McDonald's Strategy Presentation
•
52 likes•42,889 views
A presentation about future strategy recommendations of McDonald's Restaurants UK Limited in the UK Fast Food Industry.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to McDonald's Strategy Presentation
Similar to McDonald's Strategy Presentation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
McDonald's Strategy Presentation
- 1. 16 November 2012 by Jessica Bürger, Lennart Franke, Lia Komescher, Luke Myers & Niklas Reinhold
- 2. McDonald’s Restaurants UK Limited European Division 1,200 restaurants 2.5m people a day 87,500 employees >65% franchised
- 3. Jill McDonald Alistair Macrow CEO VP Marketing Lauren Cody Jez Langhorn VP Business VP People Strategy
- 4. Consumer Foodservice Industry Full Service Restaurants 30% Characteristics standardized & restricted menu Fast Food Café Bars 26% food for immediate consumption 26% Self Service Cafeterias young unskilled labour force Kiosks 100% Home Delivery counter service sector shares
- 6. Strategic Management Framework Internal Values Goals Resources & Capabilities Structure & Processes Strengths & weaknesses
- 7. Strategic Management Framework Internal External Values Goals General environment Resources & Capabilities Competitive environment Structure & Processes Opportunities & Strengths & weaknesses Threats
- 8. Strategic Management Framework Internal External Values Goals Strategy General environment Resources & Capabilities 1.Analyses Competitive 2.Formulation environment Structure & 3.Implementation Processes 4.Evaluation Opportunities & Strengths & weaknesses Threats
- 9. Strategic Management Framework External General environment Competitive environment Opportunities & Threats
- 10. Strategic Position macro-environment PESTEL industry Industry Life Cycle Five Forces
- 11. P E S T E L
- 12. P E L S E T
- 13. P E identifying KEY L S DRIVERS for E T change
- 15. Cardboard packaging made of 72% recycled paper first to introduce Daily Litter Patrols
- 16. Socio-cultural Changes HEALTHY LIVING
- 18. Obesity rates tripled overweight 37% 30% overweight 63% 70% of adults (16 or over) of children (2-15)
- 19. “all junk” perceptions diminish
- 20. “all junk” perceptions diminish I think fast food is all junk 50% 37.5% 37.8% 34.7% 33% 32.9% 31.5% 25% 12.5% 2008 2012 0%
- 21. “all junk” perceptions diminish I think fast food I wouldn’t let my is all junk child eat junk food 50% 50% 37.5% 37.5% 37.8% 34.7% 33% 32.9% 31.5% 25% 25% 28.4% 26.7% 25.2% 24.1% 22.5% 12.5% 12.5% 2008 2012 2008 2012 0% 0%
- 22. Food Education
- 23. DEMO Food Education Nutrition Calculator
- 24. Jamie Oliver on Fast Food @ TED Long Beach, California 2010
- 26. 2m customers on Facebook
- 30. Trust
- 32. Fast Food market is stagnant 1,100m Maturity 2015
- 35. “Traditional” Fast Food Fast Casual
- 36. Does McDonald’s offer a casual dining experience?
- 38. Convenience impacts purchase decisions 1. 56.2% 2. 42.2% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 1. I will often switch shop if it proves to be quicker and more convenient to me 2. Convenience often plays a part in my purchase decisions
- 39. Rivalry Entry threat Substitute Threat Buyer Power Supplier Power
- 40. Rivalry Entry threat Substitute Threat Buyer Power Supplier Power
- 41. Rivalry Entry threat Substitute Threat Buyer Power Supplier Power
- 42. Rivalry Entry threat Substitute Threat Buyer Power Supplier Power
- 43. Rivalry Entry threat Substitute Threat Buyer Power Supplier Power
- 44. Rivalry Entry threat Substitute Threat Buyer Power Supplier Power
- 45. Rivalry Entry threat Substitute Threat Buyer Power Supplier Power
- 46. Strategic Management Framework External General environment Competitive environment Opportunities & Threats
- 47. Strategic Management Framework Internal External Values Goals Strategy General environment Resources & Capabilities 1.Analyses Competitive 2.Formulation environment Structure & 3.Implementation Processes 4.Evaluation Opportunities & Strengths & weaknesses Threats
- 48. Strategic Management Framework Internal Values Goals Resources & Capabilities Structure & Processes Strengths & weaknesses
- 49. Strategic Capabilities VRIO Framework Resources & Competences Value Chain & Network
- 50. Distinctive Resources and Core Competences
- 51. Enormous Fiscal Strengths Revenue 2010 (£m) 1,184.5 59 371.2 0 300 600 900 1200 McDonalds Restaurants Limited Burger King Ltd Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Limited
- 52. Enormous Fiscal Strengths Profit 2010 (£m) 157.2 42 41.2 0 50 100 150 200 McDonalds Restaurants Limited Burger King Ltd Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Limited
- 53. Fiscal Strengths Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 54. Fiscal Strengths Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 55. Fiscal Strengths Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 56. Operating Margin 2010 (%) 13.3% 71.1% 11.1% 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 McDonalds Restaurants Limited Burger King Ltd Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Limited
- 57. Rank 7 40,062
- 58. Brand Value Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 59. Brand Value Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 60. Brand Value Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 61. Outlets & Exposure 1,200 outlets in UK 2.5m customers per day
- 62. Exposure Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 63. Exposure Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 64. Exposure Valuable YES Rare YES Costly to imitate YES Exploited by Organization YES Sustained Competitive implication competitive advantage
- 65. Product Range at McDonald’s UK
- 66. Product Range at McDonald’s UK Beef Chicken Deli Fish Salads Sides 6 22 8 2 7 6
- 67. Product Range Valuable Yes Rare No Costly to imitate Exploited by Organization Competitive implication competitive parity
- 68. Product Range Valuable Yes Rare No Costly to imitate Exploited by Organization Competitive implication competitive parity
- 69. Product Range Valuable Yes Rare No Costly to imitate Exploited by Organization Competitive implication competitive parity
- 71. strengths and weaknesses Firm Infrastructure Human Resource Management Technology Development Procurement Inbound Outbound Marketing & Operations Service Logistics Logistics Sales
- 72. It took 5 years for the store redesign across the UK rigid and inflexible
- 73. Value Chain Analysis Firm Infrastructure Human Resource Management Technology Development Procurement Inbound Outbound Marketing & Operations Service Logistics Logistics Sales
- 74. Value Chain Analysis Firm Infrastructure Human Resource Management Technology Development Procurement Inbound Outbound Marketing & Operations Service Logistics Logistics Sales
