Jack Daniel's Case Analysis
Jack daniel traditionally gave the slop for free for decades, then established a price of $2 per thousand gallons, and then raised to $4. Because of the low prices and availability of the feed, farmers began to expand their business. Water was being polluted by the excess amount of cattle being raised.
Jack Daniel informed farmers it would stop delivery until proper environmental improvements are made. However, there was no formal written contract stating Jack Daniel will continue delivering the slop.
A low demand of whisky occurred, because consumers turned to lighter beverages. This resulted in Jack Daniel’s “dry house” method which disposes of thick slop.
Layoffs were made in Jack Daniel.
Angry employees may form a union
Farmers were angry, having no slop to feed their cattle.
The farmers moved the feedlots and improved the environmental conditions. Farmers state that Jack Daniel promised them slop if they fixed the water pollution problem.
Jack Daniel denies making such promise.
There is no written contract between the farmers and Jack Daniel stating the terms and commitments they have for each other, such as, Jack Daniel providing the thick slop for the farmers for affordable prices, and the farmers preserving the environment.
Stating the issue
What actions should be implemented in order to meet each side’s needs, while keeping both Jack Daniel and the farmers’ businesses afloat?
Jack Daniel could return to selling its traditional whiskey with thick slop. In doing so, it could raise the price of thick slop to the farmers to cover the expenses it takes to make it.
Positive: The farmers can feed the cattle.
a.The feed will not be at a bargain price which will lead to farmers looking for alternatives. This...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document