Mediquip Case Analysis
Question 1: Going in to this situation, what were Thaldorf’s major strengths and weaknesses as a representative of Mediquip?
Kurt Thaldorf enjoyed a strong set of strengths over weaknesses going into the tendering process with Lohmann University Hospital (LUH).
Strengths:
1) Mediquip had successfully positioned their brand as Kotler et al. point out (2012 P 396) as it enjoyed a reputation for technology and after sales service. This reputation also gave Mediquip some corporate credibility in the market.
2) Kurt believed strongly in the Mediquip scanners superiority, therefore giving him confidence and positive selling intentions towards the product. These attributes have been identified to positively impact on sales of new product lines (Fu F.Q. et al (2010) and also helped motivate him.
3) The CT technology was new to the market; therefore Thaldorf would be addressing “New Task” (Ozanne & Churchill Jr.1971 p.325) purchasing situations. Ozanne & Churchill Jr.(1971) identified that in these circumstances the salesperson has the ability to have significant impact on the sale process, due to the ability influence potential buyer at a number of stages in the five stage adoption process. Thaldorf was in a position to”frame” (Kotler el al. (2012) P 303) Mediquip’s offering positively. See figure 1
4) Mediquip had product specialists available and had also developed forms and procedures supporting engineers to analyse and formulate strategy when entering these buying situations, therefore giving Thaldorf structure and guidance.
Figure 1
[pic]
Weaknesses:
1) The main competitors for Mediquip were already established in the market, therefore likely to have established relationships with key decision makers.
2) Mediquip’s CT scanner was a more expensive product than the competition. Kotler et al., (2012 p. 310) point out that in order to charge a premium price for your
Kurt Thaldorf enjoyed a strong set of strengths over weaknesses going into the tendering process with Lohmann University Hospital (LUH).
Strengths:
1) Mediquip had successfully positioned their brand as Kotler et al. point out (2012 P 396) as it enjoyed a reputation for technology and after sales service. This reputation also gave Mediquip some corporate credibility in the market.
2) Kurt believed strongly in the Mediquip scanners superiority, therefore giving him confidence and positive selling intentions towards the product. These attributes have been identified to positively impact on sales of new product lines (Fu F.Q. et al (2010) and also helped motivate him.
3) The CT technology was new to the market; therefore Thaldorf would be addressing “New Task” (Ozanne & Churchill Jr.1971 p.325) purchasing situations. Ozanne & Churchill Jr.(1971) identified that in these circumstances the salesperson has the ability to have significant impact on the sale process, due to the ability influence potential buyer at a number of stages in the five stage adoption process. Thaldorf was in a position to”frame” (Kotler el al. (2012) P 303) Mediquip’s offering positively. See figure 1
4) Mediquip had product specialists available and had also developed forms and procedures supporting engineers to analyse and formulate strategy when entering these buying situations, therefore giving Thaldorf structure and guidance.
Figure 1
[pic]
Weaknesses:
1) The main competitors for Mediquip were already established in the market, therefore likely to have established relationships with key decision makers.
2) Mediquip’s CT scanner was a more expensive product than the competition. Kotler et al., (2012 p. 310) point out that in order to charge a premium price for your
Bibliography: 1. Anderson J.C Narus J.A. Van Rossum W. (2006) “Customer Value Propositions in Business Markets” Harvard Business Review 2 3. Cialdini R. (2007) Chapter 6 “Authority” P222-226 in Influence The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper Collins 4 5. Jackson Jr. D. Keith J. and Burdick R. (1984) “Purchasing Agents Perceptions of Industrial Buying Centre Influence: A Situational Appraoch” Journal of Marketing 48 75-83 6 7. Kotler P. Keller K. Brady M. Goodman M. Hansen T. (2012) Marketing Management 2nd edition. London: Pearson Education 8 Webster F & Wind Y (1972)