O’Brien Candy Company is a hypothetical medium-size candy company located in Manitoba. In the past two years, its sales and profits have barely held their own. Top management feels that the trouble lies with the sales force, that they don’t “work hard or smart enough.” To correct the problem, management plans to introduce a new incentive-compensation system and hire a trainer to train the sales force in modern merchandising and selling techniques. Before doing this, however, they decided to hire a marketing consultant to carry out a marketing audit. The auditor interviews managers, customers, sales representatives, and dealers and examines various sets of data. The auditor’s findings are as follows: The company’s product line consists of primarily 18 products, mostly candy bars. Its two leading brands are mature and account for 76% of the company’s total sales. The company has looked at the fast-developing markets of chocolate snacks but has not made any move yet. The company recently researched its customer profile. Its products appeal especially to lower-income and older people. Respondents who were asked to assess O’Brien’s chocolate products in relation to competitors’ products described them as “average quality and old-fashioned.” O’Brien sells its products to candy jobbers and large supermarkets. Its sales force calls on many of the small retailers reached by the candy jobbers, to fortify displays and provide ideas; its sales force also calls on many small retailers not covered by jobbers. O’Brien enjoys good penetration of small retailing, though not in all segments, “sell-in” strategy including discounts, exclusive contracts, and stock financing. At the same time, O’Brien has not adequately penetrated the mass-merchandise chains. Its competitors rely more heavily on mass-consumer advertising and in-store merchandising and are more successful with the mass merchandisers. O’Brien’s marketing budget is set at 15 % of its total sales, compared with competitors’ budgets of close to 20 %. Most of the marketing budget supports the sales force, and the remainder supports advertising. Consumer promotions are very limited. The advertising budget is spent primarily in reminder advertising for the company’s two leading products. New products are not developed very often, and when they are, they are introduced to retailers via a push strategy. A sales vice-president heads the marketing organization. Reporting to the sales VP is the sales manager, the market research manager, and the advertising manager. Having come up from the ranks, the sales VP is partial to sales force activities and pays less attention to the other marketing functions. The sales force is assigned to territories headed by area managers. The marketing auditor concluded that O’Brien’s problems would not be solved by actions taken to improve its sales force. Discussion Topic As the company auditor, list and discuss three (3) short-term and three (3) long-term recommendations you would make to O’Brien’s top management.
As per the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (n.d.) (UNFCCC), environmental change is an unpredictable issue. It touches all parts of our lives, be it natural or our extremely reason in this world. We have to teach each other on the effects of environmental change internationally. The focal point of this ecological issue as concurred by everybody is the need to diminish outflows. In 2010, the nations in the UNFCCC had achieved an agreement that the ozone depleting substance (GHG) emanations must be decreased and overseen such that worldwide temperature does not perceive any climb by in excess of 2 degrees Celsius. Plainly an Earth-wide temperature boost is a difficult issue. The American open and whatever remains of the world saw Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'. So for what reason did the US neglect to enact an arrangement on environmental change? As indicated by Skjaerseth, Bang and Schreurs, (2013), there are three conceivable clarifications on this issue, to be specific, contrasts in plan setting benefits, potential for issue linkages and law-production systems and formal authority. Motivation setting benefits allude to the setup of officials in the US. The officials need to tip the harmony between advancing a motivation for more prominent great in light of a legitimate concern for the voting public and getting a re-decision. Issue linkages basically include a joint transaction of at least two issues where it is trusted that linkages can enhance the possibility of an assention. In conclusion, the law-production systems, these are the political foundation settings. The American setting is to such an extent that the bill supports or the pioneers who champion the strategy proposition need to exchange off standards, methodology and standards in the assembly with the home state financial aspects, keeping in mind the end goal to touch base at a triumphant coalition. The US Senate is spoken to by states which have diverse interests independently. For example, coal, rural and fabricating states are normally against carbon estimating as it adds to their generation costs. One may entice to denounce the US as unadulterated egotistical for not acting in purposeful push to stem an unnatural weather change. The US is the world's biggest ozone depleting substance (GHG) producer but then it declined to join the multilateral exertion of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). 