Alternative 1: Keep things as they are… at least for now. A big concern in this case is: at what point after the merger are the sales reps versus the sales agents discussions taking place? While management could make changes based on financial aspects of both companies (which will at some point have to be done), if these changes are occurring immediately after the death of one owner and a merger, morale of neither company would be good and will affect both corporations’ numbers. More research is going to have to be conducted to see if not keeping things as they are will even be necessary in the long-run since it was decided in the beginning that Lea-Meadows would retain its own identity and brand names. Some research that would need to be conducted is as follows: 1. What is each company’s market share within their respective industries? Within the furniture industry as a whole? Could combining the two companies create a larger market presence or are they better left as individuals? 2.
Since it is stated that consumer spending on wood furniture is cyclical based on consumer factors, what is the current position within the cycle and what is ost likely the next section of the cycle-downward or upward trend? How does the cycle of upholstered furniture and Lea Meadows complement or compare with Carrington’s? Is either company’s name enough to carry it without its current sales representatives? 3. Rather than positioning the companies’s ales teams against each other, what would be the benefits of allowing them to continue working as it is? While it might seem expensive to retain each, what would be the monetary benefits of doing so? For example, could independent Lea Meadows agents have a higher success rate of achieving in-store galleries combining Carrington and Lea Meadows products? Could agents assist Carrington in breaching the apparent in-store gallery barrier into which they ” ve run? If so, what would be Carrington’s projected sales increase for attaining this objective? 4. If either the agents or the reps are going to be dismissed from either company, what is going to be the projected recovery time and / or expenses incurred for negative publicity, new training, etc. ? If one or the other will have to go, what steps could be taken to help lessen the impact of negative publicity, etc. not for just one, but for both parts of the company? While finances do dictate to a great extend the path down which a company chooses to proceed, there are long-term effects which need to be considered other than just short-term financial advantages. The fact that these sales agents / reps issues are only being discussed after the merger has occurred implies ill-prepared management within Carrington and Lea Meadows as there scenarios should have been mapped out, considered, discussed, and planned for prior to the occurrence of such.
The Term Paper on Company Profile of The Home Depot
ANALYSIS #11. COMPANY BACKGROUNDThe Home Depot Inc. was founded in 1978 and is the world's largest home improvement retailer and the second largest retailer in the United States. The sales for the fiscal year 2000 were $45.7 billion, compared to $38.4 billion in fiscal 1999. As of January 2001, the company was operating 1,134 retail stores in forty-seven states, six Canadian provinces, Puerto ...
Although the merger didn’t take place in the “conventional” sense, good management should have been prepared not because a merger “would” happen but because a merger “could” happen.
