B2B case study: defining a business strategy based on the analysis of company results, actual market, competitors position in order to build an effective plan to increase its market share. Team Members: Chiara Cilardo, Cristina Munoz Garcia, Azzurra Maria Barausse, Valeria Di Persio D'Agostino

9. 2007
2008
2009
Sales
120.000.000
135.000.000
118.000.000
Quan.ty
2.400.000
2.700.000
2.500.000
Price
50
51.9
47.2
EBIT
12%
12%
10.5%
2007
2008
2009
Sales
125.000.000
122.000.000
105.000.000
Quan.ty
2.500.000
2.850.000
2.700.000
Price
50
42.8
38.8
EBIT
11.5%
9.8%
9.2%
2007
2008
2009
Sales
5.000.000
-­‐13.000.000
-­‐13.000.000
Quan.ty
100.000
150.000
200.000
EBIT
-­‐0,005
-­‐2,20%
-­‐1,30%

11. 2010
Sales
108.000.000
Quan.ty
2.400.000
Price
45
EBIT
10%
2010
Sales
73.000.000
Quan.ty
1.960.000
Price
37.2
EBIT
9%
2010
Sales
99.500.000
Quan.ty
2.670.000
Price
37.2
EBIT
8.8%

12. -­‐
20.000.000,00
40.000.000,00
60.000.000,00
80.000.000,00
100.000.000,00
120.000.000,00
140.000.000,00
2007
2008
2009
2010
SALES
REVENUE

13. 2.300.000
2.400.000
2.500.000
2.600.000
2.700.000
2.800.000
2.900.000
2007
2008
2009
2010
QUANTITY
SOLD

14. 0,0%
2,0%
4,0%
6,0%
8,0%
10,0%
12,0%
14,0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
EBIT

15. The
downtrend
in
margin
from
2007
to
2010
can
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
the
company
encounters
problems
in
the
effecGveness
of
the
processes
and
is
not
a
cost
leader.
Its
resources
are
in
line
with
other
compeGtors;
this
means
that
available
resources
do
not
permit
the
company
to
reach
a
compeGGve
advantage
over
compeGtors.
Rinaldi
is
not
able
to
lower
the
costs
in
order
to
increase
margin
plus
the
prices
decreased
over
Gme.

16. THEY
ARE
NOT
TAKING
GOOD
CARE
OF
THE
ITALIAN
MARKET
THEY
ARE
TRYING
TO
APPROACH
OTHER
MARKETS
THEY
ARE
NOT
COMMUNICATING
WELL
THE
FUTURE
VISION
OF
THE
COMPANY

17. THE
EFFICIENCY
IS
HIGH
THE
EFECTIVENESS
IN
THE
PROCESS
IS
LOW
THEY
ARE
NOT
COST
LEADER
THEY
DON’T
HAVE
A
CLEAR
COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE
THEY
ARE
IN
POSSESION
OF
ONLY
ONE
MANUFACTURING
SITE

19. 5,30%
39,10%
2,10%
3,00%
1,00%
1,50%
5,00%
1,60%
1,10%
W.W
ITALY
EUROPE
(Italy
excluded)
FRANCE
GERMANY
U.K
SPAIN
N.A
R.O.W

20. 5,10%
34,90%
2,00%
2,20%
0,80%
2,00%
5,70%
2,00%
2,30%
W.W
ITALY
EUROPE
(Italy
excluded)
FRANCE
GERMANY
U.K
SPAIN
N.A
R.O.W

21. 5,3
39,1
2,1
3
1
1,5
5
1,6
1,1
5,1
34,9
2
2,2
0,8
2
5,7
2
2,3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2007
FORECAST
2010

22. 0,00%
5,00%
10,00%
15,00%
20,00%
25,00%
30,00%
35,00%
40,00%
45,00%
ITALY
France
Germany
Spain
U.K
EUROPE
N.A
R.O.W
World
Wide
2007
2010
-­‐
4,2%
-­‐
0,2%

23. 0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
Italy
Europe
North
America
R.O.W
2007
2010
-­‐17,8%
-­‐36%

24. Big
customers
and
big
in
size
Specialized
segmenta.on
INDIRECT
DISTRIBUTION
CHANNEL
NON
DIFFERENTIATED
DISTRIBUTOR
NETWORK
R.O.W
SPAIN
ITALY
GERMANY
U.S.A
All
kind
of
customers,
many
in
numbers
Tradi.onal
Segmenta.on