191 nations and the European Union marked the KP participation to reduce the normal worldwide temperature climbs and the weighty change in worldwide atmosphere. The created part nations of the KP are will undoubtedly accomplish an objective in outflow decrease in the KP's first duty period began in 2008 and finished in 2012. In December 2012, the Doha Amendment to the KP was embraced which propelled a moment duty period, beginning on 1 January 2013 until 2020. KP was administered by the UNFCCC, see UNFCCC (1997). In light of the larger amount of GHG emanations are caused by the created nations, the KP is accordingly authoritative on these nations to accomplish those set target. The created nations have added to more GHGs in the climate since they have experienced over 150 years of industrialisation, subsequently the heavier weight. Why was the US unfit to grasp multilateralism? Multilateralism can be characterized as the act of planning national approaches in gatherings of at least three states, through impromptu courses of action or by methods for foundations (Keohane, 1990). Since the beginning of the KP, the European Union (EU) has been fruitful in administering KP in its part states. As per Skjaerseth, Bang and Schreurs, (2013), the EU, in December 2008, has passed a complete enactment on the 20-20-20 targets. They required a 20% lessening in ozone harming substance outflow, a 20% expansion in the offer of sustainable power sources in general vitality utilization and a 20% cut in essential vitality utilization. So for what reason didn't the United States turn into a gathering to the KP? US President Bill Clinton marked the 1997 KP however never submitted it for Senate thought. This case of a disappointment by the US to sanction a natural arrangement isn't excellent. The US Department of State (n.d's.) site announced of numerous major multilateral ecological assentions that had neglected to accomplish endorsement from the Senate. As per Hovi et.al. (2010), the way the KP was planned, it stood no way of getting any confirmation from US Senate. In 1997, five months previously the KP meeting, the Senate passed the Byrd– Hagel determination (Byrd– Hagel). In 2001, President Bush resounded the estimations of Byrd– Hagel: 'I restrict the Kyoto Protocol since it exempts 80% of the world, including significant populace focuses, for example, China and India, from consistence, and would make genuine mischief the US economy. What might it take for the US to play a part in the worldwide administration of environmental change? It has after all made itself the world's policeman in some war-torn zones. It had arranged reactions to issues that influence in excess of one nation. So obviously, the US has no doubt in grasping worldwide administration at that point. Presently, what might it take for the US to change its psyche on joining KP in its second responsibility period? Will it enter the shred if creating nations like China and India join? Or on the other hand does it take a universal ban on these major GHGs to decrease their carbon impressions? Hovi and Skodvin (2008) presumes that any endeavors to look for the US to join with the successor of the KP are probably going to come up short. One fundamental reason is that the US can't be undermined to sign on any exchange or innovation participation as the danger would simply be incredible. A typical approach by the U.S. is "to act first at home and after that to expand on it at a worldwide level", see Purvis (2004). So as opposed to confronting the isolated government and up and coming decisions, the US administrators can center around its own particular inside natural administration. This government atmosphere arrangement can emulate the KP's necessity that is to lessen the GHG discharges to 7% beneath 1990. Effective arrangements were executed across the country on the sustainable power source. While others conceded to top and-exchange framework went for diminishing carbon dioxide discharge from control plants. Along these lines, maybe the American open would be more disposed to push for the US' part in worldwide level. The way to the achievement of the execution of the KP lies on its compelling consistence responsibility by the part nations. In this manner the world pioneers need to meet up and choose if standing up to the issue of a worldwide temperature alteration is surely a need. In the event that they are stressed over the loss of financial negotiating tools, the same can be said in regards to the potential from making sustainable power sources and making them accessible to the world. So KP is a brilliant stage for the world groups to set out on this green mission to save planet earth.>GET ANSWER