The University of Texas at Dallas

Global Leadership Executive MBA Program

International Marketing Management (IMS 6310)

April 18- June 8, 2008

Instructors

Dr. Johny K Johansson, Email : Blackboard

Phone : (202) 687.3763
Fax : (202) 687.4031

Dr. Jonathan Hochberg, Email : Blackboard

Phone : (972) 883.6462
Fax : (972) 883.6164

Course Objectives

This course deals with the application of advanced marketing management concepts
and tools in global markets. The perspective is that of a marketing decision maker
whose firm has established presence in several foreign markets. The course downplays
the issues of “country choice” and “foreign entry” covered in Multinational Firm. The
focus is on local marketing in different country markets and coordinated
management of marketing across existing country markets.

The aim of the course is to help develop students’ ability to solve marketing problems
and at the same time handle the complex coordination problems and subtle cultural
issues facing the global marketer. It extends existing marketing principles and tools to
the global arena. It offers a comprehensive and robust framework within which a
number of practical foreign market problems can be analyzed and solved.

To build the framework, the course draws on the concepts introduced in Global
Economy, and the organizational issues explored in Multinational Firm. The course will
allow students to apply and extend the acquired know-how to analyze dynamic
marketing situations.

Learning Outcomes

• Students will be able to solve marketing problems and at the same time handle the
complex coordination problems and subtle cultural issues facing the global marketer.
• Students will learn how to extend existing marketing principles and tools to the
global arena
• Students will learn how to build a comprehensive and robust framework within which
a number of practical foreign market problems can be analyzed and solved.
Resources

• Text: Global Marketing: Foreign Entry, Local Marketing, Global Management,

4th ed. Johansson, Johny K., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2006.

• Cases: Cleopatra : in textbook (pp. 341-351)

Dell in China : PDF
Heineken : PDF
Samsung PDF
Ericsson : PDF

• Power Point Slides: Power point slides, which follow the textbook, are posted on
the GLEMBA program website. Supplemental slides may
also be included.

• Audio Lectures: Audio lectures accompany the Power Point slides and are
intended to create a framework for reading and case analysis.

Evaluation and Grading Rubric

For grading, specific course assignments will be weighted as follows:

• Cleopatra --- individually written case 20%

• Dell in China --- team written case and Web Conference 15%
• Heineken --- individually written case 20%
• Samsung --- team written case and Web Conference 15%
• Ericsson --- final exam case 30%
100%

Individual Written Assignments (Cleopatra, Heineken, and Ericsson) 70%

Evaluation of written assignments and project papers will be based on thoughtful,

analytical, well-constructed responses demonstrating knowledge of the topic by citing
examples of the key concepts present in the readings or cases.

• A ---Excellent: Understanding of all key issues; no important analytical errors

or omissions; concise, very well written and organized, makes appropriate
use of charts and tables.
• B---Good: Understanding of most issues; only a few important issues not
discussed; few analytical errors; well-written and well-organized, makes
appropriate use of charts and tables.
• C---Adequate: Understanding of many issues, but not all important aspects
covered; various analytical errors; excessive case recitation unsupported by
 analysis; poorly written or organized, makes inappropriate use of charts and
table

Team Web Conference Presentation and written report (Dell and Samsung) 30%

Evaluation of Web Conference preparation and presentation (PowerPoint slides) will be

based on clear, concise presentation of answers to questions assigned to teams.
Responses should demonstrate knowledge of the topic, key concepts and references to
text, readings or other sources. During the discussion each team is expected to add
value by questioning, exploring or challenging at least one other team’s presentation.

