Search

Electric cars had long been championed by environmentalists as a superior solution to the internal combustion engine (ICE), but, despite large government incentives and strong pioneering efforts by a few automakers over the years, electric and hybrid cars and light trucks still accounted for less than 1% of total global production in 2016. However, events took a turn in 2017 and 2018, when many governments committed to banning ICE vehicles. In response, leading automakers announced plans to launch hundreds of electric vehicle models within five years. Early pioneer Tesla, which, in 2017, had built a stock market valuation exceeding that of General Motors (GM), despite only delivering 103,000 cars compared to GM's 9.0 million, looked as if it were about to be engulfed by this new competition. But not all were convinced that electric cars would soon displace conventional ICE vehicles. It was not clear that the infrastructure was in place to charge all these electric vehicles. There were also questions concerning the electrical generating capacity to meet the new demand. Would battery prices fall enough to make mass-market demand a possibility? In low gasoline cost jurisdictions, such as the United States, the economics of owning an electric vehicle didn't appear justified, unless subsidies were maintained indefinitely. In Europe, where gasoline taxes were high, the case for electric vehicles was stronger. But European governments depended on those taxes to meet their budget needs. Would a significant uptake of electric vehicles necessitate higher taxes on electricity? In 2018, electric cars were an expensive novelty for the rich subsidized by the poor. Would the sudden rush of new models change the balance?

In 2017, the global market for rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries was 126 gigawatt-hours (GWh) valued at $37 billion, growing by $10 billion in two years. Once confined largely to consumer electronics and appliances, the rapid increase in demand was spurred by the adoption of electric cars and buses. Moreover, the falling cost of batteries was sparking interest in another potential huge market - the electrical utility sector. Batteries could be used to store electricity in periods of low demand and release it when demand was high, significantly reducing the need for peak generation capacity. However, historically, the costs of doing this had been prohibitively high. In response to the expected demand, several companies had announced'gigafactories,'plants that, combined, could produce many times more output than total global demand in 2017. Tesla, Inc., the electric car maker, was the first. In 2014, it announced a 35 GWh battery plant, costing $5 billion, to be built in Nevada, enough capacity to fulfil global demand in 2013. In 2017, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he would announce an additional four gigafactory locations to supply the global market. Tesla was not alone in its battery ambitions. In late 2016, start-up Alevo began delivery of its new'GridBank'batteries from a 3.5 million square foot facility in North Carolina, with the potential to scale to 60 GWh. Alevo claimed its batteries lasted four times longer and were safer than the conventional Li-ion batteries used by Tesla. Anxious not to be reliant on third parties, in 2017, several automakers had announced plans to build battery capacity, including General Motors and Daimler. Indeed, Daimler announced two plants for its Mercedez brand cars, one in Germany and one in China.

On January 6, 2019, HelloSelf, a London-based'BrainTech'company, founded a year earlier by Charles Wells, soft launched. The proposition was simply to help its members'Be your Best Self.'The company provided its registered members with access to a clinical psychotherapist, a life coach, and an AI engine that personalized advice. The platform provided members with the ability to set goals, track progress, and discover new things about themselves. Throughout the previous nine months, over 500 people had registered interest in the proposition, price points had been tested, competitors analyzed, members and specialists interviewed, and wireframes developed, but there were several questions still crossing Wells'mind. Did the subscription LifeCoach bot model combined with pay-as-you-go therapist sessions make sense? How could he attract an early cohort of users? How would HelloSelf interact with the broken mental health solutions in the UK? How quickly would the platform scale and learn to provide meaningful AI support for both therapists and the LifeCoach bot? And most importantly, would the platform deliver on the mission'to help everyone discover, understand and experience their Best Self'?

According to many analysts and industry observes, in 2018 Amazon became the largest retailer of apparel in the United States and the second largest in the world, behind Alibaba. Much of Amazon's apparel was made by third party retailers on its platform, but Amazon had been working to build its own fashion retail skills for more than 15 years, and had made a number of acquisitions to this end. Having failed to convince leading brands to sell on Amazon, the company had also launched several private label lines to boost its presence in fashion apparel. However, in 2017, it had finally convinced leading brand Nike to sell direct on its platform. President of Amazon Fashion since June 2017, Christine M. Beauchamp (Harvard Business School MBA, 1997) was contemplating next steps. Meanwhile, leading online and fast-fashion specialists such as ASOS in the UK and Inditex in Spain did not appear to have much to be concerned about. However, many traditional fashion retailers, struggling to build effective multi-channels strategies, were facing slow growth and pressure on margins. Would 2018 mark the beginning of the demise of traditional fashion retailing? What role would the bricks and mortar channel in fashion retailing play in the future? What might the future look like for the fashion industry? And what role might Amazon play in it?

On December 5, 2018, Waymo LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., launched the United States'first commercial driverless-car ride-hailing service (Waymo One), based in Phoenix, Arizona. As with other ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft, Waymo One riders downloaded an app onto their smartphones that allowed them to request pick-up and drop-off points. At launch, Waymo One was limited to an area of roughly 100 square miles, but few doubted that the service would soon be extended to more geographies. When asked where it would be launched next, CEO John Krafcik commented,'We're going to grow and be paced by the level of safety that the technology provides in each of the environments that we serve.'Just how fast that pace would be was driven by a whole host of regulatory, technological, and competitive uncertainties. There was also the question of the ultimate role Waymo might play in the autonomous vehicle world. What should Waymo be aiming for?

In early 2017, Judith Judson (Harvard Business School MBA, 2000), Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER), was reflecting on the results of the initiative she had led to identify the contribution advanced electricity storage could make to electricity generation and distribution in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The study was the first major output from the $10 million Energy Storage Initiative (ESI) launched by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker's administration in May 2015. The advanced simulation techniques employed in the study indicated that over a ten-year period, the optimal deployment of storage capacity would cut the cost of electricity for consumers in the Commonwealth by $230 million per year, deliver $110 million in annual revenues for storage providers, and reduce CO2 emissions by 100,000 tons a year, the equivalent of taking 22,000 cars off the road. Moreover, neighboring states would benefit from $250 million in lowered wholesale prices. To deliver these benefits, 1.77 GWh of advanced storage would be required across the grid, costing between $970 million and $1.35 billion. Incorporating the perspectives of a wide body of stakeholders (from utilities to municipalities to generators), the study wound up recommending a suite of policies that would facilitate the installation of 600 MWh of storage capacity by 2025, representing about 6 minutes of the state's daily electricity consumption and delivering $800 million in benefits to ratepayers. It would also make the Commonwealth a leader in advanced storage technology and deliver substantial greenhouse gas reductions. At the end of 2015 according to figures from the Department of Energy, Massachusetts ranked 23rd in the United States in energy storage deployment, well behind the leader Arizona, with nearly 300 MWh, and Texas, with over 150 MWh.

