WhatsApp

University Technology Ventures October 2000 Case Study Help Checklist

University Technology Ventures October 2000 Case Study Help Checklist

University Technology Ventures October 2000 Case Study Solution
University Technology Ventures October 2000 Case Study Help
University Technology Ventures October 2000 Case Study Analysis



Analyses for Evaluating University Technology Ventures October 2000 decision to launch Case Study Solution


The following section focuses on the of marketing for University Technology Ventures October 2000 where the company's consumers, rivals and core proficiencies have actually assessed in order to validate whether the decision to introduce Case Study Help under University Technology Ventures October 2000 trademark name would be a possible alternative or not. We have firstly looked at the type of consumers that University Technology Ventures October 2000 handle while an assessment of the competitive environment and the business's weaknesses and strengths follows. Embedded in the 3C analysis is the reason for not launching Case Study Help under University Technology Ventures October 2000 name.
University Technology Ventures October 2000 Case Study Solution

Customer Analysis

Both the groups use University Technology Ventures October 2000 high efficiency adhesives while the business is not only involved in the production of these adhesives however also markets them to these consumer groups. We would be focusing on the consumers of instantaneous adhesives for this analysis given that the market for the latter has a lower potential for University Technology Ventures October 2000 compared to that of instant adhesives.

The overall market for instantaneous adhesives is around 890,000 in the US in 1978 which covers both consumer groups which have been identified earlier.If we look at a breakdown of University Technology Ventures October 2000 potential market or customer groups, we can see that the company offers to OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers), Do-it-Yourself consumers, repair work and upgrading companies (MRO) and makers handling products made of leather, wood, metal and plastic. This diversity in consumers recommends that University Technology Ventures October 2000 can target has different choices in regards to segmenting the market for its new product specifically as each of these groups would be needing the exact same type of product with respective changes in demand, product packaging or amount. The customer is not rate delicate or brand name conscious so launching a low priced dispenser under University Technology Ventures October 2000 name is not a recommended option.

Company Analysis

University Technology Ventures October 2000 is not just a maker of adhesives however enjoys market management in the instantaneous adhesive industry. The company has its own experienced and competent sales force which adds value to sales by training the business's network of 250 distributors for facilitating the sale of adhesives.

Core proficiencies are not restricted to adhesive manufacturing only as University Technology Ventures October 2000 likewise focuses on making adhesive giving devices to help with using its products. This dual production strategy provides University Technology Ventures October 2000 an edge over competitors given that none of the competitors of giving devices makes immediate adhesives. Additionally, none of these competitors offers directly to the consumer either and utilizes suppliers for reaching out to consumers. While we are looking at the strengths of University Technology Ventures October 2000, it is necessary to highlight the business's weaknesses also.

Although the company's sales staff is skilled in training suppliers, the reality remains that the sales team is not trained in selling devices so there is a possibility of relying greatly on suppliers when promoting adhesive devices. It must also be kept in mind that the distributors are revealing hesitation when it comes to selling devices that requires servicing which increases the challenges of offering devices under a particular brand name.

If we take a look at University Technology Ventures October 2000 product line in adhesive devices particularly, the business has actually items targeted at the high end of the market. The possibility of sales cannibalization exists if University Technology Ventures October 2000 sells Case Study Help under the same portfolio. Offered the reality that Case Study Help is priced lower than University Technology Ventures October 2000 high-end product line, sales cannibalization would absolutely be impacting University Technology Ventures October 2000 sales revenue if the adhesive equipment is sold under the company's trademark name.

We can see sales cannibalization affecting University Technology Ventures October 2000 27A Pencil Applicator which is priced at $275. There is another possible risk which could decrease University Technology Ventures October 2000 revenue if Case Study Help is launched under the business's brand name. The fact that $175000 has actually been spent in promoting SuperBonder recommends that it is not a great time for launching 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.

In addition, if we take a look at the market in general, the adhesives market does not show brand name orientation or price awareness which offers us two additional factors for not introducing a low priced item under the business's brand name.

Competitor Analysis

The competitive environment of University Technology Ventures October 2000 would be studied by means of Porter's 5 forces analysis which would highlight the degree of competition in the market.


Degree of Rivalry:

Presently we can see that the adhesive market has a high development capacity due to the presence of fragmented segments with University Technology Ventures October 2000 delighting in management and a combined market share of 75% with 2 other industry players, Eastman and Permabond. While industry rivalry in between these players could be called 'intense' as the customer is not brand name mindful and each of these players has prominence in terms of market share, the reality still stays that the market is not filled and still has numerous market sectors which can be targeted as prospective specific niche markets even when introducing an adhesive. We can even point out the fact that sales cannibalization may be leading to market rivalry in the adhesive dispenser market while the market for instantaneous adhesives offers development potential.


