Organizational Centralization Change Case

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE
Centralization of Marketing: A Change Case at Caesars Entertainment

Prepared by Change Consultant Stuart Haack
University of Southern California
Haack & Company Consulting
Page 2

2
Executive Summary
Caesars Entertainment (CE) currently faces several hurdles with regard to its current
centralization change strategy. While key goals have been met over the two years that this
change has been evolving, the organization still faces potential threats from mounting propertylevel resistance, power struggles across marketing departments, and unmet quality standards
which can likely be attributed to these resistance and power struggles. This consultant
recommends ways to overcome these issues in order to reap the greatest benefit from the
centralization of its marketing process by understanding the communication networks that exist
throughout the organization, cultivate awareness, desire, knowledge, and ability to the change for
all employees affected by centralization, creating a centralization guiding team that will visit
properties and motivate change, celebrate the successes of the change effort through various
communication channels, inspire empathy through shared experiences and transferability, and
explore the feasibility of an ad-free brand (Grams, 2012; Pfeffer, 2010; Kotter & Rathgeber,
2006; Hiatt, 2006; Hanneman & Riddle, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004). For long-term success, CE
should also find ways to cultivate more adaptability as an organization and among its employees
through rewards, training, and hiring (Worley & Lawler, 2006).
Caesars Entertainments Evolving Organizational Environment
At the beginning of their centralization change effort which began at the start of 2011, CE
was the worlds largest gaming and entertainment company (J. Payne, personal communication,
November 30, 2012). It had 52 properties across multiple continents, including 34 properties in
the United States alone (J. Payne, personal communication, November 30, 2012). According to
CE Vice President of Corporate Human Resource Services Mike OBrien, the company was
Page 2

3
spending between $1 billion and $2 billion annually and wanted to find a way to eliminate
between $180 million and $200 million from the annual budget (personal communication,
October 29, 2012). Over recent years, CE had begun to experience decreasing revenue along
with increasing operations and marketing costs due to the ongoing recession that had begun in
late 2007 and early 2008 (M. OBrien, personal communication, October 29, 2012).
Furthermore, other gaming organizations such as MGM and their loyalty program M Life had
increasingly gained ground on CE, and had even surpassed CE with an early international
presence in Macau, China, which was expected to become the new gambling center of the
Eastern world. Also, increasing growth of the CE empire was spreading the organization more
and more rapidly every year. In fact, in 1995, Harrahs Entertainment (the name of Caesars
Entertainment until 2010) had just eight destinations around the country. But by 2011, there were
52 across the globe, 34 of which were in the United States and Canada. This rapid growth was
encouraging for the growth of the brand, but was beginning to shift the dynamics of how the
organization was run, and how it needed to be run.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Organization
The strengths of CE are many. With regards to overall square footage, quantity of
properties, entrance and growth in emerging markets (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Boston),
and size of loyalty membership program (Total Rewards), CE is the largest gaming and
entertainment organization in the world. The CE logo, the laurel, is one of the most recognizable
brand logos in the world. Caesars Palace is still one of the most iconic casinos on the Las Vegas
Strip. The strong brand name has attracted countless celebrities to bring their brands and outlets
to CEs various casinos, including Gordon Ramsay, Elton John, Bobby Flay, Jerry Seinfeld,
Page 2

