Urban Water Partners B Case Study Help Checklist

Urban Water Partners B Case Study Help Checklist

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

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

The following area focuses on the of marketing for Urban Water Partners B where the business's customers, rivals and core competencies have actually assessed in order to validate whether the decision to launch Case Study Help under Urban Water Partners B trademark name would be a feasible choice or not. We have first of all taken a look at the type of consumers that Urban Water Partners B handle while an assessment of the competitive environment and the company's strengths and weak points follows. Embedded in the 3C analysis is the reason for not launching Case Study Help under Urban Water Partners B name.
Urban Water Partners B Case Study Solution

Customer Analysis

Urban Water Partners B clients can be segmented into 2 groups, industrial customers and last consumers. Both the groups utilize Urban Water Partners B high performance adhesives while the business is not just involved in the production of these adhesives but likewise markets them to these client groups. There are two types of items that are being offered to these possible markets; anaerobic adhesives and instant adhesives. We would be concentrating on the customers of immediate adhesives for this analysis because the marketplace for the latter has a lower capacity for Urban Water Partners B compared to that of immediate adhesives.

The total market for instant adhesives is around 890,000 in the US in 1978 which covers both customer groups which have actually been identified earlier.If we look at a breakdown of Urban Water Partners B potential market or customer groups, we can see that the business offers to OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers), Do-it-Yourself customers, repair work and overhauling business (MRO) and producers handling items made from leather, plastic, metal and wood. This diversity in customers recommends that Urban Water Partners B can target has numerous options in terms of segmenting the market for its brand-new product particularly as each of these groups would be requiring the exact same kind of product with particular changes in need, amount or product packaging. The client is not cost delicate or brand conscious so launching a low priced dispenser under Urban Water Partners B name is not a suggested choice.

Company Analysis

Urban Water Partners B is not simply a maker of adhesives but takes pleasure in market leadership in the immediate adhesive industry. The business has its own proficient and certified sales force which adds worth to sales by training the company's network of 250 distributors for assisting in the sale of adhesives. Urban Water Partners B believes in unique distribution as indicated by the reality that it has actually selected to sell through 250 distributors whereas there is t a network of 10000 distributors that can be explored for expanding reach by means of suppliers. The business's reach is not limited to North America just as it likewise delights in worldwide sales. With 1400 outlets spread out all throughout The United States and Canada, Urban Water Partners B has its in-house production plants instead of using out-sourcing as the preferred strategy.

Core competences are not restricted to adhesive production just as Urban Water Partners B also concentrates on making adhesive giving devices to help with the use of its products. This dual production strategy provides Urban Water Partners B an edge over rivals considering that none of the competitors of dispensing devices makes instant adhesives. Additionally, none of these competitors offers directly to the consumer either and makes use of suppliers for connecting to consumers. While we are taking a look at the strengths of Urban Water Partners B, it is important to highlight the company's weaknesses also.

Although the company's sales staff is proficient in training suppliers, the truth remains that the sales group is not trained in offering equipment so there is a possibility of relying greatly on distributors when promoting adhesive equipment. It needs to also be noted that the distributors are showing hesitation when it comes to selling equipment that requires servicing which increases the obstacles of selling devices under a specific brand name.

If we take a look at Urban Water Partners B product line in adhesive equipment especially, the business has actually products focused on the high-end of the marketplace. If Urban Water Partners B sells Case Study Help under the same portfolio, the possibility of sales cannibalization exists. Offered the fact that Case Study Help is priced lower than Urban Water Partners B high-end product line, sales cannibalization would certainly be impacting Urban Water Partners B sales income if the adhesive devices is offered under the company's trademark name.

We can see sales cannibalization affecting Urban Water Partners B 27A Pencil Applicator which is priced at $275. If Case Study Help is released under the company's brand name, there is another possible danger which might lower Urban Water Partners B profits. The fact that $175000 has been spent in promoting SuperBonder suggests that it is not a good time for introducing a dispenser which can highlight the truth 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 consciousness which gives us two extra reasons for not introducing a low priced product under the business's trademark name.

Competitor Analysis

The competitive environment of Urban Water Partners B would be studied through Porter's five 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 development capacity due to the existence of fragmented sectors with Urban Water Partners B taking pleasure in leadership and a combined market share of 75% with two other industry players, Eastman and Permabond. While market rivalry between these gamers could be called 'intense' as the consumer is not brand name conscious and each of these gamers has prominence in terms of market share, the fact still remains that the industry is not saturated and still has numerous market sections which can be targeted as prospective niche markets even when launching an adhesive. We can even point out the reality that sales cannibalization may be leading to industry rivalry in the adhesive dispenser market while the market for instant adhesives provides growth potential.

