WhatsApp

Equipment Manufacturing Inc Case Study Help Checklist

Equipment Manufacturing Inc Case Study Help Checklist

Equipment Manufacturing Inc Case Study Solution
Equipment Manufacturing Inc Case Study Help
Equipment Manufacturing Inc Case Study Analysis



Analyses for Evaluating Equipment Manufacturing Inc decision to launch Case Study Solution


The following section concentrates on the of marketing for Equipment Manufacturing Inc where the business's clients, rivals and core proficiencies have examined in order to justify whether the decision to release Case Study Help under Equipment Manufacturing Inc brand name would be a possible choice or not. We have first of all looked at the type of customers that Equipment Manufacturing Inc deals in while an assessment of the competitive environment and the company's strengths and weaknesses follows. Embedded in the 3C analysis is the validation for not introducing Case Study Help under Equipment Manufacturing Inc name.
Equipment Manufacturing Inc Case Study Solution

Customer Analysis

Both the groups use Equipment Manufacturing Inc high efficiency adhesives while the company is not just included in the production of these adhesives however likewise markets them to these customer 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 Equipment Manufacturing Inc compared to that of instantaneous adhesives.

The total market for instant adhesives is approximately 890,000 in the United States in 1978 which covers both consumer groups which have been determined earlier.If we take a look at a breakdown of Equipment Manufacturing Inc prospective market or customer groups, we can see that the business offers to OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers), Do-it-Yourself customers, repair and upgrading business (MRO) and manufacturers handling items made from leather, metal, wood and plastic. This variety in consumers suggests that Equipment Manufacturing Inc can target has different choices in terms of segmenting the market for its brand-new item particularly as each of these groups would be requiring the very same kind of product with respective modifications in quantity, packaging or demand. However, the consumer is not price delicate or brand name conscious so introducing a low priced dispenser under Equipment Manufacturing Inc name is not a suggested alternative.

Company Analysis

Equipment Manufacturing Inc is not simply a manufacturer of adhesives however enjoys market management in the instantaneous adhesive industry. The business has its own experienced and certified sales force which includes value to sales by training the business's network of 250 distributors for assisting in the sale of adhesives. Equipment Manufacturing Inc believes in unique circulation as shown by the fact that it has chosen to sell through 250 distributors whereas there is t a network of 10000 distributors that can be explored for expanding reach through distributors. The company's reach is not restricted to North America only as it likewise delights in worldwide sales. With 1400 outlets spread all across The United States and Canada, Equipment Manufacturing Inc has its internal production plants instead of using out-sourcing as the preferred method.

Core proficiencies are not limited to adhesive manufacturing only as Equipment Manufacturing Inc also specializes in making adhesive dispensing devices to assist in using its items. This dual production method offers Equipment Manufacturing Inc an edge over competitors because none of the rivals of dispensing equipment makes instant adhesives. Additionally, none of these competitors sells straight to the customer either and utilizes suppliers for reaching out to consumers. While we are looking at the strengths of Equipment Manufacturing Inc, it is important to highlight the business's weak points.

The business's sales personnel is proficient in training suppliers, the reality stays that the sales team is not trained in offering devices so there is a possibility of relying heavily on distributors when promoting adhesive devices. Nevertheless, it ought to also be noted that the suppliers are revealing hesitation when it pertains to offering equipment that requires maintenance which increases the obstacles of selling equipment under a specific trademark name.

If we take a look at Equipment Manufacturing Inc product line in adhesive devices especially, the company has actually products aimed at the high end of the market. If Equipment Manufacturing Inc sells Case Study Help under the exact same portfolio, the possibility of sales cannibalization exists. Given the fact that Case Study Help is priced lower than Equipment Manufacturing Inc high-end product line, sales cannibalization would certainly be impacting Equipment Manufacturing Inc sales earnings if the adhesive equipment is sold under the business's brand name.

We can see sales cannibalization impacting Equipment Manufacturing Inc 27A Pencil Applicator which is priced at $275. If Case Study Help is launched under the company's brand name, there is another possible hazard which might decrease Equipment Manufacturing Inc revenue. The reality that $175000 has actually been spent 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.

In addition, if we look at the marketplace in general, the adhesives market does not show brand orientation or cost consciousness which offers us 2 additional factors for not launching a low priced item under the business's brand.

Competitor Analysis

The competitive environment of Equipment Manufacturing Inc would be studied by means of Porter's five forces analysis which would highlight the degree of rivalry in the market.


Degree of Rivalry:

Presently we can see that the adhesive market has a high growth capacity due to the presence of fragmented sectors with Equipment Manufacturing Inc enjoying management and a combined market share of 75% with 2 other market gamers, Eastman and Permabond. While industry competition between these players could be called 'intense' as the customer is not brand name mindful and each of these gamers has prominence in terms of market share, the reality still stays that the industry is not filled and still has several market sections which can be targeted as possible specific niche markets even when introducing an adhesive. However, we can even mention the fact that sales cannibalization might be leading to industry competition in the adhesive dispenser market while the market for instant adhesives provides development capacity.


