Factors Influencing Consumer And Retailer Support In The Standards Battle And Collaboration With External Partners: A Case Study Of Dyesol

Factors influencing support for Blu-ray and HD-DVD

Question:

1. In the case study Bluâ€Âray versus HDâ€ÂDVD: A standards battle in highâ€Âdefinition video (Schilling, 2013, pp 65â€Â66), what factors do you think influenced whether (1) consumers, (2) retailers, and (3) movieâ€Âproducers supported Bluâ€Âray versus HDâ€ÂDVD? Discuss and justify your answer using the theory behind the selection of dominant designs.

2. In the case study Dyesol: Partnering to harness the power of the sun (Schilling, 2013, pp 151â€Â153), discuss the advantages and disadvantages of collaborating with external partners. Justify your answer.

This assignment states a view to the case study being provided. The relevant theory behind the selection of dominant designs and factors that influenced whether retailers, consumers and movie producers supported are the factors that are being discussed. The case study of Dyesol is given in the second part. It is also mentioned that how Dyesol is benefited from its effective collaborations and advantages as well as disadvantages of collaboration of external partners. As depicted in the case scenario, the important factors that had influenced clients in decision to support either Blu-ray or HD-DVD included technical differences, complementary goods, and size of installed base. To support any one of the given standards, from the perspective of a consumer, may be referred to as buying a Blu-ray or an HD-DVD player.

When it started, there was a tough competition among Sony and Toshiba related to their latest inventions. Both complemented each other well. It was announced by Time Warner that it would be defecting to the Blue Ray standard (Brush, 2000) during the eve of Consumer Electronics Show at Las Vegas during early 2008. A chain reaction was created between the retailers which led Netfix, Walmart and Best Buy declare that they should stock Blu-ray DVDs. Sony succeeded in this way (Ishikawa and Naka, 2007).

The factors led consumers, retailers and stakeholders to select innovation of Sony to accept globally and recommend (Sony and Naik, 2012). Philips, Matsushita, Hitachi and some others are back up of Sony’s technology named as Blu Ray. Success of Sony also involved Sony’s brand recognition and quality. Only critical users can observe the advantages of technology. One can become dominant if they achieve any of the formats. Thus it was helpful and beneficial to introduce a blu-ray-player with their play station 3 that also provided them as free.

1. It is identified from the case study which is provided that individual justifications should be selected by every party within the standards battle possessed. For example the wishes of producers and consumers varied while selecting Blu- Ray.

It is interpreted from the case that the most important factors that motivate consumers for supporting either Blu-ray or HD_DVD consisted of differences in technology, size of installed base and that of complementary goods. From the viewpoint of a consumer preference can be given for buying a Blu-ray or an HD-DVD player. Consumers are generally divided into two categories: early users and that of majority (Gemunden, Killen and Kock, 2013). Favorability depended on technical differences. Early users are those who consider to better standards of research and update in technology. Complementary goods mean the movies being released on any of the given standards. Those who take decisions based on complementary goods falls under the second group. What is important to them is the size of the installed base and not the number of movies. Critical user achievement is one of its achievements. After this achievement this format remains dominant. Therefore it was beneficial to incorporate a blu-ray-player with their play station 3 , that was awarded to be given for free. When the competition began the retailers were not bothered as they got involved with Betamax players and movies. There was a threat of another innovative format which led delay in purchase of the latest players for the retailers and consumers (Osbie.on.ca, 2015). Arrival of new technology is one of the factors by which the retailers were influenced. The retailers sold the previous generation product, and they had less stock in their store. But they had huge inventory when the demand shifted to new technology and innovation. Major Hollywood studios like Dreamworks Animation, NBC Universal Pictures, Time Warner’s Warner Brothers were lined up by Toshiba for its format. Lions Gate Entertainment, Disney and News Corporation’s 20^th century Fox were personally possessed by Sony. Time Warner announced in 2008 that Blue ray standard would be defeated. That created massive reaction among the retailers. The leading global retailers always aim at acquiring the best services possible at the lowest price on account of the technological advancement. Although retailers get a varied option and availability of product option in this marketing tug of war, yet the major responsibility lies in the fact that the retailers need to make an effective choice of a particular format. The main objective is to acquire best services at lowest price possible. It is the responsibility of the retailers to make an effective choice while choosing the format. The size of the installed base is more important than the number of movie obtained. It is important to win a format and become dominant to win the race. Therefore it was a correct decision taken by Sony to include a Blue-ray-player with their play station 3 as well that benefitted their sales (Anon, 2015).

