light drinkers segment.

The Yellow Tail case may illustrate the possible viability of a combination strategy, but the content
contained in the case is not sufficient to end the debate. Michael Porter would probably argue that
Yellow Tail’s success was a temporary phenomenon; the strategy was not sustainable. When the
economy experiences a downturn (such as in the Global Financial Crisis), the high-end customers will
be less affected, and the low-end consumers will return to the lower-priced products, leaving
companies like Yellow Tail stuck in the middle again.

(Note: The Yellow Tail case is shorter and more simplistic than other cases covered in the unit. Other
cases will probably require a lengthier and somewhat more nuanced analysis.)