HARVARD BUSINESS
SCHOOL
1)
BRIEF CASES
4249
JANUARY
19, 2011
JOHN A. QUELCH
HEATHER BECKHAM
Clean Edge Razor:
Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
On
August
9, 2010, a group of executives from Paramount
Health and Beauty Company
on the other side of a
sat in a research room intently observing a dozen men shaving
nondisposable razor, Clean Edge,
two-way mirror. The subjectswere testingout Paramount's newest
encouraging. The majority of men feltit
and discussing the experience. The verdict was extremely
cleanest,and smoothest shave they had encountered.
was the closest,
(Paramount)
uålizing a vibrating technology
Clean Edge's improved design provided superior performance by
shave. l
thorough
for a more
allowing
skin,
hair folliclesand liftthe hair from the
to såmulate
considering
room
observation
darkened
the
in
sat
Edge,
Jackson Randall, product manager for Clean
process and
new product development
the positioning s&ategy for this new product. He had led the
at
executives
All
launch.
upcoming
the
for
product
the
position
to
was now grappling with how
Paramount
However,
segment of the market.
agreed Clean Edge should be priced in the super-premium
a mainstream entry within
some executives believed Clean Edge should be launched as
that segment,
on the market.
with the broad appeal of being the most effective razor available
Others
felt a more differentiatedniche strategy, targeting the most intensely involved super-premium
technologically advanced
consumers, would be opåmal. Paramount had decided to launch this
strongest
presence, with an
the
had
company
the
where
product into the men's market first
after.
soon
following
market
introducåon into the women's
As Stuart Quimby,
directorof Paramount's U.S. Grooming
Division,leftthe observaåon
room, he
asked Randall to provide a recommendationto the executive steering committeeby the end of the
budget allocationsfor the launch. Randall
week for product posiåoning, brand name, and marketing
now
he just had to determine the best course
anyone;
than
better
product
new
this
felthe understood
of action for Clean Edge and convince his boss of the merits of his sfrategy.
1 Paramount would be the first company to provide scientific testing by a third-party lab to back these claims.
HBS Professor John A. Quelch and writer Heather Beckham
prepared thiscase solely as a basis for class discussion and not as an endorsement,
a
source of primary data, or an illustration of effective or ineffective management. This case, though based on real events, is fictionalized, and any
resemblance to actual persons or entities is coincidental. There are occasional references to actual companies in the narration.
Copyright 0 2011President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685'
write Harvard
Business Publishing, Boston, MA
02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu.
This publication may
photocopied, or otherwrisereproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
not be digitized'
4249 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
The U.S. Razor Market
Background
The U.S. Razor market could be broken up into several categories, including nondisposable
razors, refill cartridges, disposable razors, shaving cream, and depilatories. Clean Edge competed in
the nondisposable razor and refill cartridge categories. Nondisposable razors experienced
approximately 5%
growth per year from 2007 to 2010, with refillcartridges capturing slightlyless
growth of approximately 2% per year over the same time period. Most of the growth in this market
can be attributed to innovations and new product introductions. Table A provides retail sales for the
select categories.
Table
A
U.S. Shaving
and Hair Removal
Products: Retail Sales ($ in millions)
2005
Nondisposable Razors
$
$
$
$
$
RefillCartidges
DisposableRazors
Shaving
Cream
Depilatories
Source: "Shaving
and Hair Removal
2006
178
763
440
271
104
Products
$
$
$
$
$
2007
212
801
456
275
101
- U.S. - May
$
$
$
$
$
2008
188
802
477
269
106
$
$
$
$
$
2010
2009
198
815
490
266
100
$
$
$
$
$
208
832
504
263
94
$
$
$
$
218
853
522
260
88
2008," Figure 5, Mintel International Group
Note: 2008 figures are mid-year projections; 2009-2010figures are estimates.
Market Segments and Consumer Behavior
Currently, industry experts divided the nondisposable
razor and refillcarfridge market
into three
segments based on price and quality:value, moderate, and super-premium.
