Why are large posts easier for me again?

Right, because I end up forgetting for weeks on end and then perpetually having to play catch up. Or something like that. Woe is me? I've definitely been busy the last couple weeks, and part of me has already kind of accepted my fate of always having to play this catch up. Better than never doing it at all I...hope.

Overview of things that went on since November 9th, the last posting:
1. Hanson case A
2. Hanson case B
3. First day of team presentations
4. Dragging out Kroger's boring posterior for some more exposure.

1. Hanson case A
To be completely honest, I thought both Hanson cases were an extremely dull read. I suppose this is the case with companies who don't actually DO things themselves, but instead facilitate the links between other companies and act as the middle man. To examine this middleman link is to mostly find theoretical discussion of their business approach and strategy. To read theoretical discussion is to be bored and sludge through dull reading, because there's just not as much solid material to connect to.

Hanson seems like it is a good company though. If it was a really dull company then it wouldn't have actually achieved the level of success that Hanson did. (Maybe I'm just an uninspired and uneducated reader, but I still can't let go of how tedious it was to educate myself on Hanson-and I want to say it over and over again, as this is more or less my personal blog of rantings.) The essential principle governing its operations-that the company should carefully select under-performing other companies to acquire and turn around, is sound. It to me is somewhat like picking stocks and investing in financial markets. Investing is a brilliant way to get rich if one has the financial knowledge, because one is not actually putting in the hard labor for all of the monetary returns. Hanson and its operations felt like an investor to stocks relationship on a massive scale.

Overall, I just marvel at the fact that Hanson made its entire empire off of acquisitions. They didn't reinvent the wheel and pioneer the next great product for mankind. They were more or less just savvy businessmen, who knew the right companies to get in and get out of at the right times and executed their strategy. In a way it is also inspiring, because it represents to the common person that he does not need to be blessed with inventive genius but instead could also acquire such business knowledge and make money off of it.

Hanson and White's policy of going to any means necessary to turn around the company, including moves that would have them accused of asset stripping, was radical, but to be applauded. Personally, I feel like companies that take the biggest risks are the only ones that end up reaping the biggest rewards. If leaders are not willing to push the way things are done and come up with new ideas, then they are bound for simply "acceptable" performance. Jobs at Apple was famously known for his temper and ruthless operations. Jack Welch(which I just learned about in Philosophy yesterday), was also known as a ruthless, Machiavellian leader during his time at GE. Yet, both led their companies to greatness. I did not get a sense that Hanson and White were cut-throat in the same way, but that they did what had to be done. Effective leaders should be willing to do the same-whatever that has to be done to achieve the end objectives, within basic reason of not abusing the employees so that they suffer unneeded trauma physically or psychologically.

2. Hanson case B
This case, as previously mentioned, was just as dull as its predecessor to read. Perhaps this means I was not actually a suitable business school student? (Wow, what have I been doing for years in that case) Any time business delves into the overly theoretical mixed with dashes of obvious common sense I lose interest. I seem to like the more concrete cases...

Just as much as Hanson PLC's success was something to be marveled at because it was born from relatively common (as compared to, for example, Alexander Graham Bell and his changing the world with telephone. Then again, was Bell even filthy rich because of this invention? Hasn't it been said that the actual inventors of any given product don't get rich from it, but instead, the company who sells it does?) knowledge, Hanson's eventual breakup made a lot of sense. I feel like Hanson broke up because of the side effects of getting too big. It no longer had massive growth potential with each acquisition, and because it had acquired so many companies it was simply running out of feasible new additions to its lineup. All of the carefully chosen under-performing companies with the right potential had already BEEN chosen, and adding new ones on only contributed a miniscule increase to Hanson's performance.

Hanson hit stagnation because of the nature of its business. With companies that both manufactured their own products and profited from strategic acquisitions and alliances, they could rely on one or the other when things stagnated somewhere. Hanson could not switch to making Hanson branded items, because there was no such thing as Hanson branded items. Therefore, Hanson had to break up.

Hanson after the breakup and after being restructured to acquire only building materials companies is much more focused. Here's hoping it can rebuild off the success of its PLC days and become good at its new objectives.

3. First day of presentations
The first day of presentations saw three companies: A...cloud computing software company (I'm not sure whether this is a negative reflection of my short term memory powers or of the excitement generated from their presentation), Netflix, and Electronic Arts.

The software company...was dull. As dull as the Hanson cases I just discussed. I feel like they were knowledgeable about the subject, but did not present it in an engaging enough manner. Overall, all speakers had a relatively monotone voice, and one kept glancing at note cards. Using note cards does not automatically make a presentation dull, persay, but I feel like he wrote more then just a few prompt words on there and relied on it more than he should have.

Their graphics were lacking, and included at most one chart(if I remember correctly), along with many company logos. I feel like company logos are not useful graphics, unless one is doing a report on a marketing company who is in the business of designing such logos.

Maybe this presentation just suffered from the same situation as Info Systems class. Professor Tuggle, you were an interesting lecturer considering the technical nature of the material, but in the end the material was just too technical for our business school brains. Aside from understanding that this group's company worked in cloud computing, I don't think I took anything else away from the presentation.

Netflix, on the other hand, was probably the best that day out of the three. They utilized the Netflix logo, but as a background to bring a sharp image to their presentation slides. The material was still technical, and did not involve any showy pictures or videos, but it was presented in a more interesting manner. The presenters spoke with varied tone, which allowed me to engage in their presentation. There was even a small interactive portion, in which one presenter asked if anyone used the Netflix service and what they thought about it. The team was also knowledgeable, just like the other team.

Electronic Arts was a hard presentation to give a definite review for. Their presentation slides were oddly organized-all black, centered instead of bullet points and the more traditional powerpoint look, as well as many company logos (though perhaps this is somewhat more appropriate given that the "look" of a game or game company is important to their business). The video they had at the end was also fun! I enjoyed the video a lot, but it was unexpected and could have been a good introduction instead of at the not quite end place they used it in their presentation.

The presenters for EA were all over the place though. The opening presenter seemed nervous, but knowledgeable. One presenter who talked for a large amount in the middle of the presentation was really passionate, and motivated me to give their team a one point higher score for his overflowing passion and enthusiasm for their project. The very last presenter however stood off to the side for much of the presentation, and seemed disengaged from the group. When she spoke, she did not seem as well prepared as perhaps she should be, nor as passionate as the previous speaker. Then again, his passion for the material was extraordinary across ALL of the presenters that day.

Here's hoping that our group, Amazon, will be received well on Thursday when we present! Writing all of these critical reviews is fun from the reviewer's side, but thinking forward to how harshly we may be judged in return terrifies me...