Final (steel) Paper

—The paper is due by the finish of exams on Friday 18 December 2015—

please put a pledged hard copy in the box outside my office door; keep an electronic copy as backup

For your final paper focus on one firm in the steel industry and argue what their strategic direction should be. You may pick a steel firm, or an upstream/downstream firm in the industry (a mining firm or a steel user). One way to frame the paper is as a memo from yourself (as VP of Strategy) to the CEO or Board.

As resources use (i) annual reports and similar material for that firm, (ii) the Martin text and (iii) class content. Of course you should also draw upon (iv) the Warrian book!

Keep in mind key structures in the industry:

  • fixed vs variable costs
  • price elasticity of demand
  • technical change
  • substitution possibilitiess
  • number of firms and other metrics of competition
  • vertical structure
  • product differentiation
  • intellectual property – copyrights, patents, trade secrets
  • advertising

However, do keep it concrete by focusing on a firm, and not the industry as a whole.

I am structuring this as a paper, not as an exam. So while from the syllabus and Martin text you can list topics covered this term, you may conclude that some are not central to the strategic choices you wish to present. If so, don’t feel compelled to list them!

This should be a standard paper: ① name/date at the top, ② a title, ③ an introduction including your key claim, ④ a presentation of the theoretical issue(s), ⑤ a presentation of data, and ⑥ your analysis/results. You then ⑦ conclude (not summarize!) the paper followed by ⑧ your bibliography. While it is binding whether or not you explicitly do so, it’s also good to ⑨ pledge at the end. If you stick to this format, then you need about 1 page for the intro plus summary, 1-2 pages to set forth your analytic framework, 2 pages to set forth your data, and 1-2 pages to undertake your analysis.

Again, you should aim for lean prose and tight argumentation – if you make a point in the paper, it should not be reiterated, and should certainly not appear in your conclusion. Instead in your final paragraph(s) you could for example note strategic issues that you believe are important other than the one(s) taken up as your topic, or data that you don’t have but that should be available and are critical to your argument.

Recent Posts

Branding the Budding Marijuana Industry

The marijuana industry has exploded since the legalization of the plant for medical use (and recreational use in states like Colorado and Washington). There are currently twenty eight states that have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes and eight of them and Washington, D.C. have also approved recreational use. The rush to enter this vast new market has resulted in an explosion of dispensaries and the market value in 2016 was estimated at 7.1 billion dollars. In 2015 in Colorado alone, sales of recreational and medical marijuana totaled 996 million dollars.

Yet, the industry is hamstrung. On a federal level, marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that the Controlled Substances Act considers it to be void of any medical benefits. This has caused legitimate marijuana businesses in legalized states to encounter branding issues as they attempt to act like legitimate businesses. Federal trademarks, for example, cannot be awarded to businesses that grow or distribute marijuana. Yet the ability of firms in this market to distinguish themselves from their competition and protect their unique image in an ever-growing throng of dispensaries is crucial. So, in an industry that is only going to grow faster as more states move towards legalization, how can firms take the important steps to branding themselves?

Some have taken the route of deception. In a 2016 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision, a Washington-based retailer attempting to secure a federal trademark for the name “Herbal Access” was denied on the grounds that it sold marijuana. Yet the retailer did not come clean about that. Instead, it tried to conceal the fact that it sold marijuana and labelled itself as an “herb store”. This was seen through immediately and the retailer did not obtain the desired trademark. Furthermore, more legal issues emerged later on because of the store’s insistence on lying about its true nature despite advertising the sale of marijuana on its official website. Trademarks have been denied based on implications made that either there is no sale of marijuana when there actually is, or even that there is sale of marijuana when there really isn’t.

For entrepreneurs attempting to tap the marijuana market, the short run is important to consider. For now, marijuana is not legalized at the federal level, and so marketing must be contained within states where it is. It is advisable that businesses simply register marijuana-related aspects of their brand under state law.


Connors, Tiffany Scott, and David Spellman. “Branding Marijuana Businesses: Lessons Learned From In Re Morgan Brown.” The Licensing Journal. Vol. 36. New York: Aspen, 2016. 5. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.


  1. OPEC: Cartels, Cheating and Saudi Arabia 1 Reply
  2. The Meteoric Rise and Fall of Pokemon Go 4 Replies
  3. Is a Super Bowl Ad Really Worth it? 10 Replies
  4. Can Apple Continue its Dominance as a One-Product Company? 9 Replies
  5. Microsoft establishing market dominance through aggressive bundling strategies 10 Replies
  6. How the Success of the Nintendo Switch Could Change the Console Industry 10 Replies
  7. Movie Theaters: how do they make their money? What does that imply about movie distributor contracts with theaters? 10 Replies
  8. Why PSA Plans to Acquire Opel and Vauxhall 7 Replies
  9. Disney continues to see weakness in Media Network’s segment 14 Replies