25. COUNTRY
SMALL
COMPANIES
BIG
COMPANIES
Italy
75%
5-­‐10%
Spain,
U.K.,
R.O.W.
60%
5-­‐15%
N.A.,
France,
Germany
5-­‐15%

27. 72
75
68
63
15
12
17
15
8
5
10
8
5
8
5
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2007
2008
2009
2010
ITALY
EUROPE
N.A
R.O.W

28. BIGGEST
COMPETITOR
LOCATION:
GERMANY
REVENUES:
292.000.000
QUANTITY:
6.664.000
TECHNICAL
PERFORMANCE
QUALITY
RELIABILITY
RANKED
FIFTH
IN
THE
WORLD
MARKET
100
COMPETITORS
ALL
PRODUCE
WORLDWIDE
LOWER
TECH
LEVEL
IN
GENERAL

29.
2011
2012
2013
Italy
+1%
+1,2%
+1,5%
EU
+1,5%
+1,7%
+1,9%
USA
2,5%-­‐3%
2,7-­‐3,2%
2,9-­‐3,5%
R.O.W
+5%-­‐9%
5,2-­‐9,2%
5,4-­‐9,4%

31. • Has
a
higher
level
of
technology
than
the
majority
of
the
compeGtors
• 5th
posiGon
in
the
rank
for
Technical
Performance/Quality/Reliability
• Unclear
strategic
direcGon
• Weak
image
• Lack
of
managerial
depth
and
talent
• Missing
essenGal
skills
and
competences
• Poor
track
record
• High
internal
operaGng
problems
• Vulnerable
to
compeGGve
pressures
• CompeGGve
disadvantages
• Obsolete
faciliGes
• Frail
workforce
management
• Enter
new
markets
(China,
Brazil,
India
and
Japan)
• Expand
services
to
meet
broader
range
of
customer
needs
• Diversify
into
related
products
or
services
• Add
complementary
products
of
services
• Risk
of
entrance
of
new
compeGtors
• Growing
compeGGve
pressures
• Growing
bargaining
power
of
customers
and
suppliers
• Economic
uncertainty
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS

33. 1. WE
ANALYZED
THE
INFORMATION
AND
FOUND
PROBLEMS
2. WE
FOUND
MULTIPLE
REASONS
THAT
PROVOKED
THEM
3. NOW
WE
WILL
FIND
THE
SOLUTIONS

35. WE
ARE
GOING
TO
SET
THE
MISSION
AND
GOALS
FOR
THE
YEARS
2011,
2012
&
2013

36. 1.
FIX
THE
PROBLEMS
IN
TWO
YEARS
(2011,
2012)
2.
TRY
TO
GROW
A
BIT
IN
THE
THIRD
(2013)
3.
OPTIONAL:
ADD
2
YEARS
MORE
AND
KEEP
A
GROWING
STRATEGY
WE
CHOSE
THIS
KEY
POINTS
TO
FOCUS
ON:
• MARKET
SHARE
• BUDGET
(EXPECTED
UNITS
TO
SELL,
UNITARY
PRICE,
EBIT
&
UNITARY
COSTS)

37. 2011
2012
2013
World
Wide
+1%
+2.5%
+2.5%
Italy
+2.5%
(Regain
old
MS)
+2.5%
(Regain
old
MS)
+5%
(Gain
new
MS)
Europe
+1%
+
4%
+5%
France
+0.4%
(Regain
old
MS)
+0.4%
(Regain
old
MS)
+0.4%
(Gain
new
MS)
Germany
+0.1%
(Regain
old
MS)
+0.1%
(Regain
old
MS)
+0.1%
(Gain
new
MS)
UK
+0.25%
(Regain
old
MS)
+0.25%
(Regain
old
MS)
+1%
(Gain
new
MS)
Spain
+0%
(maintain
MS)
+3%
(Gain
new
MS)
+3%
(Gain
new
MS)
North
America
+0%
(maintain
MS)
+0.5%
(Gain
new
MS)
+0.5%
(Gain
new
MS)
Rest
of
the
World
+0%
(maintain
MS)
+0.5%
(Gain
new
MS)
+0.5%
(Gain
new
MS)

38.
2011
2012
2013
EXPECTED
N.
OF
UNIT
SOLD
2,670,000
2,800,000
2,860,000
AVERAGE
EXPECTED
UNIT
PRICE
38
40
42
TOTAL
EXPECTED
REVENUES
101.460.000
112.000.000
120.120.000
EXPECTED
COSTS
92.531.520
101.920.000
100.708.600
EBIT
8.928.480
10.080.000
11.411.400
EBIT
%
8,80
9
9,5
EXPECTED
COSTS
PER
UNIT
34,66
36,40
38,01

