Free Essay

New Heritage Doll

In:

Submitted By gegeetchart
Words 5566
Pages 23
For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015

N1-710-444
REV: FEBRUARY 7, 2011

BHARAT N. ANAND
PETER OLSON

The Rand dom Ho ouse Re esponse to the Kindl e e le By early 2010, the internation news med had begun to character y t nal dia n rize book pub blishing as the next e entert tainment ind dustry to be revolutioniz zed by new digital form mats. Amazon announced that n d
Christ
tmas 2009 had been the fir day ever th its custom rst hat mers had orde ered more ele ectronic versio of ons books for their Kin s ndle reading d devices than p print books.1 Many other companies w were reported to be d ready ying e-readers for an early 2010 launc Most antic s y ch. cipated was Apple Inc.’s iPad, expect ted to chang the terrain of the e-rea ge n ader segment just as the iPhone had r t revolutionize the smartp ed phone marke 2 Worryin et. ngly, prices fo the e-book versions of n or newly publish titles wer at $9.99 or less, hed re, r dropp ping well bel low half the l price of a new hardco list over; public d domain titles (books for w s which copyr right protectio – 70 years after the de on s eath of the au uthor – had e expired) were being offere by e ed some e-vendors fo $0.00.3 Moreover, the ri or ights to electr ronic versions of books pu s ublished befor the re adven of e-books in the 1990s (when publis nt shers first beg to amend their contrac with authors to gan d cts reflect digital edit tions) were i dispute: literary agen and the Authors Gu in nts uild had prot tested vocife erously when Random Ho n ouse, the largest trade boo publisher, asserted in D ok December 2009 that it own the rights to all versio ned ons, electronic or otherwis of all book that it had published in print c se, ks n form, unless the contract speci c ified otherwi 4 Markus Dohle, the p ise. printer-turned d-CEO of Ran ndom House, was likely, in the contex of the paren company’s annual Strat xt nt s tegic Planning Dialogue, to face g o many questions fro his fellow Bertelsmann Executive Board member about Rand y om w n rs dom House’s longterm s strategy in response to the Kindle and o e other e-reader rs. The Tradition Structu of the B nal ure
Book Publ lishing Ind dustry Auth and Age hors ents
Un
nlike the twe enty-first cent tury film and music indus d stries, where the creation of a new product requir investment in talent a red and technolog that can am gy mount to mill lions of dolla (the produ ars uction costs for the film “Avatar” wer estimated t exceed $25 million5), th book busin

re to 50 he ness was based on the so olitary and relatively inex xpensive act of writing (S Exhibit 1 for the val
See
lue chain). Since publis shers rarely read unsolicit manuscrip (more tha two million novels wer written in N r ted pts an re North
Amer
rica each year the vast ma r; ajority sent to publishers w o were deposit in a “slush pile” which was ted h occasi ionally visite by summe interns and underpaid assistant editors before b ed er d being relegat ted to landfi the only realistic chanc of getting published wa to be repre ill), r ce as esented by a l literary agent The
t.
agent in return fo 10-15% of t author’s r ts, or the royalties, sold book rights (usually on t basis of a 10-20 d the
_______
_______________
_______________
_______________
________________
_______________
_______________
________________
______
Professo Bharat N. Anand and Senior Lectu or d urer Peter Olson pr repared this case w with the assistance of Research Associ iate Mary Furey. T
This case was dev veloped from publ lished sources. HB cases are develo
BS
oped solely as the basis for class dis scussion. Cases are not intended to s e serve as endorse ements, sources of primary data, or illu p ustrations of effective or ineffective m management. ght resident and Fellow of Harvard Colle ws ege. To order copi or request perm ies mission to reproduc materials, call 1-8 ce 800-545Copyrig © 2010, 2011 Pr
7685, wr Harvard Busin rite ness School Publish hing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to ww ww.hbsp.harvard.e edu/educators. Th publication may not be his y digitized photocopied, or otherwise reprodu d, uced, posted, or tran nsmitted, without t permission of H the Harvard Business S
School.

This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
710-444

The Random House Response to the Kindle

page proposal rather than a completed manuscript) to editors at publishing houses. In the case of bestselling authors the sale was conducted as an auction, with publishing houses bidding “advances” against future royalties. For celebrity authors, the advances could be very substantial: for example,
Sarah Palin received a reported $5 million advance from Harper Collins for the book “Going Rogue,” which was largely written by a co-author.6 An advance of $5 million represented a bet placed by the publishing house that sales (at a royalty rate averaging 15% of list price) would be sufficient for the book to “earn out” the advance. Publishers regarded the estimation of the right amount to advance for a book as an art rather than a science, although in the case of established authors the record of previous book sales could provide a reasonably accurate guideline for forecasts.

Publishers
Editors at publishing houses, in addition to acquiring book rights from agents, were responsible for the development of the manuscript with the author (“conceptual editing”) and copyediting the final version as well as overseeing the timely coordination of production, cover art design, publicity, and marketing. After submission of the first manuscript, the entire process could take from as little as nine months to several years. As a book neared completion, editors would compete internally for the attention of the sales force, since each season only a few titles out of a total list of hundreds or thousands of books would be designated as top priorities for sales and marketing promotion.
By 2010, barriers to entry in book publishing were low: an individual could set up her own publishing imprint with a minimum investment in capital and outsource back-end operations such as distribution, production, and even administration and sales to larger publishing houses. Although small publishers could not compete with the larger houses on auctions for bestsellers, the prospect of discovering the next Pulitzer Prize winner attracted many new entrants, often former editors at larger companies. Although five publishing houses controlled over one-quarter of industry sales, and a disproportionately larger share of bestsellers, thousands of smaller, specialty, and boutique publishing firms accounted for the bulk of book sales.
Random House was the world’s largest publisher, with a market share of 17.5%. The modern
Random House had been created in 1998 through the merger of Bertelsmann’s Bantam Doubleday
Dell Publishing Group and the Random House Group, which had been owned by Advance
Communications until the Newhouse family decided to sell its book publishing operations to concentrate on the more profitable newspaper business.