- 75. Value Chain Analysis Firm Infrastructure Human Resource Management Technology Development Procurement Inbound Outbound Marketing & Operations Service Logistics Logistics Sales
- 76. Strategic Management Framework Internal Values Goals Resources & Capabilities Structure & Processes Strengths & weaknesses
- 77. Strategic Management Framework Internal External Values Goals Strategy General environment Resources & Capabilities 1.Analyses Competitive 2.Formulation environment Structure & 3.Implementation Processes 4.Evaluation Opportunities & Strengths & weaknesses Threats
- 78. Strategic Management Framework Strategy 1.Analyses 2.Formulation 3.Implementation 4.Evaluation Opportunities & Strengths & weaknesses Threats
- 79. SWOT Strengths Opportunities Weaknesses Threats
- 80. SWOT Strengths Opportunities Weaknesses Threats Internal External
- 81. SWOT Strengths Opportunities We We can can control Weaknesses Threats impact Internal External
- 82. SWOT Strengths Opportunities We Capitalize Invest We can can control Weaknesses Threats impact Shore up Identify Internal External
- 83. Strengths Opportunities Weaknesses Threats
- 84. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability Eating Communities Substitutes
- 85. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - Advertising - Most Outlets - Franchise - Top Down Approach
- 86. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - Advertising - Most Outlets - Franchise - Top Down Approach Weaknesses - High staff turnover - Inflexible / Rigid - Dependence on Technology - PR - narrow product range
- 87. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability + - Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - - + +1 -2 - Franchise + + +3 -0 - Top Down Approach + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores + 14 -13
- 88. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability + - Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - - + +1 -2 - Franchise + + +3 -0 - Top Down Approach + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores + 14 -13
- 89. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability + - Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - - + +1 -2 - Franchise + + +3 -0 - Top Down Approach + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores +1 + 14 -13
- 90. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability + - Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - - + +1 -2 - Franchise + + +3 -0 - Top Down Approach + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores +1 -1 + 14 -13
- 91. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability + - Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - - + +1 -2 - Franchise + + +3 -0 - Top Down Approach + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores +1 -1 0 + 14 -13
- 92. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability + - Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - - + +1 -2 - Franchise + + +3 -0 - Top Down Approach + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores +1 -1 0 +1 + 14 -13
- 93. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Intense Rivalry & Sustainability + - Eating Communities Substitutes Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - - + +1 -2 - Franchise + + +3 -0 - Top Down Approach + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores +1 -1 0 +1 + 14 -13
- 94. Strategy Formulation Strategy 1.Analyses 2.Formulation 3.Implementation 4.Evaluation
- 95. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Sustainability Intense Rivalry + - Eating Communities Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - - + +1 -2 - Franchise + + +3 -0 - Top Down Approach + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores +1 -1 0 +1 + 14 -13
- 96. SWOT Analysis Environmental change (Opportunities and Threats) Healthy Living / Online Sustainability Intense Rivalry + - Eating Communities Options that Strengths - Brand Image / Product Value - - + + +2 -2 - Advertising + + + + +4 -0 - Most Outlets - Franchise - Top Down Approach minimize weak areas - + - + + +1 +3 -2 -0 + - + +2 -1 Weaknesses - High staff turnover to avoid threats - +0 -1 - Inflexible / Rigid - - - - +0 -4 - Dependence on Technology + + TOWS - +1 -1 - PR + - +1 -1 - narrow product range - - -2 Environmental impact scores +1 -1 0 +1 + 14 -13
- 97. Attitudes towards Food Habits 100% 75% 50% 53% 34% 25% 29% 14% 0% 6% eating more healthy food no time checking nutritional content vegetarian 5 a day 2012
- 98. Healthy healthy dining casual Fast Food fast Non-Fast Food casual dining McDonald’s customers Un-healthy
- 99. Healthy healthy dining casual Fast Food fast Non-Fast Food casual dining McDonald’s customers Un-healthy
- 100. Time of the day to visit fast food restaurants 2012 60% 45% 48.2% 37.6% Regular ? 30% Occasional 19.8% 15% 14.1% 5.9% 6.1% 0% 3.3% 0.5% Evening/ Morning Lunch Afternoon Night
- 101. Current Market Development 1,100m Maturity 2015
- 102. Diversify the Fast Food market and product range through internal development
- 103. Market Penetration Product Development Market Development Diversification
- 105. Vegetarian Burgers
- 106. Breakfast Menu
- 108. brand Integrity Positioning Differentiation 3i VALUE-DRIVEN i ty bra nt Ide Marketing nd Brand Im nd age bra
- 109. Strategy Evaluation Strategy 1.Analyses 2.Formulation 3.Implementation 4.Evaluation
- 110. Is this strategic direction suitable?
- 111. Is this strategic direction suitable? YES invest in opportunity long term profits first mover advantages expertise in test marketing
- 112. Is this strategic direction suitable? YES NO invest in opportunity hold strong position long term profits uncertainty in innovation first mover advantages short term expertise in test marketing first mover disadvantages
- 113. Is this strategic direction acceptable?
- 114. Is this strategic direction acceptable?
- 115. Is this strategic direction acceptable? test marketing investment new suppliers marketing campaign
- 116. Is this strategic direction acceptable? keep seasonal campaigns Real Options educate further focus on sustainability ...
- 117. Level of Interest High Low High Parent Company Shareholders P o w e r Suppliers Low Employees
- 118. Level of Interest High Low High Parent Company Shareholders P o w e r Suppliers Low Employees
- 119. Level of Interest High Low High P o Media w Activists Regular e Customers r Low Occasional Customers
- 120. Level of Interest High Low High Health conscious customers P o Media w Activists Regular e Customers r Low Occasional Customers
- 121. Level of Interest High Low High Health conscious customers P o Media w Activists Regular e Customers r Low Occasional Customers
- 122. Is this strategic direction feasible?
- 123. Conclusion industry cycle demands innovation strategic position prospects of long-term profits first-mover advantages sustained competitive advantage Be proactive. Internal development.