4
Celine Dion, Cee Lo Green, Shania Twain, and the Pussycat Dolls. The strength of the CE brand
along with the breadth of its vast global network has allowed the organization to take risks when
implementing new gaming, entertainment, dining, hotel or shopping operations, as well as when
selecting a new market to cultivate. These risks have included testing casino operations in
markets that have never traditionally had local gambling options, such as Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Baltimore and Boston, introducing new gaming options such as 3-card poker which combines the
excitement of table games with the jackpot potential of slot machines, and controversial
entertainment options like Chippendales, Peepshow, and more. By continuing to push forward
into new markets, CE has effectively found Blue Oceans, or areas of lesser or nonexistent
competition, (Kim & Mauborgne, 2004) in which to increase revenue, while strategically
inventing new ways to overcome their competitive forces (Porter, 2008).
The weaknesses of CE predominantly stem from its strengths. The growth of its global
network has created marketing communication issues and consistency challenges throughout the
organization which are substantially simpler to mitigate in an organization with fewer
decentralized properties. According to CE President of Shared Services John Payne, until
centralization began, there was almost no alignment or consistency between the marketing efforts
of the various casinos. For example, Harrahs Rincon near San Diego might be running a
completely different advertising campaign than Harrahs New Orleans. For that reason, there was
also much redundancy in marketing positions across the organization, which substantially
increased costs, and brand misalignment, which can be a detriment to long-term revenue growth.
At one point, Payne said, We had 30 some-odd VPs of marketing across the country, all trying
to make the same decisions, but make them their own way because they think they know best
(personal communication, November 30, 2012). Lastly, before the centralization effort, there was
Page 2

5
a lack of synchronous management within casino marketing purchasing decisions. As Payne

describes, when Sheryl Crow was booked to play at seven different CE venues during her tour
across the country, due to mismanagement of aligned strategy and a lack of a centralized
figurehead, CE paid seven different prices seven different times during the bookings (personal
communication, November 30, 2012).
The Centralization Change Effort
In order to combat the mounting problems facing their organization, CE made the
executive decision to shift from a decentralized marketing structure, which gave decision rights
and executive power to each individual property, to a centralized marketing structure, which
would bring marketing and advertising decision rights to a centralized authority based out of the
corporate office located in Las Vegas, Nevada. There were two primary goals for this change
effort. The first goal was to create better strategic alignment throughout CEs marketing to
encourage a consistent, long-term growth strategy. The second goal of centralization was to
reduce marketing expenditures which ranged from $1 billion to $2 billion annually by between
$180 million and $200 million (M. OBrien, personal communication, October 29, 2012). Key
players in this shift are President of Shared Services John Payne, Vice President of Corporate
Human Resource Services Mike OBrien, and Brand Director Jared Rapier.
What this meant for the organization on both micro and macro scales was major changes
in decision-making power across 34 independent marketing departments. Prior to centralization,
on-property marketing managers and teams of between three and six people at each casino in the
United States and Canada were able to create their own marketing plan, produce their own
advertising and marketing collateral, and run marketing operations essentially from start to
Page 2

6
finish. Under centralization, the role of these on-property teams would be greatly diminished in
scope and power of authority. With the implementation of centralization, there would be a central
marketing department based in Las Vegas, Nevada at CE headquarters that would approve annual
marketing plans and budgets for each property, produce all new advertising and marketing
collateral and campaigns moving forward, and would have final say in all marketing-related
decisions. This process would require a larger corporate marketing staff, and would decrease
each property marketing staff by at least half. Centralization would ideally help reduce cost in
employment, reduce cost in marketing expenditures by unifying the media buying and
entertainment procurement process, and ascertaining more package deals, while helping align
branding and long-term revenue growth.
Strategy, Mission & Culture: How the Change Aligns
CE has a mission to create loyalty and value with its customers through a unique
combination of great service, excellent products, unsurpassed distribution, operational excellence
and technology leadership (Caesars Entertainment, 2012). The strategy that helps guide the
organization toward that mission is defined as a focus on building loyalty and value for our
customers, employees, business partners, and communities by being the most service-oriented,
technology-driven, geographically-diversified company in gaming (Caesars Entertainment,
2012). The culture of CE also aligns with the organizations mission and strategy, as it uses
employees as a primary driver toward their ultimate goals:
[E]mployees each make a unique contribution to your experiences, and to our
ultimate success. From nurturing a sense of team with co-workers, to improving
the quality of life in their communities, Caesars sets the standard of excellence in
Page 2