This is the third case in a three-case series on Bulb Energy Ltd. It follows'Bulb (A): Foundation'(719-440) and'Bulb (B): Launch'(719-441). After a wild and volatile year, Bulb, a new entrant in the UK residential energy market, ended March 2018 with 329,127 properties, 1.2% of the total residential energy market. This was 150% ahead of a plan for 130,000 properties and almost ten times the size the founders, Amit Gudka and Hayden Wood, had imagined in August 2015 when they first launched. Bulb was now one of the top 12 energy suppliers in the UK. Gudka and Wood were convinced that if they reinvested all their profits in growth, they would reach 500,000 properties by March 2019, and reach more than 1 million by March 2021. This would mean postponing the launch of a range of value-added services they had included in their original Launch Plan, but it could make Bulb number 7 in the industry and the first real challenger to the UK's'Big Six'leading energy suppliers to pass the one million-member mark. Was it time to seek more funding to really challenge the Big Six, making renewable energy mainstream? And did it make sense to delay value-added services to support energy conservation, distributed generation, and the switch to electric vehicles, or should they seek funding to support these initiatives too?

This is the second case in a three-case series on Bulb Energy Ltd. It comes after'Bulb (A): Foundation'(719-440) and is followed by'Bulb (C): Rapid Growth'(719-442). It describes the launch of Bulb, a renewable energy supplier entering the highly competitive UK market in August 2015. By the end of March 2017, Bulb had grown to supply 29,311 properties, well ahead of its Launch Plan of 23,166 and beyond the point of breakeven. It had been a slow start, and growth had been volatile, reaching a rate of over 3,000 new members per week at one point, putting severe strains on service levels. Founders Hayden Wood and Amit Gudka had been forced to change many aspects of their plan and defer launching value-added services to help customers reduce energy consumption and create Bulb's vision of distributed generation. Now, the company was generating profits; enough to grow, but not at the level of the original plan. Should the founders scale back on their growth ambitions and delay adding services until they had reached the scale to support them? Or should they seek more funding and accelerate growth?

This is the first case in a three-case series on Bulb Energy Ltd. It is followed by'Bulb (B): Launch'(719-441) and'Bulb (C): Rapid Growth'(719-442). It describes the foundation of Bulb, a renewable energy supplier entering the highly competitive UK market in August 2015. Founders Hayden Wood and Amit Gudka were hoping to capitalize on the hundreds of thousands of customers switching their energy provider each month, by promising excellent customer service, a simple, low-price tariff, 100%-renewable electricity, and services to reduce energy consumption. At the time there were only about 250,000 households on renewable tariffs, typically paying a high price for the privilege. Gudka and Wood were convinced that many more households would opt for renewable energy and turn it into a mainstream product if prices were more reasonable. Their goal was to sign up more than 23,000 properties by March 31, 2017 to reach breakeven, and then grow to more than 69,000 properties by March 31, 2021. On Friday August 21, 2015, Gudka and Wood sent out a batch of 1,400 emails to friends and family, encouraging them to switch to Bulb. They waited anxiously for the first sign-ups.

Founded at the end of 1999 by Juliet Davenport and Martin Edwards, Good Energy was the number-two renewable-energy seller in the United Kingdom at the end of 2016, supplying over 71,000 of the country's 27 million households and small businesses with 100% renewable electricity and over 44,000 with gas. It also provided administrative support for over 133,000 mostly domestic solar generators selling surplus energy to the grid. Its wind and solar farms generated enough electricity for 20,000 homes. Revenues of 90 million had grown at an average of 33% over the previous five years, while operating profits of 6.0 million had grown at 27%. However, all was not good at Good Energy. A commitment in 2015 to grow to 900,000 customers by 2020 was revised in 2016 to a target of'sustainable profit growth and enhanced customer service.'Moreover, the long-term goal of generating 50% of energy sold was abandoned in favor of sourcing more from third parties. Part of the challenge appeared to be the entry of many new renewable-energy suppliers that offered tariffs 20% to 30% below Good Energy's tariffs. But CEO Juliet Davenport faced other challenges. A hostile government was threatening to cap energy rates and reduce renewable subsidies. Meanwhile, Dale Vince, the CEO of Ecotricity, the number-one green-energy supplier in the United Kingdom and Good Energy's biggest shareholder, was trying to claim two seats on the board. How was Davenport going to navigate through these challenges and maintain Good Energy's success?

This case describes the history of the United Kingdom's domestic energy industry and the country's efforts to create a more competitive, greener, and distributed power sector. On July 24, 2017, the United Kingdom government and the industry regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), published a report listing 29 actions to be taken to'remove barriers to smart technologies,''enable smart homes and businesses,'and'improve access to energy markets for new technologies and business models.'The report promised yet more disruption for the 60 suppliers who provided energy for the UK's 27.1 million households. How welcome the proposals would be to the players in the industry was not clear. The'Big Six'vertically-integrated generators and retailers, which accounted for more than 80% of the market, were facing declining sales and market share in the face of a huge number of new entrants: 30 in the last three years alone. The recent threat of a price cap on bills - or even a government take-over - did little to encourage further investment. Meanwhile, a group of six mid-tier challengers, accounting for 12% of the market, had grown big enough to be burdened with the many social and environmental charges faced by the Big Six and their growth had slowed. Several of them were now diversifying into other service offerings such as broadband or homeowner's insurance, or were looking for opportunities overseas. Then there were more than 50 small players, mostly recent entrants. While many were growing fast, often using their customers'deposits to fund growth, they were not profitable and had limited capacity for investment in'smarter energy.'Meanwhile, the UK government was keen to encourage players such as Google and Amazon into the market to drive disruption. Just how quickly the UK energy market would get smarter remained to be seen.

