Investment Technology Group Case Study Help Checklist

Investment Technology Group Case Study Help Checklist

Investment Technology Group Case Study Solution
Investment Technology Group Case Study Help
Investment Technology Group Case Study Analysis

Analyses for Evaluating Investment Technology Group decision to launch Case Study Solution

The following section concentrates on the of marketing for Investment Technology Group where the company's clients, competitors and core proficiencies have actually evaluated in order to validate whether the choice to release Case Study Help under Investment Technology Group trademark name would be a practical choice or not. We have first of all taken a look at the kind of clients that Investment Technology Group deals in while an assessment of the competitive environment and the business's weaknesses and strengths follows. Embedded in the 3C analysis is the validation for not launching Case Study Help under Investment Technology Group name.
Investment Technology Group Case Study Solution

Customer Analysis

Both the groups utilize Investment Technology Group high performance adhesives while the business is not only included in the production of these adhesives however likewise markets them to these client groups. We would be focusing on the consumers of instantaneous adhesives for this analysis since the market for the latter has a lower capacity for Investment Technology Group compared to that of immediate adhesives.

The overall market for instantaneous adhesives is approximately 890,000 in the United States in 1978 which covers both client groups which have actually been identified earlier.If we look at a breakdown of Investment Technology Group prospective market or client groups, we can see that the company sells to OEMs (Original Equipment Makers), Do-it-Yourself customers, repair and upgrading business (MRO) and makers dealing in items made of leather, wood, metal and plastic. This diversity in consumers recommends that Investment Technology Group can target has numerous choices in terms of segmenting the market for its brand-new item specifically as each of these groups would be needing the same kind of item with respective changes in amount, need or product packaging. The client is not rate delicate or brand name conscious so launching a low priced dispenser under Investment Technology Group name is not an advised option.

Company Analysis

Investment Technology Group is not simply a maker of adhesives however enjoys market management in the immediate adhesive market. The company has its own skilled and certified sales force which includes worth to sales by training the company's network of 250 distributors for helping with the sale of adhesives. Investment Technology Group believes in special circulation as indicated by the truth that it has actually picked to offer through 250 distributors whereas there is t a network of 10000 distributors that can be checked out for broadening reach by means of distributors. The company's reach is not limited to North America only as it likewise takes pleasure in worldwide sales. With 1400 outlets spread all across North America, Investment Technology Group has its internal production plants instead of utilizing out-sourcing as the preferred strategy.

Core proficiencies are not limited to adhesive manufacturing only as Investment Technology Group also focuses on making adhesive dispensing equipment to help with using its items. This double production technique offers Investment Technology Group an edge over competitors considering that none of the competitors of dispensing equipment makes instant adhesives. In addition, none of these competitors sells straight to the consumer either and makes use of distributors for connecting to customers. While we are taking a look at the strengths of Investment Technology Group, it is very important to highlight the business's weak points also.

Although the business's sales personnel is proficient in training suppliers, the reality stays that the sales team is not trained in offering equipment so there is a possibility of relying heavily on suppliers when promoting adhesive equipment. However, it ought to likewise be kept in mind that the suppliers are showing unwillingness when it pertains to selling equipment that requires servicing which increases the difficulties of selling equipment under a particular brand name.

If we take a look at Investment Technology Group product line in adhesive devices especially, the business has products aimed at the luxury of the market. The possibility of sales cannibalization exists if Investment Technology Group offers Case Study Help under the very same portfolio. Given the fact that Case Study Help is priced lower than Investment Technology Group high-end line of product, sales cannibalization would absolutely be impacting Investment Technology Group sales profits if the adhesive equipment is offered under the company's brand.

We can see sales cannibalization affecting Investment Technology Group 27A Pencil Applicator which is priced at $275. There is another possible threat which might lower Investment Technology Group income if Case Study Help is launched under the company's brand name. The truth that $175000 has actually been spent in promoting SuperBonder suggests that it is not a good time for introducing a dispenser which can highlight the reality that SuperBonder can get logged and Case Study Help is the anti-clogging solution for the immediate adhesive.

Additionally, if we look at the market in general, the adhesives market does not show brand name orientation or rate awareness which gives us 2 extra factors for not releasing a low priced product under the business's brand name.

Competitor Analysis

The competitive environment of Investment Technology Group would be studied via Porter's five forces analysis which would highlight the degree of rivalry in the market.

Degree of Rivalry:

Currently we can see that the adhesive market has a high development capacity due to the presence of fragmented sections with Investment Technology Group delighting in management and a combined market share of 75% with 2 other market gamers, Eastman and Permabond. While market competition between these players could be called 'extreme' as the customer is not brand name conscious 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 a number of market sections which can be targeted as potential niche markets even when launching an adhesive. We can even point out the fact that sales cannibalization may be leading to market competition in the adhesive dispenser market while the market for immediate adhesives uses development capacity.

