Gordon Biersch Case Questions: 1. Identify the key factors responsible for the success of Gordon Biersch to date. What concerns, if any, do you have as the company looks ahead? 2. Evaluate Gordon Biersch’s organizational alternatives to realize its growth ambitions. Recommend a course to follow? 3. Evaluate Gordon Biersch’s efforts to raise outside capital. What would you have done differently? 4. Which offer, if any, should Gordon Biersch accept? Why? How should they proceed? 5. Assume for discussion purposes that Lorenzo Fertitta’s proposal is the preferred option.
What are the key issues for Gordon and Biersch to negotiate?
What positions should they take on each one? Table Of Content: Case Summary Critical Issues Critical Analytic Tools Recommendation Answers to Case Questions Bibliography Case Summary The masterminds behind Gordon Biersch were two individuals, Dan Gordon; a qualified brewing engineer from the esteemed University of Munich, Germany, and Dean Biersch; who had a passion for food service and a vast experience in the food and beverage sector.
Their unique idea of a microbrewery and fine dining restaurant stemmed from a law amendment of California in 1983 which allowed brewing and serving of beer in the same locale.
They envisioned the concept of providing high quality fine dining with outstanding service in an attractive ambiance featuring exceptional German-style lagers in on-site breweries. Their target market was the fairly sophisticated, yet not so young natives of Palo Alto as well as the Stanford University faculty, staff and graduate student body. Their unique idea came to realization in July 1988 after rigorously detailed planning pertaining to atmosphere, food selection and German-style brewery.
The capital was raised by the contribution of five investors, (Dean’s family friend Carrau being the largest investor) and a line of credit of for the remaining 36%. They selected a strategically fit location two blocks from CA’s University Avenue, a busy street amidst restaurants, stores and movie theatres. The restaurant was uniquely designed to accommodate the dining area as well as the visible brewery behind glass windows. The first restaurant became an immediate success and the first year they over achieved their estimated $1. 5 m sales by 47% and topped $2. m. The following years proved to be even more successful and they paid back their loan of $400,000 in six months. Gordon Biersch served three exclusive beers and employed the strategy to serve only those three brands (which were rightly priced) and no other brand of beer which proved to be very successful. These exclusive beer brands were what created Gordon Biersch’s distinct identity from the rest of the brewpubs/restaurants. They strongly believed in establishing return patronage through excellent service and a great dining experience to its core clientele.
Gordon Biersch also offered souvenir beer steins and T-shirts for their customers. They employed a subtle yet effective marketing strategy of concentrating on public relations and customer referrals (buzz marketing / word of mouth marketing). This not only proved to be a successful strategy but also economical for them. The excellent service offered to the customers ensured positive word of mouth and referrals to friends, family and co-workers. The public relations was focused at relevant events like sponsorship of charity events, participation at local beer festivals, supplying free beer at Stanford parties, etc.
In 1990 Gordon Biersch opened their second location in San Jose which was a bigger space with a second floor and had 60% extra capacity in the brewery. They added new items on the menu and also had live jazz music six months per year. Although there were a few issues with city regulations, they still managed to achieve twice the budgeted sales amounting to $3. 1 m. In 1992 Gordon Biersch opened the third three-level restaurant in South Bay in San Francisco under competitive environment which also became an immediate success despite being open for eight months for the first fiscal year it managed to generate sales of $3. m. The fourth site was Pasadena in 1993 which was more challenging due to its further location and was not an immediate success. Gordon Biersch attributed the sluggish start of this site to the low visibility of the location. However, this did not stop them from moving forward and in November 1994 Gordon Biersch opened in Honolulu which quickly became the top-grossing restaurant in Hawaii. The next project was bottling Gordon Biersch signature beer and retailing it.
This had three biggest challenges: this project was entirely Gordon’s baby and demanded time and attention; secondly the freshness of the bottled beer versus the freshly brewed was an issue for which they decided the beer would have a shelf life no longer than three months. Thirdly and the most exciting challenge was the head-to-head competition with other microbreweries and premium beers. Despite the tough competitive environment, Gordon Biersch aimed to achieve 11% of the market in three years (by 1996). This retail venture required huge investment, thus they decided to start small to prove to the investors that they could pull it off.