In the lastdecade, the
industry had experienced significantgrowth in the super-premium segment. Numerous
product
innovations in the super-premium
segment (e.g.,5-blade technology, glide stips, lather bar, low
resistance blade coating, etc.) fueled the growth. Table B provides a breakout of industry sales by
segment.
Table B 2009Nondisposable Razors and
RefillCartridge Retail Sales by Segment
Volume
Dollar
25%
43%
32%
34%
Super-Premium
Moderate
Value
22%
Note: Information is fictional.
Paramount
cartridges more
studies from 2009 showed
cycle had been shortened due to consumers
sponsored
that consumers purchased razors and
frequently than they had in any year previously.
trying out new
replacement
Executives felt the replacement
products as well as advertising and
aråcles that touted the benefits of frequent blade replacement.
In addiåon to the traditional price/quality segmentsthat industry experts tracked, Paramount's
consumer
research indicated disfinct segmentation
in terms of product benefits and
consumer
behavior. Research showed these segments held frue for both men and women. Exhibit 1
summarizes
2
Paramount's
findings on these groups.
BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning 1 4249
The intensity of involvement with the product varied significantly among consumers. There was
a group
of consumers
labeled as "Maintenance Shavers" who
that Paramount
were
almost
completely disinterested in the product category. Involved users could be broken up into
"Social/Emotional" and "Aesthetic" shavers. Both groups were willing to experiment with new
technology. "Social/Emotional" shavers were motivated by the overall shaving experience, while
"Aesthetic" shavers were more interested in cosmetic results.
Trends
The
rate of new-product
razors and
for nondisposable
introductions
flurry of 22 new
accelerated in recent years, with an unprecedented
refill cartridges had
stock-keeping
units (SKUs)
being
introduced between 2008 and 2009. Most of these new SKUs were line extensionstargeted at the
super-premium
As
segment
and promoted
a result of new-product
advertising
expenditures
benefits from advances in technology.
in order
introductions and
in this category
had
been
to stimulate demand,
rising faster than retail market
total media
this
sales, and
trend was expected to continue. Exhibit 2 provides media expenditures for the major brands, and a
breakout of advertising/promotion expenditures for Paramount nondisposable razors and refill
cartridges are given in Exhibit 3.
In general, disfribution outlets responded
shelf space for the product
to the growth
SKUs
by increasing
frequently enough
to be a &affic
in nondisposable
category. Razors were not purchased
builder for the stores, but retail margins associatedwith the products tended to be considerably
care items (e.g.,toothpaste). Distribuåon
higher than other personal
was
also starting to shift outside
stores. In 2000, food stores sold over half of all razors, but by 2009 they
of sales. Exhibit 4 summarizes the changes in retailchannel distibuåon from
tradiåonal food and drug
represented only 42%
2007 to 2010E.
products seemed
Male-specific grooming
indicated men's grooming
men's
body
routines moved
spray, fragranced
shower
to be a bright spot in the industry.
well beyond
gel, and
a splash of aftershave. New
Recent trends
products such as
skincare lines proliferated in the last several years.
Male-specific personal care products outpaced the growth in the women's beauty market as these
products became more mainstream. With more media attenåon on men's grooming issues and less
stigma associated with men's preening, the segment seemed poised for growth.
Company Overview
Paramount
was
a global consumer
products giant with $13 billionin worldwide
billion in gross profits for 2009. Paramount's
and Grooming.
respected brand
Paramount
corporate divisions included
the U.S. confributed
Beauty
entered the nondisposable razor market in 1962 and quickly became
$170 million in revenue,
Paramount
a
razors and refillcarfridges in
gross profit of $92 million, and operaång
profit of $26
in the industry. Sales from Paramount's
million in 2009.
sales and $7
Health, Cleaning,
currently offered two
nondisposable
lines of nondisposable
razors and
refill
cartridges—the Paramount Pro which was positioned in the moderate segment of the product
category, and the Paramount Avail, which was considered a value offering. Neither Pro nor Avail
had introduced significant technology innovations in the last five years. Together, these two
products allowed Paramount
to capture the unit-volume
market-leader posiåon in 2009, with a 23.3%
retail unit share.2
2 Average
contribution per urüt for Avail and Pro combined
HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL I BRIEFCASES
was
$1.76 for razors and $2.80 for cartridges.