- 124. Thank you for your attention
Editor's Notes
- \n
- Quick Facts McDonalds UK:\n\nMcDonald’s is the world’s largest chain of quick service restaurants with more than 33,500 restaurants worldwide and employing 1.7million people.\nIn the UK there are 1,200 restaurants which serve approximately 2.5 million people every day.\nIn the UK, we employ 87,500 people and invest over £30million on training and development every year.\nWe offer all of our people a culture of flexibility, opportunity, equality and diversity. \nAs a franchising organisation, more than 65% of our restaurants in the UK are owned and operated by local businessmen and women.  \nMcDonald’s restaurants function as part of the local community – we lead and support a range of community activities from litter picks to charity events and local football matches.\nWe offer our people career progression: 9 out of 10 restaurant managers started as crew; 1 in 5 franchisees started as crew.\nWe are a proud supporter of British agriculture, in fact we source around 55% of the ingredients for our menu from 17,500 British and Irish farms.\nWe have long tradition of supporting community football; for over decade we have supported initiatives to encourage young people into football through raising the standards in local clubs.  Since 2002 McDonald’s has been Official Community Partner of the four UK Football Associations.  During that time we have created over 20,000 new football coaches across the UK and helped raised standards in over 6,000 local clubs.\nWe are proud of our long-term commitment to the Olympics. Our involvement first began in 1968 when US Olympic athletes became so homesick for American food that we airlifted some of our hamburgers into the Olympic Village. Our official sponsorship of the Games began in 1976 at the Montreal Games and we are proud that this sponsorship is continuing for London 2012.\nIn addition to being the official restaurant of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, for London 2012 we are also the Presenting Partner of the Games Maker programme.  We’re playing this role because we have a proven track record in people development which we will extend to the 70,000 volunteers that will be needed to make the Games a success. \n\nSources:\nhttp://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/Aboutus/Newsroom/facts_and_stats0/fast_facts.html\nhttp://www.cio.co.uk/cio100/mcdonalds-restaurants/4170/\n\n\n
- \n
- Explanation of different sectors in Food Sevice Industry\n\n100% Home Delivery/TakeawayFixed units which provide no facilities for consumption on the premises. Food can either be picked up by the consumer, or delivered, often for an additional charge. Common offerings include: pizzas, Chinese, Indian, Mexican, Middle Eastern, West Indian, North African, and other local national offerings. Companies offering a mixture of table and delivery service are excluded and fall under the FSR sector.\n\nCafés/BarsThis sector encompasses all establishments where the focus is on drinking either alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages and where food is also served. While a wide variety of snacks and full meals are offered, it is not uncommon for consumers to only order a drink. Cafés/Bars includes Bars/Pubs, Cafés, Juice/Smoothie Bars, and Specialist Coffee Shops. Full scale juice bars, such as energy drink bars and fruit juice bars are included in the Juice/Smoothie Bars category. Juice and smoothie bars in a street stall or kiosk type format are included in the Street stalls/kiosks category.\n\nFull-Service RestaurantsFull-service restaurants encompass all sit-down establishments where the focus is on food rather than on drink. It is characterised by table service and a relatively higher quality of food offering to quick-service units. It also includes à la carte, all-you-can-eat and sit-down buffets within restaurants. Merchandising sales are excluded.\n\nFast FoodFast food outlets are typically distinguished by the following characteristics: - A standardised and restricted menu; - Food for immediate consumption; - Tight individual portion control on all ingredients and on the finished product; - Individual packaging of each item; - A young and unskilled labour force; - Counter service; - For chained fast food, chained and franchised operations which operate under a uniform fascia and corporate identity.\n\nSelf-Service CafeteriasSelf-service cafeteria outlets provide no (or limited) service content. Food is presented on counters or available made-to-order through food stalls. The customer chooses the items they want and pays for everything at a separate pay station or check-out.\n\nStreet Stalls/KiosksSmall, mobile foodservice providers characterised by a very limited product offering and by low prices. Includes street hawkers and larger branded complexes, for example in Asia-Pacific. Also includes kiosks and carts located externally or internally e.g. in shopping malls etc.\n\nSource: GMID Passport (Euromonitor)\n
- with these previous parameters set we will analyse the strategic position and capabilities of mcdonalds in order to draw up a swot analysis\n\nfrom there we go on to our recommended strategy\n
- Underlying structure of the presentation\n\n1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n\nSource: Henry, A. (2008). Understanding Strategic Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n
- Underlying structure of the presentation\n\n1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n\nSource: Henry, A. (2008). Understanding Strategic Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n
- Underlying structure of the presentation\n\n1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n\nSource: Henry, A. (2008). Understanding Strategic Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n
- Underlying structure of the presentation\n\n1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n\nSource: Henry, A. (2008). Understanding Strategic Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n
- PESTEL Analysis\n\nUltimate goal of PESTEL: identify key drivers for change in the macro-environment\n\nPolitical Environment\nOpposition to the government's austerity programme is strong and widespread\n- government's emergency budget called for the deficit to be slashed to just 1.1% of GDP by 2016, down from a forecast 10.2% in 2011.\n- government has pledged to achieve spending cuts of £80 billion alongside £30 billion in tax increases to trim Britain's huge deficit.\n- The country's Office for Budget Responsibility believes it will take at least until 2017 to reach the government's goal of eliminating the structural budget deficit.\n- This is 2-3 years longer than has been anticipated.\n- In June 2012, the government and the Bank of England announced a new stimulus programme intended to prevent the cost of credit from rising further.\n- The cost of the plan is put at £140 billion. It will provide cheap credit to banks to lend to companies.\n- Banks will also have access to short-term money to deal with “exceptional market stresses”.\n- The central bank pumped £325 billion into the economy through its quantitative easing programmes, under which it buys up government bonds.\n- Another round of quantitative easing began in the second half of the year.\n\nPublic debt amounted to £1,244 billion in 2011, equivalent to 82.0% of GDP.\n- In real terms, the value of public debt rose by 8.3% in 2011 and an increase of 7.7% is forecast for 2012.\nSpending on social security and welfare made up 35.4% of government expenditure in 2011 followed by spending on health (16.8%).\n\nThe Irish Republican Army has ended its armed struggle, promising to abandon not only paramilitary activity but also organised crime. \n\n\nEconomic Environment: 2010\n\nTotal GDP (bn): $2,248.1 (£1,441.9)\nHistoric Trend:-1.2% (3yr CAGR, 2007-2010)\nForecast:+2.1% (3yr CAGR, 2010-2013)\n\nInflation: 3.3%\nHistoric Trend: 1.0% (absolute, 2007-2010) \nForecast:-1.3% (absolute, 2010-2013)\n\nAnnual Disposable Income Per Capita: $23,053.1 (£14,786.3)\nHistoric Trend:0.0% (3yr CAGR, 2007-2010)\nForecast:1.3% (3yr CAGR, 2010-2013)\n\nUnemployment Rate: 7.8%\nHistoric Trend: 2.5% (absolute, 2007-2010) \nForecast:-0.1% (absolute, 2010-2013)\n\nLegal Environment\nLegal Cases - Fries advertisement (UK):\nIn 2003, a ruling by the UK Advertising Standards Authority determined that the corporation had acted in breach of the codes of practice in describing how its french fries were prepared. A McDonald's print ad stated that "after selecting certain potatoes", "we peel them, slice them, fry them and that's it." It showed a picture of a potato in a McDonald's fries box. In fact, the product was sliced, pre-fried, sometimes had dextrose added, was then frozen, shipped, and re-fried and then had salt added. (Source: http://www.asa.org.uk)\n=> No recent complaints\nTotal tax rate 37.3 (% profit)\nLabour tax and contributions 11 (% of commercial profits)\n\n\n\n\nSources:\nOwn Research, GMID Passport Database\nUnited Kingdom: Country Profile. Euromonitor International, 21 September 2012\nRisks and Vulnerabilities: United Kingdom. Euromonitor International 25 May 2011\n\n
