SWOT Analysis of Walt Disney Company
A SWOT analysis is a look at a company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, and is a tremendous way to gain a detailed and thorough perspective on a company and its future. It is without undeniable dispute that The Walt Disney Corporation has created an empire that is unmatchable. They strived for excellence and are continually changing. They have surrounded themselves with the best artists, the most innovative creators, and the newest technology to compliment it all. Above all, the consumers are the driving force behind the genius enterprise, and the two brothers never lost sight of the goal. Walt and Roy believed that he had to stay one step ahead of the competition in order to be the most innovative and creative animation company of all times. Strengths: Strong product portfolio. Walt Disney’s products include broadcast television network ABC and cable networks such as Disney Channel or ESPN, which is one of the most watched cable networks in the world. Combining the significant audience reach of these cable networks, and the solid growth of cable television, Disney’s product portfolio provides a competitive advantage for the company over its competitors. Brand reputation. Walt Disney brand has been known for more than 90 years in US and has been widely recognized worldwide, especially due to its Disney Channel, Disney Park resorts and movies from Walt Disney studios. The company is perceived as the primary family entertainment provider and was the 13th most valuable brand in the world in 2012. Competency in acquisitions. One of the strongest sides the company has is its competency in acquisitions. The Walt Disney Company had acquired Pixar Animation Studios in 2006, Marvel Entertainment in 2009 and Lucasfilm in 2012. The former 2 acquisitions have already proved to be very successful in terms of revenue and profit growth. The third acquisition is expected to be just as successful because Disney has acquired rights to all of the Lucasfilm previous works including Star Wars. Few other Disney competitors have had such record of successful acquisitions. Diversified businesses. The business operates five different business segments: media networks, parks and resorts, studio environment, consumer products and interactive media. These company’s segments are operated online and offline, in many different economies and are generating their income using different business models. Due to such diverse operations, Disney is less affected by changes in external environment than its competitors are. Localization of products. Recently, Disney has started adapting its products to suit local tastes. Besides the parks and resorts, company’s movies and consumer products are adapted for Chinese market to attract more visitors. This is rarely initiated by the movie studio itself and is something that few other studios are doing. Weaknesses: The company operates in some of the highly competitive markets in the world, with numerous other companies producing the same products, (Universal Orlando to their Disney World) (Dreamworks to their Pixar) The company derives the large majority of its revenue from the volatile and unpredictable child market, as one day the world’s kids might like one thing and next another character or story The company’s success is highly linked to the overall economic condition as their products are the complete opposite of necessities, in times of despair people are noting going to have the money to go on a vacation or buy gifts at the Disney Store Costs of operation are high. Heavy dependence on income from North America. Although, Disney operates in more than 200 countries, it heavily depends on US and Canada markets for its income. More than 70% of the business the revenues come from US alone, while the major Disney’s competitor News Corporation receives less than 50% of revenues from US, making it less vulnerable to changes in US market. Few opportunities for significant growth through acquisitions. The Walt Disney Company is the largest entertainment provider in the world and has become so due to acquisition of competitors. The last Disney’s acquisition had to be approved by Federal Trade Commission so that the company wouldn’t have to deal with antitrust problems. This means that the size of the Disney’s business has become a concern for the government due to significant market concentration and that the company has very few opportunities to acquire competitors. Otherwise, Disney may become a subject to antitrust laws. Opportunities: Additional acquisitions are always a possibility, as Disney has continuously proven in the past that they are willing to pay out large amounts of money to acquire its targets With the track record the company possesses of producing blockbuster hits and resulting valuable brand lines, it is always a possibility that in the future they could duplicate this success Develop more attractions for theme parks. Growth of paid TV industries in emerging economies. The Asia Pacific region accounted for more than 50% market share of the world pay TV subscribers (394 million) in 2011. It was expected to grow to more than 55% by the end of 2016, where China would account for more than 27% of the market. The similar growth is expected in India as well. Disney Company has already entered these markets and should continue to strengthen its position there to benefit from such high industry growth. Expansion of movie production to new countries. Disney has an opportunity to expand its movie production to such countries as India or China, where movie production industries have developed good quality infrastructure. This would result in lower movie production costs and more localized movies for India and China’s markets. Room to develop the market in emergent countries. Expansion into different segments Threats: Intense competition. Disney operates in very competitive industries such as media, tourism, parks and resorts, interactive entertainment and others. The competitive landscape changes quite drastically in the media industry, where news and TV go online and new competitors with new business models compete more successfully than incumbent media companies. Disney’s parks and resorts business segment also receives strong competition from local competitors who can offer better-adapted product. This results in growing competitive pressure for Walt Disney Company. Increasing piracy. The advancements in technology allow copying, transmitting and distributing copyrighted material much easier. With an increasing number of internet users and the speed of internet, this poses a great risk to Disney’s income, as fewer people would go to watch movies in a cinema or buy its DVD, when it’s freely available online. Strong growth of online TV and online movie renting. Besides internet piracy, Disney’s media and movie production businesses may suffer from online TV and online movie rental growth. Subscription to online TV streaming and movie rental websites costs much less than to usual cable television providers. In addition, internet infrastructure is often managed by different companies, thus taking the power away from cable network providers. A major threat to Disney’s success is the current market stagnation, as consumers do not have money to spend on Disney’s products and vacations Conclusion: Disney possesses many strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, however in the end appears to a financially solid company with an upbeat future. On any market pullback, this company appears extremely attractive, and is tremendous long-term investment.
