Last year, the company introduced its very own dorm-style housing called WeLive, which mostly thrives on a residential concept. WeLive’s business model is much like WeWork: where the company will extend its service to managing perplexities that come with finding and setting up a home. In fact, another interesting benefit for those who opt in is they can experience a ‘community of like-minded people’.

More so, the company recently launched a fitness center called Rise that costs membership worth $180 per month. The company even acquired the iconic Lord & Taylor building located on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan for $850 million. But this is not it. Next up: the most alluring addition to the WeWork portfolio is Rent the Runway: an online service that provides designer wear and accessory rental. Rent the Runway has collaborated with WeWork to add an element of convenience for users of the rental service.

In short, Rent the Runway will open a network of clothing drop-off boxes in the lobbies of 15 WeWork locations across the United States. The drop-off boxes will allow subscribers to return rented items and release a slot in their subscription for the next round of renting. Surprisingly, the drop-off boxes are open to both: the public and the members at WeWork. “This is really just the beginning,” Jennifer Hyman, chief executive officer of Rent the Runway, told Bloomberg.

“We have subscribers in many places throughout the U.S. and with WeWork’s massive footprint, there’s huge opportunity to grow this drop-box network.”

The creators of WeWork intend to “humanise” everything they bring to the market: from work to fitness to living spaces. However enticing it is, to watch WeWork disrupt the market and expand from its introductory business strategy: is the company losing its plot—of being a communal workspace? In fact, some investors and analysts want to probe deeper into its business model: as the Wall Street

Journal writes: “critics say it’s an overvalued real-estate play.” That’s a notable statement. For WeWork, this choice of business strategy might become a sort of distraction to its vision. Eight years ago, when the company opened its first co-working office in SoHo, it was not the first evolution of a communal workspace. Yet. It succeeded because there was a vision: to assemble a community of like-minded people under one roof. It reinforced interest in work: the benefactor of going to an effortless environment brilliantly furnished with indoor plants, soundproof walls, warm light, convenient work set-up and of the sort, was much exciting.

More important, working with cool minds became the catch. But now, its other ventures (or strategies) are somewhat diffusing the classic character of WeWork— by depicting qualities of a new-age realtor.

Nevertheless, its real might can only be noted in its metrics: The company generated $422 million in the second quarter, based on a financial presentation shared with Recode. According to Coworking Resources, WeWork is the second biggest co-working company in 2018—and it is nominated the sixth most valuable start-up in the world, observed VentureSource.

The company’s accelerated growth might indeed make a striking headline, however it is still losing money. Early this year, its net loss estimated $723 million on $764 million of revenue. In comparison to the same period last year, it lost $154 million on $362 million of revenue. So the loss is much counterproductive now. According to WeWork CFO Artie Minson, Recode notes: “the losses reflect the large capital expenditure it takes to open up new offices, which require time before they become profitable.” Since inception,

WeWork has been counting on its long-time business strategy, and now, there is a significant amount of pressure—in some ways, to justify its remarkable position as an expert in communal workspace. Still, there is a huge possibility for the company to assert this justification:

After all, the data WeWork has experimented with in past years is much more valuable than one can expect: how people work; the need to feel good; when they work best; and how jobs can get done—matters. And its faculty to capitalise on these meaningful insights might bring dynamism to its long-term business strategies in future.

The post We work—the most valuable startup in New York City? appeared first on International Finance.

AUDI

• Foundation year: 1909
• Number of UK models: 65
• Number of employees: 90,705
• Sales in 2017: 174,982
• Market share in 2017: 6.89%

Audi became part of the Volkswagen Group back in 1965. This was when Audi acquired the Auto Union GmbH from Daimler-Benz. For the first time since the end of the Second World War, Audi vehicles were produced thanks to this subsidiary. With more than 100 markets across the globe, Audi now stands as one of the leading premium car brands. This is, in part, down to Audi’s revolutionary technology. From piloted driving to an AI setup, the German manufacturer is leading the way to the future of driving technology.

BENTLEY

• Foundation year: 1919
• Number of UK models: 18
• Number of employees: 4,332
• Sales in 2017: 1,753
• Market share in 2017: 0.07%

Volkswagen and Bentley’s ties date back to 1998, though the partnership is quite complex. The story starts in 1997, when the then-owner of Bentley put Rolls-Royce Motors up for sale. Unsurprisingly, BMW made an offer of £340 million, as they supplied Bentley and Rolls-Royce with components and engines anyway. Plus, Vickers and BMW shared common ground in their experience in aerospace manufacturing.