Gordon Biersch had extensive growth plans of opening over 100 restaurants across the nation with in 8 to 10 years. However, the growth they envisioned demanded a lot of time, dedication and expertise. They debated upon three different organizational approaches (1) maintain status quo where Gordon would manage the retail and restaurant breweries like before and Biersch would manage everything to do with the restaurant which proved to be successful so far (2) build out a management team which would take time (as well as delay their growth strategy by six months) and result in increased overhead costs.
However, with the infrastructure in place, they would be well equipped with the extensive growth plan and Gordon and Biersch will be able to focus on their respective strengths although they were skeptical whether the new team will be able to maintain the culture they had so strenuously built (3) take a hybrid version of the former two approaches which will ensure a smaller increase in overhead costs as well as aid the growth plan they had envisioned and help maintain the current culture.
Critical Issues Angel investor vs. Venture capitalists offers: Main differences| Business Angels| Venture Capitalists| Personal| Entrepreneurs| Investors| Firms funded| Small, early stage| Large, mature| Due Diligence done| Minimal| Extensive| Location of investment| Of concern| Not important| Contract used| Simple| Comprehensive| Monitoring after investment| Active, hand on| Strategic| Exiting the firm| Of lesser concern| Highly important| Rate of return| Of lesser concern| Highly important|
Choosing between an angel investor or a venture capitalists: Since Venture Capitalists main motivation is ‘ROISAP’ (return on investment soon as possible) Venture Capitalists will always have an almost manic desire to flip every deal they do as quickly as possible. And they will not care where that return comes from as long as they are able to receive a massive bonus for the risk and skill that they have invested. Whereas business angel investor that is interested in the line of work you are involved in, as they will either take an equity position and some level of debt (or typically a combination of the two) in exchange for their investment.
They will also take a seat on your board of directors, which they will use as a platform to monitor their investment and to provide invaluable advice and mentoring. Sometimes they can actually take an active role in the organization and get it kick started into high gear, which is where the real value of their investment can come into play. Additionally seeking to raise capital investment from Venture capitalists may seem like a romantic notion from a distance but if you are an entrepreneur with a real passion for your product and are seeking to drive your company orward in new pioneering ways then Venture Capital may not be for you unless you have already been successful with your product or service in the marketplace, in this case since Gordon Biersch had already been successful with their product in the marketplace and were seeking to drive the company forward with their new pioneering ways of funding their beer by bottling for retail distribution, the venture capital seems appropriate.
The main difference between a business angel and a venture capitalist is that venture capital funding will come with legal agreements that will inevitably always be Venture capitalist biased with terms that almost seem utterly unfair and unjust, whereas, Angel investment will be far more flexible and tailored to both sides. It’s not uncommon for some Angels to even shy away from using corporate solicitors when drafting agreements for funding.
Most venture capital firms offer new startups access to knowledgeable and experienced consultants to help guide the business. Since Venture Capitalists have a vested interest in the company’s success, they’ll want them to have the best business and management help you can get, thus taking a more strategic approach rather than an angel investor who would want an active role in the control of the company. Recommendation Gordon and Biersch is a progressive business with a few issues to be considered.
Since they have been subtle with the marketing and promotion which seemed to have worked so far, it is suggested that employ the use of social marketing media such as facebook and twitter, to maintain the low marketing costs as well as to spread the word faster since viral marketing seems to be the way of marketing today. With the extensive growth plan that they have envisioned, the most appropriate organizational structure that they should opt for is to build out a management team with prior experience of working in the food and beverage industry as well as the capability of executing a similar expansion lan like Gordon and Biersch had in mind. The idea of maintaining the status quo even though it has seemed to work so far will not be feasible as the expansion plan would mean many added responsibilities for Gordon and Biersch who may not be able to respond quickly and may result in delayed decision making thus compromising on the expansion plan. The third approach may seem safer; it has its ambiguities as far as the partial team is concerned. It poses a difficult scenario of defining which resources are more important and requires the management team.
Apart from that this approach will be a slow transition, while the expansion plan that Gordon Biersch has envisioned is quite a huge venture. Such a huge venture demands a well-defined formal structure which would ensure that the broad-based management team will handle various types of business situations that may arise in such a large proposition. It will be a costlier and a time consuming option to hand pick the top notch talent for the jobs with the relevant experience and will delay the expansion plan by a few months.
