Hi, Anders and Anna. Thank you for the case - it is a very illustrative and insightful case. I'd just like to clarify one of the feedback shared by Anders after the case. Would eventually using the 3Cs be acceptable in this case? When I drew my structure, I had similar headings to those of Anna (Grow the Market x Steal Share), but under the "Steal Share" driver, I had: 1. Diagnose the current landscape 2. Adapt the company's offering 1.1 Identify Restaurants' buying criteria 1.2 Evaluate the competitor's offering 2.1 Increase goods quality 2.2 Evaluate new pricing strategies 2.3 Consider distributing goods to new customers other than restaurants 2.4 Improve marketing strategies to increase awareness of the company's services (if relevant) The rationale is that we should first understand (i) what restaurants value and (ii) what our competitors offer before (iii) adjusting our offering. Ultimately, I am relying on the 3Cs. What do you think of this approach? Too framework-y?
Hi! Nothing wrong with using frameworks if you know why they are structured the way they are and they are MECE. In the case of the 3Cs, the best way to describe it in a MECE way in the context of a growth case is the following: Growth = growth potential x company's ability to capture that potential. Growth potential = market growth x potential market share gain. Hence growth = market growth x potential market share gain x company's ability to capture the potential. Which in a simplified way then translates into CUSTOMER x COMPETITION x COMPANY.
I'm slightly confused with the "increase in market size" analysis in 10:10. I would expect the increase in market SIZE to stem from entering new markets (geographical regions both domestically and internationally), targeting new customer segments (sell food and beverages not just restaurants but to cafeterias in schools for example), and such.
Hi! Thanks for your comment. Growing into new geographical markets or expanding into new businesses are things that Anna ruled out in the beginning (see where she crosses out the branch "Growth from new markets or business models" at around 7:15. Absolutely, the company could expand their target market by growing in this way, but Anna already asked clarifying questions in the start that made it clear that that's not in scope. Hence, the breakdown of growth into market size and market share that you see at 10:10 only refers to the existing market that they are already in. Hope that clarifies things a bit!
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm always scared of the partner case and this was extremely helpful, thank you two 😊😊
Great that it was helpful! Nothing to be scared about :-)
Hi, Anders and Anna. Thank you for the case - it is a very illustrative and insightful case.
I'd just like to clarify one of the feedback shared by Anders after the case. Would eventually using the 3Cs be acceptable in this case? When I drew my structure, I had similar headings to those of Anna (Grow the Market x Steal Share), but under the "Steal Share" driver, I had:
1. Diagnose the current landscape 2. Adapt the company's offering
1.1 Identify Restaurants' buying criteria 1.2 Evaluate the competitor's offering
2.1 Increase goods quality 2.2 Evaluate new pricing strategies 2.3 Consider distributing goods to new customers other than restaurants 2.4 Improve marketing strategies to increase awareness of the company's services (if relevant)
The rationale is that we should first understand (i) what restaurants value and (ii) what our competitors offer before (iii) adjusting our offering. Ultimately, I am relying on the 3Cs.
What do you think of this approach? Too framework-y?
Hi!
Nothing wrong with using frameworks if you know why they are structured the way they are and they are MECE.
In the case of the 3Cs, the best way to describe it in a MECE way in the context of a growth case is the following: Growth = growth potential x company's ability to capture that potential. Growth potential = market growth x potential market share gain. Hence growth = market growth x potential market share gain x company's ability to capture the potential. Which in a simplified way then translates into CUSTOMER x COMPETITION x COMPANY.
Very helpful!
Thank you! Happy to hear that!
Can't find part 2
Hi. Here is the link to the playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLN4UjcyOs8hcnmJQGryozR2EvHiSSXS1B.html&feature=shared
I'm slightly confused with the "increase in market size" analysis in 10:10. I would expect the increase in market SIZE to stem from entering new markets (geographical regions both domestically and internationally), targeting new customer segments (sell food and beverages not just restaurants but to cafeterias in schools for example), and such.
Hi!
Thanks for your comment.
Growing into new geographical markets or expanding into new businesses are things that Anna ruled out in the beginning (see where she crosses out the branch "Growth from new markets or business models" at around 7:15. Absolutely, the company could expand their target market by growing in this way, but Anna already asked clarifying questions in the start that made it clear that that's not in scope.
Hence, the breakdown of growth into market size and market share that you see at 10:10 only refers to the existing market that they are already in. Hope that clarifies things a bit!