Access 2019 Skills Approach – Ch 3 Challenge Yourself 3.3

In this project you work with a greenhouse database. Improve the functionality of this database by creating a variety of queries and exporting the query results to both an Excel spreadsheet and a tab-delimited text file.

Skills needed to complete this project:

· Using the Simple Query Wizard (Skill 3.1)

· Creating a Query in Design View (Skill 3.2)

· Adding Text Criteria to a Query (Skill 3.3)

· Adding Numeric and Date Criteria to a Query (Skill 3.4)

· Using AND in a Query (Skill 3.5)

· Specifying the Sort Order in a Query (Skill 3.9)

· Exporting Data to Excel (Skill 3.16)

· Using OR in a Query (Skill 3.6)

· Combining AND and OR in a Query (Skill 3.7)

· Exporting Data to a Text File (Skill 3.17)

· Hiding and Showing Fields in a Query (Skill 3.10)

· Adding a Calculated Field to a Query (Skill 3.8)

· Finding Unmatched Data Using a Query (Skill 3.12)

· Using a Parameter Query (Skill 3.11)

· Filtering Data Using AutoFilter (Skill 3.14)

· Filtering Data Using Filter by Selection (Skill 3.15)

1.  Open the start file AC2019-ChallengeYourself-3-3.

2.  If the database opens in Protected View, click the Enable Content button in the Message Bar at the top of the database so you can modify it.

3. Create a new query named: GreenhouseTechsFT

a.  Add all the fields from the Employees table.

b.  The query should list all employees whose Position begins with the word greenhouse and whose weekly hours are greater than or equal to 20. Hint: Include a wildcard character in the criterion for the Position field.

c.  Modify the query design so results are sorted alphabetically by last name.

d.  Add the MaintenanceLog table to this query and include the MaintenanceDate field after the WeeklyHours field.

e.  Run the query to review the results. There should be 16 records in the results.

f.  Save and close the query.

4. Export the GreenhouseTechsFT query to an Excel spreadsheet.

a.  Name the Excel file: GreenhouseTechsFT

b.  Include formatting and layout.

c.  Save the export steps with the name: GreenhouseTechsFTExport

5. Create a new query named: NewPlants.

a.  Add all the fields from the Plants table except ScientificName.

b.  The query should list all white or blue colored plants whose DatePlanted is greater than or equal to 1/1/2019.

c.  Modify the query design so results are sorted by values in the DatePlanted field with the newest plants listed first.

d.  Run the query to review the results. There should be three records in the results.

e.  Save and close the query.

6. Export the NewPlants query to a text file.

a.  Name the text file: NewPlants

b.  Use Tab as the delimiter.

c.  Include the field names in the first row.

d.  Save the export steps with the name: NewPlantsExport

7. Create a new query named: RedPlantSale

a.  Add the following fields from the Plants table to the query: CommonName, PrimaryColor, PurchasePrice

b.  Select only those plants with a red color, but don’t show this field in the query results.

c.  Add a calculated field that displays a sale price that is 75 percent of the purchase price. Hint: Use an expression that calculates the value of the PurchasePrice field multiplied by 0.75. Use the name SalePrice for the new field.

d.  Run the query to review the results. There should be five records in the results.

e.  Save and close the query.

8. Use the Find Unmatched Query Wizard to create a new query that identifies the plants that have no entry in the MaintenanceLog.

a.  Include all fields from the Plants table except the PlantID.

b.  Name this query: PlantsMissingMaintenance

c.  Review the query results. There should be 15 records in the results.

d.  Close the query.

9. Create a new parameter query named: PlantsByColor

a.  Add the following fields from the Plants table to the query: CommonName, PrimaryColor, DatePlanted, PurchasePrice

b.  Configure the PrimaryColor field so the user is prompted to enter the primary plant color with this message: Enter plant color

c.  Test the query using the color violet. There should be three records in the results.

d.  Save and close the query.

10.  Open the MaintenanceLog table. Apply a filter that shows only those plants that have been watered and pruned. Close the table. There should be one record in the results.

11.  Close the database and exit Access.

12.  Upload and save your project file.

13.  Submit project for grading.

Previous Attempts

Reset Progress Back to top

SUPPORT

· System Requirements Test

· Technical Support

· SIMnet Instant Help

· Platform Status

FOLLOW MCGRAW HILL

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

The Demand for Medical Care

Chapter 5

The Demand for Medical Care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Demand for Medical Care and the Law of Demand

  • Stock of health
  • Durable good
  • Generates utility
  • Follows law of diminishing marginal utility

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Demand for Medical Care and the Law of Demand

  • Production of health
  • Input: medical services
  • Follows law of diminishing marginal productivity
  • Utility
  • Function of the quantity of medical care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Demand for Medical Care and the Law of Demand

  • Marginal utility decreases because
  • Each successive unit of medical care generates a smaller improvement in health
  • Law of diminishing marginal productivity
  • Each increase in health generates a smaller increase in utility
  • Law of diminishing marginal utility

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Figure 5.1 – The Relationship between Utility and Medical Care

The shape of the utility curve illustrates that total utility increases at a decreasing rate with respect to the level of medical care consumed.

 

Utility

 

Quantity of medical care (q)

 

Utility

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Utility Maximizing Rule

  • Utility-maximizing rule
  • Marginal utility gained from the last dollar spent on each product is equal across all goods and services purchased
  • MUq/Pq = MUz/Pz
  • MUq – marginal utility derived from the last unit of medical care purchased, q
  • Pq – price of physicians
  • MUz – marginal utility derived from the last unit of all other goods, z (composite good)
  • Pz – price of composite good

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Law of Demand

  • Initial condition
  • Optimal mix of physician services and all other goods; MUq/Pq = MUz/Pz
  • If price of physician services increases
  • MUq/Pq < MUz/Pz
  • More satisfaction per dollar from consuming all other goods
  • Fewer units of physician services and more units of all other goods are purchased
  • MUq/Pq increases and MUz/Pz decreases, until MUq/Pq = MUz/Pz

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Law of Demand

  • Law of demand
  • Inverse relation between price and quantity demanded of physician services
  • For its derivation, utility analysis, or the income and substitution effects can be used
  • Downward sloping demand curve
  • Price
  • Per-unit out-of-pocket expense
  • After the impact of third-party payments has been taken into account

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Figure 5.2 – The Individual Demand Curve for Physician Services

The individual demand curve for physician services is downward sloping, illustrating that quantity demanded increases as the price of physician services drops.

 

Quantity of physician

services (q)

 

Price of physician

services

 

d

 

P0

 

P1

 

q0

 

q1

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Substitution effect

  • Decrease in price of physician services
  • Consumer substitutes away from the relatively higher-priced medical goods like hospital outpatient services
  • Consumer purchases more physician services
  • Quantity demanded for physician services increases

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Income effect

  • Decrease in price of physician services
  • Increases the real purchasing power of the consumer (real income)
  • As medical care is a normal good
  • Quantity demanded of physician services increases with the rise in purchasing power

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Law of Demand

  • Law of demand
  • Inverse relationship between quantity demanded of physician services and the price
  • The income and substitution effects can be used to derive this relationship
  • Demand for medical care = derived demand
  • It depends on the demand for good health

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Other Economic Demand-Side Factors

    • Demand for medical services depends on
    • Income
    • Prices of other goods
    • Time costs

 

 

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Income

  • Increase in income
  • Increase in purchasing power
  • Increase in demand medical services
  • Considering medical care to be a normal good
  • Demand curve shifts right
  • Decrease in income
  • Demand curve shifts left

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Figure 5.3 – Shifts in Individual Demand Curve for Physician Services

Shift in the individual demand curve for physician services, from d0 to d1, due an increase in income. At each price, the consumer is now willing and able to purchase more physician services.