Printers
Publishers contracted the final production of books to printers, a relatively consolidated industry dominated by R.R. Donnelly, Quebecor, and Bertelsmann (Markus Dohle had previously been the
CEO of Bertelsmann’s USA print operations, which printed more than one-half of Random House’s
200 million books annually). Although digital technology had simplified the printing process, the set-up costs of each print run were relatively high compared to the variable costs of ink and paper.
Traditionally print runs of less than 2,000 copies were considered to be uneconomical; the high fixed costs associated with plant and labor caused printers to compete aggressively for long print runs – such as 1-2 million copies – for top bestsellers such as John Grisham. The advent of print-on-demand technology – a process whereby new copies of a book were not printed until the order was received – had begun to make it worthwhile to reprint “backlist” titles (books first published over one year ago) at a higher unit cost ($2.50-3.00 compared to $1.00-1.50) but in much smaller quantities – some cases,
50 copies or less.

2
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
The Random House Response to the Kindle

710-444

Distributors
Printed books were shipped from printers to distribution warehouses operated by the publishers, where they would be unpackaged, stored, and eventually repackaged to fill orders from 1) independent wholesalers; 2) warehouses operated by major retailers such as Barnes & Noble (B&N) and Borders; 3) independent retail outlets. Large orders from wholesalers and major retailers constituted the bulk of shipping volume whereas shipments to smaller retailers contributed disproportionately to warehouse and shipping costs.

Retailers
Three major book retailers represented almost 40% of industry sales: Barnes & Noble (ca.25%),
Borders (ca. 10%), and the rapidly growing online retailer Amazon (over 10%); independent bookstores accounted for less than 5%, and over one-half of sales were made by a variety of nonbookstore retailers ranging from Wal-Mart to Walgreens. During the past several years Amazon’s relative market share had been increasing by 15-25% annually, driven by first-time buyers during the busy holiday season. All retailers bought books at a discount of approximately 50% off list price and were entitled to return unsold books to the publishers for a full refund (returns rates ranged from 2530% in the case of Random House to over 40% for less successful publishers). Amazon’s returns rate was under 5% for print books and approached 0% for e-books.

Readers
Less than half of all adults ever read a book after leaving school; half of the remainder read at most 1-2 books a year.7 Consequently book publishers had traditionally focused their marketing efforts on the 15-25% segment of the population that bought books on a regular basis, particularly the relatively small number of heavy readers who bought 50-100 books each year. Recent newspaper reports suggested that younger age groups were spending less time reading and more time on electronic media such as video games and social networking.8

The Traditional Economics of Book Publishing
Publishers generally issued the first edition of a book in hardcover at prices ranging in 2010 from
$19.95 to $35.00. About one year later a paperback edition was introduced, either in trade paperback format (the 6” x 9” format traditionally used for literary works) at prices of $12.00-15.00 or in the rack-sized mass-market paperback format (the 5” x 8” format generally used for bestsellers) at prices of $6.99-8.99. Frontlist sales (new titles, generally hardcover) accounted for 60% of annual sales but, due to the up-front cost of advances and marketing, as well as the higher returns rate (40-60%), represented only 20% of annual profits. Backlist was the bedrock of publishers’ profitability: 40% of sales and 80% of profits. In general, trade book publishing, which had only in recent decades evolved from a club-like atmosphere to a profit-oriented business, was considered to be a moderately profitable enterprise with limited growth prospects. Although profitability of individual titles varied widely, depending on the size of the initial advance, the level of returns, and the backlist reorder pattern, the sheer diversity of most publishing programs at the largest houses provided a portfolio effect and had resulted in a relatively reliable profit stream. During the decade prior to 2010 the leading publishing houses achieved operating margins of 5-10% and recorded annual revenue increases of 2-4%.
The profit and loss statement of an average title is shown in Exhibit 2. On a $10.00 book, retailers earned about $0.25 (a 5% margin), authors received about $1.50 in royalties (15% of list price), and publishers retained an operating profit of $0.50 (10% of net sales). Pressure from retailers,
3
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
710-444

The Random House Response to the Kindle

particularly Amazon, for additional discounts in the form of “co-op advertising” (where manufacturers covered all or part of a retailer’s advertising in exchange for being prominently displayed) or “warehousing fees” (which covered the storage and packaging/handling of books) threatened to reduce publisher margins further.