However, it is recommended to have an experienced team on board that can understand the business needs and cater positively to the growth ambition. This would mean a smooth flow of operations with fewer problems as the experienced management team will be well equipped to handle such expansion plans in the respective industry. As far as the culture is concerned that can be transmitted through the formal statements of philosophy, values, charter and credo that Gordon and Biersch would draft.
The option of maintaining the operations of your dream project may be attractive but it is wise that an organization may need to consider changing the organizational structure depending on the growth and expansion of business operations. Gordon and Biersch will still have control over the business and its decisions all they need to do is delegate a few operational responsibilities to the management team that they will hire. They would both then be able to concentrate on their respective strengths which they are so looking forward to doing.
As far as the financing is concerned, the venture capital seems the most appropriate option where Gordon and Biersch will still maintain control over the business and will not upset the balance of the current shareholders. By implementing the recommended organizational structure Gordon and Biersch will just have to delegate the operational activities to the management team and still maintain the control in the business. Opting for the angel investor would mean upsetting the current balance of the shareholders as well as losing control over the business which in any way is not ideal.
Gordon and Biersch have so painstakingly built this business and would not want to give up the decision making rights at this crucial point when their venture has become a dream project. The angel investor, apart from demanding control would also try to do things his way thus disturbing the culture that Gordon and Biersch are so keen to maintain. Therefore, it is highly recommended that Gordon and Biersch opt for the venture capital as it seems to be a wiser option where they will be able to maintain control over the business as well as be able to preserve the culture of the organization.
Answers to Case Questions 1. Identify the key factors responsible for the success of Gordon Biersch to date. What concerns, if any, do you have as the company looks ahead? There were numerous factors and strategies that Gordon Biersch undertook that contributed to their success: * Unique business idea carving a niche in the food and beverage industry: Firstly, the concept of fine dining combined with a German-style brewery was a unique business idea in itself that attracted the sophisticated and yet not-so-young target market.
The menu was carefully crafted with fine Californian cuisine offering elaborate salads, entrees, and decadent desserts. Apart from this, the strategic location of this restaurant – a busy street two blocks from Palo Alto, CA’s University Avenue amidst restaurants, stores and movie theaters was the perfect setting. Such a unique concept demanded a distinctive restaurant design and setup which they provided through the open and spacious dining area that was not totally segregated from the brewery. The entire brewery was visible to the customers through glass windows, creating another attraction at the restaurant.
The food and beer on the menu were rightly priced keeping the target market in mind. * Exclusive Gordon Biersch beer brands: Like everything else, the brewery was also uniquely set up serving three exclusive, premium and very high quality Gordon Biersch beer brands; Export, Marzen and Dunkles. The strategy devised to serve only those three brands and no other brand of beer proved to be very successful. These exclusive beer brands were what created Gordon Biersch’s distinct identity from the rest of the brewpubs/restaurants.
During their research in finding a location for the second restaurant, Gordon Biersch learnt that the failure of other microbrewery/restaurant was the fact that they served other beer than those brewed on the premises. Another factor that attributed to their failure was the high-priced menu. * Proficient customer service and image building practices: Gordon Biersch believed in providing dexterous service to its customers. They realized that customers are the reason for existence of their business, thus they need to provide excellent service that would establish return patronage.
Their beer, apart from being exclusive was also rightly priced which was another acceptability factor. Apart from this, they recognized their biggest regular drinkers with a personalized beer stein and a polished wooden locker. Souvenir beer steins and T-shirts were also on their customers. Such practices show that the customers are valued and so is their business. The personalized beer steins not only made the customers feel special but created brand loyalty as well. Another measure of their success was the low employee turnover as compared to the average in the food and beverage industry.
This not only meant that Gordon Biersch was an ideal working place but also saved up on the unnecessary cost and time on hiring and training new staff. * Marketing strategy: Gordon Biersch employed a subtle yet effective marketing strategy. They concentrated on public relations and customer referrals (buzz marketing / word of mouth marketing). This not only proved to be a successful strategy but also economical for them. The excellent service offered to the customers ensured positive word of mouth and referrals to friends, family and co-workers.
The public relations was focused at relevant events like sponsorship of charity events, participation at local beer festivals, supplying free beer at Stanford parties, and participation at local alcohol safety campaigns. * The perfect partnership and the culture: Dan Gordon and Dean Biersch were the perfect duo where both had their own areas of expertise and ensured that they remained in their territory. Gordon was the beer “guru” and was responsible for corporate administration; Biersch, on the other hand was in charge of restaurant management.