 

Quantity of physician

services (q)

 

Price of physician

services

 

d0

 

d1

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Prices of other goods

  • Complements in consumption
  • Two or more goods jointly used for consumption purposes
  • An increase in the price of one good inversely influences the demand for the other
  • Demand for eyewear and services of an optometrist
  • Pediatric services and obstetric services

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Prices of other goods

  • Substitutes in consumption
  • Two or more goods with similar characteristics providing the same utility
  • The demand for one good is directly related to a change in the price of a substitute good
  • Physician services and hospital outpatient services
  • Generic and brand-name drugs
  • Eyeglasses and contact lenses

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Time costs

  • Monetary cost of travel
  • Opportunity cost of time
  • Dollar value of the activities the person forgoes while acquiring medical services
  • Inversely related to the demand for a medical service
  • Examples of increasing time costs
  • The farther an individual has to travel to see a physician
  • The longer the delay in getting an appointment

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Health Insurance and the Demand for Medical Care

  • Growth of health insurance coverage
  • Greatly influenced allocation of resources
  • Impact on out-of-pocket payments for health care
  • 1960: half of total expenditures
  • 2010: one-eighth of total expenditures
  • Impact on out-of-pocket payments for hospital care
  • 1960: about 21%
  • 2010: about 3%

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Coinsurance

  • The plan
  • Consumer pays some fixed percentage of the cost of health
  • The insurance carrier picks up the remaining portion
  • Effectively lowers the out-of-pocket price of health care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Coinsurance

  • Demand curve for medical care
  • Negatively sloped
  • A consumer’s willingness to pay (marginal benefit) for each unit of good falls as more of the good is consumed
  • Law of diminishing marginal utility
  • Utility maximization
  • Willingness to pay (marginal benefit) is equal to the out-of-pocket price (marginal cost)

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Coinsurance

  • Effective demand (Refer to slide 23 and 25)
  • Demand without insurance
  • Consumer’s willingness to pay for medical services without health insurance cover
  • dWO
  • Customer surplus
  • Difference between willingness to pay and market price paid

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Coinsurance

  • Nominal demand (Refer to slide 23 and 25)
  • Demand with insurance, dWI
  • Reflects total price paid for medical services
  • Takes into account the coinsurance paid by the insured
  • Insurance coverage is the gap between the willingness to pay (effective demand) and the actual price (nominal demand)

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Coinsurance

  • P = actual price
  • C0 = fraction of P pay by consumer
  • Pw = consumer’s willingness to pay
  • Pw = C0P; P = Pw/C0

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Demand Curve for Medical Services with Coinsurance

The graph illustrates how a coinsurance health plan impacts the individual demand curve for physician visits.

$100

 

Quantity of medical services (q)

 

Per unit price

 

dWO

 

dWI

“Effective”

demand

 

“Nominal”

demand

 

 

5

 

$250

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Coinsurance

  • Reduction in coinsurance rate (C0)
  • Nominal demand curve, dWI, rotate clockwise and pivot
  • dwi becomes steeper
  • At zero willingness-to-pay price
  • Insurance has no bearing on quantity demanded
  • Full coverage (C0 = 0)
  • Nominal demand curve rotates out to its fullest extent and becomes completely vertical

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Demand Curve for Medical Services with 100% Coverage

*

The graph illustrates the situation in which the individual has complete medical coverage and the coinsurance rate is zero.

 

 

Office visits per year (q)

 

Price per

visit

 

dWI

Effective

demand

 

Nominal

demand

 

 

dWO

q0

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Copayment

  • Copayment
  • Fixed amount paid by the consumer
  • Independent of the market price or actual costs of medical care
  • Does not automatically change with an adjustment in costs of providing medical care
  • Lower copayment
  • Movement down the effective demand curve
  • Greater quantity of care demanded
  • No rotation of the nominal demand curve

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Deductibles

  • Deductible
  • A fixed amount of health care costs per calendar year paid by a consumer before coverage begins
  • Insurance carrier
  • Pays all or some portion of the remaining medical bills
  • After the deductible is met
  • Depends on the plan

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Deductibles

  • From the insurance carrier’s perspective
  • Lower administrative costs
  • Decrease demand for medical care
  • Impact on demand for medical care
  • Depends on
  • Cost of the medical episode
  • Point in time when the medical care is demanded
  • Probability of needing additional medical care for the remainder of the period

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Moral Hazard

  • Moral hazard
  • Situation in which consumers alter their behavior when provided with health insurance
  • Insured consumers
  • Take fewer precautions to prevent illnesses
  • Shop very little for the best medical prices
  • May purchase more medical care than they would have without insurance coverage

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Noneconomic Determinants of the Demand for Medical Care

  • Tastes and preferences
  • Marital status
  • A married individual demands less medical care
  • Literacy
  • Educated individuals tend to seek more medical care (direct relationship)
  • More use of home-produced health care services (inverse relationship)
  • Likely to recognize early symptoms
  • Lifestyle (smoking, excess drinking)
  • Increased demand for medical care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Noneconomic Determinants of the Demand for Medical Care

  • Physical and mental profile
  • Gender
  • Females usually need more medical services than males
  • Childbearing
  • Certain diseases are more prevalent in women
  • Cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, etc.
  • Race/ethnicity
  • Age
  • Older individuals demand more for medical care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Noneconomic Determinants of the Demand for Medical Care

  • State of health
  • Sicker people demand more medical services
  • Severity of illness
  • Quality of care
  • Assumed to be positively related to the amount and types of inputs used to produce medical care
  • Higher demand for better quality of care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Demand for Medical Care

  • Quantity demanded depends on
  • Out-of-pocket price, income, time costs, prices of substitutes and complements, tastes and preferences, profile, state of health, and quality of care
  • Movement along the demand curve
  • Change in out-of-pocket price
  • Shift of the demand curve
  • Change in all the other factors

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Market Demand for Medical Care

  • Market demand
  • Total demand by all consumers in a given market
  • Horizontal summation of the individual demand curves
  • Amount of medical services that the entire market is willing and able to purchase at every given price
  • Downward sloping

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Market Demand for Medical Care

  • Intensive margin
  • How much more or less of a product consumers buy when its price changes
  • Extensive margin
  • How many more or fewer people buy a product when its price changes

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Fuzzy Demand Curve

  • Relation between price and quantity demanded is fuzzy
  • Lack of medical knowledge
  • Providers disagree about the treatment
  • Consumers lack the information to make informed choices
  • Rely heavily on the advice of their physicians
  • Physicians, rather than consumers, choose medical services
  • Inability to accurately measure medical care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Figure 5.6 – The Fuzzy Demand Curve for Medical Care

The gray band represents the possible fuzziness of the demand for medical care given uncertainty and the role of the physician.

 

 

 

 

Quantity of medical care

 

Price per

visit

 

D

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Fuzzy Demand Curve

  • Implications
  • For a given price
  • Some variation in the quantity or types of medical services rendered
  • For a given quantity or type of medical service
  • Price differences can exist

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Elasticities

  • Elasticity of demand
  • Responsiveness of quantity demanded to a change in an independent factor
  • Own-price elasticity
  • Income elasticity
  • Cross price elasticity

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Own-Price Elasticity of Demand

  • Amount of change in consumption of a good or a service when its price changes
  • ED = %ΔQD / %ΔP
  • ED – price elasticity of demand
  • % ΔQD – percentage change in quantity demanded
  • % ΔP – percentage change in price

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Own-Price Elasticity of Demand

  • ED < 0
  • Shows inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded
  • |ED| > 0
  • Absolute value of the price elasticity of demand is positive
  • |ED| > 1
  • Price elastic demand: |%ΔP| < |%ΔQD|
  • |ED| < 1
  • Price inelastic demand: |%ΔP| > |%ΔQD|

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Own-Price Elasticity of Demand

  • |ED| = 1
  • Unit elastic demand: |%ΔP| = |%ΔQD|
  • |ED| = 0
  • Perfectly inelastic demand: |%ΔQD| = 0
  • Vertical demand curve
  • |ED| = ∞
  • Perfectly elastic demand: |%ΔP| = 0
  • Horizontal demand curve

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Own-Price Elasticity of Demand

  • Greater elasticity means
  • Quantity demanded is more sensitive to a change in price
  • Flatter demand curve at any given price
  • Elasticity of demand varies with
  • Portion of the consumer’s budget allocated to the good
  • Decision-making time frame
  • Extent to which the good is a necessity
  • Availability of substitutes

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Figure 5.7 – Elasticity of Demand and the Slope of the Demand Curve

The figure illustrates the changes in quantity demanded for a relatively inelastic and a relatively elastic demand curves, when the Price changes from P0 P1.

