Jc penny case study analysis
[ad_1]
Case Discussion Questions:
- Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the “Fair and Square” repositioning strategy. How well or poorly do all the elements work together or work at odds with one another to deliver a coherent whole?
- What assumptions about JC Penney’s 5 C’s (customer, competitors/ collaborators, context, and company) must hold true for the repositioning to be effective? What does Johnson perceive in these factors that lead him to believe that “Fair and Square” pricing can be a successful approach for JC Penney? How confident are you that these assumptions are correct?
- Is JC Penney a brand that can be “Target-ized” or “Apple-ized”? Why or why not? In what fundamental ways does JC Penney differ from these two brands? Does Johnson’s plan address these differences in ways that make the success of JC Penney’s new strategy more or less likely
- Do you agree with the changes Johnson is making to the pricing scheme that set to take effect August 1st? Are they enough to turn things around? What should Johnson do now? Looking out on year, will JC Penney be a stronger or weaker brand if he stays on the current course?
Rubric
Case Rubric 2019 Criteria Ratings Pts Edit criterion description Delete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Identification of Main issues/problem and Analysis and Evaluation of issues/problem. _3429
view longer description
Range
threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating
10.0 to >7.0 pts Excellent
Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the main issues/problems in the case study. Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems.
blank
Edit ratingDelete rating
7.0 to >4.0 pts Good
Identifies and demonstrates an accomplished understanding of most of the issues/problems. Presents a thorough analysis of most of the issues identified.
_1852
Edit ratingDelete rating
4.0 to >1.0 pts Poor
Identifies and demonstrates acceptable understanding of some of the issue/problems in the case study. Presents a superficial or incomplete analysis of some of the identified issues.
_5103
Edit ratingDelete rating
1.0 to >0.0 pts Unacceptable
Did not identifies and demonstrates acceptable understanding of some of the issue/problems in the case study. Did not provide analysis or the analysis is not accurate.
_7392
Edit ratingDelete rating
0.0 to >0 pts No Marks
blank_2 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. pts
/ 10.0 pts
— 
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecommendations on effective solutions/strategies _4070
view longer description
Range
threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating
10.0 to >7.0 pts Excellent
Supports diagnosis and opinions with strong arguments and well-documented evidence; presents a critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective.
_7851
Edit ratingDelete rating
7.0 to >4.0 pts Good
Supports diagnosis and opinions with limited reasoning and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided argument; demonstrates little engagement with ideas presented.
_1022
Edit ratingDelete rating
4.0 to >1.0 pts Poor
Little action suggested and/or inappropriate solutions proposed to the issues in the case study.
_4705
Edit ratingDelete rating
1.0 to >0.0 pts Unacceptable
No action suggested and/or inappropriate solutions proposed to the issues in the case study.
_8752
Edit ratingDelete rating
0.0 to >0 pts No Marks
_866 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. pts
/ 10.0 pts
— Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConsiders the opinions of others in a respectful manner by responding or commenting to other students. _3778
view longer description
Range
threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating
10.0 to >7.0 pts Excellent
Replies substantially to two or more other students’ posts with quality feedback. References or experiences are always included in support of the answers.
_575
Edit ratingDelete rating
7.0 to >4.0 pts Good
Replies substantially to one other student’s post with constructive feedback in a respectful manner.
_4076
Edit ratingDelete rating
4.0 to >1.0 pts Poor
Replies briefly to one other student’s post with constructive feedback in a respectful manner.
_335
Edit ratingDelete rating
1.0 to >0.0 pts Unacceptable
Does not consider the positions of other students or do not respond to student generated questions with constructive feedback in a respectful manner.
_2770
Edit ratingDelete rating
0.0 to >0 pts No Marks
_72 This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. pts
/ 10.0 pts
— Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePostings follow course requirements of timeliness. Initial posts are completed by Friday 11:59pm ET and replies or comments to other students are completed by Saturday 11:59pm ET. _7687
view longer description
Range
threshold: pts Edit ratingDelete rating
10.0 to >7.0 pts Excellent
Postings and replies/comments always occur in a timely manner.
_1760
Edit ratingDelete rating
7.0 to >4.0 pts Good
Posting and replies/comments frequently occur in a timely manner most of the time.
_3667
Edit ratingDelete rating
4.0 to >1.0 pts Poor
Posting and replies/comments occasionally occur in a timely manner most of the time.
_9834
Edit ratingDelete rating
1.0 to >0.0 pts Unacceptable
Posting and replies/comments do not occur in a ti
