April 25, 2024

You are here: Home / Archives for sales and marketing

Samsung Reports 42% Jump in Profit

April 26, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The world’s largest smartphone maker said its net income reached 7.2 trillion won ($6.5 billion) in the first three months of 2013, compared with 5 trillion won a year earlier.

The figure was a surprising 2 percent increase from the previous quarter. Analysts had expected Samsung to report lower profit than the fourth quarter because demand typically slows.

But sales of Samsung’s flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S III, and the oversize handset device called the Galaxy Note remained strong and shored up profit, Samsung said. The company also spent less on marketing its mobile devices than it had in the previous quarter, when competition heated up with rivals.

Sales rose 17 percent to 52.9 trillion won ($47.5 billion). Operating profit was up 54 percent to 8.8 trillion won ($7.9 billion), in line with its preliminary results released earlier this month.

Samsung successfully capitalized on global demand for smartphones with a wide range of mobile devices that come in a variety of screen sizes and a diverse price range, outpacing rivals including Apple and Nokia.

Analysts expect Samsung to report a stronger profit during the April-June quarter as the Galaxy S4, the latest iteration of the Galaxy S smartphone, goes on sales worldwide, months before Apple introduces a new version of the iPhone. The Galaxy S4 was introduced in South Korea Friday before its release in the United States starts on Saturday.

Samsung said initial orders for the Galaxy S4 were higher than expected, making it difficult to meet demand. Lee Don-joo, head of sales and marketing at Samsung’s mobile division, said sales of the S4 would be higher than its predecessor.

Samsung’s I.T. and mobile communications division, which makes smartphones, tablets, PCs and cameras, reported 6.5 trillion won ($5.8 billion) in operating income for the first quarter, a 56 percent growth from the previous year and its highest since Samsung reorganized the division to merge its PC and handset departments.

The company’s outperformance in the mobile market helped offset sluggish demand in the TV market and a still-weak recovery in display panel sales.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/business/samsung-reports-42-jump-in-profit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Filed Under: Global Business Tagged With: ,

Advertising: Ford Plan to Revive Lincoln Hinges on a New Brand

December 3, 2012 by Leave a Comment

But Ford is determined to change that. On Monday, the company will announce upgraded customer service initiatives, a new brand name for Lincoln that plays down the Ford connection and an unusual advertising campaign that features Abraham Lincoln, the president for whom the brand is named.

Ford’s chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, will begin the rebranding effort at an event outside Lincoln Center in Manhattan — the first in a series of moves meant to reverse Lincoln’s seemingly perpetual state of decline.

Ford will formally rechristen the brand as the Lincoln Motor Company and introduce a television spot that begins with an image of Lincoln, stovepipe hat and all. The brand’s first Super Bowl commercial is in the works, as is a revamped Web site that links consumers to a Lincoln “concierge” who can arrange test drives or set up appointments at dealerships.

Mr. Mulally will also announce the on-sale date in early 2013 for the radically redesigned Lincoln MKZ sedan, as well as plans for three new vehicles down the road.

If it seems like an all-out grab for attention, well, that’s exactly the point, said James D. Farley Jr., Ford’s head of global sales and marketing and the newly named chief of the Lincoln revival effort.

“The most important thing is for people to be aware that there is a transition going on,” Mr. Farley said. “We have to shake them up.”

The shake-up is long overdue and critically important to Ford, the nation’s second-largest car company behind General Motors.

As recently as the 1990s, Lincoln was the top-selling luxury automotive brand in the United States. Its large Town Car sedan and hulking Navigator S.U.V. defined the brand, and sales topped more than 230,000 vehicles a year.

But since then, Lincoln has been left in the dust by the German category leaders BMW and Mercedes-Benz, and Toyota’s Lexus division. This year, Lincoln ranks eighth in the American luxury segment, with sales down 2 percent, to 69,000, vehicles in the first 10 months of the year.

Its crosstown rival G.M. has had much better success reviving its Cadillac brand.

