Back in 2015, McDonald’s was struggling. In Europe, sales were down 1.4% across the previous 6 years; 3.3% down in the US and almost 10% down across Africa and the Middle East. There were a myriad of challenges to overcome. Rising expectations of customer experience, new standards of convenience, weak in-store technology, a sprawling menu, a PR-bruised brand and questionable ingredients to name but a few.
McDonald’s are the original fast-food innovators; creating a level of standardisation that is quite frankly, remarkable. Buy a Big Mac in Beijing and it’ll taste the same as in Stratford-Upon Avon.
So when you’ve optimised product delivery, supply chain and flavour experience to such an incredible degree — how do you increase bottom line growth? It’s not going to come from making the Big Mac cheaper to produce — you’ve already turned those stones over (multiple times).
The answer of course, is to drive purchase frequency and increase margins through new products.
Numerous studies have shown that no matter what options are available, people tend to stick with the default options and choices they’ve made habitually. This is even more true when someone faces a broad selection of choices. We try to mitigate the risk of buyers remorse by sticking with the choices we know are ‘safe’.
McDonald’s has a uniquely pervasive presence in modern life with many of us having developed a pattern of ordering behaviour over the course of our lives (from Happy Meals to hangover cures). This creates a unique, and less cited, challenge for McDonald’s’ reinvention: how do you break people out of the default buying behaviours they’ve developed over decades?
In its simplest sense, the new format is designed to improve customer experience, which will in turn drive frequency and a shift in buying behaviour (for some) towards higher margin items. The most important shift in buying patterns is to drive reappraisal of the Signature range to make sure they maximise potential spend from those customers who can afford, and want, a more premium experience.
I hope this was helpful
Answer:
$104,000
Explanation:
Note: <em>The full question is attached as picture below</em>
Fair value of net assets = Cash and receivables + Inventory + Land + Buildings (net) + Equipment (net) - Liabilities
Fair value of net assets = $70,000 + 210,000 + 240,000 + 270,000 + 90,000 - 420,000
Fair value of net assets = $460,000
Purchase consideration paid = 12,000*$47
Purchase consideration paid = $564,000
Goodwill recognized = Purchase consideration - Fair value of net assets
Goodwill recognized = $564,000 - $460,000
Goodwill recognized = $104,000
I don’t even know to be honest only commenting to get some points ....:
<u>Answer:</u>
<em>It chooses (D) Direct investment exporting strategy</em>
<em></em>
<u>Explanation:</u>
Countries in a few decades have made significant forward jumps towards a comprehensive domain, which has contributed incredibly to making worldwide business dealings free from restrictions. In the overall marvel of Globalization, outside direct speculation (FDI) is quickly turning into a significant factor in the commercial development of firms and nations.
For any firm to create and develop it needs to extend its exercises all around, and to accomplish that target; there are diverse market section modes accessible to the firm going from FDI.
Answer:
Truman has a higher inventory turnover ratio and Stapleton has a higher gross profit ratio ( D )
Explanation:
Truman sell a large number of common household items ( assuming 100 unit )
while Stapleton sells a small number of expensive items ( assuming 20 units )
lets assume : Truman sells at $5 per unit and Stapleton sells at $50 per unit
with the above assumptions
Truman gross profit ratio = $5 * 100 units = $500
Stapleton gross profit ratio = $50 * 20 units = $1000
from the above assumptions you can deduce that the gross profit made by Stapleton is higher although he sells a smaller amount of goods while Truman has a higher Turnover because of its higher number of sold units
