Rogers Chocolates Case Study (Internal/External Analysis)

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 925
  • Published : March 31, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
Roger’s Chocolates

Table of Contents
External Analysis 3
A. Chief Economic Characteristics 3
B. Five Force Analysis 7
C. Driving Forces 9
D. Strategic Group Map11
E. Key Success Factors12
F. Overall Attractiveness of the Industry13

Internal Analysis14
A. Identification of Business Strategy14
B. Financial Analysis16
C. SWOT Analysis19
D. Competitive Strength Analysis22

Test of Winning Strategy23
A. Fit Test23
B. Competitive Advantage Test24
C. Performance Test25
D. Summary of Tests of Winning Strategy26
E. Identification of Strategic Issues27

Recommendations28
A. Revenues/Expenses Projections30
B. Internet Summary30

External Analysis

A. Chief Economic Characteristics

Chief economic characteristics| Com*| PP*| Perspective of industry’s insiders| Perspective of industry’s outsiders| Perspective ofCompany| Market size: Small, $167 million in 2006| (+)| (-)| Inhibits outsiders from entrance due to fear of competition| Larger markets are more attractive| Inhibits outsiders from entrance due to fear of competition| Market growth rate: Was falling, now is growing again. 20% annual growth rate in premium chocolates, 2% overall growth rate in the Canadian market| (-)| (+)| Growth allows more opportunities to gain market share| Growth is not significant enough to be overly attractive| Growth in premium industry allows ability for increase profitability| Scope of rivalry: Broad; many local and national rivals, international rivals strong| (+)| (-)| Tough to compete with many different sellers| Many market niche opportunities| Switching from traditional strategies may be a problem| Number of rivalries: Many; strong regional brands and a few large players. | (+)| (-)| Intense competition decreases opportunity for profit| Hard to step in to a premium industry| Hard to compete with larger sellers with more attractive marketing| Product differentiation: Moderate, product qualities aren’t as important as marketing techniques and brand image| (+)| (-)| Becomes tough for a company to stay on the leading edge through solely its product quality| Able to analyze from an outside perspective in order to find what companies aren’t capitalizing on| Becomes tough for a company to stay on the leading edge through solely its product quality| Low Cost – low price: Specialty markets allow for greater price variability; serving wealthy customers who aren’t as cost sensitive| (-)| (+)| Allows room for overhead and marketing costs| Makes entry hard; undercutting opponents prices will not be successful| Allows room for change in strategy because price isn’t as much of a concern| Buyer’s needs & Number of Buyers: Moderately few buyers, changing needs (healthy, environmentally friendly options)| (+)| (-)| Calls for constant reevaluation of strategies in a changing market| May be able to jump in ahead to meet a new customer preference or consumer trend| Calls for constant reevaluation of strategies in a changing market| Vertical Integration: Moderate| (-)| (+)| Vertical integration could lead to cost efficiency and higher profit margins| Low integration means that an entrant doesn’t need to be integrated to succeed| Vertical integration could lead to cost efficiency and higher profit margins| Learning and experience effects: Not nearly as important as marketing techniques and product packaging| (-)| (+)| Leaves potential threats open for low quality with good advertising to take over high quality| Not as extensive of knowledge necessary in order to succeed| Could be taken over by changes in consumer trends; quality and know-how not as important as image| Capital investment(High, Medium, Low): Medium; small industry, however,...
tracking img