- Environmental Changes\n\n\nAmbitious carbon emission targets\n- second largest emitter of CO2 from fossil fuels in the EU in 2010\n- CO2 emissions are on a downward trend, having decreased from 583 million tonnes to 520 million tonnes in the interval 2005-2010\n- reduced CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by 10.8% in the years 2005-2010\n- Over the same period the UK's share in EU CO2 emissions has decreased from 13.6% to 13.4%\n- co-signatory to the UN protocol on climate change ('The Kyoto Protocol'), according to which it has committed to reduce its emissions (defined against a 1990 baseline) by 12.5% until 2012\n- The UK had achieved that target more than a decade in advance\n- The 2008 Climate Change Act made Britain the first country in the world to set legally binding five-year 'carbon budgets' and set two targets: an interim one of cutting UK emissions by 34.0% by 2020 and a final target of reducing emissions by at least 80.0% percent by 2050. These targets are also defined against the 1990 baseline.\n\nVery low incidence of natural disasters\n- mortality risk index, as compiled by the UN from historical data, is 3 (low), on a scale that ranges from 1 (negligible) to 10 (extreme)\n- The incidence of storms and floods has increased in the UK since WWII\n- 2009 estimates show that extreme weather events will cost UK households an extra 4.0% each year\n- Between 2005 and 2010, floods and storms alone have caused damages worth an estimated US$10.8 billion.\n- The UK government has a programme of action in response to possible future effects of climate change, which includes coastal management and improving water security.\n\nSources:\nOwn Research, GMID Passport Database\nUnited Kingdom: Country Profile. Euromonitor International, 21 September 2012\nRisks and Vulnerabilities: United Kingdom. Euromonitor International 25 May 2011\n\n
- McDonald’s Advances towards Sustainability\n\n\n- first to introduce Daily Litter Patrols in all restaurants.\n- cardboard packaging is made of 72% recycled paper.\n- Waterless urinals have been installed in 450 McDonald's restaurants, and is part of ongoing refurbishment program.\n- founding member of “Love Where You Live” (http://www.lovewhereyoulive.org)\n\nSource: http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/Ourworld/Environment.html\n\n\nImpressions from Eco-Summit in Copenhagen 2012:\n- McDonalds Germany decided to make a first “real” step to “sustainable and eco-friendly” positioning\n- The idea was so simple and exciting – they literally changed the background of an iconic arched logo from red to green.\n\nSource: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/mcdonalds-decides-to-go-green-changing-its-iconic-logo-in-germany/343288\n\n\n
- \n
- media awareness increases\ncelebrities are fighting against obesity (Michelle Obama & Jamie Oliver)\n\n\n\n\n
- Obesity\n\nThe prevalence of obesity in England has more than tripled in the last 25 years\n\nThe latest Health Survey for England (HSE) data shows that in England in 2010:\n62.8% of adults (aged 16 or over) were overweight or obese\n30.3% of children (aged 2-15) were overweight or obese\n26.1% of all adults and 16% of all children were obese\n\nForesight’s Tackling Obesities: Future Choices report\npublished in October 2007, predicted that if no action was taken\n60% of men\n50% of women\n25% of children\nin Britain would be obese by 2050.\n\nSources:\nhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/04/obesityfacts/\nhttp://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/published-projects/tackling-obesities\n\nStudy in the American Journal of Health Promotion\n\nThe Relationship Between Obesity and the Prevalence of Fast Food Restaurants: State-Level Analysis\nJay Maddock\n\nAbstract\n\nPurpose:\nObesity accounts for approximately 300,000 deaths a year in the United States, and prevalence rates have been increasing over the past decade. The nutrition environment may be contributing to this epidemic. This study examined the relationship between fast food restaurants and obesity on a state-wide basis.\nDesign:\nA one-time cross-sectional analysis of secondary data was used for this study.\nSetting:\nThe setting for this study was the United States.\nSubjects:\nState-level data were used as the unit of analysis. Alaska was excluded as an outlier, and the District of Columbia was added (N = 50).\nMeasures:\nMeasures included aggregate state-level means for square miles per fast food restaurant, population per fast food restaurant, population density, ethnicity, age, gender, physical inactivity, fruit and vegetable intake, and obesity rates. Data were obtained from the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor and Surveillance Survey, the 2000 U.S. Census, and the 2002 U.S. Yellow Pages.\nResults:\nMultiple hierarchal regressions revealed that square miles per fast food restaurants and residents per restaurant accounted for 6% of the variance in state obesity rates after controlling for population density, ethnicity, age, gender, physical inactivity, and fruit and vegetable intake. The entire model explained 70% of the total variance in state obesity rates.\nConclusions:\nThese results indicate a correlational relationship between both the number of residents per fast food restaurant and the square miles per fast food restaurants with state-level obesity prevalence. Limitations include the use of correlational aggregate data.\n\n\nSource:\nhttp://www.ajhpcontents.org/doi/abs/10.4278/0890-1171-19.2.137\n
- Fewer UK consumers think that fast food is all junk\n\nConsumer perceptions that fast food is all ‘junk’ continue to diminish as operators in the market remain committed to improving the image of their products in order to meet consumers’ heightened expectations of what constitutes value- for-money offerings. Operators’ focus on wooing back the family market through e.g. improvements in nutritional content and widening the healthy options available in children’s meals, has also helped to reduce the proportion of adults who state that they wouldn’t let their children eat junk food from around 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.\n\n\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Burger and Chicken Restaurants - UK - September 2012”\nFigure 48: Trends in attitudes towards junk food, takeaways and snacks, 2008-12\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q3 2008-2012 (April-March)/Mintel\n\n\n
- Fewer UK consumers think that fast food is all junk\n\nConsumer perceptions that fast food is all ‘junk’ continue to diminish as operators in the market remain committed to improving the image of their products in order to meet consumers’ heightened expectations of what constitutes value- for-money offerings. Operators’ focus on wooing back the family market through e.g. improvements in nutritional content and widening the healthy options available in children’s meals, has also helped to reduce the proportion of adults who state that they wouldn’t let their children eat junk food from around 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.\n\n\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Burger and Chicken Restaurants - UK - September 2012”\nFigure 48: Trends in attitudes towards junk food, takeaways and snacks, 2008-12\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q3 2008-2012 (April-March)/Mintel\n\n\n
- Fewer UK consumers think that fast food is all junk\n\nConsumer perceptions that fast food is all ‘junk’ continue to diminish as operators in the market remain committed to improving the image of their products in order to meet consumers’ heightened expectations of what constitutes value- for-money offerings. Operators’ focus on wooing back the family market through e.g. improvements in nutritional content and widening the healthy options available in children’s meals, has also helped to reduce the proportion of adults who state that they wouldn’t let their children eat junk food from around 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.\n\n\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Burger and Chicken Restaurants - UK - September 2012”\nFigure 48: Trends in attitudes towards junk food, takeaways and snacks, 2008-12\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q3 2008-2012 (April-March)/Mintel\n\n\n
