Markstrat Paper
MarkStrat Simulation Report Analysis for Firm A Market: SONITE Brand Names: SAKE and SAFE
Presented by:
Jessie Bawak Emmanuel Nkabyo Phillips Morkeith
To
George Kirk
Applied Marketing Instructor
Southern University Baton Rouge
May, 2013
MarkStrat Simulation Report Analysis
When our team assumed the control, we here given two products SAFE and SAKE in the SONITE market. The physical characteristics of the two products were already fixed. We were given the task of managing the two products in the SONITE market and come up with a marketing strategy that would lead to better performance by the products.
In period 1 the two products were different from each other in terms of Weight, Design, Volume, Frequency and Power. The Base cost for developing SAKE and SAFE were almost the same: $184 and $189 respectively. And the retail price of SAKE was far higher than for SAFE
The market share of our team A was about 24.2% in the SONITE market. Brand SAKE ‘s market share stood at 17% while brand SAFE 7.2% The distribution coverage was more focused on Specialty stores and little attention was relatively given to Mass merchandise. Hi earners and Pros were SAKE’s customer segments of preference while Buffs and Pros were most important to SAFE.
In period 1, the SAKE brand had a better performance than the SAFE brand. Its base cost was relatively low at $188 while SAFE base cost was $193. SAKE was retailing at a higher price than SAFE and SAKE had a market share of 17.9% almost twice the value of SAFE which was 10%. The market share of SAKE was highest than that of other firms.
Contribution by brand reveals that the SAKE brand sold more than what it produced, that is with its inventory included. Its revenue was $41662 and its contribution before marketing is $22,104 and contribution after marketing stood at $19,586. The SAFE brand was in bad shape and needed to be revived. First, units of production is low(96,000), transfer cost is
Presented by:
Jessie Bawak Emmanuel Nkabyo Phillips Morkeith
To
George Kirk
Applied Marketing Instructor
Southern University Baton Rouge
May, 2013
MarkStrat Simulation Report Analysis
When our team assumed the control, we here given two products SAFE and SAKE in the SONITE market. The physical characteristics of the two products were already fixed. We were given the task of managing the two products in the SONITE market and come up with a marketing strategy that would lead to better performance by the products.
In period 1 the two products were different from each other in terms of Weight, Design, Volume, Frequency and Power. The Base cost for developing SAKE and SAFE were almost the same: $184 and $189 respectively. And the retail price of SAKE was far higher than for SAFE
The market share of our team A was about 24.2% in the SONITE market. Brand SAKE ‘s market share stood at 17% while brand SAFE 7.2% The distribution coverage was more focused on Specialty stores and little attention was relatively given to Mass merchandise. Hi earners and Pros were SAKE’s customer segments of preference while Buffs and Pros were most important to SAFE.
In period 1, the SAKE brand had a better performance than the SAFE brand. Its base cost was relatively low at $188 while SAFE base cost was $193. SAKE was retailing at a higher price than SAFE and SAKE had a market share of 17.9% almost twice the value of SAFE which was 10%. The market share of SAKE was highest than that of other firms.
Contribution by brand reveals that the SAKE brand sold more than what it produced, that is with its inventory included. Its revenue was $41662 and its contribution before marketing is $22,104 and contribution after marketing stood at $19,586. The SAFE brand was in bad shape and needed to be revived. First, units of production is low(96,000), transfer cost is