Flickering Fortune

ProHub Comment

This case reveals a classic tension between volume-driven sales incentives and profit optimization. The key insight is that despite improving unit economics (costs falling 37.5% to 10% annually), Vivid is leaving money on the table through excessive discounting driven by sales quotas, while customers demonstrate high willingness-to-pay due to product quality and switching costs.

Estimated Time 26 minutes
Difficulty Medium
Source Wharton
10 / 100
Your firm has been engaged by Vivid, a consumer electronics screen manufacturer, for a pricing optimization project. Vivid’s main product is HDTV (high-definition TV) screens. Its main customers are well-known TV manufacturers in Asia and the US, who buy other components, build the finished TVs and sell them to retailers who use global distribution channels to reach end-users.

Clarifying Information

  1. Objective: Client is looking at pricing in search of opportunities to grow revenue
  2. Patents: Vivid technology is patent-protected, and for manufacturers to switch suppliers would require costly plant reconfiguration
  3. Revenue trends: While sales volumes have been increasing, revenue has remained flat
  4. Competitive landscape: No insights available
Mock Interview
Interviewer

Your firm has been engaged by Vivid, a consumer electronics screen manufacturer, for a pricing optimization project. Vivid's main product is HDTV (high-definition TV) screens. Its main customers are well-known TV manufacturers in Asia and the US, who buy other components, build the finished TVs and sell them to retailers who use global distribution channels to reach end-users.

You

Thanks. Before analyzing, I'd like to clarify a few key questions...

Interviewer

Good question. Let me provide some background information...

You

Based on this, I suggest analyzing from these dimensions...

AI Score
Structure Analysis Communication Business Sense Quantitative
Practicing...
Score coming soon
Practice this case with AI Mock Interview

Vivid manufactures HDTV screens with patent-protected technology and high customer switching costs, yet faces flat revenues despite increasing volumes. Analysis reveals the sales team is systematically discounting near the 40% ceiling due to volume-based quotas, eroding margins despite favorable supply chain economics. The case demonstrates pricing power exists but is being undermined by misaligned incentives.

Key Insights:

  1. Flat revenue despite growing volume indicates pricing pressure from misaligned sales incentives (volume-based quotas rather than profit-based)
  2. Exhibit A shows 40% of sales violate the discount ceiling with a peak at the limit, revealing systematic discounting behavior
  3. Supply chain analysis (Exhibit B) shows Vivid captures only $28 profit per screen at $228 selling price, while capturing significant upside opportunity exists given high customer willingness-to-pay and switching costs
  4. Customer interviews confirm high switching costs ($1B plant investment specific to Vivid screens) and quality-based willingness-to-pay, validating pricing power
  5. Sales team rationale (quota pressure, demand dynamics) conflicts with profitability optimization and represents compensation misalignment