39. STOP
UNDERSELLING
INCREASE
THE
PRICE
PER
UNIT
IN
ORDER
TO
BETTER
REFLECT
THE
VALUE
OF
THE
PRODUCTS
AND
COVER
THE
INCREASED
INVESTMENT
COSTS
CONSIDERED
THE
FACT
THAT
THE
NUMBER
OF
UNIT
SOLD
IS
EXPECTED
TO
INCREASE,
THE
COMPANY
IS
NOT
FORCED
TO
SET
A
VERY
HIGH
PRICE
FOR
THE
PRODUCT
THIS
WILL
FACILITATE
THE
PENETRATION
OF
THE
ITALIAN
MARKET
AND
THE
INCREASE
IN
MARKET
SHARE
IN
R.O.W.
THE
INCREASE
IN
MARGIN
IS
DUE
TO
THE
FACT
THAT
THE
COMPANY
EXPECT
TO
SELL
MORE
UNITS
AT
A
HIGHER
PRICE
SINCE
ITS
STRATEGY
IS
SUSTAINED
BY
A
HIGHER
DEMAND
OF
GOODS
AND
PRICES.

40. WE
HAVE
TO
STIMULATE
THE
SALES
FORCE
BY
OFFERING
THEM
A
SMALL
PERCENTAGE
INCREASE
IN
THEIR
COMISSION
AFTER
THEY
HAVE
REACHED
A
CERTAIN
AMOUNT
OF
SALES
WHICH
WILL
BE
SPECIFIED
IN
THEIR
CONTRACTS
DEPENDING
OF
THE
RESULTS
AT
THE
END
OF
THE
YEAR,
THE
EMPLOYEES
WILL
BE
GIVEN
EXTRA
NON
WORKING
DAYS,
THAT
WILL
BE
CHOOSEN
BETWEEN
EACH
LOW
SALES
SEASON

41. THE
COMPANY
SHOULD
DEFINE
THE
MAIN
PRODUCT
FEATURES
1. Near
zero
backlash
2. Added
right
angle
3. Indexer
design

42. STRENGHTS
OF
THE
COMPANY
• HIGHER
LEVEL
OF
TECHNOLOGY
THAN
THE
MAJORITY
OF
COMPETITORS
• RANKS
5
IN
TECHNICAL
PERFORMANCE,
QUALITY
AND
RELIABILITY
POSITIONING
STATEMENT
• SIGNIFICANT
• SHARED
• OUTWARDLY
COMMUNICABLE
• ABLE
TO
CLEARLY
TRANSFER
THE
BRAND
VALUE
WE
WANT
TO
POSITION
THE
COMPANY
AS
MARKET
LEADER,
BUT
IN
3
YEARS
WE
CAN’T
DO
THAT,
INSTEAD,
WE
ARE
GOING
TO
TRY
TO
FIX
THE
PROBLEMS
AND
TRY
TO
CLEAN
ITS
IMAGE

43. ADOPT
THE
BRAND
STRATEGY
CREATING
A
SUITABLE
HIERARCHY
CREATE
SYMBOLS
NOT
TIED
TO
THE
PRODUCT
USE
MARKETING
COMMUNICATION
TOOLS
PROMOTE
THE
USE
OF
FACEBOOK
AND
LINKEDIN
MAKE
EVENTS,FAIRS
AND
COMPANY
VISITS,
TO
EXPLAIN
HOW
THE
PRODUCT
WORKS,
AND
SHOW
THE
REAL
VALUE
TO
THE
CUSTOMERS
EXPLOIT
THE
NAME
&
VALUE
OF
OTHER
CUSTOMER
COMPANIES
USE
THE
GOOD
NAME
OR
VALUE
OF
THE
BIG
CUSTOMERS
AS
A
BRIDGE
BETWEEN
THE
COMPANY
AND
POTENCIAL
CUSTOMERS
DEVELOP
BRANDING
PER
SEGMENT
ANALYZE
AND
UNDERSTAND
WELL
THE
NEEDS
OF
THE
SEGMENTS
TO
BE
ABLE
TO
OFFER
THEM
A
BETTER
AND
MORE
“CUSTOMIZED”
VALUE

