Need help? We are here

I need to read this case study and then answer the 2 questions at the end. Own work, careful with plagiarism.

Case 2: Samsung: Building a Great Brand

Ten  years  ago, Samsung Electronics  Company  sold  a  bunch  of  low-end  electronics  under  various  brand names such as Wise view, Tantus, and Yepp. New management decided to ditch these names and brand all of  its products  Samsung.  At  the  same  time,  it  invested  heavily  in  design  and  product  quality  and  in  10 years,   it   now   makes   top-of-the-line   cell   phones   and   digital   TVs   that   showcase   its   technological advancements. These are products to which consumers form strong bonds because they use them so much. Between 2000 and 2005, Samsung grew its brand equity by 186 percent, the second-biggest gain in value (behind Google), passing Sony who once had the premier brand reputation in electronics. Good looks, ease of use, useful features—these are the keys to building a great brand reputation. The ultimate driver of brand reputation is a quality product development process.

In 1993, then Samsung Chairman Lee Kun Hee visited the United States and saw for himself that Samsung products  were  also-rans,  lost  in  the  crowd,  overshadowed  by  Sony’s standout  design.  He  correctly concluded that great design and innovation were the ways to build Samsung into a great global brand.

Did he hire hundreds more great marketers to build a great brand? No. He hired hundreds more young hip designers,  many  trained  in  premier  U.S.  higher-education  schools  of  design  (the  number  of  designers employed by Samsung increased from about 100 to more than 450 in the next decade, with an average age of 33).Designers were sent all over the world to great museums, art galleries, ancient ruins, and illustrious modern architecture. They now also spend sabbaticals with design consultancies, fashion houses, furniture designers,  and  other centers of  design  excellence  abroad.  Samsung  designers  come  back  with  their  minds loaded with great design ideas; they  lead the  product  development,  not  marketers. It is hard to argue  with this  process  of  inspiring  great  design  innovation:  hire  creative,  well-trained  young  designers  who  are willing to take risks and light up their minds.

But the Samsung product development process also involves a very grounded ―usability laboratory‖ in downtown Seoul to study how consumers get products out of boxes, read or do not read instruction guides, and  follow  icons  and  instructions  on  cell-phone  screens.  Understanding  the  user  interface  is  key  to Samsung and has been key to its success.

But Samsung also has design centers in San Francisco, London, Tokyo and Shanghai. And to support great design  is  a  research  and  development center just  outside  Seoul,  South  Korea.  Here  the  top-gun  engineers and designers hunker down and solve the toughest product specification and design problems, working 24/7 in a five-story building equipped with sleeping dormitories, a sauna, a gym, billiards, and ping-pong tables. No  layers  of  bureaucracy  trying  to  justify  their  not-very-productive  existence;  no  endless  committees;  no staged  review  gauntlets,  stop-go-dawdle  reviews,  or  somewhat  fawning  ritual  presentations  to  distracted senior executives: ―Everybody knows that bureaucracy means death to new ideas, yet most companies still insist  on  forcing  innovative  products  and  ventures  through  a  gauntlet  of  presentations  and  reviews  and refinements. No nay-saying lawyers. No delaying actions by feuding factions or senior executives pulling rank  and  exercising  political  brinkmanship  at  this  R  &  D center. No ―that is not the way we do things around here.

The 24/7 approach to problem solving is pretty intense but compelling in its logic. Other companies such as Steelcase,  the  Mayo  Clinic,  P&G,  and  Motorola  are  developing  and  using  similar  innovation  labs.  It involves concurrent engineering and fast prototyping and deviates quite considerably from yesterday’s best-practice process of product  development presented in  Module 6. For Samsung, 80 percent of quality, cost, and delivery time is determined in the initial stages of product development and Samsung is obsessed with  reducing  complexity  at  this  stage.  Samsung  practices  what  Confucius  and  Albert  Einstein  preached, respectively: ―Life is really simple but we insist on making it complicated, and ―Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

What the best product development companies do is create simple products, get feedback from customers, make the product better, and do all of this as fast as they can, or at least, ever faster. You are dead if you do not  create  simple  products;  you  are  dead  if  you  do  not  get  feedback  from  customers;  and  you are  dead  if you do not do all of this quickly. There are a lot of ways of getting ―dead‖ in product development, which is  why  so  many  new  or  improved  products  fail.  The  recipe  for  success  in  product  development  is  no mystery—it is just very hard to execute.

The drive for improvement is ferocious at Samsung. Samsung cut average product development time down from  an  average  of  14  months  to  five  months.  Samsung  completely  changes  its  product  lines  every  nine months,  Motorola  every  12  to  18  months,  as  if  to say, ―Motorola and Nokia [who fell behind in mobile phone design in 2005], eat my dust.‖ Samsung can have the next generation of a product on the market before  the  competition  has  its  last  generation  of  product  out  because,  as  is  seen  with  Motorola,  two Samsung  product  development  cycles  occur  within  one  Motorola  product  development  cycle.  Change management  is  king  at  Samsung.  The  result  is  that  Samsung  Electronics  has  lower  manufacturing  costs, quicker  time to  market,  an  industry-leading  profit  margin  of 21  percent,  and  from  2002  to  2006  the  most industrial design excellence awards of any company, 19 (Apple was second with 15).

And from nothing, the Samsung brand is now worth more than the Sony brand. Philips, Europe’s oldest electronics brand, is  also having  to  learn  (again)  from  another  Asian  upstart and  is  now  rebranding  itself around the idea of ―sense and simplicity.‖ And how does Samsung view itself now? Its CEO, Jong-Yong Yun, says that Samsung is a good company but that ―we still have a lot of things to do before we are a great company. ‖ The drive to improve, to learn, to implement faster and better is as ferocious as ever. Samsung has great process innovators with both process thinking and political skills, who get things done well in a hurry. Is all this process improvement drive in Samsung paying off? Is this the path to shareholder value? Samsung stock has increased in value tenfold since 2000, so owners would  probably  agree.  Remember from Module 1 that the drive to improve, to learn, and to implement faster processes—particularly next-generation product development processes—drives the whole market.

3.Yesterday’s Best practice in product development is presented in the module. Where is it criticized in the case?

4. Analyze price strategy, distribution strategy, or promotion strategy of Samsung in the U. S. and compare with one other country in South America, Asian, or Europe.