Page 1 of 5 MKTG : Principles of Marketing Q1. Please look at the two ads for those small laundry pods you can throw in your washing machine. One ad is for Tide Pods, the other is a Spanish-language ad for Gain Flings. The Spanish-language ad was found in a recent issue of Vandades. Here is a rough translation of the ad: Top: “Scratch and Smell” “Trevor, a fan of Gain, tells us: “I love them!” I am so happy that they were created to preserve the unmistakable aroma of Gain.” “The new Gain detergent “flings” contain 50% more of this incredible aroma and are already available in stores. Tell us why you like them at #MusicaParaTuNariz and ilovegain.com/flings” Very bottom in small print: “Keep them away from kids, as you would with any detergent.” My translation might not be perfect. (My bad.) You get the main ideas. Now, please answer these three questions: A. Explain why value is such an important part of successful marketing. (Note: I am not asking for the definition of value.) B. Make the strongest case you can as to which of the two ads, Tide or Gain, communicates the greatest value. Please use ONLY the information in the ad. As part of your response, please include a “value graph” that supports your position. You can hand draw your graph. C. Needs and wants are easily confused. Please explain why it is important for a marketer to understand the difference between these terms. Use this product, laundry pods, to illustrate the differences between the terms. Q2. Please read carefully, the Wall Street Journal article, “Late to the Driverless Revolution.” After you have read the article, answer this one question: A. We know that marketing takes place in a dynamic environment. Illustrate the truth of that statement by using “The Al 5C model,” that we developed in class, to explain the rise of driverless cars. Use Google’s company Chauffeur (which became Waymo) as the focal company in your analysis. As part of your answer explain the importance of the 5C model to marketers. Be specific in your response and use only the information in the article. Q3. The question concerns the nonprofit organization, Black Girls Code. Please look at the Black Girls Code website, http://www.blackgirlscode.com/ Page 2 of 5 Spend some time carefully looking at all the tabs. Also take a look at this segment from Good Morning America, in which the founder, Kimberly Bryant, is interviewed: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/video/black-girls-code-founder-opens-breakingbarriers-tech-53258502. Using only this information, consider the following two questions: A. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation that Kimberly Bryant can use when new individuals become board members for Black Girls Code. Your PowerPoint should do the following two things: (1) Explain what marketing is in non-technical or non-academic language to a new board member and (2) explain the importance of marketing specifically to Black Girls Code. Your PowerPoint should be no longer that 10 slides. Your PowerPoint should be visually interesting and not cluttered with lots of words. Stay away from definitions. Make this PowerPoint your own. Please PRINT your PowerPoint three slides to a page and include it in the hard copy you hand in during class. B. Help Black Girls Code become a stronger organization by applying the Ansoff Matrix also known as the Product-Market Matrix to them. Explain not only the importance of the Product-Market Matrix to Black Girls Code, but also your reasoning for your suggestions in each of the matrix’s four quadrants. (Remember: I am not asking for a definition of the matrix. You can demonstrate excellence by having more than one suggestion in each quadrant of the matrix.) Exam Format Please format your paper using the following guidelines: • • • • • Use a cover page that has your name on it Do NOT put your name on any page after the first page. Double space your answers Submit your test as a Word document. No pdfs. Please left justify your paper. Your paper should look like this exam: Left justified only Due Date: October 8, 2018 A hard copy of your exam is due October 8 when class starts. Please also upload a copy of your exam through Canvas. Late exams will not be accepted. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THIS EXAM ✓ Marketing is all about thinking. Page 3 of 5 ✓ A college education is also about thinking – critical thinking. You can read a textbook and understand it. Therefore, this exam is by-and-large not about regurgitating facts. I am not looking for any definitions as answers to any question. ✓ Take home exams should challenge students to apply ideas, concepts and terms developed in class. ✓ Take home exams put the student in control of her/his answers. Answers therefore reflect not only how well a student understands the concepts but also how much effort a student is willing to give to develop full, complete answers. ✓ The exam is not an attempt to trick students. There are no trick questions. ✓ Unclear questions should be clarified by asking the teacher. This is a student responsibility. ✓ You should not