WhatsApp

Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 Case Study Help Checklist

Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 Case Study Help Checklist

Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 Case Study Solution
Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 Case Study Help
Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 Case Study Analysis



Analyses for Evaluating Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 decision to launch Case Study Solution


The following section concentrates on the of marketing for Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 where the company's customers, rivals and core competencies have actually evaluated in order to justify whether the choice to release Case Study Help under Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 brand name would be a practical choice or not. We have actually to start with taken a look at the type of consumers that Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 handle while an evaluation of the competitive environment and the company's weak points and strengths follows. Embedded in the 3C analysis is the reason for not releasing Case Study Help under Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 name.
Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 Case Study Solution

Customer Analysis

Both the groups use Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 high performance adhesives while the business is not just involved in the production of these adhesives but likewise markets them to these consumer groups. We would be focusing on the customers of instantaneous adhesives for this analysis given that the market for the latter has a lower potential for Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 compared to that of instantaneous adhesives.

The total market for instantaneous adhesives is around 890,000 in the United States in 1978 which covers both customer groups which have actually been identified earlier.If we look at a breakdown of Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 prospective market or client groups, we can see that the company offers to OEMs (Original Devices Producers), Do-it-Yourself consumers, repair and revamping companies (MRO) and makers dealing in items made of leather, plastic, wood and metal. This diversity in clients suggests that Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 can target has numerous alternatives in regards to segmenting the market for its new product particularly as each of these groups would be requiring the very same type of product with respective changes in demand, quantity or packaging. The consumer is not cost sensitive or brand name mindful so releasing a low priced dispenser under Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 name is not a suggested alternative.

Company Analysis

Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 is not simply a manufacturer of adhesives but delights in market management in the instantaneous adhesive industry. The company has its own competent and competent sales force which adds worth to sales by training the company's network of 250 distributors for facilitating the sale of adhesives. Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 believes in unique distribution as indicated by the truth that it has actually chosen to offer through 250 suppliers whereas there is t a network of 10000 distributors that can be explored for broadening reach via distributors. The company's reach is not limited to North America just as it likewise enjoys international sales. With 1400 outlets spread all across The United States and Canada, Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 has its internal production plants instead of utilizing out-sourcing as the preferred strategy.

Core competences are not restricted to adhesive production just as Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 also specializes in making adhesive giving equipment to help with the use of its products. This double production technique provides Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 an edge over competitors given that none of the rivals of giving devices makes immediate adhesives. In addition, none of these competitors sells directly to the customer either and utilizes suppliers for connecting to customers. While we are looking at the strengths of Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996, it is essential to highlight the company's weak points.

The company's sales staff is skilled in training distributors, the truth remains that the sales group is not trained in selling equipment so there is a possibility of relying greatly on suppliers when promoting adhesive devices. However, it needs to likewise be noted that the suppliers are revealing reluctance when it comes to offering devices that requires servicing which increases the difficulties of offering devices under a specific brand name.

The business has actually items intended at the high end of the market if we look at Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 product line in adhesive equipment particularly. If Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 offers Case Study Help under the same portfolio, the possibility of sales cannibalization exists. Given the reality that Case Study Help is priced lower than Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 high-end product line, sales cannibalization would definitely be impacting Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 sales revenue if the adhesive devices is offered under the business's brand.

We can see sales cannibalization impacting Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 27A Pencil Applicator which is priced at $275. If Case Study Help is released under the company's brand name, there is another possible threat which might lower Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 earnings. The fact that $175000 has been invested in promoting SuperBonder recommends that it is not a good time for introducing a dispenser which can highlight the fact that SuperBonder can get logged and Case Study Help is the anti-clogging solution for the instant adhesive.

Furthermore, if we look at the market in general, the adhesives market does disappoint brand name orientation or price awareness which gives us two extra reasons for not launching a low priced product under the business's brand.

Competitor Analysis

The competitive environment of Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 would be studied through Porter's 5 forces analysis which would highlight the degree of competition in the market.


Degree of Rivalry:

Currently we can see that the adhesive market has a high growth capacity due to the existence of fragmented segments with Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 taking pleasure in management and a combined market share of 75% with two other industry gamers, Eastman and Permabond. While industry competition in between these players could be called 'intense' as the customer is not brand conscious and each of these gamers has prominence in regards to market share, the truth still remains that the industry is not filled and still has numerous market sections which can be targeted as prospective niche markets even when releasing an adhesive. Nevertheless, we can even explain the truth that sales cannibalization might be resulting in market competition in the adhesive dispenser market while the market for immediate adhesives offers development capacity.