7
the gaming industry with employees who are devoted to delivering truly great
service. Our employees are critical to our success. (Caesars Entertainment, 2012)
The centralization change offers some alignment with the core values and
strategies of CE, especially in the focus of service, operations excellence, distribution,
and procuring excellent business partners. By centralizing decision-making for
organization wide marketing efforts, CE will be able to gain more value from their
marketing distribution opportunities by aligning with nationwide companies and creating
package deals across the country, rather than dealing with local sales departments in each
individual market. Furthermore, within CE, marketing goes beyond the traditional
advertising and marketing collateral and plays a role in specific terminology that is used
by customer-facing employees, from the clothes they wear to the attitudes they portray, to
some extent. By centralizing marketing within the organization, a customer that visits a
Harrahs casino in Lake Tahoe is going to receive very similar service, greetings, and
employee interactions when they decide to visit Harrahs Cherokee in North Carolina.
The centralization change also aligns with the mission to be a technology-driven
organization, in that CE will require the greatest communication tools and abilities in
order to strategically implement this centralized hub that develops advertising and
marketing for 34 or more properties across the United States and Canada.
Status of the Change: Bright Spots, Barriers & Resistance
The centralization of marketing has now been a part of CEs strategy for nearly two
years. There are some bright spots, barriers, and still substantial resistance. The most important
positive takeaways from this centralization change process have been that the primary goals have
Page 2

8
indeed been met. Reductions of over $180 million from annual marketing expenditures have
already become a reality at CE. Furthermore, increased brand alignment throughout all
marketing materials is already beginning to take shape as properties hand over marketing
responsibilities and decision rights to the centralized corporate office. This has already had
tangible benefits in brand awareness and recognition, and would ideally signal the beginning of a
strong long-term growth strategy (J. Rapier, personal communication, October, 25, 2012). And
furthermore, the speed and efficiency in marketing decision-making has been reduced due to the
decreased number of overall decision-makers in any marketing or advertising effort. The news is
not all positive, however.
As CE Brand Director Jared Rapier puts it, the change was all good news for corporate
folks, but property people took it pretty hard (personal communication, October 25, 2012).
Indeed, throughout the change process, CE lost many talented employees and managers who
were displaced by the centralization of power. Rapier explains that CE attempted to offer many
talented displaced workers opportunities at the centralized corporate office or new roles at their
current properties, but many were so discouraged by the shift that they decided to leave the
organization altogether. According to Mike OBrien, however, those individuals are substantially
easier to deal with. As OBrien explains it, The ones who stayed were passive-aggressive
resistors. They come into the meeting room, nod their heads, and pretend to agree. But as soon as
they leave, they go around telling others that this centralization process is never going to work
(personal communication, October 29, 2012). According to Peter Block, author of Flawless
Consulting, this kind of resistance comes in the form of Compliance (2011, p. 153), in which
the resister is unwilling to express their true feelings while on the surface seem willing to go with
any opinion suggested.
Page 2

9
Furthermore, according to both Payne and Rapier, power struggles over decision-making
rights are still a daily occurrence between the centralized corporate marketing team and the
various properties around the United States and Canada. As it has been described, many
individuals on the property marketing teams have been working for CE for decades and have
grown accustomed to having the ability to make marketing decisions for their own properties.
They also argue that a centralized corporate marketing team cannot understand the local casino
demographics and psychographics as well as someone who actually lives and works within that
specific destination. But OBrien combats this concept with A gaming customer is a gaming
customer (personal communication, October 29, 2012).
Finally, Payne reports excitement that the annual marketing costs have been reduced to
the expectations of the change effort. However, he indicates uncertainty that the budgetary
reductions can actually be attributed to the centralization effort. We are seeing savings on the
marketing side of things, but were not positive that it is coming from centralization, and Im not
positive that we are seeing the quality that we would like to be seeing yet (J. Payne, personal
communication, November 30, 2012).
Approach & Rationale
Initial interview cues and echoed survey results (Appendix C) point to a few concerning
missteps that have taken place in the communication of the centralization change strategy as
performed by upper management within CE. While much of this change effort has seemingly
been a sweeping success, there are a number of factors that could lead to problems in the near
future, as well as in the long-term.
Page 2