 

Quantity of medical services(q)

 

Per unit price

 

Da (Relatively elastic)

 

Db (Relatively inelastic)

Q0

 

 

P0

 

P1

Qa

 

Qb

 

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Own-Price Elasticity of Demand

  • Own-price elasticity of demand for medical services
  • Inelastic with respect to price
  • Because the consumer typically pays a small portion of the cost of medical services
  • Because medical services are sometimes of an urgent nature
  • Medical services are necessities
  • More elastic
  • For elective medical care (luxury)
  • If more substitutes available

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Own-Price Elasticity of Demand

  • Total revenue, TR = P*QD
  • Effect on an increase in price
  • Elastic demand: TR decreases
  • Inelastic demand: TR increases
  • Unit elastic demand: no change in TR

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Income Elasticity of Demand

  • Income elasticity of demand, EY
  • Percentage change in quantity demanded (%ΔQD) divided by the percentage change in income (%ΔY)
  • EY = %ΔQD / %ΔY
  • The amount of change in demand for a product with change in real income

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Income Elasticity of Demand

  • If EY > 0 , normal good
  • Any increase in income leads to an increase in quantity demanded
  • If EY < 0, inferior good
  • An increase in income leads to a decrease in the amount consumed
  • Most types of medical care: EY > 0

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Cross Price Elasticity of Demand

  • Cross-price elasticity, EC
  • Extent to which the demand for a product changes when price of another good is altered
  • EC = %ΔQX / %ΔPZ
  • %ΔQX: percentage change in demand for good X
  • %ΔPZ: percentage change in price of good Z

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Cross Price Elasticity of Demand

  • If EC < 0, complements in consumption
  • If EC > 0, substitutes in consumption
  • If EC = 0, unrelated goods

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Empirical Estimation

  • Data unavailability
  • Dependent variable
  • Quantity of medical care consumed
  • Such as number of physician visits
  • Independent variables
  • Need to include variables for:
  • Health insurance
  • Consumer’s income
  • Time cost
  • Prices of complements and substitutes

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Own-Price, Income, Cross-Price,
and Time-Cost Elasticity Estimates

  • Demand for primary health care
  • Relatively inelastic
  • Total expenditures on hospital and physician services increase with a greater out-of-pocket price
  • Demand for other types of medical care
  • Slightly more price elastic than the demand for primary care
  • Percentage of out-of-pocket payments tend to be the lowest for hospital and physician services

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Table 5.2 – Price Elasticity of Demand for Health Care: Selected Studies

Dependent variable Study Elasticity Country
Medical expenditures Eichner (1998) Newhouse and the Insurance Experiment Group (1993) Phelps and Newhouse (1974) Rosett and Huang (1973) Van Vliet (2001) -0.62 to -0.75 -0.17 to -0.22 -0.04 to -0.12 -0.35 to -1.5 -0.079 United States United States United States United States Netherlands
Hospital Care Admissions Hospital Inpatient Hospital Outpatient Manning et al. (1987) Davis and Russell (1972) Davis and Russell (1972) Bhattacharya et al. (1996) -0.1 to -0.2 -0.32 to -0.46 -1.0 -0.12 to -0.54 United States United States United States Japan
Patient Days Feldman and Dowd (1986) -0.74 to -0.80 United States
Physician Visits Cockx and Brasseur (2003) -0.13 to -0.03 Belgium
Total and Elective surgery Cromwell and Mitchell (1986) -0.14 and -0.17 United States

 

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Table 5.2 – Price Elasticity of Demand for Health Care: Selected Studies

Dependent variable Study Elasticity Country
Nursing home care Probability of entering a nursing home Number of patients Patient days Number of patients Headen (1993) Nyman (1989) Lamberton et al. (1986) Chiswick (1976) -0.7 -1.7 -0.76 -2.3 United States United States United States United States
Dental Services Manning and Phelps (1979) Mueller and Monheit (1988) -0.5 to -0.7 -0.18 United States United States
Prescription Drugs Number Expenditures Smith (1993) Contoyannis et al. (2005) -.10 -0.12 to -0.16 United States Canada

 

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Own-Price, Income, Cross-Price,
and Time-Cost Elasticity Estimates

    • Income elasticity of demand
    • Household data
    • Health care: normal good, with income elasticity < 1
    • Country-level data
    • Aggregate income elasticity is slightly >1
    • Health care: luxury good
    • Travel time elasticity of demand
    • Approximately equals to own-price elasticity

 

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Impact of Insurance on the Demand for Medical Care

  • RAND Health Insurance Study (HIS) (Manning et al., 1987)
  • Families were randomly assigned
  • 14 different fee-for-service health insurance plans
  • Test: impact of differences in insurance coverage on the demand for medical care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Impact of Insurance on the Demand for Medical Care

  • Results
  • As the level of coinsurance rises
  • Consumers demand less medical care
  • Consumers cut back on the number of visits to health care providers and not on the amount spent on each visit
  • The probability of using any medical services, along with total medical expenditures diminishes
  • Own-price elasticity of demand is sensitive to the level of insurance
  • Consumers become more sensitive to price changes
  • Negative impact of deductibles on the consumption of medical care

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Table 5.3 – Sample Means for Annual Use of Medical Care per Capita

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Impact of Noneconomic Factors
on the Demand for Medical Services

  • Age and severity of illness
  • Directly influence the demand for medical care
  • Overall health of the individual
  • Inversely affects the demand for medical care
  • Education
  • No consensus
  • Direct impact: greater willingness to seek care
  • Offset by the inverse effect (a greater ability to produce health care at home

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Impact of Noneconomic Factors
on the Demand for Medical Services

  • Effect of medical knowledge on the demand for medical care
  • Positive relationship
  • Consumers with a more extensive background in medicine tend to consume more medical services
  • Consumers with a lack of medical knowledge tend to underestimate the impact of medical care on overall health
  • Often fail to consume an appropriate amount

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

The Impact of Noneconomic Factors
on the Demand for Medical Services

  • Effect of medical knowledge on the demand for medical care
  • Years of schooling, whether the individual worked in the health care field, medical insurance, and income
  • Positively influenced the level of health information acquired
  • Age and whether the individual drank or smoked
  • Inversely affected the quantity of health information collected

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (PPACA) of 2010

  • Objective
  • to extend health insurance coverage to millions of uninsured Americans
  • Approach
  • Medicaid to cover all non-Medicaid under the age of 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level
  • All individuals mandated to have health insurance coverage by 2014
  • Those elect not to acquire insurance will face a penalty

(c) 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (PPACA) of 2010

  • Approach
  • States required to design and create American Health Benefit Exchanges
  • Providing individuals and small businesses access to affordable health insurance
  • Offering health plans with an established set of minimum benefits
  • Providing subsidies to those who cannot afford the premium payments
  • A number of insurance market regulations
 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Hands-On MIS Project 1

MIS Project

 

Complete and submit ONE Hands-on MIS Project from either Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 of the text book.

There is no word/length requirement. Just try to answer in a way that’s clear and makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The projects in this section give you hands-on experience in analyzing financial reporting and inventory management problems, using data management software to improve management decision making about increasing sales, and using Internet software for researching job requirements.

 

 

Management Decision Problems

1. 1-7 Snyders of Hanover, which sells about 80 million bags of pretzels, snack chips, and organic snack items each year, had its financial department use spreadsheets and manual processes for much of its data gathering and reporting. Hanover’s financial analyst would spend the entire final week of every month collecting spreadsheets from the heads of more than 50 departments worldwide. She would then consolidate and reenter all the data into another spreadsheet, which would serve as the company’s monthly profit-and-loss statement. If a department needed to update its data after submitting the spreadsheet to the main office, the analyst had to return the original spreadsheet, then wait for the department to resubmit its data before finally submitting the updated data in the consolidated document. Assess the impact of this situation on business performance and management decision making.

2. 1-8 Dollar General Corporation operates deep-discount stores offering housewares, cleaning supplies, clothing, health and beauty aids, and packaged food, with most items selling for $1. Its business model calls for keeping costs as low as possible. The company has no automated method for keeping track of inventory at each store. Managers know approximately how many cases of a particular product the store is supposed to receive when a delivery truck arrives, but the stores lack technology for scanning the cases or verifying the item count inside the cases. Merchandise losses from theft or other mishaps have been rising and now represent more than 3 percent of total sales. What decisions have to be made before investing in an information system solution?

Improving Decision Making: Using Databases to Analyze Sales Trends

Software skills: Database querying and reporting

Business skills: Sales trend analysis

1. 1-9 In this project, you will start out with raw transactional sales data and use Microsoft Access database software to develop queries and reports that help managers make better decisions about product pricing, sales promotions, and inventory replenishment. In  MyMISLab , you can find a Store and Regional Sales Database developed in Microsoft Access. The database contains raw data on weekly store sales of computer equipment in various sales regions. The database includes fields for store identification number, sales region, item number, item description, unit price, units sold, and the weekly sales period when the sales were made. Use Access to develop some reports and queries to make this information more useful for running the business. Sales and production managers want answers to the following questions:

· Which products should be restocked?

· Which stores and sales regions would benefit from a promotional campaign and additional marketing?

