Cart Analysis 1

Alternative 1: Keep things as they are…

…at least for now. A big concern in this case is: at what point after the merger are the sales reps versus the sales agents discussions taking place? While management could make changes based on financial aspects of both companies (which will at some point have to be done), if these changes are occurring immediately after the death of one owner and a merger, morale of neither company would be good and will affect both corporations’ numbers. More research is going to have to be conducted to see if not keeping things as they are will even be necessary in the long-run since it was decided in the beginning that Lea-Meadows would retain its own identity and brand names.

Some research that would need to be conducted is as follows:

1. What is each company’s market share within their respective industries? Within the furniture industry as a whole? Could combining the two companies create a larger market presence or are they better left as individuals?

2. Since it is stated that consumer spending on wood furniture is cyclical based on consumer factors, what is the current position within the cycle and what is ost likely the next section of the cycle-downward or upward trend? How does the cycle of upholstered furniture and Lea Meadows complement or compare with Carrington’s? Is either company’s name enough to carry it without its current sales representatives?

3. Rather than positioning the companies’ sales teams against each other, what would be the benefits of allowing them to continue working as it is? While it might seem expensive to retain each, what would be the monetary benefits of doing so? For example, could independent Lea Meadows agents have a higher success rate of achieving in-store galleries combining Carrington and Lea Meadows products? Could agents assist Carrington