Bargaining Power of Buyer: The Bargaining power of the purchaser in this market is low specifically as the purchaser has low knowledge about the product. While companies like University Technology Ventures October 2000 have actually managed to train suppliers regarding adhesives, the last consumer depends on distributors. Roughly 72% of sales are made directly by makers and distributors for instant adhesives so the buyer has a low bargaining power.

Bargaining Power of Supplier: Provided the fact that the adhesive market is dominated by 3 players, it could be stated that the supplier takes pleasure in a higher bargaining power compared to the buyer. Nevertheless, the reality stays that the provider does not have much influence over the buyer at this point specifically as the purchaser does disappoint brand recognition or price sensitivity. When it comes to the adhesive market while the manufacturer and the buyer do not have a major control over the real sales, this suggests that the distributor has the greater power.

Threat of new entrants: The competitive environment with its low brand commitment and the ease of entry revealed by foreign Japanese competitors in the immediate adhesive market indicates that the market allows ease of entry. If we look at University Technology Ventures October 2000 in specific, the business has double capabilities in terms of being a maker of adhesive dispensers and instantaneous adhesives. Potential hazards in equipment giving market are low which reveals the possibility of producing brand awareness in not only instant adhesives however also in dispensing adhesives as none of the market players has managed to position itself in double capabilities.

Danger of Substitutes: The danger of alternatives in the immediate adhesive industry is low while the dispenser market in particular has substitutes like Glumetic idea applicators, inbuilt applicators, pencil applicators and sophisticated consoles. The truth stays that if University Technology Ventures October 2000 presented Case Study Help, it would be indulging in sales cannibalization for its own products. (see appendix 1 for structure).


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

University Technology Ventures October 2000 Case Study Help


Despite the fact that our 3C analysis has actually offered different reasons for not releasing Case Study Help under University Technology Ventures October 2000 name, we have a recommended marketing mix for Case Study Help provided below if University Technology Ventures October 2000 decides to go on with the launch.

Product & Target Market: The target market selected for Case Study Help is 'Motor automobile services' for a number of reasons. This market has an additional growth potential of 10.1% which may be a great adequate niche market sector for Case Study Help. Not only would a portable dispenser deal convenience to this specific market, the fact that the Diy market can also be targeted if a potable 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 sold through distributors or through direct selling. This cost would not include the expense of the 'vari suggestion' or the 'glumetic tip'. A cost below $250 would not need approvals from the senior management in case a mechanic at a motor vehicle maintenance store requires to purchase the item on his own. This would increase the possibility of affecting mechanics to purchase the product for usage in their everyday maintenance tasks.

University Technology Ventures October 2000 would only be getting $157 per unit as displayed in appendix 2 which provides a breakdown of gross profitability and net profitability for University Technology Ventures October 2000 for releasing Case Study Help.

Place: A circulation design where University Technology Ventures October 2000 straight sends out the item to the local distributor and keeps a 10% drop delivery allowance for the distributor would be used by University Technology Ventures October 2000. Since the sales team is already participated in selling instant adhesives and they do not have knowledge in selling dispensers, including them in the selling procedure would be costly particularly as each sales call costs around $120. The distributors are already selling dispensers so selling Case Study Help through them would be a favorable option.

Promotion: A low marketing budget plan must have been designated to Case Study Help however the fact that the dispenser is an innovation and it requires to be marketed well in order to cover the capital expenses incurred for production, the recommended marketing strategy costing $51816 is suggested for initially introducing the item in the market. The planned advertisements in publications would be targeted at mechanics in lorry upkeep stores. (Suggested 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
University Technology Ventures October 2000 Case Study Analysis

Although a recommended strategy in the form of a marketing mix has been discussed for Case Study Help, the reality still stays that the product would not match University Technology Ventures October 2000 line of product. We have a look at appendix 2, we can see how the total gross success for the two models is expected to be around $49377 if 250 systems of each model are produced per year according to the strategy. The initial planned marketing is around $52000 per year which would be putting a strain on the business's resources leaving University Technology Ventures October 2000 with an unfavorable net earnings if the expenses are assigned to Case Study Help only.

The fact that University Technology Ventures October 2000 has actually already sustained an initial financial investment of $48000 in the form of capital expense and prototype development suggests that the revenue from Case Study Help is not enough to carry out the danger of sales cannibalization. Besides that, we can see that a low priced dispenser for a market revealing low flexibility of demand is not a preferable option particularly of it is impacting the sale of the company's income producing models.



PREVIOUS PAGE
NEXT PAGE