· When (what time of year) should products be offered at full price, and when should discounts be used?

You can easily modify the database table to find and report your answers. Print your reports and results of queries.

Improving Decision Making: Using the Internet to Locate Jobs Requiring Information Systems Knowledge

Software skills: Internet-based software

Business skills: Job searching

1. 1-10 Visit a job-posting website such as  Monster.com . Spend some time at the site examining jobs for accounting, finance, sales, marketing, and human resources. Find two or three descriptions of jobs that require some information systems knowledge. What information systems knowledge do these jobs require? What do you need to do to prepare for these jobs? Write a one- to two-page report summarizing your findings.

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Strategic Management Case Study

McDonald’s Corporation

By Frank T. Rothaermel & John Kim

September 1, 2017. Steve Easterbrook walked into his office in the McDonald’s corporate headquar-ters in Oak Brook, Illinois. Now two and a half years into the job of McDonald’s CEO, he is starting to see some of his early turnaround initiatives show results.

His thoughts turned to Don Thompson, his predecessor and friend. Thompson was in the top job for less than three years, overseeing a more than four percent decline in customer traffic in 2014. In spring 2015, Thompson retired. Easterbrook hoped to avoid this fate. They had both started their careers at McDonald’s early in the 1990s and had climbed the corporate ladder together. Easterbrook had not taken personal joy in seeing either his friend and mentor, or the company they both loved, struggle. Rather, he had hoped to take the helm at the company at its peak and then take it to new heights—not inheriting the corporate giant in a turnaround situation.

The company’s troubles had snowballed quickly. In 2011, McDonald’s had outperformed nearly all its competitors while benefitting from the fallout of the great recession (2008–2010) as more custom-ers flocked to its low-cost meal options. In fact, McDonald’s was the number-one performing stock in the Dow 30 with a 34.7 percent total shareholder return.1 But in 2012, McDonald’s dropped to number 30 in the Dow 30 with a –10.75 percent annual return. The company went from first to last in twelve brief months. In 2012, McDonald’s’ sales growth dropped by 1.8 percent, the first monthly decline since 2003.2 Annual system-wide sales growth in 2012 barely met the minimum three percent goal, while operating income growth was just one percent compared to a goal of six to seven percent.3

Things went from bad to worse. Sales continued to decline over the next two years. Net income in 2014 fell almost 15 percent to $4.76 billion, representing the company’s first annual drop in “like-for-like” sales since 2002.4 By early 2015, McDonald’s shares had dropped below their 2012 price point, while the overall market was up by 50 percent.5

Things were not much better overseas. The weak global economy was a further drain on domestic sales.6 When the dollar was relatively weak, it had been an asset for the company to generate almost 70 percent of its revenues from other countries, but the dollar’s current strength made McDonald’s trademark products even more expensive for its international consumers.7 Asian sales were still recovering from a 2014 scandal, where a major Chinese meat supplier had been accused of selling expired meat to McDonald’s restaurants. European sales were also soft due to political problems in Russia. Several McDonald’s outlets had “failed” inspection and been shut down in retaliation for U.S. sanctions against Russia.

Thompson had already tried revitalizing the menu (e.g., with the McWrap), eliminating poorly selling items, increasing customization, and restructuring U.S. operations to give local franchises greater autonomy. Yet customers still seemed confused by the complex menu offerings, distrustful of the quality of ingredients, frustrated at how long it took to get their food, and angry at the company’s “exploitative” labor policies.9,10 According to analysts, “[Thompson] got fatally behind the last couple of years” and “wasn’t inspiring people the way he needed to be.”11 By the fall of 2017, there was surpris-ingly little mention of Easterbrook in Wall Street analyst reports, seemingly indicating that he was quietly, and effectively, creating change behind the scenes.

As Steve Easterbrook took a sip from a can of a zero-calorie Monster energy drink, he looked at the screen of his laptop. He knew that early results from his strategic initiatives were promising. As of fall 2017, McDonald’s (normalized) share price had appreciated by more than 55 percent since his tenure as CEO started in March 2013, outperforming the S&P 500 index by almost 35 percentage points (Exhibits 1 and 2). But, he wondered how he could build upon these quick wins, and create continued superior performance in an ever more uncertain and competitive environment.

A Brief History of McDonald’s

McDonald’s was started by the McDonald brothers in 1940 in San Bernardino, California.12 By limiting the menu to burgers, fries, and drinks, Dick and Mac McDonald could emphasize qual-ity and streamline their operations. As a result, the popularity of the restaurant grew quickly, and the brothers started franchising McDonald’s to nearby locations. Alerted to their success when the McDonalds placed a large order for eight multi-mixers, Ray Kroc joined the brothers in 1954. Together, they founded the McDonald’s Corporation in 1955, with the vision of establishing McDonald’s fran-chises throughout the United States. Kroc bought out the brothers’ shares in 1961, the same year that he founded the Hamburger University (graduates receive a bachelor’s degree in Hamburgerology). He continued his plans for rapid expansion throughout the 1960s and 1970s, establishing more than 700 new McDonald’s restaurants. In 1965, the company held its first public offering, debuting at $22.50 per share.

Kroc described his management philosophy as a three-legged stool: one leg was the parent corpora-tion, the second leg was the franchisees, and the third was McDonald’s suppliers. His motto became, “In business for yourself, but not by yourself,” as he built an ever-larger network of store owners and an integrated supply-chain management system. Many new menu items, such as the Big Mac and Egg McMuffin, were developed by the franchisees. Kroc encouraged his local owners to be entrepreneurial as long as they maintained the company’s four main principles: quality, service, cleanliness, and value. Because of the volume of McDonald’s business, Kroc found many supply partners willing to adhere to his high standards.

McDonald’s both owns and operates its own restaurants, as well as, franchisees them to others. The large majority of restaurants are franchised (85 percent) and McDonald’s management has made it clear they expect that percentage to increase to 95 percent in the coming years. There are three primary franchise ownership structures: 1) conventional franchisee, 2) developmental license, and 3) affiliates.

Under a conventional franchise agreement, the company typically owns the land and building. and leases the location to the franchisee. The franchisee pays for “equipment, signs, seating and dĂ©cor.” As the equipment depreciates or new facilities or food preparation processes are required, the franchisee is expected to reinvest in the business. McDonald’s also co-invests into specific strategic initiatives to motivate franchisees to adopt changes. Franchisees pay rent and royalties based on a percentage of sales, with specific minimum rent payments and initial fees paid upon opening a new restaurant or acquiring a new franchise. The typical franchisee lease is 20 years.

The specific conditions of the franchise agreement vary on the owner’s experience, credit capacity, and the local legal environment. Franchisees can vary significantly in size. The largest franchisee has a developmental license for 2,200 restaurants across Latin America and the Caribbean.13 On the other end of the spectrum, some franchisees own and operate a single location.

The company opened its first international locations in 1967 in Canada. The first McDonald’s stores in Japan and Europe followed shortly thereafter in 1971. Meanwhile, Kroc continued to add new items to the restaurant’s menu. After the success of the Big Mac (1968), the quarter pounder debuted in 1973, and the Egg McMuffin in 1975. A full breakfast menu was available by 1977. The first Happy Meals—complete with a circus wagon theme—arrived in 1979. The company’s first drive-through opened in Sierra Vista, Arizona in 1975 to serve soldiers stationed at a nearby post, and the idea quickly spread to other locations. Competition heated up in the “burger wars” of the 1980s as Burger King and Wendy’s tried to steal market share from McDonald’s. Despite their advances, McDonald’s continued to expand globally into more than 30 countries. Even more new products were introduced, such as Chicken McNuggets in 1983 and fresh salads in 1987. At the same time, McDonald’s used efficiency and technological advances such as microwaves to gain operational advantages over its competitors.

When Ray Kroc passed away on January 14, 1984, he left behind a sprawling McDonald’s empire with more than 7,500 restaurants worldwide. He stayed involved in corporate affairs up until the end, visiting the San Diego office almost daily in his wheelchair. Three years later, Fred Turner, his long-time colleague and successor as CEO, likewise stepped down and left the company in the capable hands of Michael Quinlan. As the first McDonald’s CEO to have completed an MBA, Quinlan was a savvy businessperson who continued to grow the company aggressively both at home and abroad.