10
One of the most alarming discoveries throughout this centralization change process was a
seeming lack of desire or strategic ability to address dissatisfaction with the current,
decentralized marketing process (Beer, 2007) or to consciously and subconsciously cultivate
desire or urgency to create the centralization change on an organization-wide level (Kotter &
Rathgeber, 2006; Heath & Heath, 2010). Furthermore, for employees who would be affected by
centralization, a cognitive path was never truly shaped with regard to how this change process
would occur, as indicated by the survey results (Heath & Heath, 2010).
There are also clear organizational learning deficiencies within CE that have forestalled
continued efforts to beneficially centralize power within the marketing concentration of the
organization. According to The Fifth Discipline author Peter Senge, CE marketing personnel may
suffer from a learning disability known as I Am My Position (2006, p. 18), in which
employees cultivate images of themselves around their title within the organization. Empathy
(Pfeffer, 2010) and understanding are potential requisites to overcoming these deeply-rooted
learning disabilities, in order to understand why the shifting power roles have created such
turmoil within the organization, while allowing employees to grow beyond seeking identity in
job titles. Another set of learning disabilities that are afflicting this organization, both on the
corporate and property sides, are The Fixation on Events (Senge, 2006, p. 21) and The Enemy
is Out There (Senge, 2006, p. 19), in which organizational managers are quick to act on any
sudden alarming issues, and occasionally assign blame in areas that may have no specific cause
for it. Tight-knit property teams seem to be creating mental models about the centralized team,
focusing on the belief that everyone is out to get one another, creating blame and animosity
(Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross & Smith, 1994). This shows a fundamental lack of adaptability
within the framework and employees of the organization. While this centralization change is a
Page 2

11
sizeable one, CEs ability to adapt on an employee and process level is questionable. In todays
modern marketplace, it is more important than ever to build organizations that are nimble and
agile in order to quickly meet shifting consumer demands and market needs (Worley & Lawler,
2006). Much of todays research indicates that it is no longer enough to maintain a stagnant
strategy, but that it must be adaptive or emergent (Mintzberg, 1994; Moore & Lenir, 2011).
According to Payne, at one point during the change effort employees were told to either
Get on the bus or go elsewhere (personal communication, November 30, 2012). Payne argues
that people will resist and resist and resist, but once a decision is made, they will generally get
on board with it (personal communication, November 30, 2012). However, this does not
necessarily align with testimonials from other internal sources. According to both Rapier and
OBrien, resistance and power struggles created by property marketers are still among the
biggest challenges in the change effort. And while many of the initial resisters found new roles
within the organization or left altogether, there are clearly many who did get on the bus, but
still question the necessity of centralization. These issues likely stem from management and its
inability or lack of desire to create awareness, desire, knowledge, or ability to change for
employees affected by centralization (Hiatt, 2006). ADKAR, a change model created by Jeffrey
Hiatt illustrates the gradual steps that are required in order to create buy-in from employees
throughout a change process, which will ultimately lead to a more successful effort (2006). This
study seems to indicate that little, if any effort was used to implement these strategies before or
during the centralization change process. Rather than creating a broad level of awareness about
the necessity for centralization or a desire to install the new process, organizational management
seemed to prefer the mandate method in which, as Payne said Get on the bus or go
elsewhere (personal communication, November 30, 2012). One survey respondent even noted
Page 2