“Cadillac has been stabilized, but Lincoln is still muddling about,” said Jack Trout, president of the marketing firm Trout and Partners. “The big question is, how can Lincoln convince people it is more than just a gussied-up Ford?”

That task has now fallen to Mr. Farley, who left Toyota five years ago to join Ford just as Mr. Mulally’s transformation of the company was under way. Since then, Ford has introduced a succession of sleeker, more fuel-efficient and technology-laden models that have lifted sales and made it among the most profitable car companies in the world.

Lincoln, however, has not benefited from the turnaround. It accounts for only 3 percent of Ford’s total sales, down from 8 percent during the brand’s heyday. And since Ford has sold off foreign luxury divisions like Volvo and Jaguar, Lincoln is the sole upscale brand in the company.

“There is nothing more frustrating for us than to have someone who loves their Ford car and S.U.V., but goes out to buy a luxury model from another brand because we don’t have one,” Mr. Farley said.

The Lincoln comeback effort starts with the midsize MKZ, which has been redesigned with a sweeping grille, tapered body style and an all-glass retractable roof. It will be followed by three other new models, including a larger sedan and S.U.V.

But the brand’s image needs much more than better cars. Under Mr. Farley’s direction, a newly formed team of 200 people is intent on establishing the Lincoln Motor Company as a boutique luxury line known for personalized service.

Every customer who reserves an MKZ, for example, will be presented with an elegant gift upon receiving the car. Choices include a selection of wines and Champagne, custom-made jewelry or sunglasses, or a one-night stay at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.

Lincoln’s Web site will also have a consultant available 24 hours a day for live discussions about the products and to streamline the buying process. Prospective buyers will be given an opportunity for a “date night” with Lincoln, which includes a two-day test drive and a free meal at a restaurant.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/automobiles/ford-plan-to-revive-lincoln-hinges-on-a-new-brand.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Filed Under: Business News Tagged With: , ,

You’re the Boss Blog: A Marketing Tool That Identifies Your Best Prospects

December 19, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Tech Support

What small-business owners need to know about technology.

Micky ThompsonCourtesy Post Bid ShipMicky Thompson

In September, Micky Thompson, who started a shipping-related business last year, headed out from his headquarters in Tucson, Ariz., to make a pickup in San Francisco. It wasn’t a shipment he was handling, though. Rather, he was traveling to a software conference to track down a product that might improve his marketing.

Mr. Thompson is a serial entrepreneur, and his company, Post Bid Ship, aims to solve a problem that bedevils the trucking and shipping industries: empty trucks. The average truck travels with less than a third of a load, and trucks often have to return to base from long treks completely empty. That shortfall lowers profits and raises shipping costs, and it hits smaller trucking companies — the average company operates 12 trucks — especially hard.

Mr. Thompson’s nine-employee company offers a solution: It matches trucking companies that have empty space with shippers who have loads heading in the same direction. Truckers can then bid to haul the loads, much the way Priceline enables travelers to bid on unsold hotel rooms and airline seats. But as with any new type of business-to-business service from a start-up company, getting other companies to understand and trust the service can be tricky, and Mr. Thompson found he needed a way to market and sell more effectively. “Thirty percent of the shipping managers we talk to are ready to buy that day, but the other two-thirds need to be nurtured by hearing from us over and over again,” he said. “It’s drip marketing.”

Thus the trek to the San Francisco software conference, which wasn’t in vain. He connected with a company called Marketo that offers a Web-based sales-and-marketing service. Marketo tracks all interactions with potential customers, whether the customers come to your Web site, send you an e-mail, check out your webinar or show up at your promotional event. Even better, while Marketo normally goes after big companies that are willing to pay $3,000 a month or more, it recently brought out a less-expensive, easier-to-set-up, slightly stripped-down version called “Spark” that is for smaller companies. Mr. Thompson, who pays $800 for the service, had it up and running in about two weeks. “Some products take nine months to integrate into a company,” he said. “I wanted results right away.”

