| Course | GB570 Managing the Value Chain |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Seminar reflection |
| Length | About 790 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB570 Unit 6
The Channel Nobody Chose: A Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on Resellers and an Olive Oil Brand
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB570: Managing the Value Chain
Unit 6 Seminar Reflection
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The company, the marketplace figures and the reviews are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Where I Started
Before the seminar, I thought the resellers were a nuisance with a simple fix. Alder Quay, the composite olive oil brand I have followed since Unit 1, sells through grocery chains and its own website. Third-party sellers on a large online marketplace were listing its 500 ml bottle at $13.49 against its own $17.99, and I assumed a firmly worded minimum advertised price policy, enforced by cutting off any distributor whose stock appeared below that price, would end the problem. Price was the harm, and price policy was the cure. Israeli et al. (2016) found that such policies are widely violated online, but I took that as an argument for enforcement, not for a different approach.
What the Session Surfaced
Our instructor asked each of us to list what the firm actually knew about its marketplace sales. When I tried to answer for Alder Quay, I found four facts that did not fit my starting view.
Where the bottles came from. Most of the reseller stock traced back to two sources: twin packs sold to a warehouse club at about $11 a bottle, and short-dated stock that Alder Quay had sold to a liquidator each spring to clear its warehouse.
How old the oil was. Several listings showed bottles with harvest dates twenty months old. Olive oil stored in light and heat loses its fresh taste and can turn rancid well before its best-by date, and Frankel et al. (2010) found that oxidation from age and poor storage was one reason many imported oils sold in California failed the extra virgin standard.
What the reviews said. Of the 340 marketplace reviews posted in the past year, 96 described the oil as stale, rancid or tasting of crayons, and the brand's rating had fallen from 4.6 to 3.8 stars.
Who carried the damage. Every one of those reviews sat on the brand's listing. None named the reseller.
How My View Shifted
The fact that unsettled me most was simple: nobody at Alder Quay had ever decided to sell on the marketplace. The marketplace had become the place where many new customers first met the product, through the club packs and the liquidator stock, without anyone in the company choosing it. Rosenbloom (2013) defines a marketing channel as the set of firms a company deliberately organizes to reach its final customers. By that definition, Alder Quay's largest online channel was not a channel at all. It was a leak.
Once I saw it that way, my pricing fix looked narrow. The firm had lost control of three things on the marketplace: the price, the condition of the oil on arrival and the review record. A minimum advertised price policy reaches only the first, and only for sellers who bought from authorized distributors. It does nothing about a twenty-month-old bottle that sat in a hot warehouse, and nothing about the reviews that bottle produces.
A pricing policy can stop a reseller from undercutting the brand; it cannot stop a stale bottle from writing the brand's reviews.
My Revised Position
I now think Alder Quay should treat the marketplace as a channel it runs, not a problem it polices. That means three changes. First, the company should become the authorized seller on its own listing and enroll its brand in the marketplace's brand program, so it controls the product page and can report sellers offering old or damaged stock. Second, it should stop selling short-dated stock to liquidators and instead sell it to its restaurant accounts, which use oil quickly, at a discount. Third, it should limit warehouse club packs to the fall and winter, when fresh-harvest oil is shipped and the stock turns over before summer heat.
What It Costs and What Would Change My Mind
These changes are not free. The liquidator sales recover about $86,000 a year that restaurant sales might not fully replace, and the club account would buy fewer packs. Running a marketplace storefront also takes staff time and fees. I accept those costs because the rating drop is visible to every shopper who searches for the brand, not only to marketplace buyers.
I would return to my original view if the brand's own marketplace listing, once controlled, still drew stale-oil reviews at the same rate. That would suggest the problem lies in Alder Quay's storage or distribution, not in the resellers, and it would send me back to the warehouse before the marketplace.
References
Frankel, E. N., Mailer, R. J., Shoemaker, C. F., Wang, S. C., & Flynn, J. D. (2010). Tests indicate that imported "extra virgin" olive oil often fails international and USDA standards. UC Davis Olive Center.
Israeli, A., Anderson, E. T., & Coughlan, A. T. (2016). Minimum advertised pricing: Patterns of violation in competitive retail markets. Marketing Science, 35(4), 539-564. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0933
Rosenbloom, B. (2013). Marketing channels: A management view (8th ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.