3
Q49 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
Competition
Competition for nondisposable razors included direct compeåtors as well as subsåtute products.
Disposable razors provided a "wet" shave alternative, but appealed primarily to the value-oriented
customers or to customers that wanted a new blade for each shave. Disposables generally competed
on price and lacked the technology and innovations that were standard in the nondisposable market.
Electric shavers captured a moderate percentage of the overall market (approximately27% of men
used an electric shaver). Although they did not provide as close a shave as "wet" razors, elect-ic
shavers were easier to maneuver
and produced less skin irritation.As a result,electricshavers
generally appealed to older consumers. Other substitutesincluded depilatory creams, waxing, and
laser hair removal.
In 2010,the nondisposable razor and refill cartridge market was dominated by three multinational
players: Paramount, Prince, and Benet & Klein. New
Simpsons—both
in the space.
entrants,Radiance Health Inc. (Radiance) and
established personal-care products companies—had
Other smaller competitors and private-label brands
recently intensified competition
comprised
the rest of the market.
The majority of these other competitors were priced in the value segment of the market. Exhibit 5
details each of the main players' market shares. Exhibit 6 provides representaåve retail prices for
each major brand by product segment.
Prince —Prince manufactured and sold personal care products throughout the world. The
company's
principle focus included oral care products, skin care products, shaving products, and
deodorants/antiperspirants.
and held the number
Prince had been a market leader in nondisposable
razors since the 1950s
one position in terms of retail dollar sales in 2009. Prince sold nondisposable
razors and refill
carb•idgesunder the brand names Cogent and Cogent Plus. Both were considered
super-premium
products. Revenues for Prince'snondisposable razors and refillcartridges in 2009
were approximately
$224 million with $45 million in operating profit.
Benet & Klein (B&K)—B&Kwas a mulånational beauty and health products company that
manufactured
and sold vitamins, cosmetics, shaving products, skin care products, hair care products,
and fragrances. B&Kentered the nondisposable razor market in 1985with the Vifric brand. B&K
unveiled a new
provided
product line of nondisposable
an advanced
razors and refillcartridges (VifricMaster) in 2009 that
lubricaåon s&ip, non-slip handle, and superior anti-corrosivetechnology
blades.
New
Entrants — On
August
deodorant brand, Tempest.
smoother
shave.
1, 2009, Simpsons launched a new nondisposable razor using its
The Tempest razor touted an advanced pivoting head that allowed for a
Radiance also planned to extend its deodorant brand
name,
Naiv, into
razors. The Naiv razor offered a pulsing feature that was somewhat
similar to Clean
Edge's vibrating technology. Executives at Paramount had leamed the Naiv razor was due to launch
naåonal.ly in September 2010. In testmarkets, Naiv acquired a 13% share. Estimates for 2010 market
nondisposable
share are provided in Exhibit 5. Based on Radiance'spast launches in new-product categories,
Paramount
believed it would
come
out of the gate strong.
Paramount
marketing
executives
esåmated Radiance would spend over $16 million for media adveråsing to support the Naiv launch
in 2010. There were also widespread rumors of significantpromoåon
events that would soon be
unveiled. Currently, Radiance and Pararnount were fierce competitors in several personal care
product categories.
4
BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
1 4249
Clean Edge Razor
Design and Testing
In 2007, Paramount's CEO created a special nondisposable-razor project team devoted to
developing a technological breakthrough and providing Paramount with a standout new product in
the category. The team was led by Randall and included representatives from R&D, marketing, and
production. The team evaluated several new
designs and determined
that a vibrating,ultra-thinfive-
blade design (dubbed Clean Edge) would be the revolutionary product Paramount needed to
establish themselves as an innovation leader. One AAA battery was housed in the handle of the
razor which provided vibrations that stimulated hair follicles. In addition, the larger, heavier handle
allowed
for better balance, grip and control while shaving, and the advanced
ultra-thin blade design
reduced iritation. Over an 18-month period, extensive clinical
testingand consumer research were
performed. Clinical trialsindicated Clean Edge achieved a 25% increase in hair removal versus other
leading nondisposable razor brands (e.g., Cogent and Vitric). Trials also proved benefits to overall
skin condition with more even skin tone and improved
Randall managed
the development
skin texture.
