Tweeter Case Study
Tweeter
Case Questions
1. Objectively and subjectively, is Tweeter price competitive? Why or why not?
Tweeter is an electronics store that pride itself on selling middle and high end goods. To see if they were price competitive, we would have to evaluate them with similar stores like Cambridge sounds waves as opposed to Walmart. Before APP in 1993, it would not have been possible to evaluate Tweeter’s price competitiveness since there was no systematic benchmarking present. However with the APP, objectively, I think that Tweeter did try to price their goods competitively with other similar goods. The APP strategy showed that their prices were competitive even in comparison with cost leader competitors like Lechmere. This indicated that Tweeter was price competitive not only in its on niche market of high end goods but also overall within the electronics market.
Subjectively, when customer’s perspective were added into the equation, Tweeter price was not viewed as competitive. Customers did not perceive price objectively. In Tweeter’s early years, their vision of “commitment to value, quality and service” and “We don’t carry all brands, only the ones that count” were working to their advantage as customers perceived them as a premium brand and students then were interested in high end products. However, in 1993 before the APP, entrance of other retailers start the price war and later through the focus group, 4 out of 5 customers viewed Tweeter as being more expensive. With the implementation of the APP, customers were still aware that Tweeter were priced the same or higher compared to bigger retail chains.
To conclude, there is a huge gap between the objectivity of Tweeter’s price and the perception of customers. The APP policy clearly demonstrates that Tweeter’s price is competitive whereas customer perception does not align. This could have been because for 40 years, Tweeter had positioned itself as a premium brand and even though its marketing
Case Questions
1. Objectively and subjectively, is Tweeter price competitive? Why or why not?
Tweeter is an electronics store that pride itself on selling middle and high end goods. To see if they were price competitive, we would have to evaluate them with similar stores like Cambridge sounds waves as opposed to Walmart. Before APP in 1993, it would not have been possible to evaluate Tweeter’s price competitiveness since there was no systematic benchmarking present. However with the APP, objectively, I think that Tweeter did try to price their goods competitively with other similar goods. The APP strategy showed that their prices were competitive even in comparison with cost leader competitors like Lechmere. This indicated that Tweeter was price competitive not only in its on niche market of high end goods but also overall within the electronics market.
Subjectively, when customer’s perspective were added into the equation, Tweeter price was not viewed as competitive. Customers did not perceive price objectively. In Tweeter’s early years, their vision of “commitment to value, quality and service” and “We don’t carry all brands, only the ones that count” were working to their advantage as customers perceived them as a premium brand and students then were interested in high end products. However, in 1993 before the APP, entrance of other retailers start the price war and later through the focus group, 4 out of 5 customers viewed Tweeter as being more expensive. With the implementation of the APP, customers were still aware that Tweeter were priced the same or higher compared to bigger retail chains.
To conclude, there is a huge gap between the objectivity of Tweeter’s price and the perception of customers. The APP policy clearly demonstrates that Tweeter’s price is competitive whereas customer perception does not align. This could have been because for 40 years, Tweeter had positioned itself as a premium brand and even though its marketing