But BMW weren’t the only bidders; Volkswagen made an offer of £430 million, outbidding BMW. But the deal didn’t give Volkswagen ownership of everything. Their bid secured the administrative and production facilities, vehicle designs, model nameplates, the iconic Spirit of Ecstasy, and the Rolls-Royce grille shape trademark. But Rolls-Royce Holdings retained the Rolls-Royce name and logo.

A year later in 1998, BMW supplied Bentley and Rolls Royce with new components for their cars and paid £40 million to licence the Rolls-Royce name and logo. After extensive negotiations from all parties, they reached an agreement that allowed BMW to continue with the deal to supply components and engines. Volkswagen attained the rights for the logos and names at this time. Then, in 2003, Volkswagen became the sole providers of Bentley cars, and BMW attained Rolls-Royce.

BUGATTI

• Foundation year: 1909
• Number of UK models: 1
• Number of employees: 302
• Sales in 2017: N/A
• Market share in 2017: N/A

Art and technology were the forefront of car manufacturer Bugatti’s aims. In the last 100 years or more, Bugatti has unveiled some of the motor industry’s most interesting car designs.

In 1998, Volkswagen purchased the rights to manufacture Bugatti-named cars. Two years later, Bugatti was officially inducted into the Volkswagen Group. Plus, the guest house that was previously owned by Ettore Bugatti himself was purchased by Volkswagen Group. The house was turned into the company’s headquarters.

LAMBORGHINI

• Foundation year: 1963
• Number of UK models: 8
• Number of employees: 1,606
• Sales in 2017: N/A
• Market share in 2017: N/A

Not only did Volkswagen acquire Bentley and Bugatti in 1998, but they also brought Lamborghini into the family. The super sports car icon that stunned the world with gorgeous designs and exceptional power used to be owned by MegaTech. MegaTech in turn were owned by SEDRCO pty, an Indonesian corporation.

But a financial crisis sparked in Asia in 1998, which meant Lamborghini needed to change its owner. An estimated $110 million offer saw the super sports car manufacturer purchased by Volkswagen. In the following months, a restructuring took place to make the holding company Lamborghini Holding S.p.A.

PORSCHE

• Foundation year: 1931
• Number of UK models: 37
• Number of employees: 27,352
• Sales in 2017: 14,051
• Market share in 2017: 0.55%

It took three years for Volkswagen to fully bring Porsche into the Group.

Starting in 2009, the Volkswagen Group purchased a stake in Porsche AG, taking the first of many steps towards an ‘integrated automotive group’ with Porsche. Two years later, the two companies were meant to merge. But this was halted by legal risks, and the merger was deemed impossible.

As another year passed, however, Volkswagen announced they were currently in the process of purchasing the rest of the shares in Porsche for €4.46 billion. Porsche was finally brought into the Volkswagen Group in its entirety in August 2012.

SEAT

• Foundation year: 1950
• Number of UK models: 24
• Number of employees: 14,716
• Sales in 2017: 56,130
• Market share in 2017: 2.21%

Volkswagen first set their sights beyond Germany with its co-operation agreement with Spanish company SEAT. Signed in 1982, the two companies quickly went to work, with 1986 seeing Volkswagen gaining a 51% controlling stake in SEAT. With this, SEAT became the first non-German subsidiary in the Volkswagen group. The stake was increased from 51% to 75% in December 1986.

Then, in 1990, Volkswagen Group purchased SEAT in its entirety.

ŠKODA

•  Foundation year: 1895
• Number of UK models: 27
• Number of employees: 32,985
• Sales in 2017: 79,758
• Market share in 2017: 3.14%

The 1990s were a big year for acquisitions for Volkswagen, as the Group brought in Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and ŠKODA.

In 1991, Volkswagen and ŠKODA made a partnership agreement that resulted in Volkswagen gaining a 30% stake in ŠKODA. This later increased to 60.3% in December 1994, and then again to 70% in 1995.

By 2000, ŠKODA became wholly owned by the Volkswagen Group. The partnership was certainly beneficial to both parties, as the Czech car manufacturer saw deliveries increase sevenfold thanks to their partnership with Volkswagen.

THE VOLKSWAGEN GROUP

• Collective years of experience: 731 years
• Number of UK models: 213
• Number of employees: 372,264
• Sales in 2017: 535,136
• Market share in 2017: 21.0 7%

• Volkswagen themselves were founded in 1937, with 33 models available in the UK and employing 200,266 people of their own. In 2017, Volkswagen enjoyed 208,462 sales and an 8.21% share in the market. The data and figures in this article were correct as of August 2nd 2018.

This piece was curated by Vindis

The post Unravelling the Volkswagen Success Story – Who Do they Own? appeared first on International Finance.

Some of the most eye-catching deals include Coca-Cola’s £3.9bn acquisition of Costa Coffee and the tussle between 21st Century Fox and Comcast over the Sky takeover. It has also been reported that Apple, the world’s most valuable company, is looking to spend some of its $250 billion cash reserve on acquisitions.