Even though they shared the conception of their great idea they both realized that successful teamwork meant giving each other space in their own area of expertise and thus they adopted a decentralization approach making it a positive business relationship. * Steady but successful expansion – learning from mistakes: The road to expansion was steady with the first restaurant opening in 1988 (Palo Alto) and followed by the San Jose location in 1990 and the South Bay location in 1992. All three locations proved successful and yielded profits over budgeted sales.
The fourth location was Pasadena in 1993 followed by Honolulu (Hawaii) in 1994. Gordon Biersch witnessed various challenges which they tactfully handled, however, they also learned from their mistakes like the not-so-visible location of Pasadena that was not an immediate success unlike the rest of the locations. * Successfully establishing return patronage: Gordon Biersch strongly believed that developing a core clientele meant they had only one chance to impress the customer and thus established excellent service and experience to their patrons.
By 1991, Gordon Biersch’s San Jose location ranked as the first largest and Palo Alto location ranked as the fourth largest brewery/restaurant in United States with an estimated 45,000 patrons entering Gordon Biersch in those two locations each month. They were also ranked as the best brewery restaurant in the esteemed Focus Magazine and one of the top 100 restaurants in California by the California Magazine. 2. Evaluate Gordon Biersch’s organizational alternatives to realize its growth ambitions. Recommend a course to follow?
Gordon Biersch envisioned extensive expansion plans after the five successful locations by 1995. They targeted two restaurants by 1996, another four by 1997, and a total of twenty-two breweries by 1999. They aimed for over 100 restaurants across the nation in the next 8 to 10 years. However, they knew that such expansion plans would require some organizational changes and additional resources. They were very concerned about the culture they had created as they believed it was the key component of their success and they were keen on maintaining it.
With all of the above in mind, Gordon Biersch debated three organizational alternatives to realize its growth ambitions: a. Maintain Status Quo: This approach meant that Gordon and Biersch were to assume the same roles they have had so far where Gordon would manage the retail and restaurant breweries like before, supervising retail beer sales force, selecting new restaurant locations, negotiating real estate lease, overseeing restaurant brewery construction, developing the business plan and arranging financing.
On the other hand Dean Biersch would manage the restaurant operations, design new restaurants and, with Dan, select new sites for restaurants. This approach had so far proved to be a successful working relationship where they could preserve the culture they had built for the organization and save up on overhead costs. However, the kind of expansion they had in mind would require immense dedication and time. Their responsibilities as owners for making every decision in the company may require more time to accomplish these tasks which may actually result in sluggish business operations.
Dan Gordon had a whole lot more to look after and as the owner and the conceptualizer of the project, he definitely needed to work on the strategic end and develop the plan rather than carry out the day-to-day operations for the retail and restaurant breweries. b. Build a Management Team: Build out a management team with prior experience of working in the food and beverage industry as well as the capability of executing a similar expansion plan like Gordon and Biersch had in mind.
Implementing such an organizational structure would mean a time consuming exercise of hand picking the top notch talent from the industry with the relevant experience and expertise. It would also mean a delay in the growth plan by six months if they plan to put this structure in place and an increase in the overhead costs and resources that would be employed to attain this organizational structure. Gordon and Biersch were skeptical about how the culture they had so keenly built would be maintained or not with the new team coming in.
However, with the kind of vision they had in mind, such a structure would definitely be in favor of the company. Their extensive expansion plans definitely called for a more organized approach which would be extremely efficient regarding various business decisions in their respective areas (given their expertise and knowledge) and fewer problems arising in such a huge venture. This would allow Gordon and Biersch to develop company’s mission and vision, and set objectives for managers and employees to follow when achieving these goals.
The broad-based management team will help to ensure the company has knowledgeable managers to handle various types of business situations. As far as the issue of maintaining the culture is concerned that can be translated through broad guidelines which are rooted in organizational practices learned on the job. When a management team is put in place, it needs to understand the company and formal statements of philosophy, values, charter and credo serve that purpose.
Thus, Gordon and Biersch can also apply the same approach to preserve the culture of the company while they both can then concentrate on their respective strengths which they are so looking forward to doing. c. Hybrid Approach: The third option is a hybrid approach through which they would bring in only part of a management team to fill some crucial holes and thus a smaller increase in overhead costs and resources employed. This would not only aid in their growth plan to realize rapidly and allow them to increase the management team as the growth demanded.