12
The initial communication could have been better. It was just tossed at us in a this is what is
happening, get used to it and adjust type of fashion (Appendix C).
Furthermore, knowledge of how to change and the ability to implement it was not
thoroughly addressed. This is clearly demonstrated in the survey results, both in the Likert-scale
section, as well as the short answer section. Even with minimal surveys returned (four), the
response that repeatedly received the lowest rating was I was given adequate instruction as to
how the centralization transition was going to take place (Appendix C). One survey respondent
validates this claim in the short answer section with the response I just dont think logistically it
was given enough thought (Appendix C). As Chip and Dan Heath posit in their 2010 book
Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard, a successful change effort must direct the
rider (create organization-wide understanding of why the change is necessary), motivate the
elephant (create the desire to change), and shape the path (create an understandable vision of
how this change will occur). While it seems quite clear that CE management fell short in all three
of these categories, the surveys and interviews seem to indicate that motivation (elephant) and
vision (path) were the least addressed characteristics within this change effort (Heath & Heath,
2010).
Recommendations Moving Forward
In order to overcome the mounting issues that have arisen from CEs change to a
centralized marketing department, various steps must be taken. This consultant recommends the
following strategies.
Page 2

13
1. To first understand the channels of communication threats and resistance within its
various networks, CE management must analyze their networks that exist throughout the United
States and Canada (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). It would be overly simplistic to assume that
networks are allocated simply within geographic areas of the organization, existing
independently at the property levels. Communication networks exist throughout the organization
in structural networks, relational networks, and knowledge networks (Levin & Cross, 2004).
These networks must be analyzed to understand the greatest sources of resistance and powerstruggle. Surveys can be given to help understand these communication networks, which would
help identify key players of resistance, as well as change advocates.
2. Steps must be taken to create awareness, desire, knowledge and ability toward the
centralization change effort (Hiatt, 2006). While this may seem like a step backward, creating
buy-in with regards to the change effort is essential not just for motivating employee morale and
decreasing employee turnover, but also to increase efficiency within the process. As Payne noted,
top management within the organization is not seeing the level of quality from this marketing
centralization initiative that they would ultimately like to see. To create awareness, desire,
knowledge, and ability, the study will again reference the ADKAR model. In order to understand
what steps need to be taken, management must analyze at each level (awareness, desire,
knowledge, and ability) what combination of communication, sponsorship, coaching, resistance
management, and training are required (Hiatt, 2006). Reinforcement within the ADKAR model
will be addressed once the aforementioned steps are taken. This will also help shape the path
for employees to begin a better process towards a sustainable and effective centralization effort
(Heath & Heath, 2010). Of course, this strategic centralization path already exists among top
Page 2

14
management, but it must now be understood by all who are affected by the change, which leads
to the next point.
3. To implement the above recommendations, CE must create a guiding team (Kotter &
Rathgeber, 2006, p. 130) that will travel to each property across the country to help build
enthusiasm and momentum for centralization. This guiding team can be a small group that
consists of a senior executive and various other employees from unique disciplines within the
marketing department (Kotter & Rathgeber, 2006). Furthermore, it is important to add propertylevel marketers within the organization to the guiding team to help persuade other property
marketers, as this will show that even someone from a similar background can and will support
the centralization effort.
4. Organizational employees have not been made aware that the goals of the
centralization strategy have already been ascertained, and that is a problem. Without celebrating
short-term wins (Kotter & Rathgeber, 2006, p. 131) it will be nearly impossible to convert
resisters who are waiting to see the results before becoming supporters. In fact, without
supporting the centralization with facts and figures of its successes, CE is simply giving resisters
fodder from which to persuade even more employees to their side.
5. Empathy in both directions is required to understand the points of view of both the
centralized corporate office and the property marketing teams, which will help both sides feel as
though they wield more power, as well as understanding (Pfeffer, 2010). This could substantially
mitigate animosity on either side, as well as provide a new perspective of each department. In
order to do this, property and corporate marketing personnel should be given primary access to
new job openings throughout the organization. To some extent, CE already has this procedure in
Page 2