Complementary goods and size of installed base as factors

2. It has been identified from the market survey that solar market has always been a great and consistent challenge since past few months, not only in terms of profitability for manufacturing firms, but even for organizations like Dyesol which has been involved in developing latest technology in its processes (Sapp, 2004). The key challenge for the company is collection of adequate funds to conduct various project operations. This is one of the benefits of collaboration with all external partners. Significant partnerships with reliable shareholder base can enable the company to acquire sufficient financial back up for all project undertakings. This approach of collaboration with partners would provide opportunities to the key potential investors. As depicted in the case scenario, Dyesol would significantly benefit from lucrative partnerships with external partners. These are mentioned as below:

Advantages – Partnership allows two or more partners to jointly act and decide for the company’s future. They jointly take all serious important decisions on behalf of the company. It becomes convenient for Dyesol Company to conduct its business operations and processes at much lower initial cost with the advent of joint partnership with external partners. There is abundant availability of capital when partnerships are undertaken (Priyanto and Sandjojo, 2005). There is a scope for splitting of incomes, along with the benefit of particular significance upon accounting of resulting tax saving. The approach of partnership would enable Dyesol to continue with its privacy of operations. It would also limit interference from external regulation. This would also permit the firm to reframe its structure of legality in the future times as per any demand.

Disadvantages – In this approach of partnership, the liability of business partners regarding debt would be unlimited.

The approach allows every partner to remain liable to the partnership debt. Each of the partners would remain liable for personal share and that of the other partners. In cases of collaborations, chances remain of conflicts or disagreement amidst the partners. With this approach, the firm would be liable for every action of the partners (Sony struggles to remain creative, 2004). It may prove highly expensive for Dyesol if it decides to leave any day as it has to value all partnership assets.

With reference to the case scenario, during the previous year it was announced that there is collaboration between Dyesol as well as Tata Steel. The Steel plant has been integrating with the features of DSC technology in the projects developed. The project undertakings have been assured well but it requires focus regarding managing risks and disagreements. Dyesol has collaborated with Pilkington. It has been working with the firm in North America. Certain delays existed in the programs of North America due to some restructuring at the state level (Loza, 2004). One of the key challenges for the firm is to collect adequate funds to conduct different undertakings. This forms one of the benefits of partnerships with external partners. Potential collaborations with effective shareholder base may allow the company adequate funds to undertake projects. This approach would also create enough scopes for potential investors. As referred to the case of Dyesol and its partnership, this would support various campaigns (Sony and Naik, 2012). It would also address the community, decision-makers, stakeholders, and funders regarding what must be done and not.

Early users vs majority consumers

The partnership of Dyesol with Tata Steel as well as Pilkington has provided a potential framework for leveraging the DSC technology. It has imparted risks that Tata chemical business will learn eventually towards reverse engineer products of Dyesol, and find out methods for circumventing patents (Michael and Mariappan, 2011). Here, it may find itself to have a lengthy battle of litigation contrary to opponent. Owing to the deal with Pilkington, both companies have undergone a joint venture called DyeTec Solar. It would utilize the DSC coating of Dyesol on the architectural glass to create photovoltaic functionality. The solar panels with new coating of sheet-glass had never been used in the commercial market (Vock, van Dolen and Kolk, 2013). So, it led to high market uncertainty. Managers within the company felt the need to focus upon the technology of liberally licensing to several manufacturers who may utilize DSC in their products rather than dealing with large ventures that consumes huge time and effort.

