The University of Texas at Dallas

Global Leadership Executive MBA Program

International Marketing Management (IMS 6310)

April 20 – June 7, 2009

Instructors

Dr. Johny K Johansson Email : Blackboard

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

Course Manager

Dr. Anne Ferrante Email: Blackboard

Phone : (972) 883.6467
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,

5th ed. Johansson, Johny K., McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2009.

• Cases: Cleopatra : in textbook (pp. 357-367)

Dell in China : PDF
Illycaffe (A) and (B) : in textbook (pp. 189-196)
Samsung : PDF
Lenovo : 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%
• Illycaffe (A) and (B) --- individually written case 20%
• Samsung --- team written case and Web Conference 15%
• Lenovo --- final exam case 30%
100%

Individual Assignments (Cleopatra, Illycaffe, and Lenovo) 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

Web Conference and Presentation Evaluation (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:
 Team assignments are posted File Exchange under your team’s Group Pages
 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

Introduction: Basic Marketing Concepts

Globalizing Marketing & Global Expansion
Syllabus Overview
Cultural Foundations and Cultural Market Effects

Retreat Friday, April 17, 2009

8:30 am – 2:30 pm

Lecture Power Point Slides and Audio Sessions 1 and 2

Readings Chapters 1, 2, for basic concepts.

Skim the following as a reminder:
Chapter 3 plus
Chapter 5 pages 129 -139
Chapter 6 pages 169 -171
 Chapter 7 pages 207-210
Chapter 10 pages 312-323.

Discussion case: IKEA’s Global Strategy (text, pages 85-90)

Questions: See end of case, p. 90.

Week 1 Buyer Decision Processes & Market Research

Dates April 20 – April 26, 2009
Lecture Power Point Slides and Audio Session 3 on Blackboard
Readings Chapter 7, Ch.8 (pp.237-243), Ch.9 (pp.271-276), Ch. 10 (pp.307-
312).

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

Quebec? (in text, pp.357-367).

Due date Submitted to the Digital Drop Box by April 26, 2009

Week 2 Global Products and Services

Dates April 27 – May 3, 2009
Lecture Power Point Slides and Audio Session 4 on Blackboard
Readings Chapter 12 (skim ch.11).

Week 3 Global Brands, Global Pricing and Distribution

Dates May 4 – May 10, 2009
Lecture Power Point Slides and Audio Session 5 on Blackboard
Readings Chapters 13, 14 (skim pp. 461-76) and 15 (skim pp. 488-94).

Assignment Team written case – Dell Selling Directly, Globally (aka Dell in
China (hard copy)
Due date Posted to the Digital Drop Box
Friday, May 8 no later than 6:00 pm cst

Web Conference: Dell Case Discussion

Web Conference Date: Saturday, May 9 8:30 am CST
Peer Evaluation Due: Sunday, May 10
Week 4 Global Promotion (including Advertising)
Dates May 11 – May 17, 2009
Lecture Power Point Slides and Audio Session 6 on Blackboard
Readings Chapters 16 & 17

Assignment Individually written case – Illycaffe (A) and (B): The Starbucks
Threat (in text, pp.189-196).

Due date Posted to the Digital Drop Box by May 17

Week 5 Organizing for Global Marketing & Wrap-up

Dates May 18 – May 31, 2009
Lecture Power Point Slides and Audio Session 7 on Blackboard
Readings Chapters 11,18

Assignment Team written case – Samsung: Global Marketing Operations

(Hard copy)
Due date Posted to the Digital Drop Box
Friday, May 22 no later than 6:00 pm cst

Web Conference: Samsung Case Discussion

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

Plan ahead: Lenovo final exam – individual assignment

Week 6 Final Exam

Dates June 1 – June 7, 2009

Assignment Individually written Case Final - Lenovo: Building a Global Brand

(hard copy).

Due date Posted to the Digital Drop Box by June 7

Course Evaluation Due: June 7

Additional Information:

CASE QUESTIONS
CASE 1: Individually written case

Cleopatra in Quebec (in textbook, pp.357-367).

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.367.

CASE 2: Team written case and Web Conference

Dell: Selling Directly, Globally - 2007 (9-HKU-682) (hard copy)

Focal issue : Expansion into the China market

The Dell case deals with the company’s entry into China. For the write-up,
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 was (or was not) 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

Illycaffe (A) and (B): The Starbucks Threat (in text, pp.189-196)

The Illycaffe case shows how a globalizing company threatens well

established local marketers. The focus is on what the defensive strategy
the incumbent can adopt.

Questions:

1. How would you define Illycaffe’s FSAs? CSAs? What is the best mode
of entry for transferring these advantages abroad?

2. How would you explain Starbucks success in the U.S.? What are
Starbucks CSAs and FSAs?

3. Why is the Starbucks business model more easily globalized than

Illycaffe’s – or is it?

4. Would you judge that Starbucks and Illycaffe are or will become
competitors? Please explain your reasoning.

5. Given your answer in 4, what would you recommend as an international

strategy for Illycaffe?

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 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 was the role of the M-Net program in implementing the new
direction? How did the M-Net program help pinpoint the necessary changes
in the allocation of marketing resources between products and countries?

3. Evaluate the advertising and promotional strategy in the case (media and
copy, product placement) and show how it helped to move the Samsung
image from a Korean manufacturer to a global brand. Where is the image
still weak and why?

4. Discuss how Kim implemented the process of re-allocating marketing

resources to focus on the most promising markets? What did the M-Net
program contribute? What should be the next step for Samsung?

CASE 5: Final Case, Individually written:

Lenovo: Building a Global Brand (hard copy).

The Lenovo case shows how a newcomer to the global market can establish
presence in the market and create a global brand. It also details how to
change an acquired strong brand into the new brand without losing brand
equity.

Questions:

1. Lenovo is buying a losing business. Explain how the marketing

synergies between Lenovo and IBM justify the acquisition. What are the
risks?

2. What are the FSAs of Lenovo without the ThinkPad? With the ThinkPad?
3. Lenovo chose to position its own brand as a Masterbrand. Evaluate the
pros and cons of the other options (pp.9-10 in the case). Did Lenovo make
the right decision?

4. Lenovo decided to introduce a new product line “3000” instead of relying

solely on the ThinkPad. What is this supposed to accomplish? How likely
do you think this will succeed?

5. In retrospect, evaluate the brand-sharing agreement between Lenovo and

IBM and the ThinkPad. What if anything would have liked to change if you
had been involved on the Lenovo side? On the IBM side?