Urban Water Partners A Case Study Help Checklist

Urban Water Partners A Case Study Help Checklist

Urban Water Partners A Case Study Solution
Urban Water Partners A Case Study Help
Urban Water Partners A Case Study Analysis

Analyses for Evaluating Urban Water Partners A decision to launch Case Study Solution

The following section focuses on the of marketing for Urban Water Partners A where the company's customers, rivals and core competencies have examined in order to justify whether the decision to release Case Study Help under Urban Water Partners A trademark name would be a practical option or not. We have first of all looked at the type of customers that Urban Water Partners A handle while an evaluation of the competitive environment and the company's weaknesses and strengths follows. Embedded in the 3C analysis is the reason for not launching Case Study Help under Urban Water Partners A name.
Urban Water Partners A Case Study Solution

Customer Analysis

Urban Water Partners A clients can be segmented into 2 groups, commercial clients and final consumers. Both the groups use Urban Water Partners A high performance adhesives while the company is not only involved in the production of these adhesives but likewise markets them to these consumer groups. There are 2 types of items that are being offered to these prospective markets; instant adhesives and anaerobic adhesives. We would be focusing on the consumers of instant adhesives for this analysis given that the market for the latter has a lower capacity for Urban Water Partners A compared to that of instant adhesives.

The overall market for instant adhesives is roughly 890,000 in the US in 1978 which covers both customer groups which have actually been identified earlier.If we take a look at a breakdown of Urban Water Partners A potential market or client groups, we can see that the business offers to OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers), Do-it-Yourself customers, repair work and upgrading business (MRO) and manufacturers dealing in items made from leather, wood, plastic and metal. This variety in customers suggests that Urban Water Partners A can target has various choices in regards to segmenting the marketplace for its new item especially as each of these groups would be needing the exact same kind of item with particular changes in demand, packaging or quantity. Nevertheless, the consumer is not cost delicate or brand name mindful so introducing a low priced dispenser under Urban Water Partners A name is not a suggested alternative.

Company Analysis

Urban Water Partners A is not just a producer of adhesives however enjoys market leadership in the immediate adhesive industry. The business has its own skilled and competent sales force which adds value to sales by training the company's network of 250 suppliers for assisting in the sale of adhesives. Urban Water Partners A believes in special distribution as shown by the truth that it has selected to offer through 250 distributors whereas there is t a network of 10000 distributors that can be explored for broadening reach via suppliers. The company's reach is not restricted to North America only as it also delights in global sales. With 1400 outlets spread all across The United States and Canada, Urban Water Partners A has its in-house production plants instead of using out-sourcing as the preferred strategy.

Core skills are not limited to adhesive production only as Urban Water Partners A likewise concentrates on making adhesive dispensing equipment to help with using its products. This dual production technique offers Urban Water Partners A an edge over rivals considering that none of the competitors of giving devices makes instant adhesives. Additionally, none of these rivals sells directly to the customer either and utilizes suppliers for reaching out to customers. While we are looking at the strengths of Urban Water Partners A, it is important to highlight the company's weak points.

The company's sales staff is competent in training suppliers, the truth stays that the sales team is not trained in selling equipment so there is a possibility of relying heavily on suppliers when promoting adhesive devices. It should likewise be noted that the suppliers are revealing hesitation when it comes to selling devices that requires maintenance which increases the obstacles of offering devices under a specific brand name.

The company has actually items aimed at the high end of the market if we look at Urban Water Partners A product line in adhesive equipment particularly. The possibility of sales cannibalization exists if Urban Water Partners A sells Case Study Help under the same portfolio. Offered the reality that Case Study Help is priced lower than Urban Water Partners A high-end product line, sales cannibalization would definitely be affecting Urban Water Partners A sales earnings if the adhesive devices is offered under the business's brand.

We can see sales cannibalization affecting Urban Water Partners A 27A Pencil Applicator which is priced at $275. There is another possible danger which could reduce Urban Water Partners A revenue if Case Study Help is launched under the business's brand name. The reality that $175000 has been spent in promoting SuperBonder recommends that it is not a good time for launching 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 market in general, the adhesives market does disappoint brand name orientation or cost consciousness which offers us two additional reasons for not releasing a low priced product under the business's trademark name.

Competitor Analysis

The competitive environment of Urban Water Partners A would be studied via 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 growth potential due to the presence of fragmented segments with Urban Water Partners A delighting in leadership and a combined market share of 75% with two other market players, Eastman and Permabond. While market rivalry in between these gamers could be called 'intense' as the customer is not brand name mindful and each of these players has prominence in regards to market share, the reality still remains that the industry is not saturated and still has several market segments which can be targeted as potential niche markets even when releasing 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 instant adhesives offers development potential.