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING on ITC
The pdf attatched below is concerned with FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING on ITC. This includes COMMON-SIZE INCOME STATEMENT & BALANCE SHEET, DUPONT CHART ANALYSIS, Market Efficiency analysis, Debt Investor Perspective analysis (Leverage Ratios), Equity Investor Perspective analysis, etc.
ECSR_Hand security solutions
Study of 4 Ps for a Brand-Product combination
A report for 'Kingfisher' based on the items given below: 1.Sum-up the brand promise offered. 2.What brand elements are the most useful for differentiating 'Kingfisher' from competing brands? 3.Which aspects of product differentiation are the most valuable insetting the brand apart from its competitors? 4.How does the brand use packaging and labeling to support its brand image and help its channel partners sell the product more effectively? 5.What are the current pricing objectives of the brand and what price adaptations (such as discount allowances and promotional pricing) does the brand include? 6.How does the pricing strategy of the brand differ from its competitors? 7.What are the current distribution channels and levels adopted by this brand and does it require any addition/deletion of the channels or levels to improve its distribution strategy? 8.What are the communication objectives for this brand to reach its targeted segments? 9.What are the communication media adopted by the brand and do these match with the brand’s communication objectives? 10. What are the consumer promotion and trade promotion, if any, being offered by the brand?
The Case for Investing More in People.
“Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything,” wrote Paul Krugman more than 20 years ago. “A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise output per worker.” There is a virtuous cycle between productivity and people: Higher levels of productivity allow society to reinvest in human capital (most obviously, though not exclusively, via higher wages), and smart investments result in higher labor productivity. Unfortunately, this virtuous cycle appears to be broken. Productivity in most developed economies has been anemic. In the decade between 2005 and 2015, labor productivity in the US as measured by GDP per labor hour was less than 1% for 7 of the 10 years, according to the OECD. And wages are stagnant. US unemployment hit its lowest level in 16 years this past May, yet wage growth has been sluggish compared with similar periods in the past. Of course, low productivity can depress wages, but in recent decades, wages haven’t grown as much as expected even during periods of robust economic productivity growth. “For most of the last half-century — 84 percent of the time since 1966 — average wages have grown more slowly than would be predicted based on productivity and inflation growth,” The New York Times reported. During much of this time, it has been shareholders, not workers, who have reaped the benefits of higher productivity. All of this raises a chicken-or-egg question: Are we suffering from low productivity because we have underinvested in human capital? Or are we unable to invest in human capital because structural factors are permanently reducing productivity? The evidence suggests the former: We could improve productivity if we stopped systematically underinvesting in human capital. The most direct and obvious investment is increased wages. Beyond wages, other forms of investment in human capital include education and training, improved healthcare, and other, less obvious investments, such as the time and space to explore new ideas and professional development opportunities. In research for our book, Time, Talent and Energy, my co-author Michael Mankins and I found that such investments do indeed pay off: The top-quartile companies in our study unlocked 40% more productive power in their workforce through better practices in time, talent and energy management. Let’s look at three investments — in wages, time and energy — that could reinvigorate the productivity cycle: Wages. Higher investment in wages does not need to come at the expense of customers and shareholders. In The Good Jobs Strategy, Zeynep Ton, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, demonstrates how the best retail companies align their customer value proposition with their operations strategy and their approach to human capital. Customer advocacy and employee engagement are inextricably linked in the examples Ton uses, allowing those companies to create a better customer experience, higher quality jobs and better financial outcomes for shareholders. Small and large companies alike are experimenting with these concepts. Managed by Q, a cleaning and office services company in New York City, decided to pay employees higher wages than the prevailing market rate. In turn, the company is achieving lower levels of employee and customer churn, and correspondingly lower employee hiring and customer acquisition costs. The compounding and virtuous effects of increasing customer and