Bargaining Power of Buyer: The Bargaining power of the buyer in this industry is low specifically as the buyer has low understanding about the item. While companies like Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 have actually managed to train suppliers regarding adhesives, the last consumer depends on suppliers. Approximately 72% of sales are made directly by producers and distributors for instantaneous adhesives so the buyer has a low bargaining power.

Bargaining Power of Supplier: Offered the fact that the adhesive market is dominated by 3 gamers, it could be stated that the provider enjoys a greater bargaining power compared to the buyer. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the provider does not have much influence over the purchaser at this moment particularly as the purchaser does not show brand name acknowledgment or cost level of sensitivity. When it comes to the adhesive market while the producer and the buyer do not have a significant control over the real sales, this indicates that the supplier has the higher power.

Threat of new entrants: The competitive environment with its low brand loyalty and the ease of entry revealed by foreign Japanese rivals in the immediate adhesive market indicates that the marketplace allows ease of entry. Nevertheless, if we look at Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 in particular, the business has dual abilities in terms of being a producer of adhesive dispensers and instantaneous adhesives. Prospective threats in equipment giving market are low which shows the possibility of developing brand awareness in not only immediate adhesives but also in giving adhesives as none of the industry gamers has actually managed to position itself in double capabilities.

Danger of Substitutes: The danger of alternatives in the instantaneous adhesive market is low while the dispenser market in particular has alternatives like Glumetic pointer applicators, built-in applicators, pencil applicators and advanced consoles. The reality remains that if Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 presented Case Study Help, it would be indulging in sales cannibalization for its own items. (see appendix 1 for structure).


4 P Analysis: A suggested Marketing Mix for Case Study Help

Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 Case Study Help


Despite the fact that our 3C analysis has actually given different reasons for not launching Case Study Help under Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 name, we have a suggested marketing mix for Case Study Help given below if Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 chooses to proceed with the launch.

Product & Target Market: The target market selected for Case Study Help is 'Motor vehicle services' for a number of factors. This market has an additional growth capacity of 10.1% which might be an excellent adequate specific niche market segment for Case Study Help. Not just would a portable dispenser deal convenience to this specific market, the fact that the Diy market can likewise be targeted if a safe and clean low priced adhesive is being offered for use with SuperBonder.

Price: The suggested price of Case Study Help has been kept at $175 to the end user whether it is sold through suppliers or through direct selling. This rate would not include the expense of the 'vari idea' or the 'glumetic idea'. A cost below $250 would not require approvals from the senior management in case a mechanic at an automobile maintenance shop needs to buy the item on his own. This would increase the possibility of affecting mechanics to acquire the item for usage in their everyday maintenance tasks.

Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 would only be getting $157 per unit as shown in appendix 2 which gives a breakdown of gross profitability and net success for Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 for releasing Case Study Help.

Place: A distribution model where Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 directly sends the product to the regional distributor and keeps a 10% drop delivery allowance for the supplier would be utilized by Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996. Because the sales team is already engaged in selling instantaneous adhesives and they do not have proficiency in offering dispensers, including them in the selling procedure would be expensive especially as each sales call costs around $120. The suppliers are already selling dispensers so offering Case Study Help through them would be a favorable option.

Promotion: A low marketing budget needs to have been assigned to Case Study Help however the reality that the dispenser is an innovation and it requires to be marketed well in order to cover the capital costs incurred for production, the suggested advertising plan costing $51816 is advised for at first presenting the item in the market. The prepared ads in publications would be targeted at mechanics in vehicle upkeep stores. (Suggested text for the advertisement is shown in appendix 3 while the 4Ps are summed up in appendix 4).


Limitations: Arguments for forgoing the launch Case Study Analysis
Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 Case Study Analysis

A recommended plan of action in the kind of a marketing mix has actually been talked about for Case Study Help, the reality still stays that the item would not complement Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 product line. We take a look at appendix 2, we can see how the overall gross profitability for the two models is expected to be roughly $49377 if 250 systems of each model are produced annually according to the plan. However, the preliminary planned advertising is roughly $52000 annually which would be putting a strain on the business's resources leaving Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 with a negative net income if the costs are allocated to Case Study Help only.

The truth that Cambridge Technology Partners Corporate Venturing August 1996 has actually already sustained a preliminary investment of $48000 in the form of capital expense and prototype development shows that the income from Case Study Help is not enough to carry out the risk of sales cannibalization. Besides that, we can see that a low priced dispenser for a market showing low flexibility of need is not a more suitable choice specifically of it is affecting the sale of the business's profits generating designs.



PREVIOUS PAGE
NEXT PAGE