Events in the 1990s finally slowed McDonald’s’ rapid pace of domestic expansion, though the com-pany’s international locations nearly doubled to 114 from 1991 to 1998. Several of the newer locations required unique adaptations, which McDonald’s proved increasingly willing to make: kosher menus in Israel, Halal menus in Arab countries, and lamb patties for non-beef-eating India.14, 15 At home, however, the company was plagued by multiple failed attempts to add new menu items such as pizza, fried chicken, fajitas, and pasta. The Arch Deluxe sandwich line, targeted to adults, was similarly short-lived. When Jack Greenberg became CEO in 1998, he quickly took corrective action, announcing a geographic reorganization, a new food preparation system (“Made for You”), and first job cuts ever at McDonald’s, all while scrapping plans for numerous store openings.16 Instead, he diversified the com-pany’s portfolio by buying different restaurant chains such as Chipotle Mexican Grill, Donatos Pizza, Boston Market, and Aroma Cafe coffee shops.17 These acquisitions were divested when McDonald’s strategy shifted yet again in the early 2000s.

From 2003 to 2004, leadership at McDonald’s underwent a rapid string of successions that would have crippled a company with a less talented executive bench. Greenberg stepped down amidst financial woes in 2003, yielding the reins to Jim Cantalupo, who died suddenly of a heart attack the next year. The board immediately named Charlie Bell to the head position after Cantalupo’s death, only for Bell to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and relinquish the post after just a few months in office. This left Jim Skinner, previously vice chairman, in charge of introducing and implementing the company’s “Plan to Win” starting in late 2004.18 The plan was based on the three pillars of “brand direction, freedom within a framework, and measurable milestones” and had four goals: to attract more customers, to convince customers to purchase more often, to increase brand loyalty, and to become more profitable. Skinner further distinguished five Ps—People, Product, Place, Price, and Promotion—as essential to efforts at McDonald’s in achieving these goals.19

In a saturated market, the main thrust of Skinner’s plan was to shift from acquiring expensive real estate to generating increased sales from existing restaurants.20 In the early 2000s, McDonald’s was opening a new store somewhere in the world every 4.5 hours; under Skinner’s watch, the pace slowed to just 50 to 100 new U.S. sites per year. To compensate, existing stores started to stay open longer, extending their hours into the late night and early morning. By 2007, roughly 40 percent of McDonald’s’ locations were open nonstop, and some even experimented with staying open on holidays.21, 22

Skinner used the money saved on fewer new openings to revamp existing restaurants. The “new” McDonald’s look utilized a gentler color scheme, replaced fiberglass and steel chairs with leather seating, eliminated fluorescent lighting, and added such amenities as flat-screen TVs, free Wi-Fi, live plants, piped-in music, and the occasional fireplace.23 Headquarters provided grants of up to $600,000 per site, with some projects costing as much as $1.5 million.24 By the time all of the renovations were completed, the company had invested over $1 billion in the belief that “nicer-looking stores attract more business.”

At the same time, Skinner sent chefs at McDonald’s back to the drawing board to research new menu possibilities more in line with current health trends. The company had grown lax in its product development efforts, as evidenced by its $100 million Arch Deluxe mistake and other failures such as the McPizza, McHotDog, and McSalad Shaker.25 McDonald’s also lagged significantly behind its com-petitors in purging trans fats from its recipes.26 Under Skinner, the company took the time to conduct extensive market research and developed a new passion for numbers. Potential new menu items had to pass a series of tests before they could move on to the next stage of development, based on an analysis of their sales, margins, costs, and time and ease of production.27 This more rigorous approach led to the development of the “Oven Selects” sandwiches, a southern-style fried-chicken biscuit for breakfast, and of course, the McCafĂ© line of coffees, smoothies, and other beverages.28, 29

The other half of the equation involved cost cutting by improving operational efficiency. Adamant that McDonald’s would not make its burgers smaller just to save money, Skinner directed his execu-tives to find more creative ways to increase margins. So, the company cut travel, held meetings at Hamburger University instead of expensive hotels, and increased personal usage fees on company vehicles. Meanwhile, the company continued to invest in time-and cost-saving technologies such as more efficient drive-through windows and computers.

By the time Don Thompson became CEO in 2012, most of the low-hanging fruit had already been plucked. Thompson graduated from Purdue University in 1984 with a degree in electrical engineering, and he was recruited to McDonald’s four years later to design robotics for food transport and control circuits for cooking equipment. He soon changed his career focus from engineering to operations, working a wide range of jobs from fry cook to regional manager to understand the company’s day-to-day activities.30 Ascending to serve as Skinner’s COO, Thompson spearheaded the successful McCafĂ© campaign and seemed a natural selection to produce the next “McHit.”31 McDonald’s struggled with weakening sales under Thompson’s reign (see Exhibit 2) despite his efforts to optimize the menu, improve the customer experience, and make McDonald’s more accessible to a broader market base.

Unable to produce the desired turnaround, Thompson retired in January 2015 to make room for new leadership.32

Hailing from the U.K., Steve Easterbrook was appointed as the CEO of McDonald’s on March 1, 2015.

Easterbrook came to the top spot having turned around the McDonald’s UK and European opera-tions, which were now among the best performing in the company. He had worked his way up to McDonald’s top brand officer by 2010, then left to head two British restaurants (PizzaExpress Ltd. and Wagamama Ltd.), before returning to his former position in June 2013. Under Thompson, he subse-quently assumed responsibility for corporate strategy and the restaurant solutions group. While some questioned whether another inside succession could provide the shake-up that McDonald’s needed, others argued that Easterbrook had the right expertise in branding and media and willingness to focus on the menu, the areas with the greatest need of improvement.33 In his first press conference as CEO, Easterbrook had presented himself as an “internal activist” who was “comfortable making the big deci-sions that were required to get the turnaround going.”34 Now it was time to deliver on his promise to turn McDonald’s into a “modern, progressive burger company.”35 Exhibit 3 shows McDonald’s’ rev-enues by regions and market segments, (2013–2016).

Given his low-key profile, observers were surprised when Steve Easterbrook also announced that McDonald’s would move its headquarters from Oak Brook, where it resided in a custom-built campus for some four decades, to Chicago’s West Town neighborhood in 2018. Easterbrook is moving the McDonald’s HQ to this swanky area of Chicago full of restaurants and bars, to be closer to the mil-lennials they want as employees and as customers.36

By 2017, McDonald’s was pursuing an aggressive technology upgrade to allow Starbucks-like interactivity to both smooth out operational waiting times and improve the customer experience. Franchisees were hesitant to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to upgrade with stand-alone kiosks, but they were bound by stringent franchising contracts and pressure from corpo-rate headquarters.

Trends in the Quick-Service Restaurant Industry

The U.S. quick-service restaurant industry is expected to reach $224 billion in 2020 (see Exhibit 4). Yet despite expectations for some growth, several environmental trends suggest challenges ahead.

ECONOMIC TRENDS

The U.S. economy continues to bounce back from the 2008–2010 great economic recession. The unemployment rate has been cut in half from its 2009 peak at 10.0 percent to just 5.1 percent in 2015, and per capita real disposable income is near record highs.37 These data present both good and bad news for the fast food industry. On the one hand, more customers are working and have more money to eat out; on the other hand, customers with more disposable income are likely to “trade up” to higher quality and higher priced food options. Recent data on dining trends bear this out: For the first time ever, American spending on dining out exceeded grocery sales in April 2015. A closer look, however, reveals key differences among market segments. Older consumers (51 to 69 year olds) reported spend-ing more on groceries and less on restaurant dining compared to recent years. The overall upward trend is due to the vast number of millennials who view dining out as a social event and are more willing to pay for food outside of home. According to the Restaurant Association, millennials tend to favor quick service, deli, and pizza joints over more traditional casual and high-end dining; ethnic foods are also viewed as new and interesting.38

Since the end of 2016, the economy has picked up further with the U.S. stock markets reaching all-time highs in 2017. By fall of 2017, the U.S. unemployment rate had further declined to 4.3 percent. Around four percent unemployment is a level that many economists consider “structural unemploy-ment,” under which unemployment is unlikely to fall unless more structural factors in the economy such as a mismatch between open jobs and skills of labor force are brought into balance.39

HEALTH CONCERNS

The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the global obesity epidemic costs $2 trillion per year in health care costs, a figure roughly equivalent to Russia’s gross domestic product.40 Approximately one-third of the world population (~ 2.1 billion people) is considered overweight, making obesity the third largest human-caused economic burden. Obesity-related health care expenses in the United States total $663 billion annually.41 Beef still comprises the highest proportion (58 percent) of meat con-sumed in the United States, but health-conscious consumers are increasingly shifting toward poultry and other lean meats.42 In 2010, to support healthier food choices, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act stipulated that calorie counts must be displayed on all food service menus of chains with at least 20 units and that restaurants must provide additional nutritional information upon request. These trends place considerable pressure on a fast food company that depends on hamburgers for the main portion of its income. McDonald’s has been sued (unsuccessfully) for making its customers fat and was featured in an unflattering documentary (Super Size Me), in which Morgan Spurlock grew increasingly ill and gained 25 pounds after eating only McDonald’s food for one month.43

Meanwhile, concerns over the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria have led to calls for the elimination of subtherapeutic antibiotic use in meat animals. Though banned in the EU and Canada, the United States still permits farmers to administer small doses of antibiotics to livestock to increase weight gain (a three percent increase).

