I think the answer would be C. Recommend a solution.
The Process
1. Design the study
2. Collect the data
3. Interpret the data
4. Defined the marketing problem
5. Recommend a solution
Answer:
A) horizontal
Explanation:
Horizontal channel conflicts occur when members of the same level of marketing channels have disputes or disagreements regarding the sales strategies for one or more product lines.
In this case, Amazon and Target are both retailers, and since Target felt that P&G was unfairly helping Amazon, they reacted by changing their marketing strategies for P&G's products. The conflict here is between Amazon and Target who are both in the same level of marketing channels.
Answer:
Deferred income tax expense = $7,161
Explanation:
Given:
Bed debts increase = $6,800
Depericiation increase = $40,900
Tax-exempt life insurance = $3,450
Computation:
Assume tax rate = 21%
Taxable difference = 40,900 - 6,800
Taxable difference = 34,100
Deferred income tax expense = 34,100 × 21%
Deferred income tax expense = $7,161
Answer:
Case 1 = $420 million
Case 2 = $280 million
Case 3 = $350 million
Explanation:
As per the data given in the question,
Annual value by one distributor = $420 million per year
Annual value by two distributor = $560 million per year
Case 1)
The marginal value of first distributor is more than second
So when negotiating the value, it is = $560 million - $420 million = $140 million
and this value would be distribute between both. so each will get = $140 million / 2 = $70 million
and you would expect to capture $420 million of this deal
Case 2)
As distributors are run by government, so negotiation will be done with both the distributor at same time and margin would be $560 million and you would be grabbed = $560 million ÷ 2 = $280 million
Case 3)
In this case marginal amount of contact = $560 million - $140 million = $420 million
and half of it = $420 million ÷ 2 = $ 210 million, which is the amount to be offered
and you would expect to grab the remaining amount = $560 million - $210 million
= $350 million
Answer:
Red Cross took the right decision by reversing the original decision of diverting the donations. If it had diverted the donations donor will loose trust in the organisation and will not come forward to help. When it maintains a policy of honoring donor intent people will trust it to stand by it and they donated for the victims of the terrorist attack and the donations must be spent on it only. Then the trust of the donors will not fall and if the organisation wants donations for other ancillary operation sit can genuinely ask for donations and there are many people who would be willing to help. This gives both trust and respect and also the cause is served. Hence the decision to reverse the original one is correct and a good move.