Bargaining Power of Buyer: The Bargaining power of the purchaser in this industry is low particularly as the purchaser has low knowledge about the item. While business like Urban Water Partners B have handled to train distributors concerning adhesives, the final customer depends on distributors. Approximately 72% of sales are made straight by makers and suppliers for instantaneous adhesives so the buyer has a low bargaining power.

Bargaining Power of Supplier: Provided the truth that the adhesive market is dominated by 3 gamers, it could be stated that the supplier enjoys a greater bargaining power compared to the buyer. The reality remains that the supplier does not have much influence over the buyer at this point especially as the purchaser does not show brand name recognition or rate sensitivity. When it comes to the adhesive market while the buyer and the maker do not have a major control over the real sales, this shows that the supplier has the higher power.

Threat of new entrants: The competitive environment with its low brand name commitment and the ease of entry revealed by foreign Japanese rivals in the instant adhesive market indicates that the marketplace permits ease of entry. If we look at Urban Water Partners B in specific, the company has double abilities in terms of being a maker of instantaneous adhesives and adhesive dispensers. Prospective dangers in devices dispensing market are low which reveals the possibility of developing brand name awareness in not just instantaneous adhesives however also in giving adhesives as none of the industry gamers has managed to position itself in dual capabilities.

Threat of Substitutes: The threat of substitutes in the instant adhesive industry is low while the dispenser market in particular has alternatives like Glumetic idea applicators, built-in applicators, pencil applicators and advanced consoles. The fact remains that if Urban Water Partners B presented Case Study Help, it would be enjoying sales cannibalization for its own products. (see appendix 1 for structure).

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

Urban Water Partners B Case Study Help

Despite the fact that our 3C analysis has actually provided various reasons for not launching Case Study Help under Urban Water Partners B name, we have actually a recommended marketing mix for Case Study Help given listed below if Urban Water Partners B chooses to go ahead with the launch.

Product & Target Market: The target audience selected for Case Study Help is 'Motor vehicle services' for a variety of factors. There are currently 89257 establishments in this sector and a high use of approximately 58900 lbs. is being used by 36.1 % of the marketplace. This market has an additional development capacity of 10.1% which may be a sufficient niche market sector for Case Study Help. Not just would a portable dispenser offer benefit to this specific market, the fact that the Do-it-Yourself market can also be targeted if a potable low priced adhesive is being cost usage with SuperBonder. The product would be offered without the 'glumetic pointer' and 'vari-drop' so that the customer can decide whether he wishes to choose either of the two accessories or not.

Price: The recommended rate of Case Study Help has actually been kept at $175 to the end user whether it is sold through suppliers or via direct selling. A cost below $250 would not require approvals from the senior management in case a mechanic at a motor automobile maintenance store needs to acquire the item on his own.

Urban Water Partners B 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 B for introducing Case Study Help.

Place: A circulation design where Urban Water Partners B directly sends the product to the local distributor and keeps a 10% drop shipment allowance for the distributor would be used by Urban Water Partners B. Considering that the sales group is currently engaged in selling instant adhesives and they do not have know-how in offering dispensers, including them in the selling procedure would be pricey particularly as each sales call expenses around $120. The suppliers are already offering dispensers so selling Case Study Help through them would be a favorable choice.

Promotion: Although a low marketing budget plan must have been appointed to Case Study Help but the fact that the dispenser is a development and it needs to be marketed well in order to cover the capital expenses incurred for production, the recommended advertising plan costing $51816 is suggested for initially introducing the product in the market. The planned ads in publications would be targeted at mechanics in automobile 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
Urban Water Partners B Case Study Analysis

Although a suggested strategy in the form of a marketing mix has been gone over for Case Study Help, the reality still remains that the product would not match Urban Water Partners B line of product. We have a look at appendix 2, we can see how the overall gross success for the two models is anticipated to be approximately $49377 if 250 systems of each design are manufactured annually according to the plan. Nevertheless, the initial planned advertising is roughly $52000 per year which would be putting a stress on the company's resources leaving Urban Water Partners B with an unfavorable net income if the costs are designated to Case Study Help just.

The truth that Urban Water Partners B has actually currently sustained an initial investment of $48000 in the form of capital expense and model development shows that the revenue from Case Study Help is not enough 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 choice specifically of it is impacting the sale of the company's income creating models.