This also meant that their current culture would be preserved to an extent. However, they were not sure which resources should they acquire for them to transition to this new organizational structure. Recommended Approach: Even though the third approach may seem safer, it has its ambiguities as far as the partial team is concerned. It poses a difficult scenario of defining which resources are more important and requires the management team. Apart from that this approach will be a slow transition, while the expansion plan that Gordon Biersch has envisioned is quite a huge venture.
Such a huge venture demands a well-defined formal structure which would ensure that the broad-based management team will handle various types of business situations that may arise in such a large proposition. Yes, it will be a costlier option as well as a time consuming task to get the right personnel for the jobs and will delay the expansion plan by a few months, but it is imperative to have an experienced team on board that can understand the business needs and cater positively to the growth ambition.
This would mean a smooth flow of operations with fewer problems as the experienced management team will be well equipped to handle such expansion plans in the respective industry. As far as the culture is concerned that can be transmitted through the formal statements of philosophy, values, charter and credo that Gordon and Biersch would draft. They would both then be able to concentrate on their respective strengths which they are so looking forward to doing.
The option of maintaining the operations of your dream project may be attractive but it is wise that an organization may need to consider changing the organizational structure depending on the growth and expansion of business operations. 3. Evaluate Gordon Biersch’s efforts to raise outside capital. What would you have done differently? Gordon Biersch only chose the route with investment banks, after meeting with six investment banks they chose Robertson, Stephens & Co because they offered the highest prices of all the banks.
Unexpectedly after their meeting with Frank Fertitta, they had the opportunity of meeting Lorenzo Fertitta Frank’s brother who also stated his interest in Gordon Biersch as an angel investor. What would we have done differently in efforts to raise outside capital, we would have suggested Gordon Biersch to try to expand their search for investors not only to investment banks and angel investors but to Finance companies and Factors as well as Trade Credit business types.
Also meet with more than six investments banks and shared each proposal with their competitors in attempts to draft the best negotiable deal possible with the largest sum they could get, and the least clauses that would directly affect Dan and Dean in the future of Gordon Biersch. 4. Which offer, if any, should Gordon Biersch accept? Why? How should they proceed? Option 1 Robertson, Stephens & Co. / Weston Presidio Venture Capital. Bank offer: 11. 2 million at a 42 million post money valuation. The allocation of the money: * 1. million would be used to re-purchase some of the stock from Dan Gordon, Dean Biersch and the largest shareholder on Gordon Biersch Robert Carrau. Dan and Dean each would be paid a few hundred and would hold approximately 16% shares after the capital infusion and stock buy back. * 9. 7 million would be used to pay the bankers fees and fund the expected growth (building and equipment for the company new offsite brewery and bottling facility and to open new restaurants) Initial Robertson, Stephens & Co allocation of 11. 2 million offer | | Investors| Amount|
Weston Presidio Venture Capital| 4 million| 3 other investors| 5 Million| Robertson & Stephens private equity group| 2 million| Total| 11 million| After the deadline date passed and the deal was not finalized, Robertson and Stephens private equity group was asking for a lower valuation of Gordon Biersch. However they were informed that there were 3 other investors from the original 10 investors who were on standby and are willing to invest the remaining 2 million, which Robertson & Stephens private equity group intended to fund.
The Robertson & Stephens bankers were highly confident that the equity would be raised in the next four to eight weeks. Even though Robertson & Stephens Co had the highest prices out of all the six banks that met with, Dan and Dean felt that this bank had every incentive to succeed. Also they were impressed with Weston Presidio’s experience as a venture capitalist with brewing and distributing. Option 2 Lorenzo Fertitta. Lorenzo’s offer: Full investment of the $11. 2 million at the 42 million post-money valuations.
Lorenzo made a decision fast and was willing to invest immediately. Under the Fertittas’ management of Stations Casinos their experienced significant employment growth and was able to expand into three states, because they know how to develop a corporate infrastructure to enable a company to expand into a national operation. Ferittas’ had great experience and understanding of the restaurant and leisure/entertainment industry and would offer a lot of help in building Gordon Biersch and taking them public.
