Polar Adidas Case Study


Published on

A case study on the partnership of Polar Heart Rate Systems and Adidas from 2005 until 2007

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Polar Adidas Case Study

  1. 1. Polar Adidas <br />Brian Smith · Jo Anne Lotfallah · James McCartneyJosh Dafoe · Nastania Mullin · Jason TaylorTrevor Dufresne<br />
  2. 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=196Y90fl1uA<br />
  3. 3. Agenda<br />Introduction<br />Problem Identification<br />Situational Analysis<br />Organizational Objectives<br />Alternatives<br />Recommendations<br />Implementation Plan<br />Q&A Period<br />
  4. 4. Introduction<br />Established in 1977, Polar is a tech driven leader in sports medical science<br />Employs over 1 200 people worldwide, has 26 subsidiaries globally, and manages a distribution network supplying over 35 000 retail outlets.<br />First heart rate monitor developed in 1982<br />
  5. 5. Problem Identification<br />Contradicting sizes of both companies result in a strain on the relationship<br />Lack of adequate resources on Polar’s end<br />Very tight schedule and deadlines for releasing the finished product<br />
  6. 6. Problem Identification<br />Engineering is shared between the two<br />Asks the question: Who owns what?<br />The rights for Project Fusion in the air as a result<br />
  7. 7. Situation Analysis - Strengths<br />Influx of R&D capital for product diversification<br />Access to market data once unobtainable<br />Exposure to new markets<br />
  8. 8. Situation Analysis - Strengths<br />Increased cash balance of foreign currency<br />Ease of movement within Europe<br />
  9. 9. Situation Analysis – Weaknesses<br />Size differences of companies could create difficulties and strains<br />Production capabilities to match the demand<br />
  10. 10. Situation Analysis - Weaknesses<br />Risk of downgrading quality of current product<br />Lack of resources to deal with set-backs and failures<br />
  11. 11. Situation Analysis - Opportunities<br />Influx of R&D capital for product diversification<br />Access to a market once beyond Polar’s reach<br />Exposure to new markets that will only benefit Polar<br />
  12. 12. Situation Analysis - Opportunities<br />Entry point into Europe<br />Backdoor into foreign markets through German trade agreements<br />“Top-Grade Seal of Approval”<br />
  13. 13. Situation Analysis - Opportunities<br />High brand equity of adidas can increase Polar’s brand equity<br />Increase in exposure<br />“Big Brother Effect”<br />
  14. 14. Situation Analysis - Threats<br />Ownership and rights to the product<br />“Predators” trying to steal/sabotage Polar’s technology<br />
  15. 15. Situation Analysis - Threats<br />The difference in sizes of both companies<br />Marketing strategy decisions: Where does Polar fit?<br />
  16. 16. Organizational Objectives<br />PE aims to improve the quality of life for its consumers<br />Wants to establish itself with the already successful adidas brand with its heart monitors<br />Increase brand loyalty and company equity<br />
  17. 17. Organizational Objectives<br />A means of gaining brand awareness <br />The technology can be used for other applications<br />Learn from adidas<br />Gain assistance in development<br />
  18. 18. Alternatives<br />Do nothing<br />Joint Venture  Establish a third company<br />Acquistion by adidas<br />
  19. 19. Recommendations<br />Take a more controlled approach to future textile alliances<br />Continue to be a technological trend-setter <br />
  20. 20. Recommendations<br />Staff training at the retail level<br />Finland expansion on Research and Development<br />Assembled products<br />
  21. 21. Recommendations<br />The Michael Porter Value Chain<br />
  22. 22. Implementation Plan<br />Address the issues of exclusivity<br />Address the joint marketing efforts<br />Media, Joint Websites, Etc.<br />Areas regarding management must be determined<br />
  23. 23. Question Period<br />Do you agree with our assessments?<br />What do you think this alliance became?<br />What are the market positions of these two companies today? Why?<br />
  24. 24. Thank You<br />