- Fewer UK consumers think that fast food is all junk\n\nConsumer perceptions that fast food is all ‘junk’ continue to diminish as operators in the market remain committed to improving the image of their products in order to meet consumers’ heightened expectations of what constitutes value- for-money offerings. Operators’ focus on wooing back the family market through e.g. improvements in nutritional content and widening the healthy options available in children’s meals, has also helped to reduce the proportion of adults who state that they wouldn’t let their children eat junk food from around 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.\n\n\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Burger and Chicken Restaurants - UK - September 2012”\nFigure 48: Trends in attitudes towards junk food, takeaways and snacks, 2008-12\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q3 2008-2012 (April-March)/Mintel\n\n\n
- Fewer UK consumers think that fast food is all junk\n\nConsumer perceptions that fast food is all ‘junk’ continue to diminish as operators in the market remain committed to improving the image of their products in order to meet consumers’ heightened expectations of what constitutes value- for-money offerings. Operators’ focus on wooing back the family market through e.g. improvements in nutritional content and widening the healthy options available in children’s meals, has also helped to reduce the proportion of adults who state that they wouldn’t let their children eat junk food from around 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.\n\n\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Burger and Chicken Restaurants - UK - September 2012”\nFigure 48: Trends in attitudes towards junk food, takeaways and snacks, 2008-12\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q3 2008-2012 (April-March)/Mintel\n\n\n
- Fewer UK consumers think that fast food is all junk\n\nConsumer perceptions that fast food is all ‘junk’ continue to diminish as operators in the market remain committed to improving the image of their products in order to meet consumers’ heightened expectations of what constitutes value- for-money offerings. Operators’ focus on wooing back the family market through e.g. improvements in nutritional content and widening the healthy options available in children’s meals, has also helped to reduce the proportion of adults who state that they wouldn’t let their children eat junk food from around 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.\n\n\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Burger and Chicken Restaurants - UK - September 2012”\nFigure 48: Trends in attitudes towards junk food, takeaways and snacks, 2008-12\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q3 2008-2012 (April-March)/Mintel\n\n\n
- Fewer UK consumers think that fast food is all junk\n\nConsumer perceptions that fast food is all ‘junk’ continue to diminish as operators in the market remain committed to improving the image of their products in order to meet consumers’ heightened expectations of what constitutes value- for-money offerings. Operators’ focus on wooing back the family market through e.g. improvements in nutritional content and widening the healthy options available in children’s meals, has also helped to reduce the proportion of adults who state that they wouldn’t let their children eat junk food from around 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.\n\n\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Burger and Chicken Restaurants - UK - September 2012”\nFigure 48: Trends in attitudes towards junk food, takeaways and snacks, 2008-12\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q3 2008-2012 (April-March)/Mintel\n\n\n
- Fewer UK consumers think that fast food is all junk\n\nConsumer perceptions that fast food is all ‘junk’ continue to diminish as operators in the market remain committed to improving the image of their products in order to meet consumers’ heightened expectations of what constitutes value- for-money offerings. Operators’ focus on wooing back the family market through e.g. improvements in nutritional content and widening the healthy options available in children’s meals, has also helped to reduce the proportion of adults who state that they wouldn’t let their children eat junk food from around 28% in 2008 to 23% in 2012.\n\n\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Burger and Chicken Restaurants - UK - September 2012”\nFigure 48: Trends in attitudes towards junk food, takeaways and snacks, 2008-12\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q3 2008-2012 (April-March)/Mintel\n\n\n
- Ingredients of The Chicken & Chutney Indian \n\nChicken Legend Patty :\nChicken (60%), Coating [Wheat Flour, Vegetable Oil (Rapeseed, Sunflower), Water, Breadcrumbs (Wheat Flour, Salt, Yeast), Maize Starch, Egg Albumen (Free Range Egg), Pepper, Potato Starch, Raising Agents (Disodium Diphosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate), Salt, Dried Parsley, Natural Flavouring (contains Milk, Mustard), Ground White Pepper, Milk Protein, Mustard Flour, Stabiliser (Methyl Cellulose), Colours (Capsanthin, Curcumin), Ground Red Pepper, Celery Seed], Water, Potato Starch, Natural Flavourings, Yeast Extract Powder, Salt, Ground White Pepper, Anti-caking Agent (Silicon Dioxide), Emulsifier (Polysorbate 80). Prepared in the restaurants using a non-hydrogenated vegetable oil\n\nOval Sunshine Bun :\nWheat Flour, Water, Invert Sugar Syrup, Vegetable Oil (Rapeseed), Salt, Vegetable Fat (Palm), Spices, Corn Semolina, Yeast, Sugar, Coconut Flakes, Banana Flakes, Emulsifiers (Mono- and Diacetyl Tartaric Acid Esters of Mono- and Diglycerides of Fatty Acids, Mono- and Diglycerides of Fatty Acids), Herbs, Flour Treatment Agent (Ascorbic Acid), Spice Extracts\n\nLettuce :\n100% Iceberg Lettuce\n\nSpiced Onion Chutney :\nSugar, Diced Onion (28%), Water, White Wine Vinegar, Caramelised Red Onion (Red Onion, Balsamic Vinegar (contains Colour (Plain Caramel)), Demerara Sugar, Vegetable Oil (Non-Hydrogenated Sunflower Oil), Hibiscus Extract, Rosehip Extract), Tomato Paste, Modified Maize Starch, Mint, Salt, Herb, Red Chillies, Garlic Puree, Spices, Preservative (Potassium Sorbate), Vegetable Oil (Non-Hydrogenated Sunflower Oil)\n\nYoghurt & Mint Mayo :\nRapeseed Oil, Water, Low Fat Natural Yogurt (12%), Spirit Vinegar, Dried Glucose Syrup, Free Range Egg Yolk, Sugar, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Modified Maize Starch, Salt, Dried Onion, Lactic Acid, Dried Mint (0.5%), Garlic Puree, Preservative (Potassium Sorbate), Stabiliser (Xanthan Gum)\n\nOnions :\n100% Onion\n\n\n**:  We are aware of the serious health risk to people who are allergic to whole peanuts, nuts or nut derivatives. These are therefore excluded as ingredients from all our main menu. However we cannot categorically state that our products are 100% free of these ingredients, because as with all food manufacturers there is always the possibility of cross-contamination at some point in the food chain.\n††:  Limited time only. Subject to availability.\n\nSource:\nhttp://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/content/ukhome/meal_builder.html#\n
- Implications:\n\n- Fast Food will play important part\n- Self-policing is not enough\n- \n- \n- \n\nThe Plan\nSet up an organization to create a popular movement that will inspire people to change the way they eat. The movement will do this by establishing a network of community kitchens; launching a travelling food theater that will teach kids practical food and cooking skills in an entertaining way and provide basic training for parents and professionals; and bringing millions of people together through an online community to drive the fight against obesity. The grassroots movement must also challenge corporate America to support meaningful programs that will change the culture of junk food.\n\nThe Needs\n- Help to establish the organization, with funding, office space and facilities.\n- Find partners to equip and run the community kitchens, and food suppliers to provide the fresh ingredients.\n- A partner to build and maintain a fleet of food theatre trucks.\n- Education experts, graphic designers, artists and writers to develop and produce creative, fun teaching materials.\n- Communications experts to create messaging for the movement.\n- Web designers and developers to create and build the website.\n- Establishment of a food line that generates a sustainable income for the movement.\n- Corporate partners to invest in cooking and food education for their customers and champion honest food labeling.\n\nWatch the full presentation: http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver.html\n\n\nSource:\nhttp://www.tedprize.org/jamie-oliver/\n\n
