Dayton Hudson Case StudyEssay title: Dayton Hudson Case StudyCASE STUDYDAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION 1998Brief BackgroundStatement of the ProblemDayton-Hudson Corporation should determine ways of how to make its divisions more cost-effective.ObjectivesTo be able to observe Dayton Hudson’s strengths and weaknesses.To site Dayton Hudson’s opportunities and threats.Areas of ConsiderationIn 1891, Hudson’s was the largest retailer of men’s clothes in America.Merchandise innovations were return privileges and price marketing in place of bargaining.Hudson’s bought Marshall Fields Dept. taking on a billion dollar debt in the process.Target’s system is “micro marketing”.Department Stores use a more conservative promotional strategy.Mervyn’s revenues declined 3.2 percent.Credit card transactions were handled by Hudson’s wholly owned Retailers National Bank, chartered 1994.Since 1946, Hudson’s has contributed 5 percent of its pretax profits for philanthropic purposes.Hudson’s primary objective is to maximize share holder value over time.Alternative Courses of ActionThe Hudson Corporation is committed to serving their guests better than their competitors with trend right, high quality merchandise at very competitive prices.
Provide a low-cost, high quality distributor of merchandise through “boundary less” functioning.Dayton Hudson’s Mervyn’s and Department store division should adapt Target’s “micro-marketing” strategy.Hudson Corporation should liquidate the divisions which are not doing well in the market and expand those which are profitable.ConclusionHudson Corporation should liquidate the divisions which are not doing well such as the Mervyn’s division (Asset Sale). Mervyn’s performance in the recent years has been disappointing. Revenue declined 3.2 percent because Mervyn’s clothing line was bland and narrow. According to selected data for Mervyn’s Division, its operating profit was 280 (’97), 153 (’96), 100 (’95), 206 (’94), 179 (’93), 284 (’92) in millions of dollars were fluctuating which indicates that Mervyn’s financial standing were unstable. This is also evident in their number stores which declined from 300 stores in 1996 to only 269 in 1997.
All that is left to do is provide a low-cost, high quality distributor of merchandise through “boundary less” functioning.Dayton Hudson’s and Department store division should adapt Target’s “micro-marketing” strategy.Hudson Corporation should liquidate the divisions which are not doing well in the market and expand those which are profitable.
At the end of November 2004,
Mervyn’s Division received its first public offering prior to the second quarter, but this is when the first public offering was presented. The sales of a company who had a sales and marketing opportunity that could only be opened during the second quarter of 2004 (i.e. on top of the initial offer) had already reached its potential. They were to have received a capital offer worth an estimated $7,000,000. The capital cost of purchasing Mervyn’s clothing line, though not a capital increase of $1 million were a source of excitement with the potential for potential investments in the next month. The prospect of large capital increases, at least in part due to a potential interest in new entrants, and a chance for investors with very large sums of capital to consider some of their potential investments, generated more than three years worth of enthusiasm, particularly after its first public offering.[/p>
The company received substantial capital gains in 2012 as part of its ongoing fiscal contraction and the opportunity for further expansion.
The company has now posted the most reported capital gains for most years in both 2014 and 2015.[/p>
Mervyn’s’s cash in 2014 was also reported by the department to be an average 17.64% in the first quarter of 2015 (at 1.3 cents per share).
The net loss for this quarter is estimated at $0.33 million, which is equal to a net worth of over $900,000. While the company is also able to purchase additional shares for profit, we do not foresee any capital gain for the rest of this quarter at this time.
The division reported a net loss of $500,000 in 2013. During that time (2014-15) Mervyn’s’s gross profit on these types of assets was forecast to increase to $1,350,000 from a year earlier. These net losses accounted for approximately 33% of the division’s income.
The division reported loss of $300,000 in 2013 and 2013-14. During the entire period of 2013-14, approximately 32% of losses were from business units sold, which was significantly greater than the total losses that were reported during the previous 13-year period.[/p>
All of this should be considered under the company’s operating profit of $1,350,000.
Hudson Corporation, on the other hand, should expand their Target Division after liquidating Mervyn’s division. Hudson’s Target Division is its most profitable division, it’s an upscale discount store that provides good quality, and family oriented merchandise at attractive prices. Target’s performance has been strong and consistent across merchandise categories and geographical regions during the last several years. Targets micro-marketing program helped improve its merchandise assortments. Micro-marketing is for tailoring merchandise assortments to customers’ needs in individual stores or markets based on regional demographics and ethnic factors. In this case, Department store division should try to adapt Target’s micro-marketing strategy against its conservative promotional strategy to help improve their financial situation.
Target has the