Amazon Enters the E-Reader Market
Jeff Bezos founded Amazon in 1994 as an online book retailer; publishers welcomed the incremental sales and publicity boost (Amazon’s marketing emphasized the quality of the customer experience, making more books more accessible and affordable to readers than ever before). By 2010,
Amazon, with its relatively low returns rate, had become the fastest-growing and by far the most profitable customer for book publishers. As Amazon expanded into other product lines such as electronics, toys, music, games, apparel, jewelry, and tools, some questioned the company’s commitment to the book business. By 2006, media (books, music, DVDs) represented an estimated
66% of Amazon’s $10.7 billion in annual sales.9 (See Exhibit 3 for a breakdown of financials)
While Amazon continued to sell print books, there were various e-reading devices being introduced in the market, starting with the 22-ounce Rocket Book in 1998. 10 The most successful of these devices was the Sony Reader, which was lighter and more attractive than other e-readers.
Consumers would first download an e-book to their PC’s (either from Sony’s eBook store or from other online stores and libraries) before transferring to the Reader. The Reader was sold through various retailers, including Amazon, Target, and Waterstone. Prices of the Reader ranged from
$299.99 to $399.99 depending on functionality.
Any concerns about whether Amazon still viewed books as a strategic priority were dispelled by the company’s launch of the Kindle (the name was designed to evoke associations related to the ignition and rapid dissemination of knowledge) in 2007. In contrast to prior e-reading devices, the
Kindle offered a wireless connection and Bezos noted that “this isn’t a device, it’s a service.”11 A
Kindle user could purchase and download books (initial storage capacity was 200 titles) only from
Amazon’s store, and could also purchase newspaper and magazine subscriptions and access blogs from the Internet. Proprietary formatting and Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology limited e-book reading to the Kindle device, though reformatting to support other readers was possible. The book-like shape (the Kindle was designed to look and feel like a trade paperback book), the ease of usage (the device turned on instantly, could run without charging for 30 hours, and recharged in two hours), and readability (the screen capitalized on recent technological innovations from e-Ink
Corporation) proved so attractive to readers that the $399 device was sold out immediately.12 The opportunity to select from among 145,000 titles, including recent bestsellers, caused an appreciable increase in e-book sales (to approximately 1-2% of the total market) by the end of 2007. Within a few months Amazon’s annualized e-reader unit sales were ahead of Sony’s Reader. Bezos simply noted that “this is the most important thing we’ve ever done.”13
In February 2009, Amazon launched an enhanced version, Kindle 2, which offered substantially increased storage capacity (1,500 books), faster page-turning, sharper screen resolution, and a sleeker body, at the same $359 price (reduced five months later to $299).14 That same month, Amazon announced that they intended to make Kindle titles available on a variety of mobile phones.15 In June
2009, Amazon released the Kindle DX, a larger and faster version (the screen was nearly three times as large as the standard Kindle screen), which had the ability to display pdf documents; aimed at students, educators, and businesspeople, the Kindle DX retailed at $489. In October 2009, an international version of the Kindle 2, with AT&T as the global wireless provider, was offered at
$279.16 At the same time Microsoft announced the “Kindle for PC,” a free application for reading
Kindle e-books on the personal computer.17 Finally, in January 2010, Amazon announced a new
4
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
The Random House Response to the Kindle

710-444

version of the Kindle DX with a global wireless capability, allowing the wireless download of e-books in over 100 countries.18
Although Amazon consistently refused to provide details on the number of Kindles sold, analysts estimated that Amazon sold 550,000 devices in 2009.19 Bezos stated that sales of the Kindle and ebooks made up 35% of Amazon’s book revenues.20
In a move which provoked the ire of publishers, Amazon began pricing e-books aggressively, setting the price point for new releases at $9.99, compared to hardcover editions that were priced around $25. (See Exhibit 4) Publishers, who had favored a policy of “parallel pricing” where the ebook version would be priced at the same point as the prevailing hardcover or paperback edition, began to consider delaying the release of the e-book version until several months after initial publication of the hardcover in order to maintain revenues on print formats. While Amazon supporters argued that the attractive e-book price points would increase overall demand, publishers feared that e-books were beginning to cannibalize print book sales, particularly on titles for which they had committed large advances. Literary agents also expressed concern that their authors be protected against royalties being reduced by a drop in list prices through appropriate language in future contracts. Reports indicated that Amazon had initiated discussions with literary agents about signing authors to be published by Amazon.

Rivals to the Kindle
Barnes & Noble’s Nook In October 2009, B&N introduced its own e-reader, the Nook, at
$259, a price quickly matched by Amazon. The Nook ran on Google’s Android OS and held 1,500 books, a number which could be increased by purchasing an optional memory card. The device also featured a 6-inch reading screen and a color touch screen control panel.
A wireless connection allowed downloads from the B&N online bookstore. B&N, which already was the second-largest online retailer of books after Amazon, with a market share of around 10%, had launched its eBookstore in July 2009 after buying Fictionwise, an e-book supplier with a catalog of
18,000 titles. The store supported the iPhone, Blackberry, Mac, and PC, as well as upcoming readers from iRex and Plastic Logic.21 The Nook also allowed customers to lend books to a friend while they were not reading them for a 14-day loaner period.22

Apple Tablet Steve Jobs, the iconic CEO of Apple, had commented after the initial launch of the Kindle that “it doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore.”23 Nonetheless, Apple encouraged the development of software applications that fulfilled the function of an e-reader. Stanza was an application available for free through Apple’s application store which effectively turned the iPhone into an e-reader (Amazon acquired Lexcycle, the company behind Stanza, in April 2009).24 By the end of 2009, moreover, rumors were rife that Apple would soon release a dedicated e-reader, the iPad, which would be more stylish than existing models and priced between $700 and $1,000.25
Sony Reader In August 2009, Sir Howard Stringer, the first non-Japanese CEO of Sony, announced the launch of a series of e-readers designed to capture a major share of the market: the
$199 Reader Pocket Edition, the $299 Reader Touch Edition, designed to replace the earlier, more expensive Sony readers, 26 and the $399 Reader Daily Edition, which featured a 7-inch touchscreen and was powered by AT&T’s 3G network.27 Through a partnership with Google, Sony’s e-readers offered over 1 million free public domain titles.28 Despite these efforts, as of October 2009, cumulative sales of the Sony reading devices were estimated to be only one-half of the Kindles sold.29

5
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
710-444

The Random House Response to the Kindle

Other Players As of early 2010 several other companies had launched or were preparing to introduce reading devices: Irex (a reading device with a large, 8.1 inch touch screen display, wireless connectivity through Verizon, and a retail price of $399),30 Plastic Logic (the Que was expected to be launched with an 8.5 by 11 inch flexible screen, featuring the B&N eBookstore, free public domain titles from Google, and AT&T”s network for downloads),31 Samsung, and various unnamed entrants which were considering price points as low as $99.32 And there were also the free e-reader applications – Amazon’s Kindle, Android’s Aldiko, B&N e-reader, and Stanza – available to smartphone owners.33