do any additional online research to answer any question. Use only the information in the articles. Answers that will get the maximum marks: • • • • • • • Answer the question as asked. Are complete. Exceed the Intelligent-Thirteen-Year-Old Test – that is, that the answer is much, much better than an intelligent thirteen year old could give. Demonstrate depth of understanding of the appropriate marketing concepts, terms or ideas Show that the student has spent time and energy thinking about and writing up her/his response Are written in clear, easy-to-understand language. Are professional presented Further clarification of the above is as follows: A answers are great answers to the question asked. An A answer is complete, intelligent, shows depth of understanding, is creative and is expressed in clear, easy-to-understand language that is free of grammatical mistakes. An A answer shows that the writer spent time and effort thinking beyond the obvious. B answers are good answers: they show a good level of understanding, have many key points and are generally well written, but may have some grammatical problems. Page 4 of 5 C’s represent okay answers; these are just ordinary answers; the response is nothing special, mimics lecture notes or text narratives in its response, lacks any great insight and may have serious grammatical mistakes. D answers are just barely passable. They are short, brief, and simple in their observations. D answers parrot back textbook information and lecture notes without further interpretation and are superficial. D answers can have serious grammatical errors that significantly interfere with reader understanding. F. Answers that do not answer the question asked, no matter how long and detailed, are F answers. Writing Writing is an essential business skill. Clear writing means clear communication. Clear communication means that the reader can easily understand the points you are trying to make. Clear communication, then, is the foundation for any intelligent, meaningful discussion/conversation. I also believe that clear writing is a distinctive feature of Dominican University graduates. It can be used as a competitive advantage to differentiate you from other college graduates. Thus, I would like to support and encourage clear, effective writing in our course and in this assignment. Please consider the following two options in light of this. Option 1: Submit your exam for grammatical review before final submission. I would strongly suggest that you use the Academic Writing Center. The Writing Center is the designated place, here at Dominican, dedicated solely to helping students with their writing. If you use the Writing Center, please attach your corrected first draft to the final paper you submit. If there is a problem using the Writing Center (scheduling conflicts, etc.), you may have someone else who has a professional, respected knowledge of grammar, sentence structure and correct English usage review your paper. Examples of such individuals are a member of the English faculty here at Dominican or a friend who is a professional journalist. Please attach the corrected first draft to the final paper as well. Option 2: Don’t submit your exam for grammatical review before final submission. A student may believe or know that their writing meets the requirements for clear, effective communication. Students in this category may choose to submit this exam without any external, grammatical review. For these students, I will read the exam until the fifth, major, grammatical mistake. The exam will be graded based upon the paper’s ability to meet the assignment’s objectives up to that point. Major grammatical mistakes are sentence fragments, noun-verb disagreements, run-on sentences and sentences that are so poorly written as to make clear, easy communication impossible. Page 5 of 5 Citation Please cite in your answer any direct quotes that you use. Direct quotes may come from our lectures, lectures you heard in another class, our textbook, a textbook you read in another class, the articles connected with this exam. Make sure you cite your work. Plagiarism Plagiarism is using the ideas and/or writings of another and claiming them as one's own. Plagiarism is most often thought of copying, word for word, what someone else has written and passing it off as one's own. Plagiarism is also the very similar copying of someone else's words and/or ideas without attribution. Thus, it is still plagiarism if two sentences, two paragraphs, or two papers appear to be almost similar even though there are some differences. Plagiarism is best avoided by carefully acknowledging the sources of one's words and/or ideas. Student work found to be plagiarized will be given an F. DOW JONES, A NEWS CORP COMPANY DJIA 25964.82 -0.09% ▼ S&P 500 2901.52 0.01% ▲ Nasdaq 8109.54 0.26% ▲ U.S. 10 Yr -1 32 Yield 2.860% ▼ This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com. https://www.wsj.com/articles/late-to-the-driverless-revolution-1534520404 THE SATURDAY ESSAY Late to the Driverless Revolution America’s car industry dismissed the potential