CASE ANALYSES (3 pages maximum)Students are to use the

CASE ANALYSES (3 pages maximum):
Students are to use the
Case Analysis Outline – suggested format - in the
syllabus (see below) to review each assigned case.
I.
Case Analysis Outline - Suggested Format
(a)
Overview of major issues - describe the
challenges/problems/issues outlined in the case. This section
should be clear and succinct. You can make use of bullet points
to describe the issues.
(b)
Applications of key themes - elaborate what you have
learned from the assigned case by directly relating/connecting
the case to concepts and themes described in the different
chapters.
(c)
Analysis
Situational Analysis
External Environmental Analysis (Outside of the organization)
Economic, Social, Political, Technological opportunities and
challenges
Internal Environmental Analysis (Specific to the organization)
Organization’s internal strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and external threats
Describe the firm’s product, pricing, distribution/place, and
promotion strategy (if applicable)
Market Analysis

Description of the target market including primary
customers/target market
In analysis, you can also put down your own thoughts and
opinions about the issues/challenges described in the case. You
can bring in outside information (such as the latest news,
articles, references to any calculations, charts, diagrams or
graphs*). If applicable, you can also answer any questions at
the end of each case. These questions can also be used as a
guide to develop the other sections of your case summary/write-
up.
(d)
Recommendations
Development and Evaluation of Strategic Alternatives,
Recommendation of the better Alternative, Implementa tion
Techniques for Recommended Alternative (How, when, where,
why).
Please note: If any of the above outline points are not applicable
to your case, you can skip those points in your case write-up.
Uniform Crime Report
Crime in the United States, 2018
Crime in the United States, 2018 U.S. Department of Justice—
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Released Fall 2019
Offenses Cleared
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law
enforcement agencies can

clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by
exceptional means.
Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does
not necessarily mean
that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To
clear an offense within the
UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to
certain criteria, which
are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program
does not distinguish
between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by
exceptional means in collecting
or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting
System.)
Cleared by arrest
In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an
offense is cleared by
arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three
specific conditions have been
met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:
• Arrested.
• Charged with the commission of the offense.
• Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following

arrest, court
summons, or police notice).
In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the
number of offenses that are
cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one
person may clear several
crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one
offense. In addition, some
clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year,
such as 2018, may
pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.
Cleared by exceptional means
In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s
control prevent the agency
from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this
occurs, the agency can
clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must
meet the following four
conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means.
The agency must have:

Released Fall 2019
2
• Identified the offender.
• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge,
and turn over the
offender to the court for prosecution.
• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect
could be taken into
custody immediately.
• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law
enforcement that
prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting
the offender.
Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited
to, the death of the
offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen);
the victim’s refusal to
cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been
identified; or the denial of
extradition because the offender committed a crime in another
jurisdiction and is being
prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery
of property alone does not

clear an offense.
Clearances involving only persons under 18 years of age
When an offender under the age of 18 is cited to appear in
juvenile court or before other
juvenile authorities, the UCR Program considers the incident for
which the juvenile is
being held responsible to be cleared by arrest, even though a
physical arrest may not
have occurred. When clearances involve both juvenile and adult
offenders, those
incidents are classified as clearances for crimes committed by
adults. Because the
clearance percentages for crimes committed by juveniles
include only those clearances in
which no adults were involved, the figures in this publication
should not be used to
present a definitive picture of juvenile involvement in crime.
Overview
• In the nation in 2018, 45.5 percent of violent crimes and 17.6
percent of property
crimes were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.
• When considering clearances of violent crimes, 62.3 percent

of murder offenses,
52.5 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 33.4 percent of rape
offenses, and
30.4 percent of robbery offenses were cleared.
Released Fall 2019
3
• Among property crimes, 18.9 percent of larceny-theft
offenses, 13.9 percent of
burglary offenses, and 13.8 percent of motor vehicle theft
offenses were cleared.
• In 2018, 22.4 percent of arson offenses were cleared by arrest
or exceptional
means.
What you won’t find on this page
Arrest data are not on this page. In its clearance calculations,
the UCR Program counts
the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of
persons arrested.
Offenses ClearedCleared by arrestCleared by exceptional
meansClearances involving only persons under 18 years of
ageOverviewWhat you won’t find on this page

9 Happy Brands and Ethical Implications
Wonkyong Beth Lee and Timothy Dewhirst
Introduction
The attribution of human qualities to brands, through means
such as personification or anthropomorphism, has become
commonplace (Aaker, 1997). Much like people, brands may link
to qualities such as success, sophistication, ruggedness, and
happiness. Indeed, several brands have integrated happiness into
their positioning or differentiation strategies, for example,
McDonald’s “Happy Meal,” Coca-Cola’s “Open Happiness,”
and Disney’s “The Happiest Place on Earth.” Accounting for
consumers’ insatiable desire for happiness, marketing
communication linking brands with happiness has become
ubiquitous.
It is easy to see why marketers commonly associate brands with
happiness. Happiness is a desirable attribute and marketers seek
to provide consumers with satisfying and pleasurable
experiences. If brands can facilitate customers feeling “happy,”
“joyful,” or “affectionate,” consumers are likely to express
stronger attitudinal (commitment) and behavioral (purchase)
loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Satisfied consumers are
commonly happy consumers who generate significant revenues
for companies through consumer retention (Paliwal & Indu,
2013).
Brands integrate happiness into their branding strategies by
seemingly cultivating happiness among consumers (Isen,
Labroo, & Durlach, 2004; Mogilner & Aaker, 2009). While
happiness often equals joy, pleasure, and satisfying experiences,
brands associated with happiness also may suggest
enhancements to consumer well-being and welfare.
Nevertheless, happiness appears particularly applicable to
hedonic rather than utilitarian consumption, and products