Conclusion:

As discussed above, conclusion may be drawn from the major issues in correspondence to business as well as technological environment. As depicted in the case scenario, the important factors that had influenced clients in decision to support either Blu-ray or HD-DVD included technical differences, complementary goods, and size of installed base. To support any one of the given standards, from the perspective of a consumer, may be referred to as buying a Blu-ray or an HD-DVD player. When the war had started among the two leading innovations, the retailers were left affected as well as they got stuck with unwanted inventory in Betamax players as well as movies. From the viewpoint of a consumer preference can be given for buying a Blu-ray or an HD-DVD player. Consumers are generally divided into two categories: early users and that of majority (Gemunden, Killen and Kock, 2013). Favorability depended on technical differences. Early users are those who consider to better standards of research and update in technology. Complementary goods mean the movies being released on any of the given standards. Those who take decisions based on complementary goods falls under the second group. What is important to them is the size of the installed base and not the number of movies. As depicted in the case scenario, Dyesol would significantly benefit from lucrative partnerships with external partners. It becomes convenient for Dyesol Company to conduct its business operations and processes at much lower initial cost with the advent of joint partnership with external partners. There is abundant availability of capital when partnerships are undertaken. Dyesol has collaborated with Pilkington. It has been working with the firm in North America. Certain delays existed in the programs of North America due to some restructuring at the state level. One of the key challenges for the firm is to collect adequate funds to conduct different undertakings. As referred to the case of Dyesol and its partnership, this would support various campaigns. It would also address the community, decision-makers, stakeholders, and funders regarding what must be done and not. The partnership of Dyesol with Tata Steel as well as Pilkington has provided a potential framework for leveraging the DSC technology. It has imparted risks that Tata chemical business will learn eventually towards reverse engineer products of Dyesol, and find out methods for circumventing patents.

References

Loza, J. (2004). Business–Community Partnerships: The Case for Community Organization Capacity Building. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(3), pp.297-311.

Michael, S. and Mariappan, V. (2011). Capacity management of an electricity service centre using simulation. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 8(4), p.472.

Priyanto, S. and Sandjojo, I. (2005). Relationship between entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial competencies and venture success: empirical study on SMEs. IJEIM, 5(5/6), p.454.

Sapp, D. (2004). Global Partnerships in Business Communication: An Institutional Collaboration between the United States and Cuba. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(3), pp.267-280.

Sony struggles to remain creative. (2004). Strategic Direction, 20(4), pp.10-12.

Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2012). Six Sigma, organizational learning and innovation. Int J Qual & Reliability Mgmt, 29(8), pp.915-936.

Sony, M., Mariappan, V. and Kamat, V. (2011). Stochastic modelling of failure interaction: Markov model versus discrete event simulation. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 3(1), p.1.

Sony, P. and Khokhar, S. (2005). Management of lens–iris diaphragm retropulsion syndrome. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 31(7), p.1272.

Uggla, H. and Verick, H. (2008). Strategic brand management decision: the case of Sony Ericsson Walkman. Strategic Direction, 24(9), pp.3-5.

Vock, M., van Dolen, W. and Kolk, A. (2013). Micro-Level Interactions in Business-Nonprofit Partnerships. Business & Society, 53(4), pp.517-550.

Anon, (2015). [online] Available at: https://www.enisa.europa.eu/.../risk-management/...risk/risk-management... [Accessed 12 Feb. 2015].

Ishikawa, A. and Naka, I. (2007). Knowledge management and risk strategies. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.

Osbie.on.ca, (2015). OSBIE - Ontario School Boards' Insurance Exchange - Identify Risk Management Strategies. [online] Available at: https://osbie.on.ca/risk-management/manual/Strategies.aspx [Accessed 12 Feb. 2015].

Trott, P. (2008). Innovation management and new product development. Harlow, England: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.