Promotions-r-us 1 | P a g e Prepared by Dawn Rovers Adapted from OCMC 2011 Case Study Revised Sept. 22, 2017 NOTE: All organizations and relationships are fiction for teaching purposes Gerry Atwood, the CEO for Promotions-r-us was sitting at his desk one snowy day in January 2015. He was reviewing the latest report from his Sales Manager. He was at a loss as to how to improve profitability when their product offering was so mature and competition so intense. He could not explain why their sales and marketing efforts didn’t seem to be adding much more value to the firm. He wondered if they needed to expand to new markets, consider moving into the Business to Consumer market, or find a way to improve overall profitability within their existing B2B market. He had to report to the Board of Directors the following week on how he would improve profits for the promotions company that he founded 40 years ago. Promotions-r-us: Promotions-r-us was a family run Canadian company serving in the promotional product market since 1975. They sold a range of products that could be customized with company logos or slogans (e.g. bags, automotive products, lanyards, magnets, watches, drinkware, sports products, awards, etc.). Promotions-r-us (PRU) was one of the top 25 promotional product companies in Canada for the past twelve years. However, by 2015 Promotions-r-us faced a time of intense competition in the industry, which had grown from a few hundred companies in 1975, to well over 3000 companies. During that time, Promotions-r-us had evolved and grown with the market, but by 2012 they had reached a plateau in sales. By 2014, margins had begun to slip and overall profitability had been down for the past 2 years. At last year’s executive meeting, the firm’s objective of putting North American made quality products into the hands of valued partners was reaffirmed. However, a strong emphasis was put on maintaining profitability through efficiencies in the light of competitive pricing and slipping product margins. Products and Customers: Promotions-r-us offered its comprehensive collection of promotional items to a vast portfolio of clients, including multinational corporations and small to medium sized corporations. Some of their best customers were multi-national firms with tremendous purchasing power. Further, Promotions-r-us took pride in the strong relationships they developed over the past 40 years. Some of their biggest clients had been with them since the company’s inception. However, in each case, Promotions-r-us only provided for the needs of the North American operations, in Promotions-r-us 2 | P a g e some cases, only to the Canadian affiliates. With a relatively small sales force, it would be difficult to tackle a more international client base in their Business to Business operations. Further, Promotions-r-us differentiated itself in this.

1. Promotions-r-us
1 | P a g e
Prepared by Dawn Rovers
Adapted from OCMC 2011 Case Study
Revised Sept. 22, 2017
NOTE: All organizations and relationships are fiction for
teaching purposes
Gerry Atwood, the CEO for Promotions-r-us was sitting at his
desk one snowy day in January
2015. He was reviewing the latest report from his Sales
Manager. He was at a loss as to how
to improve profitability when their product offering was so
mature and competition so intense.
He could not explain why their sales and marketing efforts
didn’t seem to be adding much more
value to the firm. He wondered if they needed to expand to
new markets, consider moving into
the Business to Consumer market, or find a way to improve

2. overall profitability within their
existing B2B market. He had to report to the Board of
Directors the following week on how he
would improve profits for the promotions company that he
founded 40 years ago.
Promotions-r-us:
Promotions-r-us was a family run Canadian company serving in
the promotional product market
since 1975. They sold a range of products that could be
customized with company logos or
slogans (e.g. bags, automotive products, lanyards, magnets,
watches, drinkware, sports
products, awards, etc.). Promotions-r-us (PRU) was one of the
top 25 promotional product
companies in Canada for the past twelve years. However, by
2015 Promotions-r-us faced a time
of intense competition in the industry, which had grown from a
few hundred companies in 1975,
to well over 3000 companies. During that time, Promotions-r-us
had evolved and grown with the
market, but by 2012 they had reached a plateau in sales. By
2014, margins had begun to slip
and overall profitability had been down for the past 2 years. At
last year’s executive meeting,

3. the firm’s objective of putting North American made quality
products into the hands of valued
partners was reaffirmed. However, a strong emphasis was put
on maintaining profitability
through efficiencies in the light of competitive pricing and
slipping product margins.
Products and Customers:
Promotions-r-us offered its comprehensive collection of
promotional items to a vast portfolio of
clients, including multinational corporations and small to
medium sized corporations. Some of
their best customers were multi-national firms with tremendous
purchasing power. Further,
Promotions-r-us took pride in the strong relationships they
developed over the past 40 years.
Some of their biggest clients had been with them since the
company’s inception. However, in
each case, Promotions-r-us only provided for the needs of the
North American operations, in
Promotions-r-us
2 | P a g e