At the end of 2017 First Utility Ltd. was the largest of the middle-tier domestic energy suppliers in the United Kingdom, serving 808,000 of the country's 27 million households with electricity and gas. In Q1 2017 First Utility captured 3% market share. The company had grown rapidly from 2011 to 2014, doubling in size each year, and CEO Ian McCaig had signaled that he was considering an IPO. However, in 2015 growth slowed, and profits fell by 84%. The same year, the company began expanding into Germany and Poland and building its own billing system. Growth slowed further in early 2016, and First Utility recorded a loss of 12.7 million for the year. Plans for an IPO were shelved. Instead, the company began looking for strategic partnerships to offer new products and services to its UK customer base. Whether First Utility's new geographies and product lines would revive growth was unclear. Meanwhile, in May 2017, CEO McCaig announced that he would step down in September. In December 2017, the company announced that Royal Dutch Shell would acquire First Utility for an undisclosed sum. The deal was approved in February 2018, and First Utility was rolled into Shell's New Energies division.

This case addresses the rise of The Progressive Corporation (Progressive) as a top player in the property and casualty and auto insurance industries. In July 2018, Progressive, the USA's third largest auto insurance writer, reported half-year earned premiums up 21% on the same period the previous year and net income up 95%. For CEO Tricia Griffith, appointed on July 1, 2016, this was a clear indicator that her commitment to accelerating growth was bearing fruit. In the ten years from 2005-2015, Progressive's earned premiums had grown at 4% per year. They then grew 13% in 2016 and 15% in 2017; 2018 promised to be an even better year. In 2017 Griffith commented that Progressive was in 10% of US homes and would double that'in short order.'This would make it larger than 2018 industry leader State Farm. But the auto insurance business was plagued with hundreds of competitors and had historically been very cyclical. In 2018 Progressive was enjoying an unusual period of rising prices and growth. Would Griffith's strategy be enough to sustain double digit growth? The markets seemed convinced; In July 2018 Progressive's stock price had almost doubled in two years.

In 2018, Inditex, based in Spain, was the largest specialist fashion retailer in the world, generating sales of $31.5 billion in 2017 from a portfolio of eight retail brands selling through a total of 7,475 stores located in 96 countries and from websites in 49 countries. Its largest brand, Zara, generated sales of $20.8 billion and operated 2,118 stores. Since its IPO in 2001, Inditex had grown sales an average of 14.3% per year and net profits by 16.3% per year, adding over 6,000 stores in the process, and its stock had significantly outpaced the FTSE 100. While many fashion retailers were retreating in the face of weak demand and competition from online retailers, Inditex grew like-for-like sales for the year in all concepts and geographies. Online sales were up 41% year-on-year, reaching 10% of total sales. For several years, the company had been slowing the growth in retail space and investing in large flagship stores to support its online business. Significantly, in late 2016 Inditex closed four small Zara shops in the company's hometown of La Coru a and opened a 54,000-square-foot store in its place. Indeed, in the last quarter of 2017, the net number of store additions turned negative for the first time. Meanwhile, online fashion specialists such as U.K.-based ASOS were growing rapidly, adding thousands of styles a week to their websites and providing thousands of pick-up and drop-off points (PUDOs) at local retail locations around the world to support their online sales. And then there was the threat of Amazon, which had been pushing into online fashion for over a decade. Was Inditex chairman and CEO Pablo Isla doing enough to turn the online threat into an opportunity?

Cantel Medical Corporation provided infection prevention and control products and services for patients, caregivers, and other healthcare providers. In 2016, Cantel generated sales of $665 million and net profits of $60 million, double the levels of five years earlier. Chief Executive Officer J rgen B. Hansen, appointed on August 1, 2016, was aiming to double the size of the business again. Cantel operated in three major vertical market segments: endoscopy, water purification and filtration, and healthcare disposables, which together accounted for more than 95% of Cantel's sales. Over 90% of revenues were generated in North America. Hansen was looking to add new verticals to the portfolio, but he also saw opportunities to drive growth in Cantel's core businesses, both at home and internationally. Over two decades, the company had delivered consistent organic growth and integrated over 30 acquisitions, providing total annual returns of 22% to its shareholders, with relatively limited leverage. Hansen was determined to maintain that track record, but the key question was how to achieve this goal. Was there enough growth in Cantel's three key verticals in North America, or would more be needed? If so, which other verticals should Cantel consider? Should the company stick to infection control or add other products to its offering to leverage its customer relationships? How much would a drive into international markets help? And what organization was best suited to Cantel's strategy? It had been run as a holding company in the past. Did that structure still make sense as the company ventured overseas?

Supplement to case 717476.

At the end of 2003, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., a diversified media group with revenues of $8.9 billion, could claim leadership positions in all three of its main businesses. Clear Channel Broadcasting was the largest radio-station operator in the world, with sales of $3.7 billion and EBITDA of $1.6 billion. Clear Channel Outdoor was the largest outdoor advertiser in the world, with revenues of $2.2 billion generating EBITDA of $581 million. Clear Channel Entertainment was the world's largest live-entertainment promoter with revenues of $2.6 billion and EBITDA of $191 million. Media entrepreneur L. Lowry Mays (MBA 1962) had built Clear Channel through a concerted campaign of acquisitions over 30 years by consolidating fragmented media businesses, delighting shareholders in the process. But maintaining the pace of acquisitions was proving challenging, and the synergies he had hoped for between his businesses had proven elusive. Shareholders were upset. How might Mays return Clear Channel to its former glory?

In January 2017, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, was surrounded by controversy. The election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States in November 2016 had triggered a national storm of protests, and many attributed Trump's victory to fake news stories served up on Facebook's Trending News Feed. Zuckerberg was unapologetic. The word that came to define this spread of misinformation was'post-truth,'which became so widely used in 2016 that Oxford Dictionaries coined the term'word of the year.'Did Trump have Zuckerberg to thank? Facebook had sparked many controversies during its short lifespan. By 2017, it had grown into the biggest social networking group in the world, with 1.8 billion people. Was this just another challenge along the way, or were the issues more fundamental?

On July 2, 2016, Danaher Corporation completed the spinoff of Fortive Corporation. The previous day, Danaher's stock price had reached an all-time high. In 2015, Danaher had decided to split off its test and measurement, fuel and fleet management, and automation businesses, leaving the'new Danaher'focused on life sciences, diagnostics, dental, water quality, and product-identification businesses. It was hardly the first industrial conglomerate to spin off major divisions; Tyco International PLC, ITT Corporation, Illinois Tool Works, Johnson Controls, and Ingersoll-Rand PLC had made similar moves in recent memory. However, its peers had often experienced declining profitability or pressure from activist investors. Danaher, by contrast, had performed strongly in the years leading up to the spinoff. It had spent the previous decade strengthening its portfolio in sectors such as life sciences and dental products with acquisitions including Beckman Coulter in 2011, Nobel Biocare Holding AG in 2014, and Pall Corporation in 2015.