of autonomous driving for years as tech companies plunged ahead. Now Detroit is racing to catch up. ILLUSTRATION: PETER AND MARIA HOEY By Lawrence D. Burns Aug. 17, 2018 11 40 a.m. ET Early in 2011, two top engineers for Google traveled together to Detroit on what amounted to a diplomatic mission. They had just spent 18 months on a top-secret project called Chauffeur: the development of a car that could drive itself over 10 different 100-mile routes on public roads. Now they were looking for a partner to carry the project forward. “The idea was, if you’re going to make self-driving cars, you have to work with a car company,” recalls Chris Urmson, who made the trip with fellow engineer Anthony Levandowski. “Maybe they’ll sell us cars to build a fleet. Maybe we’re going to be retrofitting our stuff onto their cars to sell.” But they couldn’t find any takers. In meetings with a prime parts supplier to the car makers and then with the senior leadership of a major auto company, the pair gave presentations on their vehicle’s capabilities, the number of miles it had driven and the broad strokes of how their selfdriving software saw the road. The reaction, they say, was utter disinterest—and dismay that they were experimenting on public roads rather than on a test track. “Self-driving technology didn’t make sense to them,” Mr. Urmson says. “And it seemed so far out of the playbook that it wasn’t even addressable.” As they headed back to the airport, Mr. Urmson said to his partner, “Well, I guess we’re not working with those guys.” Today, self-driving technology is spurring Detroit’s biggest deals. The SoftBank Vision Fund announced plans this spring to invest $2.25 billion in GM’s self-driving subsidiary, Cruise Automation—with GM committing another $1.1 billion of its own money. In July, Ford announced plans to invest $4 billion in its own autonomous car startup. This month, Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak speculated that the company born in late 2016 from Google’s selfdriving car team, known as Waymo, could be worth $175 billion—40% more than the combined market capitalization of GM, Ford and Fiat-Chrysler . Autonomous technology is so hot today that it’s easy to forget Detroit’s initial resistance. Why was the center of the American car industry so dismissive back in 2011, and how did it come around to the fast-approaching revolution in car travel? Crude Oil 70.14 0.49% ▲ When I joined Chauffeur as a consultant at the beginning of 2011, I became the team’s first insider with experience as a car-company executive. Chauffeur was trying to reinvent the auto industry, something I’d been trying to do in my own way as the chief of research and development at General Motors for a decade, including work on autonomous vehicles. The closest we got during my tenure at GM was a joint project developing a two-person autonomous pod with Doug Field, then of Segway (and now making news for his leap from Tesla to Apple’s autonomous car project). Our prototype made its debut the week after GM CEO Rick Wagoner’s 2009 resignation and left little public mark as my employer lurched toward bankruptcy. ‘Many on the Google self-driving team believed that Henry Ford was a remarkable innovator but that somewhere along the line, that spirit had withered in Detroit. ’ Amid the worst recession that the auto makers had ever faced, I understood why they would steer clear of ushering in a technology poised to make them irrelevant. But the deeper reason the auto companies were late to the revolution is that they mistakenly believed that their business was manufacturing and selling cars. They failed to see that their success had always been based on something more fundamental: helping people to get from one place to another. Auto executives initially dismissed self-driving cars in part because they didn’t understand the full potential of digital technology. But it was also because they were primarily focused on delivering attractive vehicles to dealer showrooms rather than on providing compelling transportation experiences to customers. Detroit was held captive by a century-old business model. The disconnect on autonomous cars was not only the fault of the auto industry. Early on, I was struck by the disregard the Chauffeur team displayed toward Detroit. Chauffeur’s engineers asked me about Detroit’s product development cycles. When I told them that auto companies typically took around three years to develop a new car, they were astonished. Three years? What on earth took so long? The engineers’ general attitude was that the auto companies were lazy, out of touch. They didn’t know how to do innovation—at least, not the kind that might spur social disruption, the kind in which Silicon Valley liked to think it specialized. Many on Chauffeur’s team believed that Henry Ford was a remarkable innovator but that somewhere along the line, that spirit had withered in Detroit. Google’s Waymo spino tested Fire ly, an electric self-driving vehicle it developed for autonomous on-demand ridesharing, after engineers’ initial foray to work with car makers was rebu