• A --- Excellent analysis and presentation --- Clear and concise answer to the
question and provides one or more key concepts or evidence from the text,
readings or other outside sources to support presentation. Immediately and
effectively responds to questions, provide on specific answers and defend
points made if challenged by other team members. Presentation slides are
clear, concise and well-organized. During Web Conference, team members
ask questions or provide evidence that adds value to the other team’s
presentation or topic.
• B---Good analysis and presentation: Clearly answers the question and
provides at least one key concept or supporting evidence from the text or
readings to support presentation. Responds to questions with an answer,
which clarify or defend points made by others. Presentation slides address
key information and are generally organized to support presentation. Team
members ask questions or provide evidence that adds some value to the
other team’s presentation or topic.
• C---Adequate: Answers the question, but provides no key concepts or
evidence from the text, readings or other outside sources to support
presentation. Presentation slides do not wholly support the presentation.
Team members respond to questions generally and provide adequate
answers, which may or may not add clarity or defend points made by others.
Members do not ask questions or provide evidence that adds value to the
other team’s presentation or topic.

Discussion Forum Participation

Students are expected to post responses that reflect content knowledge, analytical skills
and add value to the discussion topic. Grades for discussions forum participation will be
based on quality of response.
• A: Excellent contribution --- Clear and helpful in furthering of the discussion
• B: Good contributions --- Generally addresses key points and issues
• C: Acceptable contribution --- Not clear, some error or misunderstanding

Assignment:
The reading material is interspersed by cases to provide realism in the learning and
application of principles. The assignments are case based. Each case has a set of
questions which are listed below on the syllabus, as well as posted in the Assignments
subfolder on Blackboard.

Case questions are prepared for either written or oral discussion or both and may be
either an individual or team assignment.

Format for Written Assignments

Written assignments should be Word documents (no html formats) that are:
• Double-spaced, 12 pt. Arial or Times New Roman font
• Citations properly formatted in MLA style
• Clearly identified by author or team
o For an individual assignment, the student name needs to be on the first
page of the document AND as part of the document name.i.e.
JonesAOL.doc when it is submitted.
o For a team assignment, the team number and names of team participants
on the first page AND the team number as part of the document name i.e.
Team2Neilson.doc when it is posted
o There is no need for a separate cover pages

Submission
Assignments should be posted on Blackboard (Bb) within the course area by the due
date:
ƒ Team assignments are posted File Exchange under your team’s Group Pages
ƒ Individual assignments are submitted to the Digital Drop Box under Tools tab.
Be sure to use the SEND command to submit to the Drop Box. Do not use ADD
command to post.

Late Assignments
If you need to miss an assignment deadline, you must pre-notify the instructor and
course manager before the deadline. You should provide the reason for missing the
deadline and an alternative date for submitting the assignment. The instructor and
course manager must approve the extension and the new deadline. If you do not pre-
notify the instructor, the instructor may determine the appropriate grade deduction for
the assignment.

Evaluations:

Peer Evaluation
Unless otherwise specified by the instructor, students need to complete a peer
evaluation for each team assignment; the peer evaluation is an electronic document
whose link is located on Blackboard (Bb) in the course area under the Information
button. Students allocate 100 points among the team members to reflect the level of
contribution made by each team member on a specific assignment.
Course Evaluation
The completion of a course evaluation is a course requirement. Students need to
complete a course evaluation form which is an electronic document whose link is
located on Blackboard (Bb) in the course area under the Information button. Students
who do not submit a course evaluation by the due date will receive an incomplete grade
for the course.

UTD Policy on Cheating:

Students are expected to be above reproach in all scholastic activities. Students who
engage in scholastic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the
possibility of failure in the course and dismissal from the university. "Scholastic
dishonesty includes but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, collusion, the submission
for credit of any work or materials that are attributable in whole or in part to another
person, taking an examination for another person, any act designed to give unfair
advantage to a student or the attempt to commit such acts." Regents' Rules and
Regulations, Part One, Chapter VI, Section 3, Subsection 3.2, Subdivision 3.22.
Professors randomly use “Turnitin.com” to screen papers against other published work
on the web to insure against plagiarism.

SCHEDULE

Date & Time : Saturday, April 19, 8:30 am – 12 noon

Course Introduction and Syllabus Overview
Basic Marketing Concepts, Globalizing Marketing & Global
Expansion
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 1 on Blackboard
Readings : Read chapters 1 and 2 for basic concepts.
Skim pages 125-135 in Ch.5, and pages 172-174 in Ch.6.