He said he seemed to be getting those results, in part because Spark has a couple of interesting features. One is that it automatically analyzes all of those customer interactions to find the prospects it deems most likely to buy. For example, a prospect who visits a Web site several times in a day may be more likely to pull the trigger than one who stops by once a week. And when several people from the same company are checking out your Web site, it may mean you have a big potential customer that’s worth expending extra effort to land.

The ability to focus on those sorts of prospects, said Phil Fernandez, chief executive of Marketo, can do more for the bottom line than handing out promotional discounts through Groupon, for example, because customers brought in by discounts may not have much interest in paying real prices. “What you really want to know is who is likely to be a good customer,” he said.

Another interesting aspect of the service is that it comes with two hours a month of consultation with a flesh-and-blood marketing expert. That was part of the reason Mr. Thompson was able to get up and running quickly and profitably. “The Marketo consultant helped us design our campaign,” he said. “Now our sales reps are finding they can skip the parts of the pitch that prospects are getting online, and go straight to the decision-making process.”

Mr. Thompson, who carefully tracks whom his sales reps talk to, said he was already seeing a payoff in deals closed, including a contract with one of the largest shippers in the country. “And we’ve got new marketing campaigns scheduled,” he added.

If his service catches on and trucks start filling that empty space, maybe shipping costs will go down and some of the savings will get passed on to the rest of us.

You can follow David H. Freedman on Twitter and on Facebook.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6a250c095c9f12a8365de650a9be07e7

Filed Under: Small Business Tagged With: , ,

Glaxo Settles Cases With U.S. for $3 Billion

November 4, 2011 by Leave a Comment

The settlement would be the largest yet in a wave of federal cases against pharmaceutical companies accused of illegal marketing, surpassing the previous record of $2.3 billion paid by Pfizer in 2009. In recent years, drug companies have been prime targets of federal fraud investigations, which have recovered tens of billions of dollars for Medicaid and Medicare.

The cases against GlaxoSmithKline include illegal marketing of Avandia, a diabetes drug that was severely restricted last year after it was linked to heart risks. Company whistle-blowers and federal prosecutors said the company had paid doctors and manipulated medical research to promote the drug.

GlaxoSmithKline had already set aside cash for the settlement, which analysts said would remove legal uncertainty. The company’s stock rose 2.96 percent Thursday to $44.55 a share, near its 52-week high, amid a broader market advance of about 2 percent.

“This is a significant step toward resolving difficult, long-standing matters which do not reflect the company that we are today,” Andrew Witty, chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, said in a statement. “In recent years, we have fundamentally changed our procedures for compliance, marketing and selling in the U.S. to ensure that we operate with high standards of integrity and that we conduct our business openly and transparently.”

The agreement to settle its biggest federal cases should be completed next year, the company added in the statement. It said $3 billion would settle not only the Avandia case, but also a Justice Department investigation of its Medicaid pricing practices and a nationwide investigation led by the United States attorneys in Colorado and Massachusetts into the sales and marketing of nine of its drugs from 1997 to 2004.

GlaxoSmithKline did not specify how much money would resolve each case, nor the possibility of criminal findings and fines, saying the final settlement remained under negotiation. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

GlaxoSmithKline, with a market value of more than $110 billion, had net profit of about $5 billion on $43 billion sales in the year ending Sept. 30.

The company set aside $3.4 billion in January — eliminating its fourth quarter profit — and $2.3 billion in July 2010 to resolve a variety of civil and criminal cases.

Critics of the settlements made with drug companies argued for stiffer penalties, including prison sentences for corporate officials.

Frances H. Miller, a Boston University law professor and health policy expert, said, “Although $3 billion is a very big number in terms of drug industry settlements, it’s not a very big number in relation to almost $50 billion in annual revenue for the world’s fourth-largest pharmaceutical company.”

Patrick Burns, spokesman for Taxpayers Against Fraud, an advocacy group for whistle-blowers, said, “Who at Glaxo is going to jail as a part of this settlement? Who in management is being excluded from doing future business with the U.S. government?”