Bargaining Power of Buyer: The Bargaining power of the buyer in this industry is low specifically as the purchaser has low knowledge about the item. While business like Equipment Manufacturing Inc have actually handled to train suppliers relating to adhesives, the last consumer depends on suppliers. Around 72% of sales are made directly by makers and distributors for instantaneous adhesives so the purchaser has a low bargaining power.

Bargaining Power of Supplier: Given the fact that the adhesive market is controlled by 3 gamers, it could be said that the provider takes pleasure in a higher bargaining power compared to the purchaser. However, the fact remains that the supplier does not have much impact over the buyer at this point particularly as the buyer does disappoint brand name recognition or price sensitivity. This suggests that the distributor has the greater power when it comes to the adhesive market while the buyer and the producer do not have a major control over the real sales.

Threat of new entrants: The competitive environment with its low brand loyalty and the ease of entry revealed by foreign Japanese competitors in the instantaneous adhesive market suggests that the marketplace permits ease of entry. If we look at Equipment Manufacturing Inc in specific, the company has dual abilities in terms of being a maker of instantaneous adhesives and adhesive dispensers. Potential risks in equipment dispensing market are low which reveals the possibility of creating brand name awareness in not only instantaneous adhesives however likewise in giving adhesives as none of the market players has actually handled to place itself in double capabilities.

Risk of Substitutes: The hazard of substitutes in the instantaneous adhesive market is low while the dispenser market in particular has substitutes like Glumetic idea applicators, built-in applicators, pencil applicators and sophisticated consoles. The fact remains that if Equipment Manufacturing Inc presented Case Study Help, it would be indulging in sales cannibalization for its own items. (see appendix 1 for framework).


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

Equipment Manufacturing Inc Case Study Help


Despite the fact that our 3C analysis has given numerous factors for not releasing Case Study Help under Equipment Manufacturing Inc name, we have a suggested marketing mix for Case Study Help given below if Equipment Manufacturing Inc decides to proceed with the launch.

Product & Target Market: The target market chosen for Case Study Help is 'Motor vehicle services' for a number of factors. This market has an extra development capacity of 10.1% which might be an excellent sufficient niche market sector for Case Study Help. Not only would a portable dispenser deal convenience to this particular market, the truth that the Diy market can also be targeted if a drinkable low priced adhesive is being sold for use with SuperBonder.

Price: The suggested rate of Case Study Help has been kept at $175 to the end user whether it is offered through suppliers or through direct selling. A cost below $250 would not need approvals from the senior management in case a mechanic at a motor car maintenance store requires to purchase the item on his own.

Equipment Manufacturing Inc would just be getting $157 per unit as shown in appendix 2 which provides a breakdown of gross profitability and net profitability for Equipment Manufacturing Inc for launching Case Study Help.

Place: A circulation design where Equipment Manufacturing Inc straight sends the item to the regional supplier and keeps a 10% drop delivery allowance for the supplier would be used by Equipment Manufacturing Inc. Given that the sales group is currently engaged in offering instant adhesives and they do not have expertise in offering dispensers, including them in the selling process would be costly especially as each sales call expenses around $120. The suppliers are currently selling dispensers so selling Case Study Help through them would be a beneficial alternative.

Promotion: Although a low advertising spending plan ought to have been designated to Case Study Help however the truth that the dispenser is a development and it needs to be marketed well in order to cover the capital expenses incurred for production, the suggested advertising plan costing $51816 is suggested for at first presenting the item in the market. The prepared ads in publications would be targeted at mechanics in car upkeep shops. (Suggested text for the advertisement is displayed in appendix 3 while the 4Ps are summarized in appendix 4).


Limitations: Arguments for forgoing the launch Case Study Analysis
Equipment Manufacturing Inc Case Study Analysis

Although a suggested strategy in the form of a marketing mix has been discussed for Case Study Help, the fact still remains that the item would not match Equipment Manufacturing Inc product line. We take a look at appendix 2, we can see how the overall gross profitability for the two designs is anticipated to be around $49377 if 250 units of each model are made annually based on the strategy. However, the initial prepared marketing is roughly $52000 per year which would be putting a strain on the business's resources leaving Equipment Manufacturing Inc with an unfavorable net income if the costs are designated to Case Study Help just.

The reality that Equipment Manufacturing Inc has actually currently incurred an initial investment of $48000 in the form of capital expense and prototype development suggests that the earnings from Case Study Help is insufficient to undertake the danger of sales cannibalization. Aside from that, we can see that a low priced dispenser for a market showing low elasticity of need is not a more effective alternative especially of it is impacting the sale of the business's revenue generating designs.



PREVIOUS PAGE
NEXT PAGE