The deal comprised of Lorenzo Fertitta controlling the interest in the company, by buying the remainder 23% needed for majority control for $7 million at the same pre-money valuation. Lorenzo expectations were the venture returns and planned to take a more active oversight role in the company and proposed that the 7 million investments would not go into the company but instead be used to buy the shares of the existing stockholders, Gordon and Biersch would liquidate their holding as per their original agreement with Robertson & Stephens proposals.
However Lorenzo wanted the original investors (family and friends of Gordon who lived in Germany) in Gordon Biersch to sell some of their shares, where as Gordon and Biersch knew that their family would not mind selling their shares but everyone else would be reluctant to sell. Gordon Biersch should accept option 1 the Robertson, Stephens & Co. / Weston Presidio Venture Capital, simply because of the differences between a business angel (Lorenzo Fertitta) and venture capitalists (Robertson, Stephens & Co. Weston Presidio Venture capital) Main differences between Business Angels and Venture Capitalists Main differences| Business Angels| Venture Capitalists| Personal| Entrepreneurs| Investors| Firms funded| Small, early stage| Large, mature| Due Diligence done| Minimal| Extensive| Location of investment| Of concern| Not important| Contract used| Simple| Comprehensive| Monitoring after investment| Active, hand on| Strategic| Exiting the firm| Of lesser concern| Highly important|
Rate of return| Of lesser concern| Highly important| Noting the differences between an angel and the venture capitalists Gordon Biersch is a matured large business seeking to go public is the first reason why they should accept the venture capitalist approach because of the firms funding because they could possibly get more money from the lined up potential investors, as well as the monitoring after investment. Robertson, Stephens & Co. Weston Presidio Venture Capital did not directly state preference to control the business and the degree to which things would change for Dan and Dean, unlike Lorenzo who stated he would buy the majority of shares to have a more active oversight role of control in Gordon Biersch. Additionally evaluating Weston Presidio and Lorenzo Fertitta experiences in the related field, Weston Presidio have direct experience in the brewing and distributing field where as Lorenzo have the experience of nderstanding of the restaurant and leisure/entertainment, and the knowledge of taking a company public, even thou Lorenzo knowledge may prove to be beneficial it is not as valuable as Weston Presidio direct experience with brewing and distributing. Another reason to choose option 1 is because Dean and Dan felt that the bank had every incentive to succeed which Dan and Dean shared the same passion for.
Even thou the business angel investor maybe interested in the line of work Gordon and Biersch and may possibly take an equity position and some level of debt (or typically a combination of the two) in exchange for their investment. Lastly in this case since Gordon Biersch had already been successful with their product in the marketplace and was seeking to drive the company forward with their new pioneering ways of funding their beer by bottling for retail distribution, the venture capital seems appropriate.
Dan and Dean should contact Robertson, Stephens & Co. / Weston Presidio Venture Capital and redraft their proposal letting them know of Lorenzo’s interest to invest, which may stimulate some wiggle room for Gordon Biersch to negotiate some of the terms as well as the amount being funded and the payback methods and timing, then proceed to sign the deal with option 1 Robertson, Stephens & Co. Weston Presidio Venture Capital, but after adjusting some of the deal terms such as not liquidating the numbers of shares they each own so they would continue to be committed to the company’s success, however they could issue new shares and selling those or buying the shares back from the Dan Gordon’s family and friends who would not mind selling their shares. 5. Assume for discussion purposes that Lorenzo Fertitta’s proposal is the preferred option. What are the key issues for Gordon and Biersch to negotiate? What positions should they take on each one?
The key issues Gordon and Biersch would need to negotiate with Lorenzo would be the buying back the shares from everyone else (previous investors) who would still want to be apart of Gordon and Biersch and would be reluctant to sell, however the position they should take is liquidating their others shares into identical portions, rather than a complete buy over from them. Another key issue for Gordon and Biersch would need to negotiate with Lorenzo would be the degree to which their (Dan and Dean) roles and responsibilities would change as Gordon Biersch continues to grow with the addition of Lorenzo controlling interest in the company.
They should suggest a redraft of the proposal to repurchase the some of shares from Robert Carrau leaving him as the largest shareholder this would place some structure and except biasness in controlling the interest of the company. Bibliography * Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Entrepreneurship: theory, process, practice (8th ed. ). Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. Chapter 8 Sources of capital for Entrepreneurial Ventures.
Cite this Gordon Biersch Case Study
Gordon Biersch Case Study. (2016, Nov 25). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/gordon-biersch-case-study/