Last year, the Justice Department accused a former vice president and associate general counsel of GlaxoSmithKline, Lauren C. Stevens, of charges obstruction of justice and making false statements. But she was acquitted of all six charges in May by a United States District Court judge, Roger W. Titus, in Maryland, who ruled that she had been advising the company in good faith.

Mr. Burns said the health care sector accounted for more than 80 percent of the $4 billion in overpayments recovered by the government in 2010 as a result of whistle-blower lawsuits and resulting fraud investigations by federal and state agencies.

“This is a well-worn path for big pharma,” said Les Funtleyder, health care strategist with the New York brokerage firm Miller Tabak.

“I know $3 billion sounds like an astronomical number,” he added, “but when you live in the world of worst-case scenarios, like investors do, $3 billion is a welcome relief. At least you have certainty.”

Brian Bourdot, an analyst at the investment bank Barclays Capital, called the settlement an important step but also noted that GlaxoSmithKline “remains involved in other legal disputes, including alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

“We regard such disputes as an innate risk for large multinational pharmaceutical companies,” he wrote in a note to investors.

In a separate case last year, GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $750 million, including a $150 million criminal penalty, to resolve federal complaints about manufacturing quality at a plant in Cidra, P.R., since closed.

Mary Anne Rhyne, a spokeswoman for the company, said Thursday that it was still negotiating with the government over whether to include a corporate integrity agreement in that deal. The agreement could provide further penalties for other violations, though in manufacturing.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 3, 2011

An earlier version of this article described the drug Avandia incorrectly. It is a diabetes drug, not a painkiller.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ebfcf4f1d44379d0a67f527c3837a300

Filed Under: Business News Tagged With: , ,

Conversations: Why It’s So Difficult for Entrepreneurs to Head for the Exit

May 23, 2011 by Leave a Comment

His goal was to find a way to help his company, Beryl — a call center that caters to hospitals and is based near Dallas — keep growing while also allowing him to free up time to pursue other ventures.

In January 2010, Mr. Spiegelman signed a letter of intent to sell a majority interest in the company to a private equity firm. But after considering the risks of letting someone else control his company, which has 350 employees and annual revenue of $35 million, he decided to walk away from the deal.

Mr. Spiegelman, who is 53, spoke recently about why he decided not to sell and why succession and exit issues are so difficult for business owners.

Q. How did Beryl get started?

A. I started the company with my two brothers in 1985. But I’m the only one involved now since my youngest brother, Barry, died from a brain tumor in 2005 and my other brother, Mark, left the business 11 years ago.

Q. What roles did the three of you play when you started the company?

A. We tried to align our roles with our natural talents. Mark was the technical genius behind everything we did. I was the sales and marketing guy. Barry was the utility guy who helped do everything to bring it all together.

Q. Why did your brother decide to leave the business?

A. Mark had always been a natural entrepreneur. It seemed like every year he wanted to spread his wings and get involved in a different business. In 2000, he decided it was time he did something else. It ended up being the best decision for everyone since up to that time, it was like we had three chefs in the kitchen. Something had to give.

Q. Is your business like other call centers?

A. We made the decision early on that we would never compete on cost. We have taken what is generally thought of as a commodity and turned it into a product with a premium price customers are willing to pay. It has set the bar differently for us.

Q. How so?

A. I think that many companies miss the fact that having a great internal culture where you have engaged employees is not only the right thing to do, it’s also good for business. We have won nine “best places to work” awards and have client-retention and employee-retention rates that are unheard of in the industry. That has also made us four to six times more profitable than a typical call center, which allows us to invest in better tools for our people. It also allowed us to avoid bringing in outside investment as we grew the business. We have had control over our own destiny.

Q. Then why did you decide to explore selling part of the company?

A. There were a couple of reasons. One was that starting in 2009, because of changes in the health care industry, we saw opportunities to accelerate Beryl’s growth. Another was that I had brought on a team of very experienced senior leaders from outside the company who were chomping at the bit to expand and take advantage of the market drivers. Third, I was interested in diversifying my own time to try to help other businesses connect culture with financial performance. For example, I had begun to get involved in something called the Small Giants Community, an international community I helped build around the ideas in Bo Burlingham’s book, “Small Giants: Companies That Choose to Be Great Instead of Big.”