In September 2016, Johnson Controls, Inc., completed the acquisition of Tyco International PLC, a $9.9 billion business with operating profits of $884 million. The purchase consideration was $14.4 billion. Although the deal was billed as a merger, Ireland-based Tyco effectively acquired U.S.-based Johnson Controls in a tax inversion deal that saved $150 million a year in taxes. Operating synergies were estimated at $500 million over three years. Tyco International was all that remained of what 15 years earlier, in 2001, had been a $36.4 billion conglomerate with a market capitalization of $120 billion. It took the charismatic CEO, Dennis Kozlowski, 10 years to grow the business from $3 billion to $36 billion, increasing its value by more than 60 times along the way. But Kozlowski went to prison on fraud charges in 2005, and the portfolio was slowly unwound under his successor. Now in 2016, Tyco was to disappear.

In 2016, JCDecaux was number one in the world in outdoor advertising. This was a far cry from the situation in 2003; at that time, JCDecaux had been unseated by Clear Channel from the number-one spot that it had held for decades, and it was fighting for second place with OUTFRONT (then owned by Viacom). Over the 12 intervening years, JCDecaux had doubled in size, building leadership positions in China, Japan, Latin America, Africa, and Russia, and in 2010, it had passed Clear Channel to lead the industry once more. Now, co-CEOs Jean-Fran ois Decaux and Jean-Charles Decaux were looking for new ways and new places to grow. After the company overtook Clear Channel in 2010, Jean-Fran ois had indicated that he believed that another doubling in size was feasible, but it would probably take a major acquisition to do so. And JCDecaux faced more pressing short-term issues. The contract for London bus shelters that the company had won with much fanfare in August 2015 was behind schedule. To make matters worse, the United Kingdom's June 2016'Brexit'vote to leave the European Union cast a shadow over the project, and the markets reacted negatively. By the start of November, JCDecaux's share price had fallen 21% since the beginning of the year. Just what the economic uncertainty of Brexit would mean for global outdoor advertising in general, and U.K. outdoor advertising in particular, was not clear. Doubling in size in such an environment appeared a daunting task.

Tencent had undergone many transformations since it was founded in 1998 as a simple messaging service. In 2017, it was the largest online games provider in China with a wide range of game types, China's largest social networking service provider with several of the largest social networking applications in the world, and China's favorite Internet portal. It was challenging Alibaba's Alipay as the leader in online payments systems, and it had established strategic relationships with many service providers to help exploit new opportunities in online-to-offline (O2O) services and leverage its huge user base in e-commerce and search. However, there was no room for complacency. Competition from the other big local Internet companies such as Baidu and Alibaba was fierce, and there were always thousands of start-ups looking to enter the sector. Founder and CEO Ma Huateng ('Pony'Ma) remarked,'In America, when you bring an idea to market you usually have several months before competition pops up, allowing you to capture significant market share. In China, you can have hundreds of competitors within the first hours of going live. Ideas are not important in China-execution is.'

On March 1, 2017, Best Buy Company, Inc., North America's largest retailer of consumer electronics and appliances, announced a third year of comparable-store sales increases and a 20.8% increase in domestic comparable online sales. These results were in marked contrast to four years of declining comparable-store sales from 2010 through 2013. The stock price rose 17% in March, and on April 20, 2017, it surpassed $50 for the first time since January 2008. When CEO Hubert Joly took over in September 2012, Best Buy was losing share to Amazon.com, which was encouraging consumers to view products at Best Buy and other physical stores and then buy them for a lower price online, a practice known as'showrooming.'Undaunted, Joly had encouraged the practice, convinced that it presented an opportunity to sell to customers as long as Best Buy's prices were competitive. Joly had committed the company to a multi-channel strategy in North America and exited struggling international operations. Operating margins had increased as a result, but growth was still proving elusive. In early 2017, Joly announced that his'Renew Blue'turnaround effort was complete and that he was now intent on creating the New Blue. Would the new strategy be enough to stop Amazon's advances?

Launched in 2000, ASOS was one of the world's largest online fashion specialists in 2016. Focusing on young consumers aged 16-25 years, the company offered over 80,000 items on its websites, many times more than the largest fashion stores, and added several thousand new lines every week. Based in the United Kingdom, ASOS shipped products to 240 countries and territories, and international sales represented more than 50% of total revenues. But when new CEO Nick Beighton took over from founder Nick Robertson in September 2015, he faced some significant challenges. While ASOS was large by online standards, traditional fashion retailers were building their own online sales capabilities, and Amazon was expanding its apparel offering. Meanwhile, new online competitors were emerging at a rapid rate. After ASOS issued several profit warnings in 2014, its growth had slowed to 18% in 2015. Beighton was convinced that ASOS's strategy was right and that the company needed to improve its execution to recapture its historical success. Some analysts were not so sure, and the stock price still had not recovered from its 2014 fall. ASOS'goal was to be'the world's no.1 fashion destination for 20-somethings.'Did this lofty ambition make sense? And did ASOS have the right strategy to achieve it?

IC Group owned several of Scandinavia's leading premium fashion brands. How should it respond to the decline of its primary wholesale distribution channels (independent fashion boutiques and department stores)? Should it open more physical stores or focus on e-commerce? Where should the Group focus its international expansion? How could it best leverage its operating platform to drive the profitability of its brands? Should it acquire existing brands or build new ones itself? In short, what should its'omni-channel retailing'strategy be?

In October 2015, Walmart surprised investors by announcing that it expected flat sales growth for 2015 and growth of only 3% to 4% over the coming three years. Profits would also fall due to significant investments in people and technology. The company's stock price dropped 10% on the news, the largest one-day decline since 1998. In February 2016, Walmart reported that revenues for 2015 had dropped 0.7% to $482.1 billion, the first decline in Walmart's history. The company also downgraded its sales forecast for the coming year, suggesting sales would now be flat. Meanwhile, online retailer Amazon was growing rapidly and, despite being less than one-quarter of the size of Walmart, now boasted a higher market capitalization. Moreover, in April 2016, Alibaba of China announced that it had passed Walmart in global sales to become the biggest retail platform in the world. To add to Walmart's woes, in the United States traditional dollar discount stores and convenience outlets were gaining ground, and wage rises were putting pressure on profits. Meanwhile, international markets continued to underperform. Indeed, some analysts had suggested that Walmart retreat to its U.S. home base to improve performance. Many feared that this was the end of the 50+ year inexorable rise of Walmart. However, CEO Doug McMillon remained determined to get the company back on track and vowed to eschew short-term profits and invest in the future. Investors were not impressed. They had waited a long time for improvements; in 2015, Walmart generated three times the sales and profits it had achieved in 1999, and yet the stock price had barely changed. Patience was running out.

