Zoecon Corporation: Insect Growth Regulators Case Study
The problem of the Zoecon Coporation at this moment is how they can best allocate their technical, financial, and marketing resources for their IGR compounds. Some executives have suggested an informal consumer market expansion with their Roach Ender product to 19 cities, concentrate on the pest control operator (PCO) market with the Roach Ender, or sell its IGR compound to firms actively engaged in reaching the consumer market insecticide market. Some of these suggestions/alternatives are mutually exclusive and some are not, therefore Zoecon Executives should use the test market data analysis, in addition to their experience and knowledge in the insecticide industry to determine which suggestion/alternative will be the most profitable and meets Zoecon’s new corporate strategy. Limitations
The largest limitation or risk that could occur by any one of Zoecon’s startegies could be the loss of the ability to sell to the consumer market if a 3rd party agreement with another manufacturer is reached. This would be caused by the mutual exclusivity of the arrangement. Another risk that Zoecon could reach would be how long it would take for their product to become profitable. Their previous product, Flea Ender, was introduced in early 1983 to much avail. It was able to gain an 11% market share of the flea product sales in the same 19 cities that Zoecon is suggesting to target for their Roach Ender product. The problem is that after two years on the market, in 1985, the Flea Ender product had gained an 18% market share, but was still not profitable. It was not stated how much longer it took for the product to gain a profit, but this two year span is a massive limitation to the possible strategy of selling to the consumer market. Alternatives
The first alternative that Zoecon should consider is expanding the distribution of Strike Roach Ender to 19 city markets at the premium price similar to that in the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document