McDonald’s recently followed in the footsteps of several of its competitors and announced its intent to stop selling chicken products from birds treated with antibiotics important to human health (non-human antibiotics are still permitted). Given that McDonald’s claims to be the largest restaurant seller of chicken in the United States, this move is likely to reverberate throughout the poultry industry. Changes in cattle production are likely to move much more slowly due to higher beef prices, the lon-ger life span of cattle, and the fragmented nature of the beef industry.44

Moreover, besides ending the use of antibiotics in the chickens used, Easterbrook also decided to remove high-fructose corn syrup from McDonald’s hamburger buns. He also laid out a 10-year plan to only use suppliers that keep chickens cage free. These moves could be potentially transformative for McDonald’s, as chicken and eggs account now for roughly 50 percent of the menu items.45 One reason for the high percentage level is Easterbrook’s early decision to offer all-day breakfast, which was well-received in the U.S. market.

INCREASING SUPPLY COSTS

Healthier menu items mean increased supply costs for restaurants, even as customers remain price sensitive. Beef prices began to rise sharply in late 2012 due to a severe drought in Texas. Without rain, farmers were forced to turn to more expensive forms of feed such as hay and corn, to ship cattle to greener pastures in the north, or to cull their herds through sales or sending heifers to the butcher instead of breeding them. By January 2014, the number of cattle in the United States totaled just 87.7 million, the lowest since 1951. Even though the Texas drought ended in the spring of 2015, it takes years to rebuild a herd, and California (the nation’s fourth largest cattle-producing state) experienced extreme drought conditions during 2015. At the same time, demand for hamburger meat has soared due to high beef prices (“hamburger is the new steak”) and the popularity of new burger chains like Five Guys and Shake Shack.46

Drought conditions in recent years have also made it more expensive to raise agricultural products. Not only is corn one of the main products used to feed both cattle and chickens, but corn oil, meal, and other by-products are a significant component of many grocery items. Soybean meal is a main ingredient of animal feed, while the oil is used in cooking, salad dressing, mayonnaise, and baked goods. Wheat, of course, is the main ingredient in hamburger buns. In addition, egg prices soared in 2015 due to an outbreak of the avian flu (broilers or chickens raised for meat were not affected and remain in good supply). The resulting price increases for supplies ranging from bread to eggs to meat are squeezing already tight operating margins.

Current Competitors

Traditionally, main competition for McDonald’s has come from other quick-service restaurants such as Wendy’s, Burger King, and Yum! Brands’ Taco Bell. McDonald’s is roughly twice the size of its next largest global competitor (all three Yum! Brands combined), but has slightly fewer outlets.47 It controls almost half of the U.S. hamburger market, which is more than three times larger than the market share held by either Wendy’s or Burger King.

BURGER KING

On August 26, 2014, Burger King merged with the Canadian restaurant chain Tim Hortons to form the world’s third-largest quick-service restaurant chain (second largest in the United States). The combined company has annual sales of $23 billion, with over 18,000 restaurants in approximately 100 countries. Because it is headquartered in Canada, the new parent firm (Restaurant Brands International, or RBI), benefits from a significantly lower corporate tax rate than its American competitors.48 The firm denies that tax inversion was the primary motive for the merger, but tax savings could total $1.2 billion through 2018. The private equity firm 3G Capital, which took Burger King private in 2010, continues to hold 51 percent of the shares.

Changes made by the new ownership appear to be positive, as the company has recently out-per-formed both McDonald’s and Wendy’s. Analysts attribute Burger King’s success to its simplicity: add-ing sauces, cheese, or bacon to its core burger line to create new menu items from the same list of ingredients. Coupled with successful limited time offers and attractive promotions, Burger King has been able to innovate without slowing service.49

In 2015, Burger King launched an aggressive attack against its larger competitor, using strategic price increases to cover the costs of aggressive promotions on popular products such as chicken nuggets. The company has gained further recognition with clever advertising, such as its letter to McDonald’s offering a temporary ceasefire in the burger wars, suggesting that they jointly make “McWhoppers” for international peace day, with all proceeds going to the Peace One Day organization. McDonald’s spurned the proposal, earning headlines accusing them of throwing “their ‘love-themed’ brand idea out the window” and choosing “pride over peace.”

In 2017, revenues for Burger King’s parent company, Restaurant Brands International, were $4.3 bil-lion. Burger King contributes most of sales. Besides Tim Hortons and Burger King, RBI also acquired Popeyes in 2017 for $1.6 billion.50

WENDY’S

Wendy’s is the third largest U.S. burger chain, with more than 6,500 locations in 28 countries. Wendy’s strives to differentiate itself as “a cut above” its competitors, with higher-quality food that is made fresh-to-order. It successfully employs a “barbell” approach to products and pricing, luring cost-sensitive customers in with value-based burgers while offering higher-end, premium items like the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger or Bacon Portabella Melt to attract more affluent clientele. Analysts offer several reasons as to why Wendy’s has succeeded with this strategy while McDonald’s has struggled. Not only is it easier for the smaller chain to implement short-term menu changes, but it has long specialized in custom-building sandwiches without compromising quick service. Wendy’s also seems to have a better pulse on its customers and bets big on just a few hit products, such as its pretzel buns.51

Wendy’s continues to invest in long-term brand development by redesigning its stores, offering an expanded menu including breakfast, and a new advertising campaign. At a price tag of up to $700,000 per store, the remodeling cost the company $225 million in capital expenditures in 2012 alone, the first year of its renovation program. The good news for Wendy’s is that the physical upgrades appear to be associated with an increase in same-store sales of five to 25 percent (i.e., the stores are gener-ally recouping their expenses). Recent additions to Wendy’s menu such as its sea-salt French fries, a new line of salads, and organic Honest Tea, have proven quite popular, helping to generate several consecutive quarterly sales increases for the corporation. At the same time, Wendy’s continues to cut costs by refranchising company-owned stores, with the goal of decreasing its ownership from 15 to five percent of the total.

In 2017, Wendy’s revenues were $1.3 billion, down from $2.5 billion in 2013.

TACO BELL

Taco Bell (a division of Yum! Brands) is the most widely recognized Tex-Mex option in the quick-service restaurant category, with approximately 6,000 restaurants (80 percent of which are franchises) in the United States. After a string of food contamination and quality issues from 2006 through 2011, the company started to rebound in 2012. Taco Bell’s leadership credits its comeback to the successful introduction of its new, healthier Cantina Bell product line and the popular “Doritos Locos Tacos.”

Taco Bell tries to launch eight to ten new items per year, knowing that the sales bump from major hits like Locos Tacos levels off within about two years. It rolled out breakfast nationwide in 2014 and con-tinues to expand its offerings; breakfast now constitutes seven percent of sales or $70,000 to $120,000 per store annually. In 2015, Taco Bell released its Naked Crispy Chicken Taco (which uses batter-fried chicken as the shell) in California and a new urban-store format that serves alcoholic beverages in Chicago.

To appeal to millennials, the company has developed a food-ordering app (Live Mas) and is testing a new home delivery service in conjunction with Kentucky Fried Chicken. Managers expected the app to speed up orders and decrease errors, but they were pleasantly surprised to discover that customers spent more than $10 average per online order, a 20 percent increase over in-person transaction. Orders are not filled until the customer gets within 500 feet of the restaurant and specifies whether they plan to come in or drive through to pick up their food. The app has already been downloaded more than three million times. The chain plans to double its revenues from $7 billion to $14 billion and grow to 8,000 U.S. locations over the next 10 years.

SUBWAY

A different sort of quick-service competitor that challenges McDonald’s’ dominance is Subway. Known for its healthier menu items and fresh ingredients, Subway exceeds McDonald’s in the number of total restaurants (45,000 globally, including 27,000 in the United States). The chain has become a popular lunchtime destination for many Americans who value convenience but do not want to com-promise their health.