In 2016, LA Fitness was the largest chain of non-franchised fitness clubs in North America, operating 676 clubs, serving 4.9 million members, and generating revenues of over $1.9 billion. Founded by Chinyol Yi, Louis Welch, and Paul Norris in 1984, the privately held company revealed little about its future plans or its operations, leading one journalist to write of'the quiet ascension of LA Fitness.'However, it continued to expand aggressively, focusing on a full-service model, often including swimming pools and racquetball courts at moderate prices. Rumors of an IPO had circulated for over a decade, triggered by the fact that several private-equity houses had invested in the business and might be looking for an exit. In 2014, the company had arranged up to $1.6 billion in debt to fund expansion and buy out some investors. Whether this would be sufficient to appease its owners and support future growth was not clear. Nor was it clear how much more expansion LA Fitness could expect with its full-service model in the highly competitive fitness-club industry.

In 2016, 24 Hour Fitness was the number-two fitness chain in the United States, generating revenues of $1.4 billion from 441 clubs serving 3.8 million members. Based in San Ramon, California, 24 Hour Fitness operated clubs in 13 states. Having grown rapidly to become the largest club operator by 2004, the company was sold to a private equity group in 2005 for $1.6 billion. The growth continued until the original founder, Mark Mastrov, left in 2008. Since then, growth had stagnated, and the company lost its leadership position to LA Fitness in 2012. Throughout, 24 Hour Fitness had retained its traditional positioning, offering several club types to satisfy a wide range of customers concentrated in a particular area at affordable prices averaging $39 per month. However, this positioning was increasingly coming under pressure. Small studios offering focused facilities at as little as $10 per month were growing, while LA Fitness provided full-line gyms for an average of $33 per month. Premium clubs also continued to flourish, while the competition from not-for-profits such as university and employee gyms continued unabated. In 2016, the new CEO announced a new strategy to counter these challenges: rebranding 24 Hour as a lifestyle and media company. He declared,'We know we can do great things. We're very excited about the platform that we have to build on.'Perhaps this strategy would help restore the company's fortunes.

By many measures the largest health-club chain in the United States in the early 2000s, in 2014 Bally Total Fitness sold most of its remaining fitness clubs to 24 Hour Fitness and disappeared from the industry top 100 rankings. After Bally was bedeviled by accounting fraud which indicated that it had never made a profit, several groups of investors tried to rescue the company, but their efforts were to no avail. It was an ignominious end.

In 2015, the U.S. health-club industry generated revenues of $25.8 billion, up from $14.8 billion in 2004. Members of health clubs accounted for 17% of the population, up from 14%. The number of clubs had grown from 26,830 in 2004 to 36,180. In the process, the list of leading chains had changed significantly. While a higher proportion of Americans exercised on any given day, the majority still did not, and the average number of hours exercised had remained essentially flat. Meanwhile, the prevalence of people classified as overweight and obese had grown from 66.3% to 70.2%. A slowdown in growth and other challenges that the health-club industry had faced since 2004 meant that investors were more careful with their money. The steady rise of LA Fitness to industry leadership with a 7% market share suggested that there were still opportunities for consolidation. However, some observers argued that the industry would always be fragmented-it was simply too easy to enter. Another key debate concerned how best to position in an industry where new formats and business models proliferated. The sector had attracted a great deal of private equity in the past. Would it prove a good opportunity for investors in future?

In early 2011, Danaher was contemplating the acquisition of Beckman Coulter. With $3.7 billion of revenues in 2010 and $431 million in operating profits, California-based Beckman Coulter was a global leader in blood cell count diagnostic systems and also supplied a wide range of clinical research equipment. The USA accounted for 46% of sales. The company had delivered almost 7% growth in revenues and earnings for over a decade, but 2010 had been fraught with problems. Two earnings warnings, a recall of an important blood test, and a dispute with the Federal Drug Administration over regulatory approval were all weighing on the company. In September 2010, the stock price hit a low of $48, down from a 2009 high of $60, valuing the business at $4.0 billion. The CEO resigned. In December, the company announced that it had put itself up for sale; the stock price jumped to $72, suggesting that the markets expected a suitor to pay in the region of $6 billion. Interest was indeed high with a number of trade investors, including Danaher, vying with private equity groups for the company. Danaher's CEO, Larry Culp, had to decide whether it made sense to bid and, if so, at what price.

On January 28, 2016, Amazon announced record 2015 operating profits of $2.2 billion on $107 billion of sales, and the markets responded with cautious optimism. For years, founder and CEO Jeffrey Bezos had prioritized growth and investment in new business areas over profits, but pressure from analysts was mounting as growth was slowing and profits were failing to materialize. In 2014, Amazon had recorded a net loss of $241 million on revenues of $89 billion, in stark contrast to China's leading Internet player Alibaba, which reported $3.9 billion of net income on revenue of $12.3 billion. While Alibaba was a third-party marketplace with no distribution or inventory holding, Amazon's business model was more diverse. Amazon was primarily an online retail department store, offering a wide range of product categories, but it also maintained a significant third-party marketplace where it offered shipping, customer service, payment processing, and return services to independent retailers. Amazon also offered software and cloud storage services, online video streaming, and its own line of electronic hardware (mobile, e-reader, and smart television products). In addition, Amazon published books, hosted its own app store, funded video content development, and operated Amazon Prime, an annual membership program with a wide range of benefits. Indeed, Amazon's activities overlapped with those of Apple, Google, eBay, Alibaba, and many other companies. Amazon provided little information on the profitability of its lines of business, many of which were believed to be unprofitable. Which businesses would drive Amazon's future growth? Would the investments Amazon was making in market share eventually translate into profits? Or would another major competitor or business model replace Amazon? On a visit to the United States in June 2015, Jack Ma, chairman of Alibaba, stated,'We're not coming here to compete.'Could Amazon or its investors afford to believe him?