Random House’s Strategic Options
By 2008, when Markus Dohle succeeded the long-term CEO, Peter Olson, Random House had become the undisputed industry leader in terms of market share (annual sales of over $2.5 billion), profitability (operating margins over 10%), and literary prestige. The Bertelsmann Executive Board had grown accustomed to years of steadily increasing profits. Now Random House, faced with a cyclical downturn in demand for books as a result of the Great Recession of 2008-2009, needed to decide how to respond to the Kindle challenge: should it pursue a policy of confrontation or cooperation with Amazon? Were there other strategic partners to be considered? Should Random
House lead the industry in addressing the issues of e-book pricing and e-book royalty rates? Would the entire structure of the book publishing industry change and what role would Random House play in the future? The only certainty was that the Head Office in Gutersloh was expecting clear answers. 6
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
The Ra andom House Re esponse to the K
Kindle

Exhib 1 bit 710-444
7

Value Chain for Boo Publishing Industry ok g

Source: Reprinted with permission fro Bharat N. Anand, Kyle Barnet and Elizabeth Carpenter, “Ran h om tt, h ndom House” H No.
HBS
704-438, Bosto Harvard Busin on: ness School, 2004 Copyright © 2
4.
2004 by the Presid dent and Fellows of Harvard coll s lege.

Exhib 2 bit Typica P&L for a R al Random Hous Imprint (Ci se irca 2003)

Gross R
Revenue
Returns
Net Sales
Royalty Expense and Ad dvance Write-offs (25% s of Whole esale Price)
Paper, Printing, Binding ($2.00-$2.50/Bo
P
ook; approx. 25% of net sales
s)
Total C
Cost of Goods So old Profit
Gross P
Sales an Marketing nd Editorial and Art/Product tion Fulfillme ent Administ tration IT
Freight
Operating Expenses
Net Inc come 130
0%
(30
0%)
100
0%
(25.0%)
(25.0%)
(50.0%)
50
0%
(13.0%)
(10.0%)
(6.0
0%)
(5.9
9%)
(2.5
5%)
(3.0
0%)
(40.4%)
9.6
6%

Source: Reprinted with permission fro Bharat N. Anand, Kyle Barnet and Elizabeth Carpenter, “Ran h om tt, h ndom House” H No.
HBS
704-438, Bosto Harvard Busi on: iness School, 200 Copyright © 2004 by the President and Fello
04.
ows of Harvard c college. Adapted from interview with R m Richard Sarnoff and Company P
Presentation: The Random House Story—October 2001. e e r 7
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
710-444

Exhibit 3

The Random House Response to the Kindle

Amazon.com Sales and Income Statements (USD millions)

2006

Year Ended December 31
2007
2008

2009

Net Sales
Consolidated
Media
Electronics and other general merchandise
Othera
Total Consolidated

$7,067
3,361
283
10,711

$9,242
5,210
383
14,835

$11,084
7,540
542
19,166

$12,774
11,082
653
24,509

Year -over-year Percentage Growth
Consolidated
Media
Electronics and other general merchandise
Other
Total Consolidated

19%
44%
23%
26%

27%
51%
34%
35%

19%
44%
42%
28%

16%
48%
22%
29%

Cost of sales
Gross profit

8,255
2,456

11,482
3,353

14,896
4,270

18,978
5,531

Operating expenses
Fulfillment
Marketing
Technology and content
General and administrative
Other operating expense (income), net
Total operating expenses
Income from operations

937
263
662
195
10
2,067
389

1,292
344
818
235
9
2,698
655

1,658
482
1,033
279
(24)
3,428
842

2,052
680
1,240
328
102
4,402
1,129

Interest income
Interest expense
Other income (expense), net
Total non-operating income (expense)

59
(78)
7
(12)

90
(77)
(8)
5

83
(71)
47
59

37
(34)
29
32

Income before income taxes

377

660

901

1,161

Source: Compiled from Amazon.com 2008 and 2009 Annual Report.

a Includes non-retail activities such as promotional and marketing activities, Amazon Web Services, other seller sites, and cobranded credit card agreements.

8
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
The Random House Response to the Kindle

Exhibit 4

710-444

Sample Retail Pricing of a Book, Newspaper, and Magazines
Book Retail Pricing

Date: January 14, 2010
Book: What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures
Author: Malcolm Gladwell
Publication Date: October 20, 2009
Price
List Hardcover

$27.99

Amazon Hardcover

$13.21

Barnes & Noble Online hardcover - members

$16.79

Barnes & Noble store

$19.59

Amazon Kindle Edition

$9.00

Amazon audio download (Audible.com)

$18.89

Newspaper Retail Price - Yearly Subscription
Date: January 14, 2010
Newspaper: The Wall Street Journal
Price
Newsstand

$595.00

Kindle edition

$179.88

Home delivery

$119.10

WSJ.com full online access

$103.50

Both home delivery and full online access

$155.50

Magazine Retail Price
Date: January 14, 2010
Magazine: The New Yorker

Price

Annual Print Subscription

$39.95

Annual Kindle Subscription

$35.88

Magazine: The Economist
Annual Print Subscription

$126.99

Annual Kindle Subscription

$125.88

Magazine: Newsweek
Annual Print Subscription

$40.00

Annual Kindle Subscription

$17.88

Source: Compiled by casewriters.

