A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDYMARKET SITUATION According to Joel Q. Tanchuco, In the Philippines, footwear manufacturing is traditionally associated with Marikina. During its peak in the 1970s, the then‐province’s footwear was coveted by even the most discriminating consumers in major fashion cities around the world. It was a time when its workshops and craftsmen would be very busy churning out seemingly endless pairs of footwear, which would be known for outstanding quality and design. The decline of the national footwear industry was however, to quickly come with trade liberalization. Initially limited to selected sectors of the Philippine economy during the 1980s, trade liberalization became more widespread with the country’s decision to join the WTO. As a result, Philippine footwear manufacturing, which was concentrated in Marikina, would now have to contend with imported substitutes. The rapid shift in market conditions induced massive displacement and adjustments in the Marikina footwear industry. Observing Marikina’s shoe sector today, two things are clear: first, significant changes in production methods have to be introduced; second, given the presence of footwear clusters elsewhere, a different approach to pricing, marketing, and distribution has to be taken to enable the industry to survive and perhaps, even thrive. These two observations from the premise of this study. The current view of footwear manufacturers in Marikina, especially those with smaller output capacity, is one of hopelessness and pessimism. A more helpful and constructive way of looking
at the situation is asking why the Marikina footwear industry failed to evolve with the dynamics of competition in both local and export markets.PRODUCT SITUATION For most footwear producers, a production capacity of at least 1,500 pairs aweek is required before it can sell to foreign markets. With regard to means ofproduction, the firms’ smallness in terms of capital suggests limited opportunities tomechanize operations. (More than 90% of the respondents claim semi‐mechanized orfully manual modes of production for both survey periods.) The seasonality of footwearproduction in Marikina (March to May for the opening of classes in June, and October toDecember for the yearend holidays) similarly limits automation, since this means anerratic recovery stream on machinery‐ invested capital. (Automation, in this context, isthe presence of mechanized cutting, skiving or installing shoe lasts, soling, drying,testing, and other shoemaking tasks.) In the AIM study, capacities for large firms werepegged at 23,545 pairs per month during peak production seasons, and 13,365 pairsper month during lean periods. For small firms, the rated monthly capacities were3,342 pairs and 1,631 pairs per month during peak and lean periods, respectively. Notethat in this situation, the presence of machinery results in an affirmation of automationwithout its usual negative connotations, i.e. machines dominating the entire product lineassembly. In terms of volume, the studies cited report output going up from 1,000pairs a week to 3,000 to 5,000 if semi‐automation is pursued. There is a perceptiblelack of subcontracting and other manufacturing vertical arrangements.
COMPETITIVE SITUATION However, with a view on the long‐term competitiveness of Philippine footwearproduction, such a condition may not be considered advantageous at all because itsuggests that foreign footwear production can readily produce equivalent footwearcategories at lower prices. At this point, it should be emphasized that the trend ofdeclining prices in the global footwear trade has been generally pervasive—whichmeans the observed trend in average prices given in the table may not be so good overtime. Then again, this perspective on relative export prices being higher than importprices due to better scale economies could be tempered by widely held suspicions ofundervaluation, dumping, and other forms of unfair trade practices among footwearimporters. B. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1. What factors determine the competitive advantage of C point shoes? C.OBJECTIVES GENERAL To determine the factors necessary for the competitive advantage of C point shoes SPECIFIC To determine the competitive advantage of C point in terms of :
- Product - Price - Place - Promotion To determine the competitive strategies analysis of C point in terms of : - Product - Price - Place - PromotionD. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY MARIKINA CITY - This research helps the Marikina city deals with the impact of the awareness of the Marikina residents about the existence of the C point shoes in the Marikina shoe industry. COMPANY - This research study helps the C point shoes to measure the significant quality of the shoes against its competitors. The researchers believe that this study can be applied by the C point shoes to innovate their marketing strategy and competitive advantage to satisfy their customers.
STUDENTS - This research study helps the student as their basis for their research , this will serve as their guide and it can also be their secondary data. CUSTOMERS - It will serve as an instrument to awaken the customer’s awareness in patronizing the product of the C point in the Marikina shoe industry. It will provide them information to easily extinguish the products against others.E. SCOPE AND LIMITATION This research study deals with the factors determine the competitive advantageof C point shoes in Concepcion Uno, Marikina. It includes 100 respondents who willanswer a well prepared set of questionnaires. The researcher will use a survey andobservation method to gather the data and variable. The information gathered will givefacts on this research. The questionnaire will be distributed by the researchers. Theresearcher limits their research in the selected customer in Concepcion Uno, MarikinaCity.
F. RESEARCH DESIGN This study aims to gather and determine the factors of competitive advantage ofC point shoes in Concepcion Uno, Marikina city by the selected participants that datawill be presented, interpreted, and analyzed by the researchers to distinguish thecompetitive advantage of shoes in the industry. The research design of the study can beexplained in different viewpoints. This study also aims to determine and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiencyof the current status of C point, the researchers made full use of situational analysis indetermining the strengths and the weakness of the company, the opportunities and thetreats in the external market. More specifically, the use of the SWOT/TOWS analysiswas utilized because it was deemed considered as the most appropriate technique inmarketing strategies management. The research design of this study can be classified as descriptive because itanswers questions on what. With respect to the time dimension, the research isconducted over a span of time. This study is considered as formal based on the presentation of the researchproblem and other necessary information. The researchers presented the data in a clearand specific manner. It is used to determine the perception of the participants towardtheir preferred product. The researchers had no direct control of the variables in thisresearch since it will base on the personal point of view of the selected respondents ofConcepcion Uno, Marikina city.
B. POPULATION AND SAMPLING PLANRESPONDENTS In determining the competitive advantage of shoes, the researchers choose theselected customers as the respondents of their survey, considering/assuming that thehouseholds are the decision maker in buying shoes and where to buy it also. Theresearchers determined the population size of the respondents of Barangay ConcepcionUno, Marikina cityI. Young (2003) presented one formula known as the SLOVIN’S formula popularlyused in computing sample size. It illustrates the distribution of population and sample size. NSLOVIN’S FORMULA: n= ------------------ 1+ N (e)2LEGEND:n = Sample sizeN = Population sizeE = Degree of m, or marginalError (e.g. 1%, 5%, or 10%)
PART I: COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE ANALYSIS(Variables)A. PRODUCT/SERVICE Quality Packaging Brand nameB.PRICE List priceC. DISTRIBUTION Direct sales forceD. PROMOTION Personal selling sales promotionPART II: COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES ANALYSIS (company)A.MARKET 1. MARKET DIMENSION 2. MARKET ENTRY A. First-in-strategy product price distribution promotion B. Follow the leader strategy
product price distribution promotion C. Last- in entry product price distribution promotion 3. MARKET COMMITMENT 4. MARKET DEMAND 5. MARKET DIVERSIFICATIONB. PRODUCT 1. Product competition 2. New ProductsC. PRICE 1. Establish productsD. PROMOTION 1. Advertising 2. Sales force 3. Sales promotionE. PLACE 1. Channel structure