and testingprocess and was now
spearheading the product's
launch. Senior executives already determined that Clean Edge would be priced somewhere in the
super-premium
segment, and the launch of the men's razor would
occur in January 2011, with the
women's razor to follow soon after. The looming question was how to best position Clean Edge.
Positioning
Within the super-premium segment, Randall had the option of recommending
Clean Edge for a
niche product posiåon focusing on highly involved, fastidiousgroomers looking for a superior
shaving
experience, or a mainstream
position focusing on the broad
possible shave. Randall had consulted with markeång
financial forecasts for both opåons.
Exhibit 7 summarizes
advantage
of offering the closest
and manufacturing teams to develop initial
Randall's assumptions
and forecasts.
In order to develop a comprehensive pro forma income statement for each positioning option,
he would also have to consider the impact of cannibalizaåon. In a recent division
status meeting, Randall had observed a heated exchange on thistopic between Paramount's newly
hired corporate marketing director,William Kim, and Paramount Pro's product manager, Albert
Randall knew
Rosenberg.
Kim
had been brought on board to provide a fresh perspective to the nondisposableDivision for over
had been a respected manager in the Grooming
razor product category. Rosenberg
two decades and had significant political capital in the division.
When the question of Clean Edge's product positioning was broached, Rosenberg said, "1 can't
believe we
consumers
positioning strategy. You will just siphon off
are even considering a mainstream
from Pro. A mainstream strategywill dilutethe brand power for our bread-and-butter
product, Pro.
complement
We
will just be cannibalizing ourselves. A niche strategy makes
our existing product
more
sense. It will
portfolio perfectly."
Kim thought Rosenberg was too concerned with protecång his turf and not thinking of what was
best for the overall company.
He responded, "Albert,research shows our consumers are becoming
more sophisticated and expect more advanced technology. Pro does not provide this. Pro is in the
mature phase of the product lifecycle. It is only a matter of åme before we see the decline.
Positioning Clean Edge as a mainstream product will help prevent loyal Paramount customers from
being wooed away to more innovaåve brands. Clean Edge has the potential for frue market
domination and needs to be positioned as such."
HARVARDBUSINESS SCHOOL I BRIEFCASES
5
4249 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
Randall was unsure of the exact effect of cannibalizaåon, but product launches in other
Paramount product categories indicated a considerable portion of the volume sales for Clean Edge
could come at the expense of Paramount
Pro and Avail. Randall's team spent a good amount
of åme
researching potential cannibalization scenarios. They determined 60% of Clean Edge sales would
likelycome
from current Pro/ Avail customers in a mainstream
positioning scenario and 35%
of
Clean Edge sales would likely come from current Pro/Avail customers in a niche positioning
scenario.
Branding Considerations
Randallhad not yet determinedthe relativeemphasisof the "Paramount"and "Clean Edge"
names
on packaging or in advertising. He had informally discussed m ro opåons
with different
executives. Those executives who felt the design was a major breakthrough in grooming believed the
product should stand apart from the current lineswith an emphasis on the "Clean Edge" name (e.g.,
"Clean Edge by Paramount"). In opposition to this were a handful of executives who thought
Paramount's name should receive top billing as this was consistentwith the overall corporate
s&ategy of building the Paramount brand name
equity. The name
this group preferred was
"Paramount Clean Edge." Focus groups revealed both concept names were viewed favorably.
Randall knew his decision would have an impact on how closelyconsumers associated Clean Edge
with Pro and Avail and consequently
influence the rate of cannibalization.
Marketing Budget
Paramount executiveshad not yet decided how to incorporateClean Edge into the overall
nondisposable razor and refill
carfridgemarketing budget and ifan increase in overallbudget was
necessary.
