Stakeholder Strategy Development and Implementation for Facebook

This presentation discusses the different stakeholders of Facebook and analyzes how the organization can carry out its objectives by effectively managing these stakeholders. It provides recommendations for each stakeholder group based on their performance.

STAKEHOLDER STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Facebook
[Student Name] – [Student Number]

INTRODUCTION
 Facebook is required to attain the support of the different
stakeholders to achieve its objectives.
 However, it is integral for Facebook to ensure that it is being
able to successfully look out for the different stakeholders
 Hence, in this assessment, the presentation will identify the
different stakeholders of Facebook and in addition to this,
analyse the manner in which it will be able to carryout the
objectives of the firm (Haigh, Brubaker & Whiteside, 2013).
 The presentation will highlight the overall performance of the
stakeholders and provide recommendations based on the
same.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (SUMMARY)
 The stakeholders can be identified as the stakeholders which
have a stake in the overall success of the firm.
 The various stakeholders of the organization can be identified
as follows:
Users Advertisers Shareholder
s Employees Government Communitie
s

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (SUMMARY)
 Having identified the different stakeholders of the
organization, the main key stakeholders present for the firm
are as follows:
•Offensive•Hold
•Defensive•Swing
Facebook
Users Advertisers
Employees
Governmen
t

SWING STAKEHOLDER: STRATEGIC OPTIONS
 The Facebook users have been selected as the Swing
Stakeholders.
 These users are the main reason for which the firm functions.
 The different strategic options which are available for the
users can be stated to be as follows:
 Working on the website interface
 Improving the privacy policies of the website
 Gaining an insight into the domain of customized content.

SWING STAKEHOLDER: RECOMMENDATIONS
 The best strategy which can be applied for these
stakeholders can be understood to be as follows:
 Improving privacy and related regulations
 The firm needs to ensure that it is being able to maintain the
different privacy as well as related regulations in order to see
to it that the users benefit from this initiative in the long run
(Ji et al., 2017).

DEFENSIVE STAKEHOLDER: STRATEGIC OPTIONS
 The Defensive stakeholders are the Advertisers.
 The advertisers can be taken to be the stakeholders who get
involved in publishing an advertisement about the application
of the goods and related notices.
 The Advertisers serve as a huge source of income for the
operations of Facebook.
 The various strategic options which are available for the firm
can be understood as follows:
 Improving long term communication with the advertisers
 Engaging in better negotiation
 Engaging in better pricing techniques.

DEFENSIVE STAKEHOLDER: RECOMMENDATIONS
 The strategic recommendation which has been chosen from
the different strategic options can be stated to be as follows:
 Engaging in better pricing techniques
 The firm can engage in better pricing techniques so as to
ensure that it is successfully being able to manage the
different stakeholders and in addition to this, it will ensure
higher dealings with the firm which will lead to better
revenue earning capability of the firm (Kim, Kim & Nam,
2014).

OFFENSIVE STAKEHOLDER: STRATEGIC OPTIONS
 The offensive stakeholder which has been chosen for the
organization can be understood to be as follows:
 Engagement of employee
 Increasing the pay level
 Better employee performance reviews

OFFENSIVE STAKEHOLDER: RECOMMENDATIONS
 It needs to be understood that the employees form an
integral part of the organization and all the firms which want
to ensure long term success will be required to engage in the
successful relationship with the different employees.
 The strategic option available to these employees are as
follows:
 Better pay level
 This strategy recommends that when the different employees
are being promoted to a better level then in such a case, they
are provided with a comparatively better pay level which will
ensure that they are motivated to perform adequately well
(Missonier & Loufrani-Fedida, 2014).

HOLD STAKEHOLDER: STRATEGIC OPTIONS
 The Hold stakeholders have been taken as the Government.
 The government agencies have a key role to play in the
overall performance of the organization.
 The different strategies available for the Government is as
follows:
 Promotion of anti cyber crime laws
 Ensuring employment
 Creation of social awareness

HOLD STAKEHOLDER: RECOMMENDATIONS
 After understanding the different strategic options which are
available for the firm, it can be stated that the strategic
option which will be best suited for the firm can be taken to
be as follows:
 The Facebook can look out for various avenues to improve
the overall manner in which it is successfully able to raise the
employment level as this will ensure that the firm will be able
to engage in long term success.

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
 As the previous slides discussed the different stakeholders
who are present and integral to the overall operations of the
firm, it is in crucial that the strategic recommendations are
put to good use
 In the next slides, the manner in which the organization will
implement the different plans related to the stakeholders will
be highlighted (Rieder, 2013).
 The following strategic implementation framework will be
applied.
Resource Allocation
Commitment
Interaction
Evaluation

SWING STAKEHOLDER; STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION
 The way in which the strategy will be implemented for the
swing stakeholder can be understood to be as follows:
Facebook Users
Resource Allocation To fulfill the needs of the users, a separate task
force has to be assigned adequately in order to
ensure that the resources can be aligned
successfully.
Commitment Active participation from the stakeholder side
will be required.
Interaction The public communication needs to be applied
to ensure that the message may be conveyed
to the stakeholders.
Evaluation Long term monitoring programs along with
short term evaluation programs (Lienert,
Schnetzer & Ingold,2013).

OFFENSIVE STAKEHOLDER; STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
 The way in which the strategy will be implemented for the
offensive stakeholder can be understood to be as follows:
Employees
Resource Allocation For the employees a dedicated department would
be required to make the changes as possible.
Commitment The shared value of the employees is required
Interaction The communication with the different employees
needs to take place in the form of implied
negotiation.
Evaluation Short term evaluation programs need to be
applied.