Discussion case: Illycaffe (B): The Starbucks Threat (text, pages 189-191)

Questions: See end of case, p.191.

Week 1 : Cultural Foundations & Cultural Market Effects

Dates : April 21 – April 27.
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 2 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapter 3., plus pages 203-210 in Ch.7, and pages 273-83 in Ch.9.
Week 2 : Buyer Decision Processes & Market Research
Dates : April 28 – May 4
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 3 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapter 7, Ch.8 (pp.235-242), Ch.9 (pp.267-283), Ch. 10 (pp.295-
300).

Assignment: Individually written case – Colgate-Palmolive: Cleopatra in

Quebec? (in text, pp.341- 351).
Due date : May 4

Week 3 : Global Products & Global Brands

Dates : May 5 – May 11
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 4 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapter 12 (skim ch.11).

Week 4 : Global Services, Global Pricing and Distribution

Dates : May 12 – May 18
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 5 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapter 13, Ch.14 (pages 447-449, 460-464) and Ch.15 (478-494).

Assignment : Team written case – Dell Selling Directly, Globally (aka Dell in
China (hard copy)
Due date : May 16 (by 6:00pm)

Web Conference: Dell Case Discussion

Web Conference Date: Saturday May 17, 8:30 am CST
Peer Evaluation Due: May 19

Week 5 : Global Promotion (including Advertising)

Dates : May 19 – May 25
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 6 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapters 16 & 17

Assignment: Individually written case – Heineken N.V.: Global Branding and

Advertising (Hard copy)
Due date : May 25

Week 6 : Organizing for Global Marketing & Wrap-up

Dates : May 26 – June 1
Lecture : Power Point Slides and Audio Session 7 on Blackboard
Readings : Chapter 18.

Assignment : Team written case – Samsung: Global Marketing Operations

(Hard copy)
Due date : May 30 (by 6:00pm)

Web Conference: Samsung Case Discussion

Web Conference Date: Saturday May 31, 8:30 am CST
Peer Evaluation Due: June 2

Week 7 : Final Exam

Dates : June 2 – June 8

Assignment : Individually written Case Final

Ericsson's Global Brand Campaign (hard copy).

Due date : June 8

Course Evaluation Due: June 9

Additional Information:

CASE QUESTIONS

CASE 1: Individually written

Cleopatra in Quebec (in textbook, pp.341-351).

Focal issue : Standardization vs. Adaptation to local culture

The Cleopatra case shows how expansion into a culturally similar but
competitive market may or may not prove successful depending on the
 degree of adaptation needed. The case shows the market research
before and after launch, and also describes in depth the competitive
situation in Quebec’s soap market.

Questions : See end of case, p.351.

CASE 2: Team written case and Web Conference

Dell in China (hard copy)

Focal issue : Distribution channels in China

The Dell case deals with the company’s entry into China. In the Web
Conference discussion we will attempt to answer the questions at the end
of the case, and what has happened to their market share after entry. For
the write-up, however, I want you to concentrate on the following
questions:

Questions :

1. (This question does not involve China but is about Dell’s direct sales
model). What are the functions that need to be carried out in the
distribution of PCs? How are these distribution functions carried out in
Dell’s direct channel? What are the advantages and disadvantages of
Dell’s approach compared of the indirect approach?

2. How attractive is the China market for PCs (size, growth, competitive
situation, regulations etc.)? What are the differences between the
office market and the home market?

3. In general, is Dell's model more or less mobile than indirect

distribution? Explain. To what extent does China offer middlemen and
infrastructure for the indirect distribution? For Dell's direct model?

4. Why would (or wouldn't) Dell's approach be particularly useful in

China? What has Dell already done to ensure that its direct model can
be transferred successfully into China? How should Dell change the
direct model further to be more successful in China?
CASE 3: Individually written case

Heineken N.V.: Global Branding and Advertising (Hard copy)

Focal issue : How companies build global brands

The Heineken case is focused on the development of a global advertising

strategy positioning the brand around “taste” and “friendship.” The issues
involve questions of whether segments are the same in each country,
whether the same positioning everywhere is the best strategy and what
advertising appeal would be most useful.