Although Subway continues to open new restaurants around the world, the former quick-serve superstar is also facing significant challenges. Sales dropped by 3.3 percent to $11.9 billion in 2014 for the first time ever, the worst drop among fast food chains; annual sales per store decreased from $490,000 to $475,000. Subway is no longer the cool “new kid” on the block compared to upstarts like Jersey Mike’s or Firehouse Subs. While Subway remained content with being a “healthy” option, competitors started to offer organic, GMO-free, and transparently sourced ingredients. Insiders say the company has lacked strong leadership ever since its founder, Fred DeLuca, was diagnosed with leukemia in 2013. Before dying in 2015, DeLuca promoted his sister, Suzanne Greco, to president and CEO. By the fall of 2017, Suzanne Greco still holds both jobs. In the same year, Subway’s sales reached $17 billion.

FAST CASUAL

Boundaries between quick-service and other restaurant segments have become increasingly blurred. Fast-casual restaurants provide high-quality food without table service, in a distinctive atmosphere, at prices that are “low enough.” Some observers describe fast casual restaurants as distinguished by the 10 F’s: Full view preparation of food; Food quality; Fine ingredients; “Fitter” wholesome food; Fresh; First-rate dĂ©cor; Fair price; Fast service; Friendly employees; and Flexible offerings.52 Due to this successful combination of higher quality and affordable prices, the fast-casual segment is one of the few areas in the restaurant industry that is experiencing steady growth.53 Combined fast-casual sales increased by double digits in the last few years, and is expected to continue into the near future. Even traditional sit-down restaurants are looking at ways to move into the fast-casual arena by offering selected scaled-down dishes that appeal to value-seeking diners.

A sub-segment of the fast-casual restaurant industry is the premium burger segment, which grew 10 times faster than traditional fast food chains from 2008 through 2013.54 Customers have been flock-ing to burger chains such as Five Guys, In-N-Out Burger, Shake Shack, Smashburger, and Fatburger for higher-priced, higher-quality burgers, while fast food restaurants such as McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s have scrambled to counter with their own premium offerings. Customers have been known to wait in line for nearly an hour to get a Shake Shack burger and fries; the company’s shares proved to be just as popular in its January 2015 IPO, more than doubling in price from $21 to $45.90 on the first day of trading. In the meantime, investors cooled on Shake Shack, with its market capitalization falling from $3.3 billion in the spring of 2015 to a mere $1.1 billion in the fall of 2017. Revenues were $316 million in same year.

But much like the Arch Deluxe in the 1990s, McDonald’s more recent efforts to compete in the premium segment have fallen flat. Customers could not justify paying $4 to $5 for a one-third pound Angus burger when there were sandwiches on the McDonald’s Dollar Menu for much less. The com-pany discontinued the Angus Deluxe product line in 2013 after just four years.55

Other fast-casual restaurants such as Chipotle Mexican Grill, Panera Bread, and more recently even Starbucks, have taken away customers from McDonald’s.

COFFEE

McDonald’s expanding into specialty coffee drinks with the McCafĂ© line means that it also com-petes with more traditional coffee shops such as Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts. Starbucks answered the introduction of McCafĂ© by distributing its Seattle’s Best brand to other quick-service restaurants such as Burger King and Subway. It purchased La Boulange Bakery in 2012 to expand its food offer-ings, which are now available in more than 2,500 stores. In total, Starbucks has over 25,000 stores, and garnered revenues of over $22 billion in 2017.

Attempting to drive more store traffic in outside the morning hours where customers need their daily caffeine shot, Starbucks has added baked goods, sandwiches, and other food items to its menu. To get more customers into its stores in the late afternoon and early evening—traditionally its slowest time—Starbucks stores now offer items such as vegetables, flatbread pizza, plates of cheese, and des-serts. It even introduced alcoholic beverages such as wine and beer, available after 4 p.m., as part of an “Evenings” program. Starbucks also continues its efforts to find new levels of luxury offerings catering to higher end customers within its existing customer base. Online and in stores it produces limited-run exclusive batches of varietal coffees for home use, at high price points. Some stores also offer indi-vidually brewed cups of the same higher-priced roasts. Since 2014 Starbucks has created something called a Starbucks Reserve Roastery and Tasting Room. The first of super high-end stores appeared in Starbucks’ home, in Seattle, with additional locations planned domestically and around the world.

Dunkin Donuts, on the lower price point of the spectrum, plans to triple its presence to 15,000 shops and is likewise expanding its warm breakfast options to compete more effectively.56 Dunkin’ Donuts, which has served coffee for more than 60 years, made a failed bid to trademark its brew as the “Best Coffee in America.” As coffee shops sell more food and restaurants dispense specialty coffees, competition between these once distinct market segments is becoming more intense.

Target Market

Market research indicates that the typical American dines out about five times per week. One of the main reasons so many quick-service restaurants are focusing on new breakfast items is that the early morning meal is the least saturated. For every restaurant breakfast, the NPD Group estimates that the average American consumes 2.5 lunches and almost two dinners outside the home. Around 11 to 12 percent of these meals are eaten at McDonald’s.57

A quick breakdown of a typical McDonald’s franchise in a middle-class suburb of 25,000 residents provides additional market insight. Roughly one out of 16 or 1,500 people in town visit the local McDonald’s over the course of a given day. Breakfast accounts for the largest proportion (30 percent) of sales, followed by lunch (24 percent); afternoon, dinnertime, and late night/early morning each account for another 15 to 16 percent of sales. The noon lunch hour is the busiest and most profitable time of day, bringing in $200,000 in revenues. Annually, the average franchise can be expected to bring in about $1.7 million in sales, with an operating profit of around $150,000.

The three main target market segments McDonald’s are mothers, children, and young adults.58 Moms view McDonald’s as a quick, easy, and affordable meal for families on the go, and they usually are the ones who bring the children. But with 17 percent of U.S. youth considered obese, fast food chains find themselves in an awkward position when marketing directly to children. In response to parental demands for healthier kid meal options, McDonald’s reduced its Happy Meal calorie count by 20 percent by adding apples and halving the amount of french fries. McDonald’s has reduced the sodium content of its food by 15 percent, and plans to make further reductions in calories, sugars, saturated fats, and portion sizes by 2020.59 Even this was not enough for a nine-year-old girl who publicly took then-CEO Thompson to task at a shareholders’ meeting, accusing the company of trick-ing kids into eating junk food by using toys and cartoon characters.60 Other chains, such as Jack in the Box, have opted to eliminate toys from their kids’ meals, while Taco Bell has dropped its children’s menu altogether.

The key demographic group for most fast food restaurants is comprised of young, single profes-sionals who earn above-average incomes. These so-called “heavy users” frequent a given chain twice or more per week, providing a steady source of sales and profit. A recent study, however, indicated that McDonald’s was not even in the top 10 of the 18-to-32-year-old age group’s favorite restaurants. Instead, millennials are more likely to eat at fast-casual restaurants that emphasize ingredient qual-ity and demonstrate an awareness of social issues like environmental sustainability. Transparency is also important to young adults. Restaurants such as Chipotle and Panera Bread are known for demon-strating openness about their food sourcing and preparation, whereas McDonald’s has been plagued by perceived deceptions. As an example, vegetarians raised an uproar once it was discovered that McDonald’s had continued to use a small amount of beef tallow as flavoring when cooking its french fries. McDonald’s was also forced to discontinue making burgers out of “boneless lean beef trimmings” mixed with ammonium hydroxide,after Jamie Oliver exposed the company’s use of “pink slime” on national television.

 

Current Challenges

MENU

In 2017, McDonald’s operated a total 37,000 restaurants globally, with 14,300 of them in the U.S. One of Easterbrook’s first major moves was to propose all-day breakfast in all U.S. restaurants, the company’s biggest initiative in six years. Testing started almost immediately after he took office, with a rollout in fall 2015.

Consumers had long been asking for this change, but the company resisted because stores use the same equipment to cook both breakfast and lunch. All kitchens are now equipped with separate grills for cooking eggs and burgers, rolling carts and utensils to use just with eggs (to prevent contamina-tion), and new toasters so that they can prepare both buns and muffins at the same time (they toast at different temperatures). The estimated cost for retrofitting each kitchen is $500 to $5,000, depending on existing equipment. To make things a bit more manageable, the all-day breakfast menu will be restricted to a few popular items such as sausage burritos, hot cakes, Egg McMuffins, or biscuit sand-wiches. Breakfast items will be made continuously during peak morning hours, but cooked-to-order during slower parts of the day. An internal McDonald’s presentation projected that extending breakfast hours could increase sales by 2.5 percent per year.