The 2010 budget
for consumer
totaled $48.3 million with $20.2 million for advertising and $28.1 million
and trade promotions. Randall was aware that the steeringcommittee was looking to
curb excessive marketing expenses in all product categories. If the budgets were to remain constant
for 2011, then a reallocaåon would
have to occur.
Randall considered the option of allocating the
budget based on an expectedpercentageof sales; but this would not be sufficient for Clean Edge to
enter the market in a meaningful way.
successful launch.
Rosenberg
had been
However,
Clean Edge needed significant
marketing dollarsto ensure a
was already campaiB1ing to protect his allocaåons.
Rosenberg
quite vocal in his stance that Paramount
and as such needed
razor l.frle
to sustain current marketing
Pro was
the backbone
of the company's
allocaåons.
To capture the volume estimates laid out in Exhibit 7, Randall determined a niche positioning
require $15 million in total marketing expenditures for Clean Edge's firstyear. In
order to reach full sales potential with the mainsfream position, a $42 million marketing budget
would be needed for year one. It was clear to Randall that launching Clean Edge as a mainstream
more marketing support. Mainstream razor unit volumes were
product would require significantly
strategy would
to capture over three times niche volumes in the firstyear, and reaching the masses would
require an extensive advertising campaign. In addition, considerable consumer and trade promotion
events would be needed and many expenses associatedwith these events would be volume based. In
order to induce trial,several consumer promotions were being considered. Cents-off coupons (e.g.,
expected
$1.00 off purchase) would be an important part of the consumer promotion strategy for either
posiåoning stategy. A coupon for a free razor with cartridgepurchase had also been proposed.
Randall estimated the cost of this promotion to be approximately $4 million and had included it in
his iniåal markeång budget assumptions for the mainstream launch located in Exhibit 7. Even
though an increase in the overall product category marketing budget would be highly scruånized,
Randall felt this might be the best route.
6
BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
4249
Conclusion
Randall's gut told him Clean Edge had significantmainsfream potential in the super-premium
He feltthe vibraång, thin-blade razor would become the new standard in men's shaving
segment.
and would
quickly gain mass appeal. However, Randall had to consider the opåmal positioning
strategy in the context of the enåre company.
He knew Paramount
Pro's product manager,
Rosenberg, would vehemently oppose a mainstream launch, and he had to consider iflaunching as a
niche product for a year or two might be a better move. Randall hoped that an economic analysis
would
help him find the right answer.
took into account
would
He planned
to build a simple profit-and-loss pro forma that
the effects of cannibalization on Paramount
Pro and Avail. Randall
also realized it
be important to develop contingency plans to address differentscenarios. After this was
complete, he could make
startedon brand name
a more
ilformed
decision about a positioning recommendation
and then get
and budget recommendations.
HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL I BRIEFCASES
7
1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
Behavior Segmentation of Nondisposable Razor Consumers
Exhibit 1
Involved Razor Users
Social/Emotional Shavers
Involved Razor Users
Aesthetic Shavers
Uninvolved Razor Users
Maintenance Shavers
(39% of Nondisposable Razor Users)
(28%of Nondisposable Razor Users)
(33% of Nondisposable Razor Users)
Search for products that most
effectively remove hair.
View products as the same. Lack of
interest in product category.
Differentiate among
products.
Search for products based on both
funcåonality and messaging.
Shaving
Shaving is consistently done to
remove unwanted hair.
as an essential part of a daily
grooming ritual.
Shaving makes them feel more
Shaving is a means
attractive and confident.
to smooth
skin
they desire.
Shaving
routine is inconsistent.
Shaving is a chore they fry to finish as
quickly as possible.
Note: Information is fictional.
Exhibit 2
Nondisposable Razor Media Advertising Expenditures, a 2009—2010E
2009
2010E
Media ($ in millions)
Benet & Klein
Media ($ in millions)
$ 36.8
29.2
20.2
$ 35.2
Prince
27.8
19.1
Paramount
Simpsons
$ 2.4
15.2
Radiance
a Media
$ 16.1
advertising expenditures does not include trade or consumer
promotion.