9
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
710-444

The Random House Response to the Kindle

Endnotes
1

“Amazon Kindle is the Most Gifted Item Ever on Amazon.com,” Amazon.com News Release, December 26,
2009, via http://www.amazon.com.
2

Gabriel Madway and Tiffany Wu, “Apple to Launch Tablet in Spring 2010: Analyst,” Reuters, December 9,
2009, via http://www.reuters.com.
3 Peter Kafka, “The Secret Behind the Kindle’s Best-Selling E-Books: They’re Not For Sale,” Cnet, December
29, 2009, via http://news.cnet.com.
4 Motoko Rich, “Writers Guild Disputes Random House on E-Rights,” The New York Times, December 15,
2009, via http://www.nytimes.com.
5 Rebecca Keegan, “How Much Did Avatar Really Cost?” Vanity Fair, December 22, 2009, via http://www.vanityfair.com. 6

Kate Zernike and Motoko Rich, “Palin Tells All. You Betcha.” The New York Times, November 13, 2009, via
Factiva, accessed January 2010.
7

American Booksellers Association survey data, cited by Brian Tracy, Create Your Own Future, (Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley & Sons, 2002), p. 63.
8

“Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds,” Kaiser Family Foundation Study, January 2010, via http://www.kff.org, accessed March 2010.
9

Amazon.com Annual 10K Report, December 31, 2006 via http://www.sec.gov.

10

Roger Fidler, “E-Readers: The Next Generation of the Printed Page,” Newspaper Association of America, July
31, 2008, via http://www.naa.org.
11
Steven
Levy,
“The
Future
http://www.newsweek.com/id/70983.
12

of

Reading,”

Newsweek,

November

27,

2007.

“Amazon Reader Sold Out in Five Hours,” FinancialWire, November 20, 2007, via Factiva, accessed January

2010.
13

Steven Levy, “The Future of Reading; Amazon’s Jeff Bezos Already Built a Better Bookstore. Now He
Believes He Can Improve Upon One of Humankind’s Most Divine Creations: The Book Itself,” Newsweek,
November 26, 2007, via Factiva, accessed January 2010.
14

David Pogue, “The Kindle: Good Before, Better Now,” The New York Times, February 24, 2009, via Factiva, accessed October 2009.
15

Miguel Helft, “Google and Amazon to Put More Books on Cellphones,” The New York Times, February 5,
2009, via http://www.nytimes.com.
16 Geoffrey A. Fowler and Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, “Amazon Cuts Price of Kindle E-reader,” The Wall Street
Journal, October 8, 2009.
17 “Microsoft Amazon Offer Kindle App at Windows 7 Debut,” eWeek, October 22, 2009, via Factiva, accessed
October 2009.
18

Nicholas Kolakowski, “Amazon Kindle DX Now Offers Global Wireless,” eWeek.com, January 6, 2010, via http://www.eweek.com. 19

Nicholas Kolakowski, “Amazon Will Sell 550,000 Kindle Readers in 2009, Analyst Says,” EWeek, December
1, 2009.
20

Nicholas Kolakowski, “Sony Deal, Amazon Announcement Signal Intensifying E-reader Wars,” eWeek,
December 20, 2009.

10
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

For exclusive use Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI), 2015
The Random House Response to the Kindle

710-444

21

Motoko Rich, “A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market,” The New York Times, October 21,
2009, via Factiva, accessed October 2009.
22

Motoko Rich, “A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market,” The New York Times, October 21,
2009, via Factiva, accessed October 2009.
23 Bharat Anand, et al., “eReading: Amazon’s Kindle,” Harvard Business School case 709-486, May 1, 2009 and
John
Markoff,
“The
Passion of Steve
Jobs,”
New
York
Times,
January
15,
2008.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/the-passion-of-steve-jobs/.
24 Brad Stone, “Amazon Acquires Stanza, an E-book Application for the iPhone,” The New York Times, April
27, 2009.
25 Brad Stone and Nick Bilton, “A Deluge of Devices for Reading and Surfing,” The New York Times, January
8, 2010; Yukari Iwatani Kane and Geoffrey A. Fowler, “Apple to Ship Tablet Device in March,” The Wall Street
Journal, January 5, 2010, via http://www.wsj.com.
26 Brad Stone and Motoko Rich, “Sony to Cut E-book Prices and Offer New Readers,” The New York Times,
August 5, 2009, via Factiva, accessed January 2010.
27

Paul Taylor, “Sony Tries to Turn the E-Reader Page with Kindle Killers,” The Financial Times, August 28,
2009, via Factiva, accessed January 2010.
28

Paul Taylor, “Sony Tries to Turn the E-Reader Page with Kindle Killers,” The Financial Times, August 28,
2009, via Factiva, accessed January 2010.
29 Motoko Rich, “A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market,” The New York Times, October 21,
2009, via Factiva, accessed October 2009.
30 Danielle Belopotosky, “Something to Read,” The New York Times, December 3, 2009, via Factiva, accessed
January 2010.
31 Nicholas Kolakowski, “Amazon, Sony E-Book Battle Could Benefit Businesses in Big Way,” eWeek, August
9, 2009.
32

Dan Nystedt, “E-Reader Sales Will Double Again This Year, CEA Says,” PCWorld, January 5, 2010, via http:.//www.pcworld.com. 33

Danielle Belopotosky, “Apps That Turn Pages and Save Money,” The New York Times, December 3, 2009, via Factiva, accessed January 2010.

11
This document is authorized for use only in Estrategia y Teor?a de Juegos (P del Sol) by Patricio del Sol, Universidad Adolfo Ibanez (UAI) from March 2015 to August 2015.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll

...New Heritage Doll New Heritage Doll Company: Capital Budgeting MGT 6060 20 September 2011 Overview Two business proposals from the Production division of the New Heritage Doll Company are being considered for submission to the capital budgeting committee. Only one proposal will be submitted. The proposals are: Match My Doll Clothing Line Expansion and Design Your Own Doll. A systematic process will be used to determine which proposal to recommend. Criteria Include: 1. Comparison of the business cases 2. NPV analysis 3. IRR and payback period analysis 4. Analysis of additional information 5. Recommendation Comparison of the Business Cases Most Compelling Business Case Match My Doll Clothing Line Expansion Match My Doll Clothing Line Expansion is the the most compelling opportunity. This initial recommendation is based solely on a qualitative comparison of the cases and the financial exhibits provided by the brand managers. A SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, & Threat) analysis was used to aid the decision process. See Tables 1 & 2 for SWOT analysis. Benefits of the Match My Doll Clothing Line Expansion: * Success of the original line of business * Utilization of the businesses existing strengths * Long term ability for the product to stay up to date and drive business Concerns for the Design Your Own Doll: * High risk associated with developing a proprietary software system * Complexity of manufacturing * High break-even sales volume Overview Business...