The Purdue Global GB570 Unit 6 instructions
The Unit 6 GB570 reflection asks you to record how a seminar discussion changed, or tested, your thinking. Open on the view you brought into the seminar, stated fairly enough that a reader can see why you held it. Then describe what the discussion surfaced that challenged it, using specific facts rather than general impressions. Explain step by step how your view shifted, linking the shift to the course concepts or readings. State your revised position and what it would cost the firm to act on it. Close with the evidence that would send you back to your original view. Write in first person and keep the focus on reasoning, not on how the session felt. Two to three pages with one or two APA 7 sources is typical.
How this GB570 Unit 6 example is built
The reflection begins with the writer's original view, that a pricing policy would end reseller discounting, and cites Israeli and colleagues on how widely such policies are violated online. A section then lists four facts the writer found when asked what the firm knew: where reseller stock came from, how old it was, what 340 reviews said and whose listing carried them. Frankel and colleagues' findings on oxidized imported oil support the second. The shift turns on Rosenbloom's definition of a channel as something a firm organizes, which the marketplace was not, and the highlighted line separates price control from quality control. A revised position with three changes follows, then their cost, about $86,000 of liquidator revenue, and a reversal test.
Reading the GB570 Unit 6 grading rubric
Points in this GB570 seminar reflection go to visible reasoning. A starting position stated in good faith earns credit, because the change that follows has to be measured against something real. Specific facts from the session, each tied to a source or a figure, carry more weight than general statements that the discussion was helpful. The explanation of how the view shifted is the core of the rubric, and linking that shift to a course concept shows learning rather than persuasion. A revised position concrete enough to act on, with its cost acknowledged, demonstrates managerial judgment. Naming what would reverse the new view shows the writer holds it on evidence. First-person clarity, organization and clean APA 7 citations round off the reflection.
Common GB570 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Some Unit 6 GB570 reflections summarize the seminar instead of reflecting on it, so the instructor learns what was said but not what changed. Others open with a weak version of the original view, which makes the shift look easy and earns less credit. Feelings about the session are often given more space than the reasoning behind the change. A frequent gap is a revised position stated as a principle with no actions or costs attached. Many papers also end without saying what evidence would change the writer's mind again. State your starting view at its strongest, list the facts that challenged it, trace the shift through a course concept, make the new position concrete and close with a reversal test. Our writers can draft a free custom reflection on your own session.
Get a GB570 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Live session or written alternative: note which applies, attach the reflection instructions and rubric for Unit 6, and describe the case your seminar discussed if you remember it. The first custom sample comes free within 24-48h, voiced in first person and built on a composite firm unless your prompt assigns a real one. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB570 papers and MBA samples
- GB570 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB570 Unit 2: Value Chain Map
- GB570 Unit 3: Margin Analysis
- GB570 Unit 4: Make or Buy Analysis
- GB570 Unit 5: Supplier Dependence Review
- GB570 Unit 7: Integration Case Analysis
- GB570 Unit 8: Traceability Audit
- GB570 Unit 9: Chain Redesign Proposal
- GB570 Unit 10: Value Chain Report
- GB560 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB550 Unit 6: Cost of Capital Estimate
- GB546 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB545 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
GB570 Unit 6 questions, answered
What if I missed the live seminar?
A written alternative is common, and its prompt usually asks you to engage the same case or question the session covered. Even then, the piece can record a shift: your first reaction to the case, then what the assigned reading or recording made you reconsider. Your section's announcements say which option applies and what the alternative asks for.
How personal should it be?
Personal about your reasoning, not your biography. The grader wants to see what you believed, what challenged it and where you landed, with the business logic visible at each step. Feelings about the session matter only where they explain a shift in judgment. Written this way, the piece reads as analysis in first person, which is what most rubrics describe.
Where can I find a free GB570 Unit 6 sample paper?
This page holds a complete GB570 Unit 6 seminar reflection on a composite olive oil brand that lost control of its marketplace listing, moving from a pricing fix to a channel the firm runs, with costs and a reversal test.
Can the reflection disagree with what the seminar concluded?
Yes. The rubric rewards reasoning, so a reflection that weighs the session's view and keeps its own position, with clear reasons, can earn full points. Say what you considered and why it did not change your mind.
Do I need sources in a first-person reflection?
Usually one or two. Cite them where they support a specific claim in your reasoning, such as how products degrade in storage or how pricing policies are enforced, rather than adding them at the end.