Bargaining Power of Buyer: The Bargaining power of the purchaser in this market is low particularly as the buyer has low understanding about the product. While business like Investment Technology Group have handled to train distributors concerning adhesives, the final customer depends on distributors. Roughly 72% of sales are made straight by manufacturers and suppliers for instant adhesives so the purchaser has a low bargaining power.

Bargaining Power of Supplier: Provided the reality 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. The truth stays that the provider does not have much impact over the buyer at this point particularly as the purchaser does not show brand acknowledgment or cost level of sensitivity. When it comes to the adhesive market while the maker and the purchaser do not have a major control over the actual sales, this suggests that the supplier has the greater power.

Threat of new entrants: The competitive environment with its low brand name commitment and the ease of entry shown by foreign Japanese competitors in the immediate adhesive market shows that the market allows ease of entry. If we look at Investment Technology Group in specific, the company has dual abilities in terms of being a producer of instantaneous adhesives and adhesive dispensers. Potential risks in devices dispensing industry are low which reveals the possibility of producing brand awareness in not only instant adhesives but also in dispensing adhesives as none of the industry gamers has actually handled to place itself in double abilities.

Hazard of Substitutes: The hazard of alternatives in the immediate adhesive market is low while the dispenser market in particular has replacements like Glumetic pointer applicators, in-built applicators, pencil applicators and sophisticated consoles. The truth stays that if Investment Technology Group presented Case Study Help, it would be enjoying sales cannibalization for its own items. (see appendix 1 for structure).

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

Investment Technology Group Case Study Help

Despite the fact that our 3C analysis has actually provided various reasons for not introducing Case Study Help under Investment Technology Group name, we have actually a suggested marketing mix for Case Study Help provided listed below if Investment Technology Group chooses to proceed with the launch.

Product & Target Market: The target market picked for Case Study Help is 'Motor vehicle services' for a variety of reasons. There are presently 89257 establishments in this segment and a high usage of roughly 58900 pounds. is being used by 36.1 % of the market. This market has an additional growth potential of 10.1% which may be a sufficient niche market sector for Case Study Help. Not only would a portable dispenser offer convenience to this particular market, the truth that the Do-it-Yourself market can likewise be targeted if a potable low priced adhesive is being sold for use with SuperBonder. The product would be offered without the 'glumetic suggestion' and 'vari-drop' so that the customer can decide whether he wants to select either of the two devices or not.

Price: The suggested rate of Case Study Help has actually been kept at $175 to the end user whether it is offered through suppliers or via direct selling. This rate would not consist of the cost of the 'vari tip' or the 'glumetic pointer'. A cost below $250 would not need approvals from the senior management in case a mechanic at an automobile upkeep store requires to acquire the item on his own. This would increase the possibility of influencing mechanics to purchase the item for usage in their day-to-day upkeep jobs.

Investment Technology Group would just be getting $157 per unit as shown in appendix 2 which gives a breakdown of gross profitability and net profitability for Investment Technology Group for launching Case Study Help.

Place: A circulation model where Investment Technology Group straight sends out the item to the local supplier and keeps a 10% drop shipment allowance for the distributor would be utilized by Investment Technology Group. Given that the sales group is currently engaged in offering instantaneous adhesives and they do not have proficiency in offering dispensers, involving them in the selling process would be pricey specifically as each sales call costs approximately $120. The suppliers are already selling dispensers so selling Case Study Help through them would be a favorable alternative.

Promotion: Although a low advertising budget must have been appointed 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 marketing strategy costing $51816 is suggested for initially introducing the item in the market. The planned ads in magazines would be targeted at mechanics in lorry maintenance shops. (Recommended text for the ad is shown in appendix 3 while the 4Ps are summarized in appendix 4).

Limitations: Arguments for forgoing the launch Case Study Analysis
Investment Technology Group Case Study Analysis

Although a suggested strategy in the form of a marketing mix has actually been discussed for Case Study Help, the reality still remains that the item would not match Investment Technology Group line of product. We take a look at appendix 2, we can see how the total gross profitability for the two models is anticipated to be approximately $49377 if 250 systems of each design are produced per year according to the strategy. However, the initial planned advertising is around $52000 each year which would be putting a strain on the business's resources leaving Investment Technology Group with a negative earnings if the expenses are allocated to Case Study Help only.

The reality that Investment Technology Group has already sustained an initial financial investment of $48000 in the form of capital expense and model development suggests that the revenue from Case Study Help is not enough to undertake the danger of sales cannibalization. Other than that, we can see that a low priced dispenser for a market showing low elasticity of demand is not a more suitable alternative especially of it is affecting the sale of the company's revenue generating models.