DEFENSIVE STAKEHOLDER; STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
 The way in which the strategy will be implemented for the
offensive stakeholder can be understood to be as follows:
Advertisers
Resource Allocation A dedicated workforce and certain financial
considerations would be required
Commitment Active Participation
Interaction Explicit negotiation
Evaluation Long term monitoring programs.

HOLD STAKEHOLDER; STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
 The way in which the strategy will be implemented for the
offensive stakeholder can be understood to be as follows:
Government
Resource Allocation Dedicated task force
Commitment Shared value and active participation would be
required from the side of the employees.
Interaction Public communication required
Evaluation Long term monitoring programs required

CONCLUSION
 Therefore, from the analysis done previously, it can be
rightfully mentioned that, managing the different
stakeholders is integral to the overall goals of the
organization and any firm which wants to have a better
competitive positioning in the market would be required to
form strategies to deal with them.
 The presentation highlighted four major strategies which can
be used by the firm to deal with the different stakeholder
groups and also highlighted the manner in which these
strategies are to be implemented by the organization.

PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
D&H Food Group

INTRODUCTION
 D&H Business Portfolio
The Delicious and Healthy Food operates within the Good
and beverage industry.
The organization currently has 5 subsidies which are
involved in the operations of the industry
The presentation will make use of strategic tools to highlight
the manner in which each of these subsidies has been
performing and underline certain recommendations which
can be made use of for each of them.

BCG MATRIX
?
Relative Market Share
Market Growth Rate
A= Munchy
Biscuits
B=Pure Juice
C=Funville
chocolates
D=Burgers R Us
E=Home Fresh
C
B and D E
A

GE-MCKINSEY MATRIX
Growt
h
Competitive strength of
business unit
High Med Low
Industry
attractiveness High
Med
Low
Growt
h
Harves
t
Selective Harves
t
Harves
t
Selective
SelectiveGrowt
h
E A
B AND D
C

SYNERGY MATRIX
Threshold of
acceptance
Misfits
Incoming:
Benefits from belonging
to portfolio
+-
Fits
+
-
Outgoing:
Benefit to portfolio
Altruists
Givers
Parasites
Takers
A
B and E
D C

BUSINESS CATEGORISATION
BCG
Matrix
GE-McKinsey
Matrix
Synergy
Matrix
Munchy Biscuits Question Mark Growth Fit
Pure Juice Question Mark Selective Misfit
Funville Dog Harvest Parasites
Burgers R Us Cow Selective Takers
Home Fresh Star Growth Misfit

MUNCHY BISCUITS
 Analysis
 Therefore from the analysis it can be rightfully understood
that, the Munchy Biscuits is a good performer in the given
portfolio. This was proved by the various strategic tools
which were applied in the examination of the operations.
 Recommendations
 It is recommended to the D and H Group that it engages in
research and development which would then lead to a
considerable growth of the unit in the long run. The
Investments in the unit can be made soundly.

PURE JUICE
 Analysis
 The application of the different tools reflected that Pure
Juice can be taken to be a poor performer in the given
portfolio. It can also be mentioned that, as per the
different tools, it is a misfit into the portfolio of the firm.
 Recommendations
 Therefore, it is recommended that the firm takes a
strategic stand whereby it decides whether to invest in the
operations or not.

FUNVILLE
 Analysis
 From the analysis of the various tools, it was rightfully
examined that the firm is been performing very poorly and
with respect to this, it has been taking up the funds of the
organization.
 Recommendations
 Therefore, from the analysis it can be rightfully understood
that further investment into the portfolio would not be
beneficial and hence, the firm is required to disinvest in
the unit.

BURGERS R US
 Analysis
 The analysis depicted that, the Burgers R Us can be taken
to be a taker in the portfolio an by performing in a low
incoming group, it has been taking up the major resources
of the firm. In line of this, it is integral for the firm to
ensure that, it is successfully being able to take strategic
decision.
 Recommendations
 It is recommended that the firm investigates into research
and development, which would assist the firm in
determining whether the investment into the portfolio
would be beneficial or not.

HOME FRESH
 Analysis
 The tools such as the GE matrix, Synergy Matrix and the
BCG Matrix depict that the Home fresh is the best
performing subsidiary of the D and H Food Group.
 Recommendations
 Hence, it is with respect to this, it is recommended that
the firm invests more into the portfolio and is able to take
advantage of the growing unit.

CONCLUSION
 D&H Business Portfolio
 Therefore, after the analysis of the portfolio, it can be
rightfully understood that the firm has different portfolios
which have been performing differently.
 The presentation highlighted the performance of each of
these portfolios and examined the manner in which they
perform.
 Certain recommendations have been provided for each of
the units.

REFERENCES
 Haigh, M.M., Brubaker, P. & Whiteside, E., 2013. Facebook: examining the information presented and
its impact on stakeholders. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(1), pp.52-69.
 Ji, Y.G., Li, C., North, M. & Liu, J., 2017. Staking reputation on stakeholders: How does stakeholders’
Facebook engagement help or ruin a company’s reputation?. Public Relations Review, 43(1), pp.201-
210.
 Kim, D., Kim, J.H. & Nam, Y., 2014. How does industry use social networking sites? An analysis of
corporate dialogic uses of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn by industry type. Quality &
Quantity, 48(5), pp.2605-2614.
 Lienert, J., Schnetzer, F. & Ingold, K., 2013. Stakeholder analysis combined with social network
analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. Journal of
environmental management, 125, pp.134-148.
 Missonier, S. & Loufrani-Fedida, S., 2014. Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: From
stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(7), pp.1108-1122.
 Rieder, B., 2013, May. Studying Facebook via data extraction: the Netvizz application. In Proceedings
of the 5th annual ACM web science conference (pp. 346-355). ACM.
 Saxton, G.D. and Waters, R.D., 2014. What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public
reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), pp.280-299.