Evaluate The Arguments Of The Two Partners Regarding Renamin

Evaluate the arguments of the two partners regarding renaming the business

Two partners own together a small landscaping business in North Carolina, called Summer Lawn Care. They have been specializing in summer grass seeding, installation, and maintenance. Recently, the partners acquired special technology and know-how for winter grass installations and maintenance. They also added a tree cutting service as recent storms in the area had caused demand for this service to soar. One of the partners insists that the name of the business should change to Lawn and Tree Care, so that it better reflects the range of services and, thus, generates more customer interest, and thus contracts.

The second partner wants to keep the old name and argues, “We have already paid for business cards, vehicle paint, signage, and ads in Yellow Pages.”

Evaluate the arguments of the two partners by identifying relevant and irrelevant costs for this decision. Explain and illustrate their points by considering explicit costs, implicit costs, and sunk costs.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate between the two partners over whether to rename their business epitomizes the critical managerial decision-making process involving cost evaluation and strategic planning. Each partner’s argument hinges on different perceptions of costs and benefits associated with changing the business name. An effective analysis requires identifying relevant and irrelevant costs, including explicit, implicit, and sunk costs, to inform the decision-making process.

The first partner argues that rebranding to “Lawn and Tree Care” could attract more customers by accurately reflecting their expanded service offerings, which now include winter grass and tree services. The core of this argument is centered around potential benefits, such as increased customer interest and higher sales, which could outweigh the costs involved. These anticipated benefits are tangible and can be assessed through market research, potential revenue increases, and long-term brand recognition. This perspective aligns with the concept of relevant costs—those future costs and benefits that will change as a result of the decision. If rebranding leads to increased demand, then the additional revenue could justify the costs involved.

On the other hand, the second partner emphasizes sunk costs—expenses that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. These include the costs of business cards, vehicle painting, signage, and yellow pages advertising. Since these costs are already paid and cannot be altered by the decision to change or maintain the current name, they are considered irrelevant in the decision-making process. Ignoring sunk costs is a fundamental principle in economic decision-making because they do not influence future costs or benefits. The second partner’s concern about these expenses reflects a common mistake of letting historical costs influence current decisions.

However, both partners must also consider explicit and implicit costs. Explicit costs refer to out-of-pocket expenses, such as the cost of new signage or reprinting of business cards if they choose to rebrand. Implicit costs might include the potential loss of brand recognition and customer loyalty that has been built under the current business name. Changing the name could temporarily decrease customer recognition or create confusion, which could impact short-term revenues. Conversely, maintaining the current name might limit opportunities for growth if the name no longer reflects the expanded range of services.

In conclusion, the primary relevant costs for the decision include future expenses related to rebranding (explicit costs), potential changes in revenues, and the opportunity cost of not aligning the brand with the broader range of services. Irrelevant costs, such as the sunk costs already paid for signage and advertising, do not impact the decision. By focusing on future benefits and costs rather than past expenses, the partners can make a more informed decision that aligns with their strategic growth objectives.

References

• Drury, C. (2018). Management and Cost Accounting. Cengage Learning.
• Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. (2015). Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis. Pearson.
• Noreen, E., Brewer, P., & Garrison, R. (2011). Managerial Accounting. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (2007). Management Control Systems. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Atkinson, A. A. (1998). Advanced Management Accounting. Prentice Hall.
• Shim, J. K., & Siegel, J. G. (2009). Budgeting and Financial Management for Nonprofit Organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
• Hansen, D. R., & Mowen, M. M. (2014). Cost Management: A Strategic Emphasis. Cengage Learning.
• Garrison, R. H., Noreen, E. W., & Brewer, P. C. (2015). Managerial Accounting. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (2007). Management Control Systems. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Schiff, M., & Rhan, V. (2017). Strategic Pricing for Business Growth. Harvard Business Review.