Este livro representa um alerta às empresas de sucesso. Cuidado! Sua firma pode já estar morta. Em um mundo constituído por mudanças, as organizações precisam constantemente adaptar suas estratégias para sobreviver, e muitas empresas consideram essa uma árdua tarefa. Em vez de se ajustarem, elas hesitam ou mantêm-se arraigadas às suas antigas estratégias até que se percebem emplena crise. E quando este ponto é atingido, uma recuperação torna-se muito difícil. Nesse momento, o destino de muitas organizações já foi selado, e seu fim se torna lento e doloroso. A habilidade de adaptação à mudança é um indicador de inteligência, então, por que as empresas demonstram um QI Estratégico tão reduzido? O que causa essa inércia e porque ela é tão mortal? A inércia é uma doença perigosa. Este livro examina as causas que a sustentam e ilustra como diagnosticá-la e curá-la antes que seja tarde demais. E, mais importante, ele descreve como se prevenir dela. John Wells ensina às empresas maneiras mais perspicazes de agir e de se obter resultados mais sustentáveis.

In 2014, Nestl was the largest producer of packaged foods and beverages in the world. 2013 revenues were $103.7 billion and operating profits $16.1 billion (15.5% of sales). The company owned 29 mega brands, each generating more than Euro 1 billion ($1.25 billion). Based in Switzerland, Nestl was one of the most global players in the sector, and more than a third of its revenues came from developing markets. Oxfam consistently ranked Nestl number one in the world's top ten food companies for the way it addressed the issues impacting the lives of people living in poverty around the world. Nestl's size and social impact posed challenges for CEO Paul Bulke and his leadership team. To meet the company's target of 5-6% annual organic growth, the team needed to add over $5 billion in sales annually. Profitability was also an issue; although Nestl's operating margins had been rising, they did not compare favorably with some of its major competitors. Meanwhile, pressures from the supply side included increasingly volatile material prices, demands for more supply chain security, and calls for ever-more social responsibility towards developing market suppliers. Bulke did not see the need for major acquisitions to maintain the momentum at Nestl. He had identified 4 platforms for organic growth; health, nutrition and wellness for all Nestl products; a greater focus on emerging markets, providing good nutrition at affordable prices; out-of-home consumption in developed markets; and premiumization, luxury niche products commanding brand premiums and higher margins. Would this be enough to sustain Nestl's long record of success?

In 2013, Progressive was the fourth largest player in the auto insurance market, having lost the third position to GEICO in 2008. As the industry shifted from agency to online sales, GEICO's direct selling model positioned it strongly for growth. Progressive's direct sales mix had increased from 36% of total sales in 2006 to 42% in 2012, well ahead of the industry average of around 25%. As a result, both Progressive and GEICO continued to gain ground on industry leaders, State Farm and Allstate, who sold less than 5% of their policies direct. In 2013, Progressive hoped to revolutionize the purchasing of auto insurance and to build its competitive position with Snapshot, a new usage-based pricing product. First introduced in 2011, Snapshot had low rates of adoption through 2012, but Progressive was redoubling its efforts in 2013 to educate consumers about the product's benefits, which included potential savings of as much as 30% for some drivers. Progressive was also intent on building share with customers who purchased multiple insurance policies since they tended to be more loyal and profitable. Whether these moves would be sufficient to catch up with GECIO was unclear, but they seemed to be working well against State Farm and Allstate.

After five years of global financial crises and natural catastrophes, Allstate, the USA's number two property and casualty insurer, seemed to be on the mend. It had been a tough ride for Thomas Wilson who had taken over as CEO on January 1, 2007 and vowed to'reinvent protection and retirement for the consumer.'Soon after this statement, combination of exogenous shocks and fierce competition had driven the whole industry into underwriting losses. Meanwhile, Allstate continued to lose market share to GEICO and Progressive as it struggled to build its direct sales business in the face of opposition from its tied-agent distribution system. During the May 2011 Annual General Meeting (AGM), 31% of shareholders voted against Wilson's reappointment, the highest'no'vote for any CEO in the Standard & Poor's 500. Many speculated that he would not last long. To help boost direct sales, in October 2011, Wilson completed the acquisition of Esurance, a direct online specialist with a 2% share of online sales. In the next six months, Allstate's stock price rose 45%, buoyed by Wilson's promise that return on equity would reach 13% by 2014. At the May 2012 AGM, Wilson's support from shareholders surged to 97%. By the end of 2012, revenues were up 2% to $33.3 billion while operating profits surged 168% to $3.6 billion. With renewed support, Wilson pondered on what else he might do to ward off the challenges from GEICO and Progressive.

In early 2014, Mothercare was the UK's leading retailer of mother-and-baby products. In fiscal 2013, it generated 341 million in revenues from its 255 UK stores and 128 million online, and was more than three times the size of its next biggest competitor, Mama and Papas. It also sold through 1,069 franchised international outlets, which generated 60% of the company's total volume and added 250 million in franchise and other fees to its revenues. Mothercare remained the UK's leading retailer of children's pushchairs, car seats and nursery furniture but it had long lost its leadership position in maternity wear and children's clothes, and its UK operations were losing money. At the beginning of the third year of one of many turnarounds in Mothercare's history, the latest Christmas trading figures looked weak in what had been a highly competitive market, and the company was well behind what many Mothercare executives thought was an unrealistic plan. CEO Simon Calver, less than two years into the job after a widely acclaimed performance as CEO of video rental and streaming business Love Film, pondered on the upcoming January board meeting. The top management team had identified five major initiatives to get the turnaround back on track, but Calver was not convinced this would be enough to restore Mothercare's fortunes. On January 8th, the company issued a profits warning. UK sales were down 4% and international sales, long the source of Mothercare's growth, were disappointing. Investor confidence in the turnaround collapsed, and the share price dropped 31%. The next board meeting was only a week away. Calver reflected on what he would say.