ed. PHOTO: WAYMO The low point in the mutual aversion between Silicon Valley and Detroit came more than a year after Mr. Urmson and Mr. Levandowski’s failed trip, when Mr. Urmson invited a senior GM representative to come out to Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. to take a ride in one of Chauffeur’s self-driving vehicles. The executive spent the ride sharing his negative take on the experience. “I’m sorry,” said the guy, according to Mr. Urmson. “But I just don’t get the point. “ Things began to change with the next stage of development, the combination of driverless tech with another new disruption: on-demand ridesharing services. Mr. Urmson initially revealed the idea for a new concept vehicle called Firefly at an all-hands Chauffeur meeting in December 2012. Ridesharing was a hot trend in tech investing that year. An entrepreneur named Sunil Paul had begun arranging rides in San Francisco via a mobile app called Sidecar, spurring a pair of mobility entrepreneurs named Logan Green and John Zimmer to roll out their own anyone-toanyone ride-sharing app, which they referred to as Lyft. Uber followed soon after with UberX. Chauffeur’s chief engineer told the team that he wanted to pursue on-demand mobility as a business model—essentially, a driverless version of Uber or Lyft. To do that, Mr. Urmson wanted Chauffeur to design a vehicle for the express use of ride-sharing services. He envisioned a world of driverless taxis zipping about cities, picking up passengers, providing rides, then setting off on the next call—what was referred to inside Chauffeur as “transportation as a service.” ‘When conversation turned to the placement and feel of traditional car components in an autonomous car, the team made a radical decision: no steering wheel. ’ I was thrilled with Mr. Urmson’s new project. Research that I had recently led at Columbia University and presented to Chauffeur concluded that this new model could provide mobility experiences better than personal car ownership. The point-to-point travel would be just as fast while allowing riders to forget about inconveniences such as finding a parking space and refueling. Our analysis later showed that the new business could do all that while saving people most of what they paid for trips in gas-powered, personally owned vehicles, costing them just 20 cents a mile on average compared with a 65-cent average for drives today. (Other studies have found similar costs and savings.) This didn’t even count another 85 cents’ worth per mile of productive time lost while driving, which they could use for other things while traveling as passengers. If just 10% of driving were diverted to this model, the analysis suggested, it could save on the order of $150 billion a year in operating costs and about another $250 billion in lost driver productivity. The new project set Chauffeur on a fascinating design exercise. What should a driverless vehicle built expressly for the new mobility services look like? The Firefly designers came up with a simple, clean and fun aesthetic. Because Mr. Urmson hoped it would liberate transportation for those who couldn’t drive—the elderly or disabled, for example—the vehicle needed to be easy to enter and exit. To achieve that, the floor would be flat and not too far from the ground. When the conversation turned to the placement and feel of traditional car components, the team made a radical decision: no steering wheel. Why did the Google mobility pod need one? In May 2014, Sergey Brin unveiled Firefly publicly. By October, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick realized how urgent it was for Uber to develop its own strategy, according to court documents from this year’s trade-secrets lawsuit between Uber and the Google spinoff Waymo, where I remain a consultant. Mr. Kalanick knew that a ridesharing business that operated driverlessly could provide its services for much less than a human-operated rival; the human driver accounted for a reported 70% to 90% of Uber’s cost per mile. Google had earlier invested $258 million in Uber and placed its chief legal officer, David Drummond, on Uber’s board of directors. After a board meeting, according to Mr. Kalanick, Mr. Drummond told him that Google was intending to compete with Uber in the ride-sharing space, and they agreed that he should recuse himself from the Uber board. Soon after, Mr. Kalanick assigned his chief product officer, Jeff Holden, to develop Uber’s selfdriving capability—to basically create the ride-sharing giant’s own version of the Chauffeur project—and as quickly as possible. ‘I believe we’ll see more change in the automotive industry in the next five to ten years than in the past fi y. ’ —General Motors CEO Mary Barra in 2015 Mr. Holden identified the world’s single greatest concentration of self-driving brainpower outside of Mountain View: Carnegie Mellon University’s National Robotics Engineering Center in Pittsburgh, Mr. Urmson’s onetime employer. According to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, Uber offered compensation packages that included signing bonuses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and salaries at least double what the scientists and engineers had made at NREC. All told, 40 NREC staff would leave. Uber essentially gutted the place. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” marveled one Carnegie Mellon observer. “People have been complaining for years that no one understands how important this technology is. Then Uber came in and people were like, ‘Wow, this thing is real.’” Uber’s mass hiring of NREC’s self-driving talent created an enormous amount of discussion in the auto industry. News stories about the deal pinged around the email accounts of Detroit executives. The move amounted to a high-stakes endorsement of self-driving technology, and it triggered a stampede in the industry. Uber would soon become more valuable than General Motors. Google was one of the world’s most valuable companies (there were quarters when it could have bought GM outright with its cash reserves). The fact that they were both gunning hard to provide driverless mobility finally helped to convince the auto industry that it had to get serious about autonomous cars. Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn announced plans to sell ten new autonomous vehicles before 2020. Toyota’s Akio Toyoda, who had long opposed the technology, announced a plan to invest a billion dollars to start a 200-researcher artificial intelligence lab in Silicon Valley and promised to have vehicles driving themselves on highways by 2020. Google hired John Krafcik, former president of Hyundai Motor America, to head its Waymo spino , an important move in bringing together Silicon Valley and Detroit expertise. PHOTO: DAVID PAUL MORRIS BLOOMBERG NEWS Perhaps the biggest and most startling about-face came from GM. “I believe we’ll see more change in the automotive industry in the next five to ten years than in the past fifty,” said GM CEO Mary Barra in a December 2015 essay published on LinkedIn. “I have committed that we will lead the transformation of our industry.” The essay’s headline proclaimed 2016 as “the year Detroit takes on Silicon Valley.” The next month, the company invested $500 million in the ride-hailing company Lyft. It launched a Zipcar competitor, Maven. And that March, GM announced its purchase, for $581 million plus incentives, of a forty-employee Silicon Valley startup called Cruise Automation, which had begun its self-driving development more than four years after the founding of Google’s self-driving car project. As for Waymo, the company retired its groundbreaking Firefly last summer to focus on what it had set out to explore in the first place: installing software for autonomous driving in car makers’ mass-produced vehicles. This spring, it signed agreements for such projects with Fiat Chrysler and Tata Motors’ Jaguar brand. For years, the technologists working on self-driving cars were frustrated that society at large and the auto industry in particular were either unwilling or unable to understand what was possible. Few of us feel that way today. This last decade has been a learning process for everyone. We’ve all grown and changed our minds about how the new technology will develop. And the learning has happened on all sides. Detroit has been forced to become more receptive to new ideas. Silicon Valley has come to recognize that innovation, particularly the world- changing kind, is a difficult thing to hurry. MORE SATURDAY ESSAYS It requires great leaps of deduction, constancy of purpose and the discipline to The Impeached President August 31, 2018 let ideas mature until they’re ready for the The Liberty of Nations August 24, 2018 public. In Orban’s Hungary, a Glimpse of Europe’s Demise August 9, 2018 The Way We Read Now August 3, 2018 One of the most important decisions on Chauffeur’s road to commercialization was who to select to run the company. To fill the CEO position, Larry Page and Sergey Brin tapped former Hyundai Motor America president John Krafcik. The hiring of an auto executive to lead the company that would become Waymo was a remarkable moment in the history of self-driving cars. The Chauffeur team had long been untroubled by its lack of auto industry experience. In many instances, ignorance of the way Detroit did things was considered an asset. But Mr. Krafcik was an auto industry guy, and his installment as Waymo’s leader was, to my mind, the first acknowledgment that this quest didn’t have to pit Silicon Valley against Detroit—that both sides had expertise to contribute to bringing about the great disruption ahead in mobility. Mr. Krafcik’s hiring was a savvy concession on the part of Google’s founders that maybe, just maybe, the two sides needed one another. —This is adapted from Mr. Burns’s book “Autonomy: The Quest To Build The Driverless Car— And How It Will Reshape Our World,” co-authored with Christopher Shulgan. It will be published Aug. 28 by Ecco. Appeared in the August 18, 2018, print edition as 'Late to the Driverless Revolution Detroit’s Driverless Turnaround.' Copyright ©2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com.