Words: 1840 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll

...New Heritage Doll Company Capital Budgeting Analysis The New Heritage Doll Company is a company that makes dolls for children between the ages 3 – 12 years. The company has revenues of 245 million USD and an operating profit of 24 million USD. The company has three major divisions – The Retailing division, the Licensing division and the Production division. The head of the production division has to choose between two capital intensive projects that have been presented to her - the “Make My Doll Clothing Extension” (MMDCE henceforth) and the “Design Your Own Doll” (DYOD henceforth). This paper will try and analyze some of the issues that may need to be taken into account by the division head before she chooses a project for final approval. Issue 1: Product Line Growth Rate vs Industry Growth Rate The doll segment in the US is slated to grow at 3% in 2013 and lasting franchise value for branded lines of dolls is considered rare – most doll lines lose their popularity within a few years of launch. Given this reality, the underlying assumption of the two brand managers for the two projects is, in my opinion, quite optimistic. The MMDCE line is expected to grow at 8% while the DYOD line is expected to grow at 6% - which is much higher than the expected rate of growth in the dolls segment. The production head must, in my opinion, do due diligence and consider if the growth rates for these product lines can exceed the average industry growth rate by such a large extent. Issue 2: Possibility...

Words: 1004 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll

...New Heritage Doll Company: Capital Budgeting MGT 6060 20 September 2011 Overview Two business proposals from the Production division of the New Heritage Doll Company are being considered for submission to the capital budgeting committee. Only one proposal will be submitted. The proposals are: Match My Doll Clothing Line Expansion and Design Your Own Doll. A systematic process will be used to determine which proposal to recommend. Criteria Include: 1. Comparison of the business cases 2. NPV analysis 3. IRR and payback period analysis 4. Analysis of additional information 5. Recommendation Comparison of the Business Cases Most Compelling Business Case Match My Doll Clothing Line Expansion Match My Doll Clothing Line Expansion is the the most compelling opportunity. This initial recommendation is based solely on a qualitative comparison of the cases and the financial exhibits provided by the brand managers. A SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, & Threat) analysis was used to aid the decision process. See Tables 1 & 2 for SWOT analysis. Benefits of the Match My Doll Clothing Line Expansion: * Success of the original line of business * Utilization of the businesses existing strengths * Long term ability for the product to stay up to date and drive business Concerns for the Design Your Own Doll: * High risk associated with developing a proprietary software system * Complexity of manufacturing * High break-even sales...

Words: 1848 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

New Heritage Doll

...Universidad  Adolfo  Ibáñez                               Caso:  New  Heritage  Doll  Company                                             María  Eliana  Errázuriz   Raimundo  Muñoz   Josefina  Olivera   Antonio  Poblete   Luis  Felipe  Santa  María     1. Presente  y  compare  los  argumentos  de  negocio  para  las  dos  proyecciones   que  Emily  Harris  está  evaluando.  ¿Cuál  le  parece  más  atractiva?     La  empresa  tiene  dos  opciones  realizar  el  proyecto  “Match  My  Doll  Clothing”  o  el   proyecto  “Design  Your  Own  Doll”.     En  términos  de  costos,  la  primera  alternativa  tiene  costos  mucho  menores,  3.520   versus  5.811  millones  de  dólares.  Por  lo  tanto,  tiene  un  riesgo  moderado  y   representa  la  opción  más  segura  para  la  compañía.   Sin  embargo,  el  segundo  proyecto  está  más  alineado  a  la  estrategia  y  objetivos  de   la  empresa  y  promete  ingresos  futuros  mucho ...

Words: 1403 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

New Heritage Doll

...New Heritage Doll Company: Capital Budgeting Match my doll clothing line expansion 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ingresos 4,500 6,860 8,409 9,082 9,808 10,593 11,440 12,355 13,344 14,411 Crecimiento de Ingresos 52.4% 22.6% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% Costos de Producción Gastos Fijos de Producción (sin depreciación) 575 575 587 598 610 622 635 648 660 674 Costos Variables de Producción 2,035 3,404 4,291 4,669 5,078 5,521 6,000 6,519 7,079 7,685 Depreciación 152 152 152 152 164 178 192 207 224 242 Total de Costos de Producción 0 2,762 4,131 5,029 5,419 5,853 6,321 6,827 7,373 7,963 8,600 Gastos de Ventas, Generales y Administrativos 1,250 1,155 1,735 2,102 2,270 2,452 2,648 2,860 3,089 3,336 3,603 Total de Gastos Operativos 1,250 3,917 5,866 7,132 7,690 8,305 8,969 9,687 10,462 11,299 12,203 Utilidad de Operación -1,250 583 994 1,277 1,392 1,503 1,623 1,753 1,893 2,045 2,209 Supuestos de Capital de Trabajo Saldo minimo de caja como % de Ventas 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Días pendientes de venta 59.2 59.2 59.2 59.2 59.2 59.2 59.2 59.2 59.2 59.2 Rotación de Inventarios 7.7 8.3 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Días pendientes de pago (basado en gastos de operación) 30.8 30.9 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 ...