4. some cases, only to the Canadian affiliates. With a relatively
small sales force, it would be
difficult to tackle a more international client base in their
Business to Business operations.
Further, Promotions-r-us differentiated itself in this market by
recognizing and promoting the
importance of using North American products. Unlike many of
their competitors, who purchased
cheaper goods from Asia, Promotions-r-us only purchased high
quality products from North
American suppliers, which was reflected in their premium
pricing. This approach was very well
received by their top 25 clients, who historically represented
50% of their annual revenue. (See
Appendix 1)
Current Situation:
At the front end, PRU employed twenty (20) highly skilled
promotional product sales
professionals, who pledged to care for and satisfy their clients.
These employees had an
impressive depth and knowledge of the industry which allowing
them to tailor offerings to

5. specific client needs. Since the purchase of Salesforce.com in
early 2013, the sales
professionals used this CRM software to manage their client
base and help them in their day-to-
day dealings with clients as well as prospects. The sales
professionals secured all orders and
worked with the client to finalize the order details. Once the
order is signed and faxed to the
PRU head office, the 4 Customer Service Representatives were
responsible to ensure the
orders were filled and shipped to the client’s satisfaction. This
department was affectionately
called the “Bull Pit”, but everyone in the firm recognized the
tireless hours these folks put in to
try to ensure customers’ expectations were met. The big
problem with this group was the high
turnover of employees. The Customer Service Department
Manager was convinced that the
high turnover was because the order fulfillment process was
completely outdated and change is
well overdue. She had requested that Salesforce.com CRM
software be purchased for her
people too, but the CFO denied the request due to a crack-down
on expenses in the past year.

6. PRU also had a very basic presence online. The corporate web
site highlighted the quality of
their products and pointed prospective customers to call their
local sales professional for a
personalized meeting. However, the Marketing Director
thought there were opportunities to
expand this footprint. For example, people planning events
such as weddings or other parties
might benefit from what PRU had to offer. With e-commerce
on the rise, many customers, both
B2B and B2C were using the Internet as their first point of
contact and/or purchasing directly
online. The Marketing Director ran a few promotional
campaigns in 2012 and 2013 using
Promotions-r-us
3 | P a g e
Google Adwords with some success. However, the results
indicated lower than average sales
per order and predominantly small businesses taking advantage
of the offers.
All of this concerned Gerry. As CEO and founder of PRU, he

7. needed some answers. He had a
report on his desk that confirmed his deepest fears (see
Appendix 1). His company was in
decline. He was also not convinced that the risk of either
entering global markets or entering
the Business to Consumer market would be worth it. How
could he improve revenue, but more
importantly, how could he improve profitability?
Promotions-r-us
4 | P a g e
Appendix 1:
Year Annual Sales
Total # of
customers
Average
annual sales
per client

8. Average Annual
Sales Per Client
EXCLUDING TOP 25
CLIENTS
TOP 25
CLIENTS:
Average Annual
sales per client
TOP 25
CLIENTS:
As
percentage
of total
sales
2011 $124,750,000
2,500
$49,900
$ 25,202

9. $ 2,495,000
50%
2012 $125,000,000
2,568
$48,676
$ 24,086
$ 2,550,000
51%
2013 $124,800,000
2,790
$44,624
$ 19,362
$ 2,838,600
57%
2014 $124,300,000
3,000
$41,333
$ 16,672
$ 2,976,000
60%

10. Case Preparation WorksheetCase Assignment #1 – Promotions-
r-us (PRU)
Prepared by: (Insert Student name)
Case Question:
If you we in the position of Gerry Atwood, CEO for
Promotions-r-us, what is your analysis of the situation
described, what action would you take and why?
Short Cycle Process:(Scan the case first to get the top level,
first impression info. NOTE you haven’t yet read the whole
case in detail here. These are some things you should be
thinking of. Completing this section after a first scan of the
case can improve your overall analysis immensely. Please take
the time to complete this Short Cycle Process. No marks are
associated with this activity.
Step 1: Read opening and ending paragraphs
Step 2: Identify who? What? Why? When? How? Related to
the issue or challenge at hand
Step 3: Take a quick look at the case exhibits
Step 4: Take a quick look at all the subtitles in the case
Step 5: Skim the body of the case (read first and last sentence
of each paragraph)
Step 6: Read the assignment questions and take some time to
reflect
Long Cycle Process:(Read the case in detail. Much, much
deeper analysis is required here. This is the section I look at
extensively to generate your grade for this effort.)
Part 1: Read the case fully
Part 2: Analyze the case
Step 1: Define the issue at hand
Step 2: Analyze the case data