Although this trend shows no signs of abating, mergers and acquisitions are not a guaranteed route to company growth. In fact, according to the Harvard Business Review, somewhere between 70-90% of mergers and acquisitions result in failure. With so much at stake, what role does brand play, and how can companies retain and build brand value more effectively after a merger? With more than 25 years’ experience of guiding national and multinational organisations through post-merger brand management and implementation, we recommend that you consider these points before undertaking that all-important brand investment.

IS REBRANDING ALWAYS THE BEST CHOICE?
A new acquisition or merger can be an exciting opportunity for a brand owner, but it can also be a confusing time for employees and customers as familiar brand touch points evolve or change completely. Any form of brand investment needs to be carefully considered, however in our experience brand owners tend to underestimate the ‘butterfly effect’ of even a small change. This decision shouldn’t be taken lightly, as it can be the difference between success and failure!

Your starting point should be an objective assessment of your brand touch points and performance, retaining focus on your overall brand architecture throughout this process. Firstly, audit all existing brand assets and trademarks and then assess the current brand equity in order to highlight the risks and rewards of change. Market research should follow, determining current market share and the existing credibility of the brand. You’ll also need to run a check for any local legal complexities. Finally, look into each company’s internal culture to assess the risks of a full integration.

I would suggest that a rebrand is required if the acquired company is failing, has a poor reputation, is relatively small, or if you plan to make sweeping changes. On the other hand, a rebrand may be a bad idea if the acquired company has a long-standing and loyal consumer base, has unique brand strength, or if it’s the undisputed leader within its marketplace.

PREPARING TO IMPLEMENT A NEW BRAND POSITION
The values and attributes that define an organisation are all embodied in its brand, so even small changes can be jarring for loyal consumers. Likewise, changes to company culture and beliefs can quickly alienate your internal stakeholders and create reputational damage if this becomes public.

This underlines the importance of careful consideration: post-merger brand conversion can impact every branded asset, from stationery and employee name tags to content marketing materials. It’s vital that these changes occur consistently and in line with your brand values.

Depending on the complexity and feasibility of the brand migration, you might take one of three approaches:

1. Direct and aggressive: with a short planning phase of 3-6 months, this is a demanding and complex approach that requires high investment, but it can also provide greater impact.
2. Phase-in/phase-out: with a mid-length planning phase of 6-12 months, this involves an initial phase of brand co-existence (phase-in) followed by removal of the old brand (phase-out).
3. Performance KPIs: on a flexible basis of 12-24 months, this approach gives consumers and trade more time to adjust, but the old brand will still need to be removed eventually.

ENGAGE INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
From planning to implementation, it’s vital that you engage the entire organisation in this change – not just the marketing, communications or brand management teams. Collaboration between departments is crucial for a coherent brand experience across all brand touch points.

Your internal stakeholders should be your original and most passionate brand advocates for these changes. Adequate communication before, during and after brand conversion is crucial to the success of the changes, and this process should be led by senior management.

An internal kick-off event can be a great way to create maximum impact for your brand change, while also creating a sense of shared community between the merged organisations. Investing in an intuitive digital brand portal will also give employees the tools they need to communicate your brand coherently.

REINFORCING THE SWITCH
Post-merger brand conversion shouldn’t be considered a snapshot moment – it’s an ongoing process of improvement. Securing return on investment from the rebrand will require suitable KPIs, constant monitoring and an openness to refine and adjust as new insight becomes available. shouldn’t be considered a snapshot moment – it’s an ongoing process of improvement. Securing return on investment from the rebrand will require suitable KPIs, constant monitoring and an openness to refine and adjust as new insight becomes available.

A long-term view will also be essential. Although a new logo and company restructure may bring short-term growth, this can quicklydissipate if your brand values and identities do not align with long-term business objectives. At best, this results in missed opportunities to maximise brand power, at worst this can set the rebrand up for failure. Adopting a long-term view to brand implementation and management can help ensure that the brand remains strong and future-proof in this rapidly changing technological world.

Anybody who has worked through a company merger, acquisition or restructure will know that it can be equally unsettling and exciting. To avoid an identity crisis, consider the impact of each change in detail, engage your employees every step of the way, and be prepared to compromise!

JO DAVIES is the Managing Director of VIM Group—
a leading global brand management and brand implementation company. VIM Group helps businesses to manage brand change and enhance the performance of their brands across local and international markets. In most cases, it’s wise to invest in a post-merger rebrand or repositioning. This should be considered as an opportunity to assess what the organisation says about itself, how it behaves and how it wants to be perceived.

The post Retaining brand value after a merger appeared first on International Finance.