Q. Isn’t there something contradictory about bringing in outside executives and outside investors to help your company grow faster — so that you can help other companies learn the joys of staying small?

A. Being a Small Giant does not mean staying small. All entrepreneurs are growth-driven. Being a Small Giant means that we want to grow for reasons more than just growth and profit.

Q. Part of the goal, I assume, was to take some money off the table.

A. Taking some money off the table was a factor, but it was the least important one. Having built this profitable business, I had been able to build some wealth outside of the business over the years. I had already reached the point where my financial security wasn’t at risk.

Q. So what happened?

A. I signed a letter of intent in January 2010, to take on a major investment by a private equity firm.

Q. Did the investors give you any assurances about how they would run your company and treat your employees?

A. Yes. They did that by validating our belief that there was a connection between the culture we had built and the financial performance of the company.

Q. Then why did you change your mind?

A. Well, as we went through the due diligence process, it began to dawn on me what life would be like to have a financial partner, people who are focused on the short-term view of financial performance. Even though I knew that their plan was to get a return on their investment in four to six years, I began to get nervous. I felt like if we went down this road, it would have an irreversible negative impact on Beryl’s culture.

Q. And you decided to walk away?

A. I did. I pulled the plug about three weeks before we were supposed to close the deal. I know there are cases where entrepreneurs sell their business, get their payday and are happy. But I know there are many more cases where business owners look back and are disappointed with the impact on the culture of their business.

Q. Did you learn anything from the investors?

A. It was great for us to get an outsider’s take on what we needed to do to improve our business, like building an outside sales team, which we have now done. We are making the kinds of investments the private equity firm would have done, but at our own pace, and under our control, which is exciting and fun.

Q. How are you doing it without the additional capital?

A. I decided to fund the growth out of our own working capital, or maybe take on some debt for the first time. It feels like we have reinvented the business by investing in new talent and technology.

Q. But if you didn’t really need outside capital to finance the growth and you didn’t really need to take money off the table and you had already brought in outside leaders to lighten your load, why did you come so close to doing this?

A. That’s like asking me why I had the ice cream if I didn’t really need it. As entrepreneurs, we are going through constant business phases and a search for the right thing to do. Sometimes we make good decisions and sometimes we don’t.

Q. Are you now considering other succession plans?

A. I’ve begun to look at the possibility of an employee stock ownership plan. I never thought this was a company my children, who are 5 and 9, would run. But now sometimes I think, maybe they could.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c08d2e6fe1995b2a5ca0fb9fc6059527

Filed Under: Small Business Tagged With: , ,

Small Business: Why It’s So Difficult for Entrepreneurs to Head for the Exit

May 12, 2011 by Leave a Comment

His goal was to find a way to help his company, Beryl — a call center that caters to hospitals and is based near Dallas — keep growing while also allowing him to free up time to pursue other ventures.

In January 2010, Mr. Spiegelman signed a letter of intent to sell a majority interest in the company to a private equity firm. But after considering the risks of letting someone else control his company, which has 350 employees and annual revenue of $35 million, he decided to walk away from the deal.

Mr. Spiegelman, who is 53, spoke recently about why he decided not to sell and why succession and exit issues are so difficult for business owners.

Q. How did Beryl get started?

A. I started the company with my two brothers in 1985. But I’m the only one involved now since my youngest brother, Barry, died from a brain tumor in 2005 and my other brother, Mark, left the business 11 years ago.

Q. What roles did the three of you play when you started the company?

A. We tried to align our roles with our natural talents. Mark was the technical genius behind everything we did. I was the sales and marketing guy. Barry was the utility guy who helped do everything to bring it all together.