15
place. However, the transferability should become eminent, especially on property, and should be
highlighted as a potential benefit for those who are receptive to the centralization change
process. Even Payne believes this to be true when he stated We have to do a better job of
putting people in each others shoes with regard to getting property folks to understand the
perspectives of the corporate folks and vice versa. That is the quickest way to overcome any
resistance (personal communication, November 30, 2012).
6. CE might consider taking an ad-free brand approach (Grams, 2012), to some extent.
What this would mean to the organization is the mitigation of power roles in the decision-making
process of the marketing department. The centralized marketing body should still maintain final
authority with regard to marketing collateral and advertising campaigns, but could use an ad-free
brand strategy to acquire input from property employees who have lost power through
centralization, as well as the general public (Grams, 2012). This could help mend broken
relations between the centralized marketing team and property marketing teams by allowing a
more collaborative approach, which would in turn, help create better advertising that fits the
needs of the local market, while still promoting long-term goals. Of course, the central team
would still make final decisions, but by including property marketing teams and customers,
hostility toward the corporate team will be minimized.
7. Finally, CE must begin cultivating an organization that is adaptable to change by
properly hiring, training, and rewarding the appropriate individuals (Worley & Lawler, 2006).
This will create an organizational environment that is less resistant to necessary changes, and
might actually lead to employees that embrace change, rather than combat it. As Payne notes,
we are an organization that will resist and resist and argue until a decision is finally made
Page 2

16
(personal communication, November 30, 2012). This is not the way to remain a leading global
organization. In order to become a more flexible and maneuverable organization (Worley &
Lawler, 2006), CE must find ways to reward those who adapt, rather than punish those who
resist. This can come in the form of bonuses, promotions, or even simple acknowledgement
(Worley & Lawler, 2006). By cultivating an environment that rewards excellence in change and
adaptation, CE and its employees may find ways to overcome many of the aforementioned
learning disabilities, including I Am My Position, because employees will become empowered
by action and adoption rather than their title. Furthermore, employees will begin to minimize
The Fixation on Events, as employees will begin understanding that many events occur long
before an issue truly arises in most cases, as well as The Enemy is Out There, because
employees will be less motivated to point fingers, and more motivated by rewards to find and
adapt to solutions (Senge, 2006).
These recommendations should be valuable tools in overcoming the resistance that still
exists within the organization, with regards to the centralization change effort. While the primary
goals have been acquired, there is mounting evidence that resistance and even disappointment
and animosity could become major detriments to CE in the short and long-term. Payne pointed
out that one of the major hurdles for the organization was to think of ourselves not as 30 plus
independent organizations, but as one (personal communication, November 30, 2012). By
following these recommendations, CE should be able to mend fences, align strategy, and make
centralization a resounding success.
Page 2

17
References
Beer, M. (2007). Leading change. HBS No. 488-037. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.
Caesars Entertainment (2012). Company Information. Retrieved from
http://www.caesars.com/corporate/.
Hanneman, R., and Riddle, M. (2005) Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA:
University of California, Riverside.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. New York,
NY: Crown Publishing.
Hiatt, J. M. (2006). The ADKAR model. In ADKAR: A model for change in business,
government and our community: how to implement successful change in our personal
lives and professional careers (pp. 43-62). Loveland, CO: Prosci Research.
Kim, W.C., & Maubogne, R. (2004). Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 7684. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.
Kotter, J.P., & Rathgeber, H. (2006). Our iceberg is melting: Changing and succeeding under
any conditions. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Levin, D.Z., and Cross, R. (2004) The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of
trust in effective knowledge transfer, Management Science, 50, 1477-1490.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). Fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Publishing.
Page 2

18
Moore, K., & Lenir, P. (2011, June 21). Mintzbergs better way to do corporate
strategy. Forbes.com.
Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why some people have it and others dont. New York, NY:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Porter, M. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review,
86(1), 78-93. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Currency/Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth disciple
fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York:
Currency/Doubleday.
Worley, C. G. & Lawler, E. E. III. (2006). Designing organizations that are built to change. MIT
Sloan Management Review.
Page 2