11. Step 3: Generate alternatives
Step 4: Select your decision criteria
Step 5: Assess the alternatives you have chosen based on
your decision criteria
Step 6: Select your preferred alternative
Step 7: Develop an action and implementation plan
Step 1: Define the issue at hand
Issues
Immediate?
Strategic?
Urgent Important Quadrant? (I,II,III,IV from guide below)
Issue Analysis Guide (put relevant # in chart above)
Importance
Urgency
LOW
HIGH
LOW
I

12. II
HIGH
III
IV
Problem Statement:
From all the issues listed above, what is the “Big Deal” issue?
What is the overall strategic problem? One problem only!!
Step 2: Analyze the case data
Cause of key problem & effect on company if not addressed?
Related CRM theory (VIP!) Failure to use what we’ve learned
about CRM will result in zero for whole case worksheet.
NOTE: This section is where you note which theories you are
using to evaluate this case. It is not the place where you
summarize all the text book info about those theories. Reciting
textbook will not get any marks. Here you note which theories
you will use -- and for the rest of this analysis, you will
demonstrate the use of those theories to assess the case
material.
Internal Analysis:
What’s going on inside this company? Strengths, weaknesses
and constraints
What is going on in the external environment that is relevant to
the issues above? (Opportunities and Threats)
Conclusions on this whole section?

13. Step 3: Select your Decision Criteria (with CRM focus)
Each criteria must help you to evaluate the problem but must
not favour one solution over the other. Each must be mutually
exclusive. Finally, you should have a mix of qualitative and
quantitative.
What is your criteria?
(The alternative that I choose here must……)
(The alternative that I choose here should…..)
Quantitative criteria? (Yes/No)
Qualitative criteria? (Yes/No)
1.
2.
3.
4. Add more rows if necessary but you don’t want too many
Step 4: Generate Alternatives
Each alternative should be strategic in nature, and propose a
distinctly different way forward to solve the problem posed in
the case. The most important aspect of comparing alternatives
is a detailed and balanced assessment of the merits and
tradeoffs of each alternatives. This includes how well each
alternative satisfied key decision criteria and fits with key
insights from your internal and external analysis above.
Alternative
Pros

14. Cons
1.
2.
3. Add more rows if necessary
Step 5: Assess the alternatives you have chosen based on your
decision criteria (with CRM focus)
A table provides an efficient overview of the merits of each
alterative in relation to criteria. However, you must also
include a discussion of the decision matrix chart.
Alternative analysis matrix
Alternative 1
(+,N,-)
Alternative 2
(+,N,-)
Alternative 3
(+,N,-)
Etc.
(+,N,-)
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3

15. Etc.
Etc.
Total
(Go/No Go?)
Discussion of Alternative analysis matrix
Step 6: Select your preferred alternative (with CRM focus)
Which alternative do you choose?
Why? (how does this best meet your decision criteria)
How will this best solve the challenge posed above in Issues
section?

16. How does it address CRM Challenge(s) at hand?
Step 7: Develop an action and implementation plan (with CRM
focus)
· Who? What? When? Where? How?
· Timeline for all actions to be taken
· Every implementation plan should have at least 1 strategic
overall direction and 5 related tactics which are actionable for
the next 6-12 month
· This section should be lengthy. Remember in case analysis,
you ARE the decision making in the case so you must take
action after the decision is made. You cannot be vague. You
will need specific people to do specific things – not just
tomorrow, but for the next 6-12 months.
Tactic
Details
Date(s) for Implementation
(CRM often has multi-step tactics)

17. Missing Information:
Assumptions:
Rubric:
Criteria
Level 3 - Acceptable with good level of critical thinking and
fully complete
5 points
Level 2 - Some evidence of critical thinking and/or not fully
completed
2.5 points
Level 1 - Unacceptable/incomplete
0 points