PLEASE HELP ME GIVE FEEDBACK AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

1. some business appropriately determine the measure of value, some business who attempt to create value by internal means only, likely do more harm than good in solidifying value in their product or service. If value is subjective, which I believe it is, then the measurement of value is also subjective. A company may value their product or service based only on the net cost of production. However, the consumer may not have a want or a need for that product or service and therefore its value is diminished.

Take Quibi for example, a now defunct streaming service that bolstered high return capability on short-fragmented 10-minute clips as opposed to full length movies or shows. While it did have some technological advancements over other services, its core concept is that people want small snippets of entertainment, as opposed to long-segments of entertainment. However, they did little consumer research, and while they created a product that could be made cheaper than their competitors, no one wanted to the service and died Quiby, I mean quickly (pun intended.) (Garca-Hodges, 2020)

This then poses the question, as to why some companies try to tell the consumer what they want, as opposed to asking the consumers what they want. I know some marketing professionals may state that the purpose behind marketing is to shape the product to be what people need, but there is something to be said about identifying a need and shaping a product to fit that. This might be where the disconnect lies between the consumers understanding of a products value as opposed to a companys understanding of a products value. What are your thoughts on this? Is there a disconnect, and if so, how might companys use this information in creating their strategies? Thank you again for your post, and for your thoughts on this subject.

2. In consideration of value, as it pertains to what it is and how it is measured, value is the quantitative response to the fulfillment of a desire or need and can be measured by a multitude of ways. The value of something does not always translate to monetary worth; however, since money is a means of measurement which is commonly understood, value is often expressed as an amount of currency. The course curriculum states that Value is measured by a products performance characteristics and by its attributes for which customers are willing to pay. (Hitt et al., 2017) This definition works well for many businesses, as a general rule for most businesses is to make profit. Therefore, to increase the amount of money a company can earn, it needs to increase the value of their product or service.

However, if value is limited to the difference between production costs and sale price, then above-average returns will only be won by the most efficient company in production who can undercut the competition. In this way, the product actually loses value to the customer, as lower cost product can lead to lower quality items. The value of the product or service is diminished in the eyes of the consumer who might pay more for a better-quality item. The value then shifts from how the company measures the product or service to how the consumer measures the product or service, not by quantity and cost of production, but by quality of product. This is where the disconnect between corporate measurement of value and consumer measurement of value lies.

Case in point; many have criticized that Disneys rising cost for theme parks have outpriced many families who would like to attend their parks, but now find it financially straining to do so. (Sampson, 2022) However, Disney has, and continues to, develop a high-quality park experience and has valued that experience at a higher price than its competitors in quality. By raising the price of admission, the company will naturally have less attendees making the experience more pleasant to those who have paid for admission; and because of this, consumers are willing to pay a higher price for said experience. Maybe not as regular as they would like to, but still willing to partake in Disneys Park offerings. When companies poorly assess value, they miss out on opportunities and potentially damage their brand. The customers perception of value is equally important to the companys assessment of value.

3. Regarding Coca-Cola and its ability to leverage its namesake as a competitive advantage world-wide. Coca-Cola certainly has a large footprint in soda around the world. I once had the opportunity to visit the Coca-Cola factory in Atlanta, Georgia where I was able to taste sodas which it made around the world; and some were very unique to the cultures and tastes of those communities. Cokes longevity in the industry, as well as some wonderful marketing campaigns, have definitely benefited the company in keeping their brand a household name. This does bring up the question as to whether reputation can be a competitive disadvantage as opposed to a competitive advantage, as consumers begin to shape what they think a product should be based on what they remember, which may stifle progression with the company.

When New Coke was released in the 1985, it was met with poor reviews and response from consumers. (Klein, 2015) While marketing was a factor, it was the re-imaging of Coke itself that many found to be off-putting. Coca-Cola had become synonymous with Americana culture and had shaped its branding for many years as Americas cola. So, when a new product is released, that counters that idiom, it is jarring to the consumer and hurtful to the company. Coca-Cola was quick to self-correct, which has kept them strong since then; but now Im sure there is hesitation within the company to deviate from their signature product; which may be their strategic plan for the long-run. What do you think of this? Do you think Coca-Cola, or any other well known brand, may be locked into a corporate image based on consumer perception; and does that hurt or benefit the company at large? Thank you again for your post, and for your continued thoughts on this subject.

4. Hitt, Ireland, and Hoskinsson (2015) pointed out what makes a capability a source of competitive advantage and core competence is if it is too expensive to imitate, valuable, non-substitutable, and rare. One would surmise that non-substitutable and rare are almost one and the same. The time it takes for an organization to create value by using its core competencies is a function of how fast their competition can successfully imitate a service, good, or process (pg. 87). Strategic managers recognize that short-run profit maximization is rarely the best approach to achieving sustained corporate growth and profitability. Therefore, it is paramount that organizations have sustainable competitive advantage practices to minimize the risk of internal threats