19
Appendix A: Letter of Agreement

Tariq Shaukat, Chief Marketing Officer
Caesars Entertainment
Caesars Palace
3570 Las Vegas Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Dear Mr. Shaukat,
As a graduate student of the USC Annenberg School for Communication, I have
established myself as a research consultant with a focus on organizational change
communication. I am writing you to express interest in engaging a short-term
partnership with Caesars Entertainment that would allow me (Stuart Haack) to
study the communication and transition of your organization from a decentralized
marketing structure to a centralized one. I chose Caesars Entertainment for its
central role in the gaming, entertainment and hospitality industry as the worlds
largest gaming company.
My primary concentration will be on Caesars Entertainments transition from
granting marketing and advertising authority at the widely dispersed property level
to a centralized corporate strategy. Within the established partnership between your
organization and myself, I propose to achieve the following objectives:
Assess the reasoning behind Caesars Entertainments shift from a

decentralized to a centralized marketing structure
Understand the cost measures and savings that have and will continue to
take place within this shift
Review the manner in which this marketing transition was communicated
between Caesars Entertainments centralized (corporate) management and
property marketing management
Understand the methodological steps that took place and are still taking
place to complete the transition
Prepare and present management with a report of findings and
recommendations, including an outline of communication missteps which
may have led to property-level resistance
Approach
After a brief meeting to ensure all participating members are in agreement with
regards to the scope of this research project, the following will be executed by the
student researcher:
Review Caesars Entertainment Corporations preliminary strategy behind the

transition to a centralized marketing approach
Page 2

20
Review all emails, letters, and other forms of communication which were used
to inform employees of the transition
Hold brief 15-20 minute interviews with the President of Enterprise Shared
Services, the Brand Director, and the Human Resource Manager to further
understand how this shift was implemented
Attain brief surveys from a random selection of property-level marketing
managers in the Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Tunica, Lake Tahoe, Chicago and
San Diego regions (one from each region)
Assess the projected and actual metrics and financials behind the decisions
to shift marketing strategies
Discuss factors that may cause difficulties for Caesars Entertainment in their
shift from a decentralized marketing approach to a centralized one, including:
o Shifts in marketing power and decision making at the property level
o Property-level understanding of the reasoning behind the transition
o Opportunity to be heard in the decision making process
Study Plan and Cost

There is no charge for consulting and research services to Caesars Entertainment.
The purpose of this study is to understand how a major shift in marketing process
and decision making is communicated and implemented across a major
international corporation, and how I, as a student, can help an organization such as
Caesars Entertainment facilitate communication and implementation of such
changes. I expect this communication and process consultation to be beneficial to
all parties involved, and will provide meaningful opportunity to improve on current
and future transitions such as the one that is currently taking place. All findings and
recommendations are for academic use, and will not be released to the public.
Furthermore, all surveyed and interviewed parties will be kept strictly anonymous.
Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation, and I look forward to working
with Caesars Entertainment on this consulting project. Should you have any
questions and/or concerns, please feel free to contact me via the information
provided below.
Sincerely,
Stuart Haack
__October 10, 2012___
SHaack@usc.edu
Date
____Tariq Shaukat______
Client Signature
858.245.3472
Page 2

21
Appendix B: Centralization Process PowerPoint Presentation
Page 2

22
Page 2

23
Page 2

24
Page 2

25
Page 2

26
Page 2

27
Page 2

28
Page 2

29
Appendix C: Survey Results

Respondent A
Page 2

30
Page 2

31
Respondent B
Page 2

32
Page 2

33
Respondent C
Page 2

34
Page 2

35
Respondent D
Page 2

36
Page 2

37
Page 2

Organizational Centralization Change Case

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Organizational Centralization Change Case

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Centralization of Marketing: A Change Case at Caesars Entertainment

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

a lack of synchronous management within casino marketing purchasing decisions. As Payne

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Appendix A: Letter of Agreement

Assess the reasoning behind Caesars Entertainments shift from a

Review Caesars Entertainment Corporations preliminary strategy behind the

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Study Plan and Cost

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Appendix B: Centralization Process PowerPoint Presentation

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE

Haack & Company Consulting

CENTRALIZATION OF MARKETING: A CHANGE CASE