Bargaining Power of Buyer: The Bargaining power of the buyer in this industry is low specifically as the purchaser has low understanding about the product. While companies like Urban Water Partners A have managed to train suppliers concerning adhesives, the final customer depends on suppliers. Around 72% of sales are made straight by makers and suppliers for instant adhesives so the buyer has a low bargaining power.

Bargaining Power of Supplier: Given the truth that the adhesive market is controlled by three players, it could be stated that the provider delights in a higher bargaining power compared to the purchaser. The fact remains that the supplier does not have much influence over the buyer at this point particularly as the buyer does not show brand name acknowledgment or price level of sensitivity. When it comes to the adhesive market while the maker and the purchaser do not have a significant control over the actual sales, this shows that the distributor 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 rivals in the immediate adhesive market suggests that the market allows ease of entry. Nevertheless, if we take a look at Urban Water Partners A in particular, the company has dual abilities in regards to being a producer of instantaneous adhesives and adhesive dispensers. Possible threats in equipment dispensing market are low which reveals the possibility of creating brand awareness in not only instant adhesives but also in dispensing adhesives as none of the industry players has handled to place itself in dual capabilities.

Hazard of Substitutes: The threat of substitutes in the immediate adhesive industry is low while the dispenser market in particular has alternatives like Glumetic idea applicators, in-built applicators, pencil applicators and advanced consoles. The truth remains that if Urban Water Partners A introduced Case Study Help, it would be enjoying sales cannibalization for its own items. (see appendix 1 for framework).

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

Urban Water Partners A Case Study Help

Despite the fact that our 3C analysis has provided different factors for not launching Case Study Help under Urban Water Partners A name, we have actually a suggested marketing mix for Case Study Help provided below if Urban Water Partners A decides to go ahead with the launch.

Product & Target Market: The target market picked for Case Study Help is 'Automobile services' for a variety of reasons. There are currently 89257 establishments in this sector and a high usage of roughly 58900 lbs. is being utilized by 36.1 % of the market. This market has an extra growth capacity of 10.1% which might be a good enough specific niche market sector for Case Study Help. Not just would a portable dispenser deal convenience to this particular market, the fact that the Diy market can also be targeted if a potable low priced adhesive is being cost use with SuperBonder. The product would be sold without the 'glumetic suggestion' and 'vari-drop' so that the customer can decide whether he wishes to go with either of the two devices or not.

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

Urban Water Partners A would only be getting $157 per unit as shown in appendix 2 which offers a breakdown of gross success and net profitability for Urban Water Partners A for releasing Case Study Help.

Place: A distribution model where Urban Water Partners A straight sends out the item to the regional distributor and keeps a 10% drop delivery allowance for the distributor would be used by Urban Water Partners A. Because the sales team is already taken part in selling instantaneous adhesives and they do not have proficiency in offering dispensers, involving them in the selling process would be costly especially as each sales call costs approximately $120. The suppliers are currently offering dispensers so selling Case Study Help through them would be a beneficial option.

Promotion: A low advertising budget plan ought to have been designated to Case Study Help however the truth that the dispenser is an innovation and it requires to be marketed well in order to cover the capital expenses incurred for production, the suggested advertising strategy costing $51816 is advised for initially presenting the product in the market. The prepared ads in magazines would be targeted at mechanics in vehicle upkeep shops. (Recommended text for the advertisement is displayed in appendix 3 while the 4Ps are summed up in appendix 4).

Limitations: Arguments for forgoing the launch Case Study Analysis
Urban Water Partners A Case Study Analysis

A recommended strategy of action in the kind of a marketing mix has been discussed for Case Study Help, the fact still remains that the item would not complement Urban Water Partners A product line. We take a look at appendix 2, we can see how the overall gross success for the two models is anticipated to be roughly $49377 if 250 units of each model are manufactured per year according to the strategy. The initial prepared marketing is roughly $52000 per year which would be putting a strain on the company's resources leaving Urban Water Partners A with a negative net earnings if the costs are allocated to Case Study Help just.

The reality that Urban Water Partners A has already incurred an initial financial investment of $48000 in the form of capital expense and prototype development suggests that the revenue from Case Study Help is inadequate to carry out the danger of sales cannibalization. Besides that, we can see that a low priced dispenser for a market showing low flexibility of demand is not a more effective alternative specifically of it is affecting the sale of the company's earnings producing models.