Questions:

1. Exhibit 1 shows where different country markets are. Please compare

and contrast this diagram to the typical product life cycle (PLC). Then
explain why there is “High local customer loyalty” in the embryonic stage.
What is the meaning of “Development of standard beer” in the take-off
stage?

2. How would you describe the target segment(s) for Heineken at home
and abroad? Why are they not the same in all countries? Is this a problem
for a global branding strategy? Why, why not?

3. Evaluate and compare critically the two research reports. What do they
suggest about how Heineken can differentiate and position its brand?
Even if the target segments are different, should Heineken still be
positioned the same in each country market?

4. Would you advocate a global branding strategy? Why, why not? What
advertising appeal(s) would you use to position Heineken as a global
brand?

CASE 4: Team written case and Web Conference

Samsung: Global Marketing Operations (Hard copy)

The Samsung case shows how a commodity manufacturer can

successfully globalize its marketing operations and develop a premium
brand. The case demonstrates the difficulties in weaning the organization
from a manufacturing mindset to a more market-oriented philosophy.
Questions:

1. What is the role of a brand for a technology consumer product? What is Samsung
trying to accomplish with the new market-oriented emphasis? Given its traditional
manufacturing emphasis, how realistic is the new direction? What are the risks involved
in changing the direction?

2. What is the rationale behind the hiring of Eric Kim? What resources are needed to
apply a program such as the M-Net? How did Kim use the M-Net program? What was
the role of the M-Net program in implementing the new direction?

3. Evaluate the “DigitAll” campaign in the case (media and copy, product placement).
Discuss how it combined emotion and Samsung FSAs. In what ways did the promotion
help to move the Samsung image from a Korean manufacturer to a global brand? After
the promotion, what is now the Samsung image? To what extent does this promotion
explain how Samsung managed to climb so high in Buisness Week’s annual brand
ranking?

4. For further international expansion, the case suggests there are three kinds of
market positions for Samsung: Accelerator, Turning point, and Advanced. Which
country markets fall where? How do the branding objectives differ between these
markets? Judging from the data on consumers, how should Samsung proceed with
products and promotions in each of the three different markets?

CASE 5: Final Case, individually written

Ericsson's Global Brand Campaign (hard copy)

Focal issue : How companies build global brands

The Ericsson case shows how a B2B focused technology company has
attempted to use promotion and a common theme to develop a unified
global brand vision among customers and employees.

Questions:

1. What are (in 1997) Ericsson’s FSAs? CSAs? Image? Compare Ericsson to
Samsung at about the same time (from the Samsung case) - differences, similarities?
Why does Ericsson need a global brand?

2. Judging from the initial market research in the Ericsson case, what are the target
segments for the campaign? Compare the segmentation research by Ericsson with the
segmentation research in the Samsung case (Exhibit 12A-C). Can you explain why
they seem so different (note: Ericsson’s research was done in 1997, Samsung’s
research is from 2000)?

3. The pre-test reports are positive for the Ericsson ads, but how acceptable do you
think the campaign theme "Make Yourself Heard" is across the audience segments?
Across cultures? Compare and contrast the advertising campaign by Young &
Rubicam for Ericsson with the DigitAll advertising campaign by FCB for Samsung.
Explain carefully why one seems to have worked and one did not.

4. There is some awareness data for UK in the Ericsson case (p.6). There is also
segment data for the UK in the Samsung case (p.26, Exhibits 12A and B). First, how
would you characterize the Samsung brand’s position in the UK - accelerator, turning
point, or advanced (see Exhibit 10 and pp.13-14)? Second, using the same scheme,
where would you put Ericsson’s position in the UK? Justify fully.

5. Both Ericsson and Samsung tried to establish a global brand from very similar
premises. One failed and the other succeeded. On the basis of these two cases and
your analysis, why was that? Explain fully.