45. WE
SHOULD
KEEP
THIS
STRATEGY,
NOT
ONLY
STOPPING
AFTER
FIXING
THE
PROBLEM,
BUT
IMPROVING
SLOWLY
AND
CONTINUOUSLY

47. NEW
PRODUCTS
STAY
TUNED;
INNOVATING
ADVERTISING
PROMOTE
OUR
PRODUCTS,
SPECIALLY
NEW
ONES
CUSTOMER
SHARE
INCREASE
THE
SALES
FORCE
COMMUNICATES
WELL
THE
VALUE
TO
THE
CUSTOMERS
NOT
STOPPING
AFTER
HAVING
A
GOOD
RELATIONSHIP
WITH
A
CUSTOMER,
BUT
MAINTAINING
IT
AND
IMPROVING
IT
DAY
BY
DAY
DEFINE
VERY
WELL
WHO
EXECUTE
THE
PLAN,
THE
TIMING
&
THE
BUDGET
FEEDBACK
COLLECT
DURING
THE
PROCESS
AND
AFTER,
TO
BE
SURE
OF
ACHIEVING
THE
GOALS,
AND
KNOW
HOW
TO
IMPROVE
IN
THE
FUTURE

49. 30/12/2010
30/12/2011
30/12/2012
30/12/2013
1,71$=
1€
1,54$=
1€
1,54$=
1€
1,54$=
1€
DOLLAR
DEVALUATION
+1%
IT
+1,5%
EU
2,5-­‐3%
USA
5-­‐9%
ROW
+1,2%
IT
+1,7%
EU
2,7-­‐3,2%
USA
5,2-­‐9,2%
ROW
+1,5%
IT
+1,9%
EU
2,9-­‐3,5%
USA
5,4-­‐9,4%
ROW
GROSS
NATIONAL
PRODUCT
EVOLUTION
USA
EU
EU
CHINESE
COMPETITOR
ENTRANCE

54. INNOVATION
• MUCH
OF
THE
DIFFERENTIATION
IS
AT
THE
MARGIN
RATHER
THAN
ANYTHING
TRANSFORMATIONAL
• THERE’S
A
PROBLEM
WITH
A
PRODUCT-­‐CENTRIC
VIEW
OF
DIFFERENTIATION
FOCUSED
TOO
MUCH
ON
THE
ACTUAL
PHYSICAL
FORM
OF
THE
PRODUCT
• THE
PRODUCT
IS
COMMODIZATED
BY
MISSING
THE
TOTALITY
OF
THE
VALUE
AND
ITS’
RELATED
AUGMENTED
BENEFITS
AND
SERVICES
PROVIDED
DIFFERENTIATION
• INCREASING
CHALLENGES
WITH
DIFFERENTIATION
• GROWING
EASE
WITH
WHICH
PRODUCTS
CAN
BE
COPIED
AND
LESS
EXPENSIVELY
MANUFACTURED
IN
ASIA
• PRODUCT
PROLIFERATION

57. ONCE
REALIZED
HOW
TO
DIFFERENCIATE
THE
PRODUCT
AND
RELATED
SERVICES,
WE
CAN
ADD
ANOTHER
BIG
DIFFERENCIATIOR:
COMMUNICATION
OUT-­‐COMMUNICATING
THE
COMPETITORS,
WE
CAN
SOLVE
THE
MISTERY
OF
HOW
TO
DIFFERENTIATE
A
PARITY
PRODUCT.
AND
GET
THE
3
CORNERSTONE
BENEFITS
OF
EFFECTIVE
B2B
MARKETING:
• LOWER
OVERALL
COST
OF
SALES
• IMPROVED
GROSS
MARGINS
• EASIER
SELLING
PROCESS
THIS
CAN
BE
ACHIEVED
THROUGH
ALL
THE
AVAILABLE
DIGITAL
PLATFORMS
BY
BUILDING
AN
INNOVATIVE
COMMUNICATION
PROGRAM
THAT
CAN
SERVE
AS
AN
INTEGRATED
PART
OF
THE
AUGMENTED
PRODUCT

58. It
will
help
to
gain
insights
more
quickly
into
changing
customer
needs
and
become
more
compe..ve
by
taking
advantage
of
the
real
.me
research
that
exists
on
the
Web
regarding
artudes,
awareness
and
usage
of
products
by
their
customers
as
well
their
compeGtors’
customers
UNDERSTAND
THE
SOCIAL
MEDIA
AS
A
PART
OF
THE
AUGMENTED
PRODUCT
THIS
MEANS:
ADDED
VALUE
BENEFITS
FOR
THE
COMPANY
&
THE
CUSTOMER
COMPANIES