employee advocacy more than offset the higher cost of wages. At the other end of the size spectrum, Walmart has committed to investing $2.7 billion in its associates through higher wages, better benefits and enhanced training. Time. Our careless treatment of time represents a shocking level of underinvestment in human capital. For knowledge workers, time is incredibly scarce. Our research suggests that, on average, managers have fewer than seven hours per week of uninterrupted time to do deep versus shallow work. They spend the rest of their time attending meetings, sending e-communications or working in time increments of less than 20 minutes, a practice that makes it difficult to accomplish a specific task and in the worst cases can lead to employee burnout. We know that great ideas that drive breakthroughs in productivity come from human beings with the time, talent and energy to innovate. One step in reversing this trend is to start treating hours like dollars, with a real opportunity cost. Companies should seek to systematically eradicate organizational drag — all the internal complexity that leads to inefficient and ineffective interactions. Giving managers more time to do deep thinking can unlock innovations that can have a significant impact on productivity. Companies that follow the Toyota Production System use Kaizen events to improve productivity on the manufacturing line. That requires pulling workers off the line and giving them the time and space to make processes leaner or to devise innovative work methods. Similarly, many organizations are experimenting with using Agile sprints beyond the traditional areas of product development and innovation. A well-run sprint takes talented, cross-functional team members out of their daily routines and focuses them in weekly increments on creating breakthroughs in products or processes. Both Kaizen events and Agile sprints are investments in innovation and human capital productivity. Many tech companies have experimented with giving employees unstructured time to explore new ideas such as LinkedIn’s InCubator, Apple’s Blue Sky and Microsoft’s Garage. Energy. Perhaps the most transformational thing a company can do for its workforce is to invest in creating jobs and working environments that unleash intrinsic inspiration. This is the gateway to the discretionary energy that multiplies labor productivity: An inspired employee is more than twice as productive as a satisfied employee and more than three times as productive as a dissatisfied employee. Yet, only one in eight employees are inspired. We measure organizational energy through employee engagement, and despite decades of investment in engagement programs, levels of engagement remain systemically and stubbornly low. As companies think about how to change this, they should focus on the jobs that will survive into the future. The forces of creative destruction inevitably will continue to eliminate some work through automation, digitalization, or the virtualization of work, but these same forces also create new types of work and jobs. Creating inspiring jobs and engaging working environments requires holistically addressing the factors that drive employee inspiration, which we outlined in Bain’s pyramid of employee needs. This includes more autonomyand agility as well as inspirational leadership. Companies like IBM are working hard to deploy design thinking throughout the enterprise. Others, such as ANZ, the Australian-based banking giant, have committed to adopting Agile at scale in less than a year, following some of the proven practices used by Spotify, the music streaming company. For too long, business objectives and management philosophies have focused on efficiency over productivity. This has not only resulted in less investment in human capital but has also delivered lower total shareholder returns despite a period in which the cost of capital (and thus the cost of investing for growth) has been extraordinarily low. It’s not money that’s in short supply; it’s good growth ideas. Robert Gordon, a macroeconomist at Northwestern University, has shown that periods of breakout productivity in the United States were not the result of capital deepening (applying more capital to each hour of labor), but of what economists call total factor productivity, a catch-all measure for the impact of technological innovation. Who has these inspirational ideas and translates them into productivity-driving innovations? People do. This is why we believe that human capital, not financial capital, is often your scarcest resource. Reinvesting in this scarcest resource could unlock new levels of labor productivity for the economies and companies around the world that are sorely in need of it.
Yes Bank SIF case study
IT IS A PDF ON THE CASE STUDY BY SINGAPORE INTERNANTIONAL FOUNDATION ON PROMOTING SOCIAL ENTERPENUERSHIPS ON INDIA. IT HAS INFORMATON ABOUT SUITABILITY OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE.IT HAS VARIOUS SOLUTIONS WHICH CAN HELP A SOCIAL ENTERPENUER TO ESTABLISH ITS BUSINESS IN THE MARKET.