In 2012, McKinsey & Company (McKinsey) was the world's premier management consultancy, providing advice to CEO's and top executives of leading companies around the globe. Many consulting firms were bigger but few could match the reputation McKinsey had built over more than half a century or the level of fees that McKinsey consultants could demand for their work. With almost 24,000 alumni working in 120 countries in senior positions in almost every sector of the economy, McKinsey also represented one of the most powerful business networks in existence. Many Fortune 500 CEO's were McKinsey alumni, and the firm had been dubbed by Fortune Magazine'The best CEO launch pad.'In 2012, Managing Director Dominic Barton presided over an organization of more than 9,000 consultants generating more than $7 billion a year. As the world stumbled from crisis to crisis, there was no shortage of corporations and institution seeking McKinsey's advice, and Barton continued to meet his personal target of visiting with two CEOs each day. But Barton was also managing a public relations crisis. In 2010, Anil Kumar, a long time McKinsey partner who built the firm's dotcom practice, pleaded guilty to insider trading and implicated Rajat Gupta, MD of McKinsey from 1994 to 2003. Gupta was subsequently sentenced to two years in Federal prison for insider trading. Barton described this as'incredibly embarrassing and tough to deal with, particularly internally'and he launched a full review of all of the firm's policies. He commented,'From the client point of view we have been very fortunate. We are very grateful, we have a lot of support so there has literally been no impact on that side. But there is no way it cannot affect our brand... I think it will take some time (to repair the damage). I think it's going to be determined by how we respond, the actions we take, and our behaviors moving forward.

In 2013, Radiometer continued to lead the world in blood gas analysis equipment and accessories, selling direct and through distributors to hospital central laboratories, point-of-care locations, and non-hospital medical locations. Founded in 1935 and based in Denmark, Radiometer was acquired in January 2004 by US-based Danaher Corporation. Under Danaher's direction, Radiometer began an intensive program of process improvements using the Danaher Business System (DBS), an iterative tool system and company culture that sought to continuously improve the company's growth and lean and leadership capabilities. However, as CEO Peter Kurstein reviewed the successes of the last ten years, he conceded that Radiometer still faced significant challenges. Progress in the USA, the world's largest market, remained elusive. How would Radiometer breakthrough in the US? Then there was the issue of long-term growth. Roche and Siemens were investing heavily in multiple diagnostics segments. How should Radiometer respond? Which other segments of diagnostics should Radiometer consider? Quest Diagnostics was selling HemoCue, a Swedish based global niche leader in hemoglobin testing. Would acquiring them make sense for Radiometer?

In 2003, Radiometer was the world's leading supplier of blood gas analysis equipment and accessories for critical care patients. Based in Denmark, Radiometer sold through a combination of sales subsidiaries and distributors around the world, and generated sales of over DKr 1,791 million ($272 million). Blood gas analysis formed part of the $27.7 billion in-vitro diagnostic market. Although sales were strong, Radiometer remained focused on its future. The market for blood gas analysis was growing slowly, driven mainly by new technologies that threatened to displace the high volume testing equipment that Radiometer supplied. Radiometer's recent attempts at competing in these new technologies had failed. Should it remain focused on blood gas analysis and redouble its efforts? Or should it turn to other opportunities for growth? CEO and controlling stockholder, Johan Schroder, had denied rumors of a potential sale, but an acquisition by a stronger partner could help the company expand into the United States. How should the company position itself for future success?

In 2013, Babcock International Plc (Babcock) was the largest engineering services provider in the UK with sales of over 3 billion. Under the leadership of CEO Peter Rogers, Babcock had grown revenues and profits nearly tenfold over the previous decade as it benefited from increased public sector outsourcing. In 2012, for the UK's Ministry of Defense (MOD), Babcock trained over 50,000 troops, maintained the nuclear submarine fleet, provided engineering support for military vehicles, and managed numerous facilities at military bases. On the civil side, the company decommissioned aging nuclear plants, maintained the Metropolitan Police auto fleet and other emergency services fleets, and was the UK's leading trainer of engineering apprentices. Babcock's leadership team believed that continued pressure on public spending would provide opportunities for double digit growth in the UK for at least five years. However, this might not come from Babcock's primary customer, the Ministry of Defense. What other national and local government agencies might the firm target? On the civil side, the resurgence of the salience of nuclear power generation in the mid 2000s had appeared to be good news for Babcock with its long-standing nuclear expertise, but the April 2011 Fukushima nuclear leak in Japan had shed doubt on future construction, while the fracking of shale deposits to extract natural gas promised a much lower cost supply of abundant energy. Nevertheless, decommissioning nuclear power stations promised steady and growing work. What other opportunities might Babcock pursue in the UK? Meanwhile, analysts were pushing for more international expansion but efforts at building business in South Africa, Canada, and Australia had been slow, with only 16% of revenues coming from outside the UK in 2013, a figure little changed since 2005. What would drive Babcock's long term future growth?

On July 30, 2015, Procter & Gamble (P&G) announced headline double digit earnings per share growth for the year ended June 30. A closer look at the numbers suggested a less healthy picture. Sales, volumes, and operating profits were down. Investors were not impressed; shareholders were becoming increasingly impatient with the results of Chairman and CEO A.G. Lafley's attempted turnaround. Five-year shareholder returns were well below those of the S&P 500 and the S&P 500 Consumer Staples index. After returning to the company in 2013 in the face of stalling growth, Lafley had announced that P&G would focus on 10 high-growth categories and divest 100 smaller brands in the portfolio. As of September 2015, Lafley had negotiated the sale of 93 brands. Shareholders were left wondering whether this would be enough. Two days before the results were published, P&G announced that 35-year P&G veteran David Taylor would become CEO on November 1, 2015. Lafley would remain Chairman. At the time, Taylor respectfully declined to be interviewed by the press. He had a lot to think about.

Between 2000 and 2012, Gap, Inc. (Gap) ceded its world leadership position in specialty fashion retailing to Inditex of Spain and H&M of Sweden. These two companies, each less than a quarter of Gap's size in 2000, were now setting the pace in the global mass fashion market, and Gap appeared to be falling ever further behind. In the intervening twelve years, three CEOs had struggled to turn around the fading brand. While several temporary profit boosts appeared to herald a recovery, a sustained rally remained elusive. Mickey Drexler, Gap's CEO since 1983, who had been responsible for Gap's rise to global prominence, was fired in 2002 after two years of double digit, same-store sales declines and a 75% drop in the stock price. His successor, Paul Pressler, appeared to have engineered a remarkable recovery, but was fired in 2007 after disappointing sales and another slump in profits. His replacement, Glenn Murphy, fresh from a successful turnaround at a Canadian drug-store chain, promised tighter price controls, lower administrative costs, and a leaner, more aggressive Gap, but sales continued to decline over his tenure. After four years of troubles, Murphy brought in former J. Crew President, Tracy Gardner, to consult with the Gap brand and Murphy began a bold program to close one fifth of Gap's North American store base. In 2012, sales had lifted 8%, same-store sales were strongly positive for all of Gap's domestic sub-brands, and the company's share price had lifted nearly 50% from the prior year. After 12 years of poor performance, had Glenn Murphy finally discovered the answers to Gap's problems?'