pertaining to hedonic consumption may not ultimately be
beneficial or healthy to consumers. In this chapter, we explore
such dilemmas relating to “happy” branding strategies and
provide case examples, including those pertaining to the
marketing of McDonald’s “Happy Meal” and Newport
cigarettes, which has the longstanding tagline “Alive with
Pleasure!” “Happy” branding strategies raise a number of
ethical concerns, especially those meant to appeal to children as
a target market or those pertaining to addictive and harmful
behavior.
There are several key ethical considerations concerning
marketing communication that associates brands with happiness.
With the advertising of “happy brands,” emphasis is often on
short-term gratification (i.e., immediate pleasure from
consumption) and overlooks the consequences of repeated and
persistent consumption (e.g., highly processed food, alcohol,
and smoking). The association of happiness with brands is
commonly for products that are not healthful, yet are appealing
to youth and children. More generally, advertising regularly
infers that happiness comes from consumption and the
acquisition of goods, which is especially problematic if children
develop such attitudes and beliefs at early ages. Accordingly,
marketers and other stakeholders, including policy-makers, need
to consider the minimum age that may be appropriate for
targeting purposes.
What is Happiness?
Check Your Understanding
Happiness
Happiness: Human qualities, such as cheerful, honest, charming,
and successful are associated with a particular brand.
Philosophers have a longstanding interest in happiness. In
particular, the hedonist philosophy of Aristippus of Cyrene

theorized that happiness was the sum of material pleasures, and
the meaning of life was the maximization of delight (Fromm,
1976; Layard, 2005). This hedonistic perspective of happiness
was particularly influential in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries and continues in contemporary consumer culture with
the belief of “having more” is “being more” (Fromm, 1976).
According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2009),
happiness is “a state of well-being and contentment; a
pleasurable or satisfying experience” (n.p.). Despite
considerable attention among psychologists and consumer
researchers, happiness is problematic to observe and a difficult
construct to define (Mogilner, Aaker, & Kamvar, 2012;
Robbins, Francis, & Edwards, 2010).
Psychologists commonly define happiness as a human
personality trait (i.e., something that is comparable, measurable,
and predictable across contexts) (Diener, 1984; Diener, Suh,
Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Eysenck, 1983; Gilbert, 2006; Layard,
2005). For example, happiness is stable extraversion and the
ability to have pleasant interactions and easy sociability
(Eysenck, 1983). A necessary component of defining happiness
is the presence of good social relationships (Diener & Seligman,
2002). Data support that happiness accompanies stable
extraversion (Robbins et al., 2010). Various individuals
experience happiness as a trait in the same way (Layard, 2005;
Myers & Diener, 1995).
Other psychologists use subjective well-being as a construct to
describe happiness (Diener et al., 1999), which reflects
happiness as a non-physical state that we cannot measure
objectively. Subjective well-being is “the degree to which an
individual judges the overall quality of his/her own life-as-a-
whole favorably” (Veenhoven, 2001, p. 4). Myers and Diener
(1995) discovered that frequent positive affect, infrequent
negative affect, and a global sense of satisfaction with life
equates with high subjective well-being.

Regarding subjective well-being, Gilbert (2006) describes that
happiness means distinct things to different individuals, and
given everyone has unique lives, we should create a unique
view of happiness. For example, happiness is a feeling of
excitement to some people, yet a feeling of calmness to others
(Mogilner et al., 2012). Happiness is not set, and it
systematically changes over an individual’s life span (Mogilner,
Kamvar, & Aaker, 2011). Although not everyone defines
happiness in the same way, some similarities within a given
culture or age group exist. To illustrate, younger people tend to
find greater happiness in extraordinary experiences, whereas
older people usually find greater happiness in ordinary events
(Mogilner & Norton, 2015).
What Makes People Happy?
This longstanding question has attracted the attention of many
researchers. In particular, psychologists have identified several
predictors of happiness: extraversion, assertiveness,
cooperativeness, high self-esteem, the ability to savor positive
events, satisfying and close relationships, and an engagement in
leisure activities (Argyle & Lu, 1990a, 1990b; Bryant, 1989,
2003; Bryant, Smart, & King, 2005; Layard, 2005; Lu & Argyle,
1991, 1992, 1994; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2007).
What about the role of money? Does money buy happiness? In a
seminal paper from 1974 by economist, Richard Easterlin, he
observed that wealth increases, in several countries in the years
after World War II, did not associate with increases in average
happiness. This observation became Esterlin’s paradox
(Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008). Although income may increase in
a given country, disparity is likely to persist – there are still
many people who become richer and poorer – and relative
income, on balance, likely remains the same (Argyle, 1999;
Diener, Lucas, & Napa Scollon, 2006; Easterlin, 1995; Frey &
Stutzer, 2002). Nevertheless, other scholars have started

critiquing and reassessing the Easterlin paradox. Stevenson and
Wolfers (2008) have shown a positive relation between income
and happiness with more comprehensive data: the richer in a
given country are more satisfied with their lives than the poorer,
and this pattern is consistent in most countries around the
world. Based on a United Nations–sponsored report, Norway,
Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, and Finland are the “happiest”
countries in the world (Rahim, 2017). Interestingly,
Scandinavian countries, which generally have wealth, but high
taxes and lessened economic and social

CASE ANALYSES (3 pages maximum)Students are to use the

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from samirapdcosden

More from samirapdcosden (20)

CASE ANALYSES (3 pages maximum)Students are to use the