Another way that Easterbrook is giving customers more choice in what they eat is by giving fran-chises more freedom to offer locally relevant menu items. For example, chorizo burritos are more popular in Texas and the Midwest, while mozzarella sticks sell better in New York and New Jersey. Local restaurant operators can choose items from the company’s global pipeline and adjust them as needed to suit local tastes. Managers will also be granted more freedom to run their own promotions to increase store traffic.63

As a direct competitive response to the “better burger chains,” McDonald’s is experimenting with “Build Your Own” tablets where customers design their own sandwich from over 30 choices of meats, toppings, and buns. They can only be ordered from inside the restaurant, cost $1.50 more than a Big Mac, and take seven to eight minutes to prepare because the meat is cooked fresh. It will cost each franchisee approximately $100,000 per store to install the new system and stock the required ingre-dients. This presents an interesting conundrum for a quick-serve restaurant that generates roughly two-thirds of its revenue from drive-through customers.64

To free up space for these new offerings, the company plans to phase out underperforming fea-tures such as the snack wrap and reduce the number of extra value meals. Still, the McDonald’s menu has swollen to over 120 items, many of which require specialized equipment and take more time to prepare. That represents a 75 percent increase from 2004 and is considerably more than the 33-item menu from 1990. While a greater variety of menu options helps to draw new customers into stores, too many items slow down the order fulfilment process, increasing employee stress and customer frustrations. The average service time for a McDonald’s drive-through has slowed to 189.49 seconds, lagging rival Wendy’s average by almost a minute.65 Complaints about speed of service have “increased significantly” in recent years, with the McDonald’s service experience described as “chaotic.”

PRODUCT QUALITY

Another item on Easterbrook’s to-do list is to improve public perceptions of the McDonald’s brand. The size of McDonald’s made it a convenient target, and more than a decade of negative press including the 2001 book, Fast Food Nation, the 2004 documentary Super Size Me, and Jamie Oliver’s 2012 “pink slime” exposĂ© has taken its toll.67 In July 2014, the Big Mac earned the dubious distinc-tion of being America’s worst hamburger, placing last out of 21 in a study by Consumer Reports.68 McDonald’s also ranked lowest among peers in the 2015 American Customer Satisfaction Index. Fast food restaurants overall dropped 3.8 percent, but McDonald’s fell by six percent from 2014, holding firm in the last spot.69

Easterbrook has declared improving food quality as one of his top priorities. In addition to cur tailing antibiotic use in its U.S. chicken supply, McDonald’s is now selling dairy products from growth-hormone-free cattle. The company has also pledged to examine its product ingredients and review its food preparation procedures. Its goal is to become more “culinary inspired” and to simplify food labels by reducing the number of preservatives.70 There are still 19 ingredients in the French fries McDonald’s serves in the United States, compared to just five in Great Britain.71

Easterbrook simultaneously counterattacks McDonald’s’ naysayers with a media campaign high-lighting positive news about the company’s food and workers. The company has launched a video series entitled “Our Food, Your Questions,” demonstrating how McDonald’s food items are made. The company reports that it has already responded to 40,000 questions and that the increased transpar-ency has been well received. In June 2015, Easterbrook hired two external candidates to take over the company’s media affairs. He tapped Robert Gibbs, former White House Press Secretary under President Obama, to serve as executive vice president and global chief communications officer, and Silvia Lagnado, previously with Bacardi Ltd, to serve as head of global marketing.

APPEALING TO MILLENNIALS

One of the more perplexing problems that Easterbrook faces is how to increase its appeal to mil-lennials. Between 2011 and 2014, 19-to 21-year olds increased their monthly visits to fast-casual restaurants by 2.3 percent, while their trips to McDonald’s decreased by 12.9 percent. Customers aged 22 to 37 increased their fast-casual outings by 5.2 percent over the same time period, while visits to McDonald’s stayed flat.73 They are consistently choosing “fresh and healthy” over “fast and convenient” and “McDonald’s is having trouble convincing them it can be both.”74

Thus far, Easterbrook’s main response has been to reach out through digitization. In his words, mil-lennials “want to buy into a brand not just from it….What we’ve got to do is find interesting and engag-ing ways to share that information with [them], not old-fashioned corporate lecturing.”75 He hired a former Google executive to lead McDonald’s “Experience of the Future,” which includes an improved social media presence, development of a smartphone app, and testing of mobile payment systems.

LABOR

McDonald’s has serious staffing issues that need to be addressed if it is to improve customer loy-alty. An internal report that found its way to the media showed that one out of every five customer complaints was about “rude or unprofessional employees.”77 According to a national survey of quick-service restaurants, McDonald’s ranks next to last in “friendliness,” beating only Burger King. Part of the problem is that too many restaurants are understaffed during peak breakfast and lunch hours. It is hard to be friendly while work piles up and customers grow increasingly irritated at how long it takes to place and get their orders. The annual turnover rate in the fast food industry is 60 percent, as frustrated workers seek to move on to less stressful and higher-paying jobs.78

It is too soon to tell whether McDonald’s pledge to raise pay to at least $1 more per hour than the local minimum wage will be enough to attract and retain motivated workers. The company also granted employees the ability to accrue up to five days of paid vacation annually after one year of employment. However, this new HR policy applies only to the 90,000 employees of company-owned stores, and risks upsetting franchisees who are likely to feel pressured to match corporate’s offer with-out equivalent financial resources. Meanwhile, activists continue to lobby for an even larger pay raise (a $15-per-hour minimum) as well as the right to unionize without retaliation. To force McDonald’s to the negotiating table, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) general counsel has filed a suit claiming that the company has enough control over franchise operations to be considered a joint employer. As of fall 2017, the case is still ongoing.

INTERNATIONAL MARKETS

Like many U.S.-based global companies, McDonald’s has most of its net-new growth from interna-tional markets. The secular story that “consumers in emerging markets eat out more often as their income increases” is still intact. Furthermore, BMO Capital Markets, an investment bank, notes that the quick-service-restaurant (QSR) hamburger sales have an annual growth rate of 12–13 percent in China, and 21–22 percent in Russia, for the last 10 years.79

In the fourth quarter of 2016, U.S. same-store sales dropped by five percent, but that was better than estimates. In contrast, during the same quarter, international growth was only 1.3 percent and the Wall Street analysts were notably “gloomy” at the results.80 When McDonald’s reports their financial and operational results, they further divvy up international results into “international,” “high growth,” and “foundational” markets (Exhibit 3). In the end, non-US growth matters.

McDonald’s has taken a differing approach to these markets. In China and Hong Kong, the com-pany recently sold an 80 percent stake in their 1,750 restaurants to Citic (state-owned investment group) and the U.S. private equity firm, Carlyle. They are currently looking for these partners to open an additional 1,500 stores in China, Hong Kong, and Korea.

Going Forward

The host of issues facing McDonald’s and its CEO Mr. Easterbrook is daunting. The company is amid its most serious identity crisis to date, and it desperately needs to define a clear vision of what it wants to be and a plan for how to get there. In trying to be all things to all people, it has ceded ground on every front to its competitors. Fast-casual restaurants are winning on taste and image, but the only way to catch them seems to be to sacrifice speed, which at least used to be one of the McDonald’s core competencies. Millennials want higher product quality (and are willing to pay higher prices), but the company can ill afford to alienate its value-driven customer base. Menu variety brings a wide range of consumers through its doorways, but the added complexity comes with increased costs and service delays. And after all this time, 30 percent of the company’s sales still derive from just five main items: Big Macs, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, McNuggets, and fries.82 Other fast food restaurants are not only faster, but (according to the polls) also have better food. Instilling “stronger financial discipline, faster decision-making, and hard-edged accountability”83 are good first steps, but none of these actions mat-ter if Easterbrook fails to carve out a viable strategy for McDonald’s in the 21st century.

In 2016, with the release of a feature film, Founder, staring Michael Keaton as Ray Kroc, there has been a renewed interest in the McDonald’s story. Although over 60 years of history separate Ray Kroc and Steve Easterbrook, the key challenges remain largely the same:

· How to provide a product that balances quality, speed, and affordability?

· How to innovate the menu without creating unnecessary menu scope creep/

· How to respond to competitive threat without losing the company’s core identity?

· How to prevent complancency in spite of many years of relative success

In a recent talk at the Chief Executives Club, at Boston College, Easterbrook said, “We don’t need to be a different McDonald’s, we just need to be a better McDonald’s.”84

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"