Q. Why did your brother decide to leave the business?

A. Mark had always been a natural entrepreneur. It seemed like every year he wanted to spread his wings and get involved in a different business. In 2000, he decided it was time he did something else. It ended up being the best decision for everyone since up to that time, it was like we had three chefs in the kitchen. Something had to give.

Q. Is your business like other call centers?

A. We made the decision early on that we would never compete on cost. We have taken what is generally thought of as a commodity and turned it into a product with a premium price customers are willing to pay. It has set the bar differently for us.

Q. How so?

A. I think that many companies miss the fact that having a great internal culture where you have engaged employees is not only the right thing to do, it’s also good for business. We have won nine “best places to work” awards and have client-retention and employee-retention rates that are unheard of in the industry. That has also made us four to six times more profitable than a typical call center, which allows us to invest in better tools for our people. It also allowed us to avoid bringing in outside investment as we grew the business. We have had control over our own destiny.

Q. Then why did you decide to explore selling part of the company?

A. There were a couple of reasons. One was that starting in 2009, because of changes in the health care industry, we saw opportunities to accelerate Beryl’s growth. Another was that I had brought on a team of very experienced senior leaders from outside the company who were chomping at the bit to expand and take advantage of the market drivers. Third, I was interested in diversifying my own time to try to help other businesses connect culture with financial performance. For example, I had begun to get involved in something called the Small Giants Community, an international community I helped build around the ideas in Bo Burlingham’s book, “Small Giants: Companies That Choose to Be Great Instead of Big.”

Q. Isn’t there something contradictory about bringing in outside executives and outside investors to help your company grow faster — so that you can help other companies learn the joys of staying small?

A. Being a Small Giant does not mean staying small. All entrepreneurs are growth-driven. Being a Small Giant means that we want to grow for reasons more than just growth and profit.

Q. Part of the goal, I assume, was to take some money off the table.

A. Taking some money off the table was a factor, but it was the least important one. Having built this profitable business, I had been able to build some wealth outside of the business over the years. I had already reached the point where my financial security wasn’t at risk.

Q. So what happened?

A. I signed a letter of intent in January 2010, to take on a major investment by a private equity firm.

Q. Did the investors give you any assurances about how they would run your company and treat your employees?

A. Yes. They did that by validating our belief that there was a connection between the culture we had built and the financial performance of the company.

Q. Then why did you change your mind?

A. Well, as we went through the due diligence process, it began to dawn on me what life would be like to have a financial partner, people who are focused on the short-term view of financial performance. Even though I knew that their plan was to get a return on their investment in four to six years, I began to get nervous. I felt like if we went down this road, it would have an irreversible negative impact on Beryl’s culture.

Q. And you decided to walk away?

A. I did. I pulled the plug about three weeks before we were supposed to close the deal. I know there are cases where entrepreneurs sell their business, get their payday and are happy. But I know there are many more cases where business owners look back and are disappointed with the impact on the culture of their business.

Q. Did you learn anything from the investors?

A. It was great for us to get an outsider’s take on what we needed to do to improve our business, like building an outside sales team, which we have now done. We are making the kinds of investments the private equity firm would have done, but at our own pace, and under our control, which is exciting and fun.

Q. How are you doing it without the additional capital?

A. I decided to fund the growth out of our own working capital, or maybe take on some debt for the first time. It feels like we have reinvented the business by investing in new talent and technology.

Q. But if you didn’t really need outside capital to finance the growth and you didn’t really need to take money off the table and you had already brought in outside leaders to lighten your load, why did you come so close to doing this?

A. That’s like asking me why I had the ice cream if I didn’t really need it. As entrepreneurs, we are going through constant business phases and a search for the right thing to do. Sometimes we make good decisions and sometimes we don’t.

Q. Are you now considering other succession plans?

A. I’ve begun to look at the possibility of an employee stock ownership plan. I never thought this was a company my children, who are 5 and 9, would run. But now sometimes I think, maybe they could.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c08d2e6fe1995b2a5ca0fb9fc6059527

Filed Under: Small Business Tagged With: , ,