- a thrid trend is the rise of online communities\n\nconsumers are grouped and connected together and brands want to get their attention to acquire or retain them\n\nnow this affects McDonalds on a global scale but is also relevant for the UK market as bad campaigns in India can also hurt the image of McDonalds UK\n\n\n
- on facebook there are almost 2m people who live in the UK and like McDonalds\nthis provides vast opportunities but also uncertainties for mcdonalds\n\nall new channel of communication to the customer\nbut 2 million people can now directly interact with your bad for the good or the bad\n\n2,5m per day! good chance that majority is there\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- here is a twitter campaign gone horribly worng:\n\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/mcdialysis-im-loving-it-mcdonalds-twitter-promo-fail/\nlast accessed on October 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM\n\nJanuary 24, 2012\nA Twitter campaign by McDonald’s that aimed to allow users to share their favorite memories of the burger chain backfired when hijackers took over the chain’s hashtag to tell horror stories of bad food and service.\nThe fast food giant launched a 24-hour promotion last week using the hashtags #MeetTheFarmers and #McDStories as part of a month-long “Supplier Stories” campaign. But when Twitter users began posting unsavory #McDStories, McDonald’s knew it had a problem on its hands.\nMcDonald’s said today that the company had to switch course in the middle of the promotion, pulling the #McDStories hashtag and going back to the earlier, less inflammatory one.\n\nIt doesn’t matter if people exaggerate...this is damage to the image of mcdonalds\n
- Seth Godin Tribes\n
- What is happening in Fast Food Market? Big Growth, Decline?\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb. Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n\n\nStagnant sales forecasts until 2015 -> GMID-Fast Food UK Tables 10-15\n1,100mn transactions from 2010-2015\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n\nWe use Porters Five Forces to analyze the attractiveness of an industry to compete in\nan attractive industry is on that offers good profit potential\n\nIssues to keep in mind:\n- defining the right industry\n- define market or segment instead of industry? not in our case\n- converging industries\n\nIs McDonalds only competing in Fast Food or in Fast Drinks or are the two converging?\n\nIn our case we will just examine the traditional Fast Food Industry\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- what do we mean with retail as a substitute threat?\n\n
- \nOver half (56%) of consumers state that they will often switch shop if it proves to be quicker and more convenient to them. For years, restaurants have been experimenting with service formats in order to ensure that they don’t fall into this trap, or alternatively enable them to gain market share from competitors: think of McDonald’s ‘fast lane’ in selected stores.\n\nGroups the most drawn to speed and convenience include 15-34-year-olds, C1s, full-time workers and ABC1s in the pre-/no family or family lifestage, signalling youth and wealth as key drivers for appreciation for such speed and convenience.\n\nKey analysis:\nThere is the potential for fast casual restaurant operators to improve customer loyalty by allowing regular users to prepay and pre-order (either online or with a mobile app, potentially incorporating a featured list of their favourites) so that the food is ready to collect as soon as they arrive at the venue. This additional service could drive loyalty among diners, as well as helping restaurants to have a quicker turnaround for tables.\nOwn Research:\nMintel Group Limited - Report: “Fast Casual Restaurants - UK - August 2011”\nFigure 6: Trends in agreement with selected lifestyle statements, 2006-10\nSource: GB TGI, Kantar Media UK Ltd Q1 2007-11 (Oct-Sep)/Mintel\n\n
- Threat of potential Entrants\n•Very saturated market\n•Long term, established & experienced names (McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Subway, Greggs, Wimpy etc.)\n•Hard market to enter and become established\n•Saturated with smaller individual establishments\n•Easy market to enter (no legal barriers)\n•Costly to set up and become established\n•Price competition\nfast casual movement (GMID Report) new competitors: pret-e-manger\n\n\nBargaining Power of Suppliers\n55% local suppliers\n\nThreat of Substitutes\nalternatives\nretail\ngeneric substitution\nlow switching costs\n\nBargaining Power of Buyers\nlittle loyalty\neasy to switch\n\nCompetitive Rivalry\nintense competition\nlow differentiation\nhigh exit barriers\n\n\n
- Threat of potential Entrants\n•Very saturated market\n•Long term, established & experienced names (McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Subway, Greggs, Wimpy etc.)\n•Hard market to enter and become established\n•Saturated with smaller individual establishments\n•Easy market to enter (no legal barriers)\n•Costly to set up and become established\n•Price competition\nfast casual movement (GMID Report) new competitors: pret-e-manger\n\n\nBargaining Power of Suppliers\n55% local suppliers\n\nThreat of Substitutes\nalternatives\nretail\ngeneric substitution\nlow switching costs\n\nBargaining Power of Buyers\nlittle loyalty\neasy to switch\n\nCompetitive Rivalry\nintense competition\nlow differentiation\nhigh exit barriers\n\n\n
- Threat of potential Entrants\n•Very saturated market\n•Long term, established & experienced names (McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Subway, Greggs, Wimpy etc.)\n•Hard market to enter and become established\n•Saturated with smaller individual establishments\n•Easy market to enter (no legal barriers)\n•Costly to set up and become established\n•Price competition\nfast casual movement (GMID Report) new competitors: pret-e-manger\n\n\nBargaining Power of Suppliers\n55% local suppliers\n\nThreat of Substitutes\nalternatives\nretail\ngeneric substitution\nlow switching costs\n\nBargaining Power of Buyers\nlittle loyalty\neasy to switch\n\nCompetitive Rivalry\nintense competition\nlow differentiation\nhigh exit barriers\n\n\n
- Threat of potential Entrants\n•Very saturated market\n•Long term, established & experienced names (McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Subway, Greggs, Wimpy etc.)\n•Hard market to enter and become established\n•Saturated with smaller individual establishments\n•Easy market to enter (no legal barriers)\n•Costly to set up and become established\n•Price competition\nfast casual movement (GMID Report) new competitors: pret-e-manger\n\n\nBargaining Power of Suppliers\n55% local suppliers\n\nThreat of Substitutes\nalternatives\nretail\ngeneric substitution\nlow switching costs\n\nBargaining Power of Buyers\nlittle loyalty\neasy to switch\n\nCompetitive Rivalry\nintense competition\nlow differentiation\nhigh exit barriers\n\n\n
- Threat of potential Entrants\n•Very saturated market\n•Long term, established & experienced names (McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Subway, Greggs, Wimpy etc.)\n•Hard market to enter and become established\n•Saturated with smaller individual establishments\n•Easy market to enter (no legal barriers)\n•Costly to set up and become established\n•Price competition\nfast casual movement (GMID Report) new competitors: pret-e-manger\n\n\nBargaining Power of Suppliers\n55% local suppliers\n\nThreat of Substitutes\nalternatives\nretail\ngeneric substitution\nlow switching costs\n\nBargaining Power of Buyers\nlittle loyalty\neasy to switch\n\nCompetitive Rivalry\nintense competition\nlow differentiation\nhigh exit barriers\n\n\n
- Threat of potential Entrants\n•Very saturated market\n•Long term, established & experienced names (McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Subway, Greggs, Wimpy etc.)\n•Hard market to enter and become established\n•Saturated with smaller individual establishments\n•Easy market to enter (no legal barriers)\n•Costly to set up and become established\n•Price competition\nfast casual movement (GMID Report) new competitors: pret-e-manger\n\n\nBargaining Power of Suppliers\n55% local suppliers\n\nThreat of Substitutes\nalternatives\nretail\ngeneric substitution\nlow switching costs\n\nBargaining Power of Buyers\nlittle loyalty\neasy to switch\n\nCompetitive Rivalry\nintense competition\nlow differentiation\nhigh exit barriers\n\n\n