Words: 716 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll

...New Heritage Doll Company: Capital Budgeting Solution Sheet 1 NPV Analysis for Match My Doll Clothing Line Extension 2010 2011 4 500 NA 2012 6 860 52,44% 2013 8 409 22,58% 2014 9 082 8,00% 2015 9 808 8,00% 2016 10 593 8,00% 2017 11 440 8,00% 2018 12 355 8,00% 2019 13 344 8,00% 2020 14 411 8,00% 0 1 250 1 250 575 2 035 152 2 762 1 155 3 917 575 3 404 152 4 131 1 735 5 866 587 4 291 152 5 029 2 102 7 132 598 4 669 152 5 419 2 270 7 690 610 5 078 164 5 853 2 452 8 305 622 5 521 178 6 321 2 648 8 969 635 6 000 192 6 827 2 860 9 687 648 6 519 207 7 373 3 089 10 462 660 7 079 224 7 963 3 336 11 299 674 7 685 242 8 600 3 603 12 203 -1 250 583 994 1 277 1 392 1 503 1 623 1 753 1 893 2 045 2 209 3,0% 59,2x 7,7x 30,8x 3,0% 59,2x 8,3x 30,9x 3,0% 59,2x 12,7x 31,0x 3,0% 59,2x 12,7x 31,0x 3,0% 59,2x 12,7x 31,0x 3,0% 59,2x 12,7x 31,0x 3,0% 59,2x 12,7x 31,0x 3,0% 59,2x 12,7x 31,0x 3,0% 59,2x 12,7x 31,0x 3,0% 59,2x 12,7x 31,0x 952 152 152 334 361 389 421 454 491 530 2011 135 729 360 317 907 107 20,15% 2012 206 1 112 500 484 1 334 427 19,45% 2013 252 1 363 396 593 1 418 84 16,87% 2014 272 1 472 427 640 1 531 113 16,86% 2015 294 1 590 461 692 1 653 122 16,86% 2016 318 1 717 498 747 ...

Words: 1682 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll

...1. Compute the Free Cash Flows for the years 2010 to 2020 for both projects See excel File attached. Assumptions: * We assumed the required working capital in table 2 and 3 is the amount required in 2010, for further years we computed the WCR based on the ratio’s of minimum cash balance, number of days sales outstanding, inventory turnover and days payable outstanding (deducting the depreciation as instructed) * We assumed the SG&A and fixed production costs were project specific and therefore included them in the FCF analysis 2. Compute the NPV of both projects. Which would you recommend? What if they are not mutually exclusive? NPVMMDC = 7,150 NPVDYOD = 7,298 Based solely on the NPV analysis we would suggest to implement the DYOD project as it has a higher NPV. If both projects weren’t mutually exclusive, we would suggest implementing both as both have a positive NPV. 3. Compute IRR and payback period for both projects. Based on each criterion, which project would you recommend? If this differs from NPV analysis, explain the deviation? For MMDC: IRR = 23,99%* Payback period = 8 years (assuming the cash flows occur at year end, as instructed) For DYOD: IRR = 18,33%* Payback period = 11 years (assuming the cash flows in 2021 is indeed CF2020*1,03) *For the IRR analysis we drafted a NPV sensitivity graph in order to make sure that there are not 2 possible values for IRR. These graphs are to be found in the excel file attached...

Words: 1006 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

New Heritage Doll

...| | |NIKE Inc. | |Transition to Transnationality: A Strategic and Structural Outlook | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ...

Words: 4900 - Pages: 20

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll

...Your Own Doll' : Project costs in the first year were as budgeted but were not sufficient to get the assembly equipment and related software working properly. Additional outlays are required to complete the project, and the launch is accordingly delayed. Young Authors Book Series 'Best of Girls' books were an immediate success with the targeted demographic. Both revenue and profit levels exceeded expectations. 2012 EDI Supplier Software System The new system performed better than expected with regard to SG&A and working capital savings. Expansion to England Boutique sales were stronger than expected, due in large part to the success of 'Dolls of the World' in Europe. Bookstore Café and Writers' Club Initial revenues from the initiative were somewhat higher than expected, but this was offset by lower gross margins resulting from a somewhat different product mix than anticipated. Toddlers Music CD Series Initial revenues from Toddler CDs were twice as large as anticipated. 2011 Replace Assembly Equipment at Sacramento Facility The new machinery performed as expected. 'Match My Doll' Clothing Line, Expansion of Concept The expanded clothing line benefited from the strong performance of the initial 'Match My Doll' line and has outperformed projections. Acquisition of Electronic Toy Manufacturer The acquired business is profitable but performing below the investment case. A few key distributors declined to renew contracts, and future sales growth is threatened. New Inventory...

Words: 562 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll Company

...6273-Section 10 October 23, 2014 New Heritage Doll Company Write-up Introduction New Heritage Doll Company is a firm that has ventured into doll production which has sought to extend its brand in order to broaden its market framework and more importantly capitalize on high levels of customer loyalty. The vice president of the Company, Emily Harris, is to forward her project proposal to the Budgeting Committee for evaluation. The Vice-president’s objective for proposing the project was based on potential to strengthen the Company’s division of production and drive future growth. Emily Harris has to produce a compelling project to avoid the committee from declining the proposal. Basis of Assessment There are two projects between which the company can choose from or drop the proposals in their entirety. The methods of project evaluation would be based on discounting cash flows analysis and thereafter determining the Net Present Value (NPV) of each of the proposed project with Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Profitability Index and Payback Period. If the project has a positive NPV, it would suggests the project is generating more cash than is required to service the debt and provide the appropriate returns; thus, the higher NPV, the better it is for the company. The project proposal with the positive and highest NPV, IRR and profitability index along with the shortest payback period would be acceptable for investment. New Heritage Doll Company managed to produce a capital...

