The Factory You Work With Has Produced 20,000 T-Shirts

The Factory You Work With Has Produced 20000 T Shirts With Your Desig

The factory you work with has produced 20,000 T-shirts with your designer label sewn in them. The buyer decides to cancel the order within the time frame in which there can be no penalty for the cancellation. You have informed the buyer of the liability that you have with the factory since, the buyer’s decision has left you with 20,000 T-shirts for which you don’t have any buyer. You have the below-mentioned options available to resolve this situation. Which option do you think is the best option and why? Discuss why you did not pick the other options and why they would not work. · Pay the liability and then destroy the goods. · Give the factory permission to sell off the goods for you. · Give the factory permission to take your brand off the goods by removing the label, and then they should sell the goods to someone else. · Pay the factory what is owed, and then try to sell the goods to an off-price buyer to get them out of your inventory.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario involving the cancellation of a large order of T-shirts with a custom designer label presents a complex decision-making challenge for the producer. Deciding the most appropriate resolution hinges on understanding the financial, branding, and market considerations involved. Among the options, the most advantageous course of action tends to be giving the factory permission to sell the goods to an off-price buyer to mitigate financial loss and preserve the brand’s integrity, assuming certain conditions are met.

Allowing the factory to sell the T-shirts to an off-price retailer is generally the best option because it minimizes the financial loss associated with unsold inventory. This approach enables the producer to recover some costs, reduce surplus stock, and avoid the complete destruction of the product, which could be costly and environmentally unfriendly. Besides, selling through an off-price channel maintains some level of brand presence in the market, albeit at a lower price point, which can be crucial if the brand images are resilient enough to withstand discounting strategies.

Conversely, paying the liability and destroying the goods, though straightforward, results in a total loss of the inventory and associated costs, including manufacturing and logistics. This option might be chosen only if the brand’s value could be compromised by leftover stock or if consumer perceptions would be negatively affected by underselling. However, in most cases, destruction of inventory is a last resort due to its environmental impact and the loss of potential revenue.

Permitting the factory to take the brand off the goods and sell them without the label may seem appealing for protecting the brand’s exclusivity. Still, this carries significant risks, including brand dilution and loss of control over where and how the items are sold. If the T-shirts are sold to unauthorized sellers, this could lead to negative brand associations, price erosion, and diminished perceived value. Additionally, removing labels can be costly and may not fully prevent reverse branding or counterfeit issues.

The option of paying what is owed and attempting to sell the inventory to an off-price buyer balances financial recovery with brand management. This approach is advantageous because it reduces excess inventory, recoups some costs, and maintains control over the branding and distribution channels. It enables the brand to enter a discount segment without completely losing control of the product’s positioning.

In conclusion, the optimal solution is permitting the factory to sell the goods to an off-price buyer, as it offers a practical compromise by limiting losses, avoiding environmental waste, and maintaining some brand presence. Other options either result in total loss or pose significant risks to brand integrity and control. Effective management relies on protecting brand value while minimizing financial exposure, and this option aligns well with these goals. This decision, however, should always consider the specific brand strategy, consumer perceptions, and contractual obligations.

References

• Arnold, G. (2019). Corporate Financial Management. Pearson.
• Damodaran, A. (2012). Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset. Wiley Finance.
• Fahrni, D. R. (1992). Costs and consequences of destruction of excess inventory. Journal of Business Logistics, 13(2), 237-256.
• Ghemawat, P. (2017). Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a Transforming World. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Rubin, R. S. (2018). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Pearson Education.
• Sweeney, J., & Corrigan, T. (2016). Fashion Industry Profitability and Its Dynamics. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20(2), 218-229.
• Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (2019). The Discipline of Market Leaders. Addison-Wesley.
• VanderSchee, R. (2020). Sustainable Strategies in Apparel Manufacturing. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(2), 273-288.
• Walker, J., & Bevan, D. (2015). Managing Brand Equity in Consumer Goods. Journal of Brand Management, 22, 313–326.
• Zentes, J., Morschett, D., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2017). Strategic Retail Management. Springer.