- axis??\n
- \n
- we can use the following model from the core text book “Henry, A (2008) Understanding Strategic Management, Oxford University Press.\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n\nwe will apply the vrio framework to evaluate resources and competences as well as mcdonalds value chain\n\ninstead of using vrin we include the non-substitutability in the inimitability and add the factor of the readiness of the organization\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals (not covered)\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n
- \n
- \n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- \n
- McDonald’s, the leading global foodservice retailer, stands out because of its exceptional brand management, significant global presence, leadership in sustainable practices and admirable approach to consumer engagement. McDonald’s has more than 33,500 restaurants in 119 countries and the Golden Arches continue to expand, most notably in Asia. The company deftly manages its franchise model, delivering a remarkably consistent customer experience while still allowing for locally relevant menu and service variations (such as home delivery in India and China). The company is also working to respond to critics by increasing the number of healthy menu options and effectively communicating its sustainability efforts to both customers and employees, building energy saving and waste reduction into staff incentives. Demonstrating its commitment to brand development, McDonald’s is repositioning itself to appeal to a broader audience, particularly by redesigning its outlets and making them more modern, comfortable, and upscale. The McCafé experience is another example of McDonald’s flexibility and its efforts to appeal to a broader group of customers. On the digital front, McDonald’s “Make Your Own Burger” campaign in Germany and the Netherlands used crowdsourcing to generate new recipes and promotions. The campaign created significant digital buzz and positioned the brand as a digital innovator, helping to further build the brand’s strength.\n\nSource Interbrand\n\nKFC: 6m\nBurger King: not listed\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- http://www.datapointed.net/2011/09/distance-to-mcdonalds-uk-ireland-mapped/\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n
- \n
- Franchise System\nStrengths:\nsteady income without major risks for McDonalds itself\nWeaknesses:\nRigid / Inflexible\n\n\n
- \n
- Strengths:\nBrand Image (Rank 7)\nInnovation (first to adapt drive through)\n
- Human Resource Management\n\nEmployment:\n- 87,500 people across our 1,199 restaurants\n- biggest providers of first-time jobs\n- more than half of our employees are under 21\n- McDonald's announced in January 2012 that it plans to create 2,500 jobs across the UK. \n\nStaff turnover\n- US: 150%\n- “McDonald's UK doesn't publish turnover figures because these can't be compared to staff turnover figures from other similar companies because different methods of calculation are used across the industry. \nHowever, we can tell you that staff turnover at McDonald's is lower than average for retail and catering companies and it's currently at the lowest it's ever been.”\n\nIn May 2011, CEO Jill McDonald addressed delegates at the Institute of Directors' annual conference, speaking about the employment and training opportunities available for young people at McDonald's.\nJill McDonald, President and Chief Executive Officer, McDonald’s UK IOD speech 11 May 2011\n\n\nSources:\nhttp://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/whatmakesmcdonalds/questions/work-with-us/jobs/whats-your-staff-turnover.html\nhttp://www.businessinsider.com/19-facts-about-mcdonalds-that-will-blow-your-mind-2012-4?op=1\nhttp://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/Aboutus/Newsroom/reports_publicationspeeches/jill_mcdonald_iodspeech11thmay2011.html\nhttp://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/whatmakesmcdonalds/questions/work-with-us/jobs/how-many-people-are-employed-by-mcdonalds-in-the-uk-and-worldwide.html\n\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- The Question of Value: "Is the firm able to exploit an opportunity or neutralize an external threat with the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Rarity: "Is control of the resource/capability in the hands of a relative few?"\nThe Question of Imitability: "Is it difficult to imitate, and will there be significant cost disadvantage to a firm trying to obtain, develop, or duplicate the resource/capability?"\nThe Question of Organization: "Is the firm organized, ready, and able to exploit the resource/capability?"\n
- Strengths: Ease of doing business\nStandardization\n\nWeaknesses: failure of technology means no busienss\n
- \n
- \n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n
- SWOT (mystrategicplan.com)\n
- SWOT (mystrategicplan.com)\n
- SWOT (mystrategicplan.com)\n
- SWOT (mystrategicplan.com)\n
- SWOT (mystrategicplan.com)\n
- Strengths: Brand Image and Marketing Abilities\nWeaknesses: Narrow Product Line\nOpportunities: Healthy Living/Lifestyle\nThreats: Substitutes and new competitors (fast casual)\nThreat or Opportunity: Online Communities and Environment\n
- our four most important environmental factors are\nsustainability\nhealthy living/eating\nonline communities\nintense rivalry\n
- internal strengths indentified from core competences analysis and value chain analysis:\nBrand Image\nAdvertising Strength - Marketing in General\nMost outlets - biggest chain in uk\nfranchise system\nstructured hierachy\n
- weaknesses:\n150% staff turnover\nfranchise structure can make strategic changes very slow -> store redesign took 5 years\ndependence on technology. if it fails nothing works\nPR - in case of dissatisfied customers give more bad WOM than satisfied customers give good WOM\nwe also identified a rather narrow product range (Mc Donalds competes against YUM who owns multiple brands and prodct ranges)\n
- put scores to it\nyou can agree or disagree here or there but you will find...\n
- even balance between SWOT factors\nrelates overall to industry attracktiveness\n
- talking about sustainability\nmcdonalds does a lot to improve its impact\n
- in terms of healthy eating\nmcdonalds has a lot of initiatives to teach about food and ingredients\nbut this does not make the products themselves any healthier\n
- online communities are to be watched and managed as far as possible to keep brand image and to communicate good rather than bad\n
- mcdonalds competes in a very competitive market. it has the strengths to achieve competitive advantage but the weaknesses harm their pursuit\n
- the most worrying part is that the weaknesses stop mcdonalds to achieve sustainable competitive advantage\n\nwe see though big potential to turn one weakness into a strength\nwe will tackle the issue of mcdonalds product range\n
- 1. Analyses\nA. External Environment - Strategic Position\ni. General Environment\na. PESTEL Analysis\nb.Industry Life Cycle\nii. Competitive Environment\na. Porter’s Five Forces Framework\nB. Internal Environment - Strategic Capabilities\ni. Values and Goals\nii. Resources and Competences\na. VRIO Analysis\niii. Structure & Processes\na. Value Chain Analysis\nC. SWOT Analysis\n2. Formulation\nA. TOWS Matrix\nB. Ansoff Matrix\nC. Strategy Recommendation\ni.Achievement\n3. Implementation\n4. Evaluation\nA. Suitability\nB. Acceptability\ni. Performance Measurement\nii. Stakeholder Map Analysis\nC. Feasibility\n\n
- we use the TOWS matrix to come to the conclusion that we will have to examine a strategy that minimizes weak areas to avoid threats\n
- Porters Generic Strategy?\nDifficult to say as they are cost leader on a broad basis, i.e. against all restaurants\nbut certainly differentiator when it comes to fast food and burger bars\n\n\nDifferentiator by marketing new products (Mc Cafe etc?)\nB/c cost leadership can’t really be\n
- Porters Generic Strategy?\nDifficult to say as they are cost leader on a broad basis, i.e. against all restaurants\nbut certainly differentiator when it comes to fast food and burger bars\n\n\nDifferentiator by marketing new products (Mc Cafe etc?)\nB/c cost leadership can’t really be\n