Words: 1346 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

New Heritage Doll Compant

...4212 SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 TIMOTHY LUEHRMAN HEIDE ABELLI New Heritage Doll Company: Capital Budgeting In mid-September of 2010, Emily Harris, vice president of New Heritage Doll Company’s production division, was weighing project proposals for the company’s upcoming capital budgeting meetings in October. Two proposals stood out based on their potential to strengthen the division’s innovative product lines and drive future growth. However, due to constraints on financial and managerial resources, Harris knew it was possible that the firm’s capital budgeting committee would decline to approve both projects. She also knew that New Heritage’s licensing and retail divisions would promote compelling projects of their own. Consequently, Harris had to be prepared to recommend one of her projects over the other. The Doll Industry Revenues in the U.S. toy and game industry totaled $42 billion in 2008 and were projected to increase by 4.6% per year to $52.5 billion by 2013. The market was divided into two broad segments: video games (48%) and traditional toys and games (52%). The second segment was further divided into infant/preschool toys (14.5%), dolls (14.1%), outdoor & sports toys (12.3%), and other toys & games (59.1%) including arts and crafts, plush toys, action figures, vehicles, and youth electronics. The U.S. market for toys and games was dominated by large global enterprises that enjoyed economies of scale in design, production, and distribution. Revenues...

Words: 4264 - Pages: 18

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll Essay

...------------------------------------------------- New Heritage Doll Co. ------------------------------------------------- Capital Budgeting [Author] New Heritage Doll Company: Capital Budgeting In the case of the New Heritage Doll Company, Emily Harris, Vice President of the company’s production division, is in the process of reviewing and analyzing two capital budgeting proposals within her division. Both proposals intend to spur long-term growth and to strengthen the division’s innovative product lines. Based on various financial and logistical constraints, Harris would only be able to choose one of the projects. The first project, proposed by Marcy McAdams, involves expanding the Match My Doll Clothing Line (MMDC). The second project proposed by Elizabeth Holtz, aims to introduce customization to the existing doll line, Design Your Own Doll (DYOD). In order to correctly identify which project is more compelling and valuable, Harris needs to carefully evaluate the projects based on qualitative and quantitative metrics such as the NPV, payback period, IRR and how well each project is aligned with corporate goals and strategies. When comparing the value of two proposals within a division it is important to not only compare the net present value of the two, but to also consider how each project aligns with the company’s high-level strategies, core competencies and manufacturing capabilities. Unlike the DYOD proposal, MMDC has already established itself as a successful...

Words: 1834 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll Company

...New Heritage Doll Company Financial Assessment Executive Summary New Heritage Doll Company’s production division has two serious proposals that will be presented to the capital budget committee. The first proposal, named Match My Doll Clothing Line extension, will add year round seasonal clothing to Heritage’s product line. This proposal’s NPV was $7,326.11. The IRR was 24.10% and the MIRR was 20.68%. The Profitability Index was 3.08 and the payback period was 7.11 years. The value of the tax shield is $647,000. The second proposal, called Design Your Own Doll, is a new product line related to the heirloom line. It is one that will allow customers to customize the looks of the dolls they purchase through the New Heritage Doll Company website by utilizing a new software program. This proposal has an NPV of $8,200.45. The IRR is 17.64% and the MIRR is 16.13%. It has a Profitability Index of 2.13 and a payback period of 10.11 years. The value of the tax shield for this project is $629,000. The screening of these projects was extensive and based on this analysis we recommend the Match My Doll Clothing line extension. Although the Design Your Own Doll Line has a higher NPV, it is not the key factor as to what we should use when picking one project over the other. It is important to factor in the IRR, MIRR, Payback Period, and the PI as well. Furthermore, we included the Value of the Tax Shield into our valuation of which project to choose. The Match My Doll Clothing...

Words: 3636 - Pages: 15

Premium Essay

New Heritage Doll Company

...New Heritage Doll Company: Capital Budgeting The New Heritage Doll Company’s Vice-President of Production, Emily Harris, had to decide which of two proposals she should approve for the company’s upcoming capital budgeting meetings. The first project involved expanding an existing “Match My Doll Clothing” line, which had a proven record of success in the past. The second project introduced a new initiative called “Design Your Own Doll”, which used a web-based software enabling users to customize a doll’s features to the customers’ specifications. To help Emily reach her decision, I will calculate the Net Present Value (NPV) of both projects to find out which project is more profitable. In the financial analysis of both projects Emily was given the following assumptions: 1. Operating projections were used to develop cash flow forecasts and then to calculate Net Present Value, Internal Rates of Return, payback period and other investment metrics. The cash flows excluded all financing charges and non-cash items (i.e. depreciation), and were calculated on an after-corporate-tax basis. The New Heritage’s corporate tax rate was 40% 2. Discount rate was set at 8.4% - for medium-risk project 3. NPV calculations included a terminal value computed as the value of a perpetuity growing at constant rate. I computed Free Cash Flows (FCF) to find out the actual amount of cash from operations that the company could use in developing its new projects. I calculated the terminal value...

Words: 1419 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

The New Heritage Doll Company

...The New Heritage Doll Company’s Vice-President of Production, Emily Harris, had to decide which of two proposals she should approve for the company’s upcoming capital budgeting meetings. The first project involved expanding an existing “Match My Doll Clothing” line, which had a proven record of success in the past. The second project introduced a new initiative called “Design Your Own Doll”, which used a web-based software enabling users to customize a doll’s features to the customers’ specifications. To help Emily reach her decision, I will calculate the Net Present Value (NPV) of both projects to find out which project is more profitable. In the financial analysis of both projects Emily was given the following assumptions:   1. Operating projections were used to develop cash flow forecasts and then to calculate   Net Present Value, Internal Rates of Return, payback period and other investment metrics. The cash flows excluded all financing charges and non-cash items (i.e. depreciation), and were calculated on an after-corporate-tax basis. The New Heritage’s corporate tax rate was 40% 2. Discount rate was set at 8.4% - for medium-risk project 3. NPV calculations included a terminal value computed as the value of a perpetuity growing at constant rate. I computed Free Cash Flows (FCF) to find out the actual amount of cash from operations that the company could use in developing its new projects. I calculated the terminal value for 2020 as projected FCF in the first year...

Words: 317 - Pages: 2