From humble beginnings as a Levi jeans store, by 2000 Gap, Inc. had grown to become the world's leading specialist clothing retailer. Its CEO, Millard S. Drexler, the''merchant prince,''was credited with transforming Gap into a global empire, leading the company through eighteen years of 21% p.a. growth to reach sales of $13.6 billion in 2000. Gap had expanded to 2,848 stores under its three brands: Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy, and controlled 6% of U.S. apparel sales. Drexel had also pushed Gap through a global expansion program, and international accounted for 12.5% of total sales in 2000. But as Gap entered the new millennium, dark clouds were building on the horizon. While sales in 2000 were up nearly 18% over the previous year, operating profits fell by 20%, only the second profit fall since 1984. Gap found itself plagued with concerns about fashion misses, logistics failures, the departure of senior managers, and increased foreign competition. New fast-fashion competition in the form of Inditex, H&M, and Club Monaco threatened Gap's market share both domestically and abroad. Drexler remained confident of recovery and promised to fix infrastructure problems and recent fashion misses while expanding the high-growth GapBody and BabyGap concepts. Would these changes be enough to keep Gap competitive in a new retail era?'

In the 11 years since its public offering, Inditex and its flagship brand, Zara, had expanded into 86 countries, achieved $21.6 billion in revenue, and become the largest specialty apparel retailer in the world. In marked contrast to the general malaise of the Bolsa de Madrid, Inditex's share price tripled from 2008 to 2012 and traded at 25 times expected 2013 earnings, a 15% premium over Swedish rival, H&M. From 1,080 stores in 2000, it had expanded to 6,009 locations while sales and operating profits grew 25% p.a over this period. It had also established online stores across 23 different markets, with plans for launches in Russia and Canada during 2013, and it managed eight different brands. CEO Pablo Isla remained confident of future success and anticipated store expansion would continue growing at 8%-10% per year for the next three to five years. How could Inditex best maintain its strong growth and fend off competition?

In 2000, Inditex was one of the largest specialty apparel retailers in the world, with $2.4 billion in sales from 1,080 stores across 33 countries. Zara, Inditex's main brand, produced popular designer items at a fraction of design-house prices and could push an item from design to display in less than two weeks. This left most other fashion retailers, who took between 9-12 months for this process, far behind. However, Inditex was still only one-sixth the size of the world's largest specialty retailer, US-based Gap, and two-thirds the size of its Swedish rival, H&M. Amancio Ortega, Inditex's notoriously private Chairman and founder, was committed to challenging these industry leaders. This expansion required more capital and, in July 2000, the company announced it would IPO in 2001. There was also the question of a new management team to take the company forward. Ortega was approaching retirement as was the CEO, Jos Maria Castellano. The first attempt to find a younger CEO had failed. Hopefully, an IPO would attract a new management team that could maintain Inditex's rapid expansion.

From humble beginnings as a Levi jeans store, by 2000 Gap, Inc. had grown to become the world's leading specialist clothing retailer. Its CEO, Millard S. Drexler, the''merchant prince,''was credited with transforming Gap into a global empire, leading the company through eighteen years of 21% p.a. growth to reach sales of $13.6 billion in 2000. Gap had expanded to 2,848 stores under its three brands: Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy, and controlled 6% of U.S. apparel sales. Drexel had also pushed Gap through a global expansion program, and international accounted for 12.5% of total sales in 2000. But as Gap entered the new millennium, dark clouds were building on the horizon. While sales in 2000 were up nearly 18% over the previous year, operating profits fell by 20%, only the second profit fall since 1984. Gap found itself plagued with concerns about fashion misses, logistics failures, the departure of senior managers, and increased foreign competition. New fast-fashion competition in the form of Inditex, H&M, and Club Monaco threatened Gap's market share both domestically and abroad. Drexler remained confident of recovery and promised to fix infrastructure problems and recent fashion misses while expanding the high-growth GapBody and BabyGap concepts. Would these changes be enough to keep Gap competitive in a new retail era?'

Between 2000 and 2012, Gap, Inc. (Gap) ceded its world leadership position in specialty fashion retailing to Inditex of Spain and H&M of Sweden. These two companies, each less than a quarter of Gap's size in 2000, were now setting the pace in the global mass fashion market, and Gap appeared to be falling ever further behind. In the intervening twelve years, three CEOs had struggled to turn around the fading brand. While several temporary profit boosts appeared to herald a recovery, a sustained rally remained elusive. Mickey Drexler, Gap's CEO since 1983, who had been responsible for Gap's rise to global prominence, was fired in 2002 after two years of double digit, same-store sales declines and a 75% drop in the stock price. His successor, Paul Pressler, appeared to have engineered a remarkable recovery, but was fired in 2007 after disappointing sales and another slump in profits. His replacement, Glenn Murphy, fresh from a successful turnaround at a Canadian drug-store chain, promised tighter price controls, lower administrative costs, and a leaner, more aggressive Gap, but sales continued to decline over his tenure. After four years of troubles, Murphy brought in former J. Crew President, Tracy Gardner, to consult with the Gap brand and Murphy began a bold program to close one fifth of Gap's North American store base. In 2012, sales had lifted 8%, same-store sales were strongly positive for all of Gap's domestic sub-brands, and the company's share price had lifted nearly 50% from the prior year. After 12 years of poor performance, had Glenn Murphy finally discovered the answers to Gap's problems?'

In the 11 years since its public offering, Inditex and its flagship brand, Zara, had expanded into 86 countries, achieved $21.6 billion in revenue, and become the largest specialty apparel retailer in the world. In marked contrast to the general malaise of the Bolsa de Madrid, Inditex's share price tripled from 2008 to 2012 and traded at 25 times expected 2013 earnings, a 15% premium over Swedish rival, H&M. From 1,080 stores in 2000, it had expanded to 6,009 locations while sales and operating profits grew 25% p.a over this period. It had also established online stores across 23 different markets, with plans for launches in Russia and Canada during 2013, and it managed eight different brands. CEO Pablo Isla remained confident of future success and anticipated store expansion would continue growing at 8%-10% per year for the next three to five years. How could Inditex best maintain its strong growth and fend off competition?