It all began in 2009 when founders Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp couldn’t find a cab in Paris. They wondered what if they could use their smartphone to get a cab? That’s how the idea of Uber was born. In March 2009, Kalanick and Camp launched UberCab – a smartphone app that allows a user to book a cab. It was not until July the following year that Uber successfully connected its first rider to a black town car for ride across San Francisco. Soon after, the name Cab was dropped from its name and Uber became the go-to taxi-hailing service in San Francisco.

With headquarters in San Francisco, Uber has US offices in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, Seattle and Los Angeles. Worldwide, some of their biggest offices are in London, Sao Paolo, Amsterdam and Mexico City.

Uber has democratized ride-sharing. Not only has it helped individuals develop an alternate source of income as drivers but also provided a viable alternative for cross city travel for various purposes. Uber’s success inspired similar startups in other regions and countries like Grab in Southeast Asia, Ola in India, Careem in UAE and Lyft in the USA to name a few.

Kalanick and Camp initially raised 200,000 in seed, followed by $1.3mn in an angel round but what followed were a series of continuous multi-million and billion-dollar investments. In 2017, a consortium of investors including Softbank. Didi Chuxing, Sequoia Capital and Tencent among others led one of the biggest rounds of funding for Uber with $8.7bn. Uber was valued at over $40bn prior this round of funding. Now, the company is valued at $62bn.

But the company, which has been a benchmark for startup success, has had its fair share of controversies over the years:

In November 2017, Bloomberg reported that Uber paid hackers $100,000 to cover a cyberattack that exposed the data of 57 million people. The company published this incident in a blog post, with CEO Dara Khosrowshahi admitting that Uber is actively changing the way it does business.

This was not the only data-related scandal Uber got into. A month prior, there was a report that Uber’s iPhone app supposedly allowed it to record a user’s screen and access user info secretly, according to a Business Insider report.

The ride-hailing app also got into hot water outside the USA. In September 2017, Uber lost its licence to operate in London on account of multiple offences by drivers and lax approach to safety checks.. Moreover, the US Department of Justice announced an investigation in August 2017 into Uber for supposedly paying off officials for acquiring permissions to operate in foreign countries. One of the biggest blow to Uber’s reputation was the lawsuit filed by Alphabet’s autonomous car division Waymo, for having stolen the designs of its self-driving car technology.

Even on the personnel front, the company suffered several setbacks. One of the most notable setbacks was a blog post by Uber employee Susan Fowler who spoke at length about gender inequality and sexual harassment, especially since her complaints to human resources was ignored.

A lot of what happened – good and bad – at Uber was under the leadership of Travis Kalanick. The young cofounder of Uber was a controversial figure in Silicon Valley, despite being wildly successful as CEO of one of the most highly valued Silicon Valley companies. In June 2017, Kalanick resigned from his post as CEO of Uber. According to Reuters, venture capital firm Benchmark, whose partner Bill Gurley is one of the largest shareholders of Uber in addition to investors First Round Capital, Lowercase Capital, Menlo Ventures and Fidelity Investments – all wanted Kalanick out. However, Kalanick lost his mother rather suddenly in a boating accident around the same time and he issued a statement that he wanted to step down from his post at this difficult time.

Kalanick, however, remains a member of the board at Uber. But finding his replacement was not an easy task. Reports suggested that the board members and investors wanted someone who could take on Uber’s mess head on – specifically make the company profitable and pave the way for an IPO, stated a Reuters report. Kalanick’s resignation was the latest to join the high-level executive team exits at Uber –vice president of product Ed Baker, vice-president of engineering Amit Singhal, chief brand officer Bozoma Saint John, chief people officer Liane Hornsey, head of policy for Uber India Shweta Rajpal Kohli, in addition to the company’s top lawyer and chief financial officer.

In August 2017, Uber appointed Dara Khosrowshahi, former CEO of travel platform Expedia to head the company. The Iranian-American Khosrowshahi has been tasked with a monumental task – of changing the company while ensuring it is ready to go public next year. He brought in new leaders and pushed for the enforcement of strong corporate values. One of the biggest challenges for the 49-year old CEO is to find a CFO – a position that has been vacant since 2015. He told Fortune executive editor Adam Lashinsky that he’s being picky, as he wants a great CFO who can lead the company to an IPO. According to a report by The Conversation, Khosrowshahi’s challenges don’t end with replacing employees. Uber has made headlines for its toxic culture, and he is tasked with bringing about transparency, diversity and accountability – all of which have taken a hit in recent years.

The meteoric rise of companies like Uber can be an example for new age consumer startups. But what separates a financially successful company from a being a reputed one is its culture, and this defines its brand equity in the long run.

The post The bumpy journey of Uber so far appeared first on International Finance.