- Porters Generic Strategy?\nDifficult to say as they are cost leader on a broad basis, i.e. against all restaurants\nbut certainly differentiator when it comes to fast food and burger bars\n\n\nDifferentiator by marketing new products (Mc Cafe etc?)\nB/c cost leadership can’t really be\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- source mcdonalds.co.uk\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- to retain and acquire new customers\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- a “typical british breakfast”\nbut out of date?\n
- a healthier alternative?\nbiased and taken straight from german breakfast menu\nmc donalds has definitely customized it menus to fit local tastes\nbut is this “typical british breakfast McDonalds Style” outdated?\n\neven though biased and taking some german perspective on breakfast a healthy breakfast should offer juices, cereals and fruits\nMight busy people who don’t have time to prepare a proper breakfast chose to go to McDonalds if they provide a healthy breakfast that starts them off?\n\nMc Donalds mostly caters to Dinner Products - extension to food service provider for all daytimes breakfast through dinner\n
- \n
- Sure & Steady Diners (28% of regular diners)\nexport\n\nThese older diners like the relative safety and surety of chains. Whilst not focused on bargain hunting, they still have a researching mentality in order to ensure that when they do eat out, they enjoy it.\n\nDemographic characteristics: Aged 45-54, employed part-time, ABs and Ds, financial situation compared to a year ago is much worse but they are pretty confident that they’ll be OK in the year ahead.\n\nEating out profile: These diners are the group most likely to state that they like restaurant chains/brands because they know what they’re going to get, look at restaurant menus (eg online) to look at the dishes before they go and to check out the prices.\n\nThis is the group most likely to disagree that money-off vouchers affect their restaurant choice or prompt them to eat out more often.\n\nMarketing Message: Their relative brand loyalty makes this a lucrative demographic to retain, despite their current financial wobbles. Customer service will be key to pleasing this group whilst regular e-newsletter updates should ensure that your brand, not somebody else’s, stays at the forefront of their minds.\n\n\nDiscount-driven (36% of regular diners)\nexport\n\nLow income restricts the spending power of this group and means that consumers in this group are not brand-loyal and are instead driven by discounting.\n\nDemographic characteristics: Women, aged 16-24, live in Yorkshire/Humberside, in full-time education, Es, gross annual household income under £9,500, rent from private landlord, struggling/in trouble financially and worried about the future.\n\nEating out profile: This is the group most likely to disagree that they enjoy ‘splashing out’ on a meal in a restaurant or that they have a favourite restaurant/brand/chain. They are one of the groups most likely to agree that money-off vouchers affect which restaurant they go to but show below-average agreement with the idea that they prompt them to eat out more often.\n\nThis group is less likely than average to eat out for reasons such as to relax/unwind or for a chance to get out of the house.\n\nMarketing Message: Whilst their low spending ability and lack of brand loyalty makes them a problematic target group, those venues looking to appeal to them should promote a sense of value for money through quantity of food on offer – think of all-you-can-eat dining concepts as well ‘big plate specials’ and the option to ‘go large’ for a nominal fee.\n\nQuality-driven (36% of regular diners)\nexport\n\nThis group is primarily quality-driven although price promotions will prompt them to eat out more often. They are looking for innovation and are keen to ‘splash out’.\n\nDemographic characteristics: Aged 25-34, rent property from local authority, children in household aged 5-9, describe their financial situation as healthy, they are a little better off compared to last year, and they are either confident or concerned but relatively confident that they’ll be fine in the year ahead.\n\nEating out profile: Nearly all of this group agree that quality is more important than price when choosing where to eat out. This is also the group most likely to agree that they get bored of going to the same restaurants, they enjoy ‘splashing out’ on a meal in a restaurant and that money-off vouchers prompt them to eat out more often.\n\nThis is the group most likely to disagree that they look at restaurant menus (eg online) to see the prices or look at dishes before they choose where to eat out.\n\nMarketing Message: Some operators are cannibalising on sales given the fact that these consumers will use money-off vouchers despite the fact that they enjoy ‘splashing out’ on dining out. Instead, operators should look to target these diners through frequent time-limited premium product launches, particularly those with an interactive element which would also appeal to their young children – think of products such as shake ‘n’ taste chicken. Given their quality focus, the overriding image of these venues should be on providing fresh, quality ingredients, with seasonal menus an obvious strategy for promoting this ethos.\n\n\n
- \n
- Suitability\n\nDoes it make sense in relation to the organizations strategic Position?\n\nArguments for:\n- could strengthen their position in the Foodservice Market and Fast Food Market in the long term\n- first mover advantages\n- \n- \n-\n- McDonalds has expertise in Test Marketing\n- Regular campaigns with new products will have optimized the process of testing and evaluating\n- competition never sleeps\n- \n\nArguments against:\n- there is an uncertainty implied in innovating beyond traditional fast food products\n- they hold a strong position now -> “no need to challenge that”\n- \n- \n
- Suitability\n\nDoes it make sense in relation to the organizations strategic Position?\n\nArguments for:\n- could strengthen their position in the Foodservice Market and Fast Food Market in the long term\n- first mover advantages\n- \n- \n-\n- McDonalds has expertise in Test Marketing\n- Regular campaigns with new products will have optimized the process of testing and evaluating\n- competition never sleeps\n- \n\nArguments against:\n- there is an uncertainty implied in innovating beyond traditional fast food products\n- they hold a strong position now -> “no need to challenge that”\n- \n- \n
- Suitability\n\nDoes it make sense in relation to the organizations strategic Position?\n\nArguments for:\n- could strengthen their position in the Foodservice Market and Fast Food Market in the long term\n- first mover advantages\n- \n- \n-\n- McDonalds has expertise in Test Marketing\n- Regular campaigns with new products will have optimized the process of testing and evaluating\n- competition never sleeps\n- \n\nArguments against:\n- there is an uncertainty implied in innovating beyond traditional fast food products\n- they hold a strong position now -> “no need to challenge that”\n- \n- \n
- Suitability\n\nDoes it make sense in relation to the organizations strategic Position?\n\nArguments for:\n- could strengthen their position in the Foodservice Market and Fast Food Market in the long term\n- first mover advantages\n- \n- \n-\n- McDonalds has expertise in Test Marketing\n- Regular campaigns with new products will have optimized the process of testing and evaluating\n- competition never sleeps\n- \n\nArguments against:\n- there is an uncertainty implied in innovating beyond traditional fast food products\n- they hold a strong position now -> “no need to challenge that”\n- \n- \n
- Acceptability - Expected return, risk and stakeholder reactions\n\nFinancial Appraisal\n\nPayback\nDiscounted Cashflow\nIRR\nReal Option\n
- Acceptability - Expected return, risk and stakeholder reactions\n\nFinancial Appraisal\n\nPayback\nDiscounted Cashflow\nIRR\nReal Option\n
- Acceptability - Expected return, risk and stakeholder reactions\n\nFinancial Appraisal\n\nPayback\nDiscounted Cashflow\nIRR\nReal Option\n
- Acceptability - Expected return, risk and stakeholder reactions\n\nFinancial Appraisal\n\nPayback\nDiscounted Cashflow\nIRR\nReal Option\n
- Acceptability - Expected return, risk and stakeholder reactions\n\nFinancial Appraisal\n\nPayback\nDiscounted Cashflow\nIRR\nReal Option\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- Feasibility\n\nDoes the McDonald’s have the financial and other resources?\n\n\n\n\n2011: $12,015.1\n2010: $11,360.7\n2009: $11,494.4\n\nSource:\nhttp://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/financial_highlights.html\n
- 2011: $12,015.1\n2010: $11,360.7\n2009: $11,494.4\n\nhttp://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/financial_highlights.html\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n