Exhibit 3 Adveråsing and Promotion Expendituresfor
Nondisposable
Paramount
Razors: 2009—2010E
2009
Media
Consumer Promotions
Trade Promotions
Total
8
$
$
$
$
19.1
11.5
13.7
44.3
($ in millions)
2010E
$
$
$
$
20.2
13.1
15.0
48.3
BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
4249
Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
Exhibit 4
% of Nondisposable Razor Sales by Retail Channel: 2007-2010E
vol
Food Stores
vol
( 0/0)
( 0/0)
vol
vol
( 0/0)
47
45
Drug Stores
Mass merchandisers
2010E
2009
2008
2007
( 0/0)
33
20
29
21
33
18
31
18
32
19
29
21
43
31
21
Club Stores
Other
Note: Information is fictional.
Exhibit 5
Nondisposable Razor Unit and Dollar Market Share by Brand: 2007—2010E
Brand
vol
vol
( 0/0)
2010E
$ (Yo)
vol (0/0)
2009
2008
2007
( 0/0)
$ ( 0/0)
vol
( 0/0)
Paramount
Paramount Pro
Paramount Avail
Total
Prince
Cogent
Cogent Plus
Total
12.0
20.5
12.6
6.6
19.2
13.7
21.8
15.2
6.2
21.4
Vitric Master
Total
23.4
22.2
21.4
29.4
1.3
30.7
16.1
21.3
19.8
26.2
15.2
0.2
4.0
19.4
15.8
0.1
5.2
21.1
2.6
32.6
23.1
18.1
2.5
0.0
20.6
20.5
2.7
0.0
23.2
18.2
1.6
0.0
19.8
20.0
17.8
0.7
20.0
1.9
0.0
21.9
o.z
19.2
0.9
22.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
4.6
0.0
34.9
25.9
33.9
24.1
33.5
22.8
32.0
Simpsons
Other
18.5
31.7
Tempest
Total
17.3
4.9
32.6
31.7
Radiance
Naiv
Total
18.5
24.5
0.0
24.5
24.0
0.0
24.0
Benet & Klein
Vitic
Vitic Advanced
16.9
6.4
23.3
HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL I BRIEFCASES
1.1
2.0
4.6
23.0
4249 1 Clean Edge Razor: Splitting Hairs in Product Positioning
Exhibit 6
Select Nondisposable Razor Brand Prices:a 2009 Suggested Retail Price
StandardRefill
Cartridges
(Average 4-count)
Razor
Super-Premium
Cogent Plus
Cogent
Naivb
Vi&icAdvanced
Vifric Master
Tempest
$ 12.50
$ 10.00
$ 11.19
$ 889
$ 11.80
$ 11.20
$ 10.85
$ 10.99
$ 899
$ 865
$ 875
$ 9.50
$ 8.89
$ 755
$ 700
$ 5.75
$ 4 60
$ 945
Moderate
Paramount Pro
Vitic
Value
Paramount Avail
a Table includes only key brands in the market. Prices are representative of most popular
SKU
in the brand
category. Prices for other SKUs
will vary.
b Projected price at launch
Exhibit 7
Financial Forecasts: Alternaåve Positioning Scenarios for Clean Edge
Niche Positioning
Planned
capacity Razor
unit volume
(millions of units)
Year 1
Year 2
Planned
Capacity
capacity Carfridge a unit volume
(millions of units)
costs ($ in millions)
4.0
9.9
Year 2
10.0
21.9
Year 1
$ 061
Year 2
$ 087
$ 500
$ 9 09
price
$ 12.99
$ 243
$ 735
$ 10.50
Razor: Suggested price
Cartridge:a Average Producåon unit cost
Manufacturer
Cartridge: a Average
price
Cartridge:a Average Suggested price
Advertising
Consumer
($ in millions)
promotions
($ in millions)
Trade
($ in millions)
1.71
$ 245
$ 474
$ 783
$ 11.19
$ 2.24
$ 622
$ 889
Year 1
7
Year 2
7
Year 1
6
6
14
2
3
6
8
Year 2
promotions
3.3
4.0
Year 1
Razor: Production per unit cost
Razor: Manufacturer
1.0
1.5
Mainstream Positioning
Year 1
Year 2
19
a Car&idge unit assumes average 4-count refill package.
10
BRIEFCASES I HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
Case Study Rubric
Criteria
(Weight)
Professional
(100%)
Thorough
(90%)
Adequate
(75%)
Not Fully
Developed (50%)
Quality of
Assignment
Content.
Weight: 70%
Submission
demonstrates a
full, in-depth
understanding
of the
associated
learning
objectives
presented in
the
assignment.
Writing
demonstrates
graduate level
writing
throughout.
Assignment is
clearly
understandable
to the reader and
is free of
punctuation,
spelling, and
capitalization
errors.
Submission
demonstrates a
thorough
understanding
of the
associated
learning
objectives
presented in
the
assignment.
Writing
demonstrates
graduate level
writing in most
areas.
Assignment is
mostly clear
and
understandable
to the reader and
contains only
occasional
punctuation,
spelling, and
/or
capitalization
errors.
Submission
demonstrates
a basic
understanding
of the
associated
learning
objectives
presented in
the
assignment.
Writing is
unclear and/or
disorganized in
some areas.
Assignment is
partially clear
and
understandable
to the reader.
Contains
several
punctuation,
spelling, and/or
capitalization
errors, but
does not inhibit
readability.
Submission
Demonstrates
a lack of
understanding
of some of
associated
learning
objectives
presented in
the
assignment.
Writing is
unclear and/or
disorganized in
most areas.
Assignment is
unclear and not
understandable
to the reader.
Contains many
and serious
intrusive errors
of punctuation,
spelling, and/or
capitalization
which partially
inhibit
readability.
Submission
follows
directions and
includes all
components
indicated in the
instructions. If
requested,
references are
included and
cited properly
according to APA.
No
formatting
errors.
Submission
follows
directions and
includes most
components
indicated in the
instructions. If
requested,
references are
included and
mostly cited
properly
according to APA.
Few
formatting
errors.
Submission
does not follow
all directions
and is missing
some
components
indicated in the
instructions. If
requested,
some
references are
included and
partially cited
properly
according to APA.
Several errors
in formatting,
or format is
inconsistent.
Submission
follows minimal
directions and
is missing
many
components
indicated in the
instructions. If
requested,
references are
not included
and/or not
properly
cited according to
APA. Errors in
formatting
interfere with
meaning.
Mechanics and
Readability of
Assignment
Weight: 15%
Structure and
Organization,
Format,
Presentation
Weight: 15%
Does Not Meet
Requirements
(0%)
Nothing
submitted.
Nothing
submitted.
Nothing
submitted.
Case Study Rubric
Case Analysis Formatting Template
Cover Page
Title
Your Full Name
Course & Section i.e., Mon/Wed.
Date
Situation Analysis
“Synopsis” – briefly summarize the case in your own words – No more than 2 pages
Environmental Analysis
SWOT Analysis – in bullet format
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Internal
External
Problem Statement
“WHY?” Keep it brief…no more than 20 words. Challenge yourself to be concise but brief. This should be
written as a statement not a question.
Development of Alternatives
Your alternatives are derived from your opportunities outlined in your SWOT. Number each alternative
and explain.
Evaluation of Alternatives & Recommendations
Evaluate each alternative using the pros and cons of each choice. Use outside sources to back up your
hypothesis. Select the best choice based on the company’s strengths and opportunities.
Recommendation
End this section with an overall recommendation/conclusion – no more than 1 paragraph.
Other pointers for working on your cases….
•
•
All cases are typed, contain a cover sheet, sections are labeled and are double spaced and
printed in a 12-point font. Don’t forget bullet points can help the reader to follow your points.
Bullets should be utilized in the SWOT analysis. Do NOT use paragraphs for this section.
Suggested Reading – Read the case at least 3 times. Yes, 3 times. If you only read it once, you
will only be able to detect surface problems.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment