1. Vanya Slantcheva-Baneva, Ph.D.

3.  an online-based
interactive tool
 a single-player
marketing exercise

5. 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
39
55
44
28
17
30
28
6
2927
3
17
Student participation in playing Marketing simulation
for three academic years
(2010-2012)
Total number of students attending Marketing management course
Number of students enrolled for Marketing Simulation
Number of students purchased the Marketing Simulation
Number of students completed the Marketing Simulation

6.  The simulation is paid and it is more likely students
not to be enthusiastic enough, but less demanding
before the pragmatic choice not to overload their
personal academic duties.
 More than half of the class might become “leads”
(they are inclined to pay for but not to play the
simulation for sure).
 Actual number of participants might reach the
moiety. There are objective and subjective factors
that influence student’s vote.
 The instructor is issued when students pay for their
enrollment but actually apathetically run the
simulation, moreover when they do not run it at all.

7. 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
39
55
44
28
6
29
Number of IT students who choose to learn by
Marketing simulation
(2009-2012)
Total number of students attending Marketing management course
Number of students purchased the Marketing Simulation

8.  In 2010 72% of students purchased the Marketing
Simulation©.
 In 2011– hardly 11%.
 In 2012– their number raised to 61%.
 Marketing Simulation® is eligible one, and the figures
above could be suggested as good enough.
 More then 5-year history is required to outline a trend of
an actual student demands to learn by the simulation tool.
 Should students consider their extracurricular tasks, they
decide whether to play the simulation. They draw attention
to the following:
◦ Objective factors – attendance, employment, participations in
student contests, etc.
◦ Subjective factors – family, motivation, interest in the course,
individual perception of the instructor’s capabilities and charisma.

9. 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
28
6
29
27
3
17
IT student activity in playing Marketing simulation
(2009-2012)
Number of students purchased the Marketing Simulation
Number of students completed the Marketing Simulation

10.  In the academic 2009/10 year student activity
reaches about 100 per cent – 27 of 28 enrolled
students, run and completed the simulation.
 In 2011/12 student activity, compared to
2009/10 declines almost twice: the number of
students purchased the simulation is 29, but 17
of them completed it.
 The academic 2010/11 is a precedent: the
number of students in class is the highest one –
55, but those who purchased the simulation, is
modestly 6, and even 3 of them played and
completed it.

11. 96%
50%
59%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009/10
2010/112011/12
Relative share of students who completed the
Marketing simulation
Relative share of students purchased the MSim®
Relative share of students completed the MSim®

12.  CHALLENGE: “The red triangle” is growing smaller
then “the blue one”. Approx. 50 per cent of the
students do not complete the MSim, regardless
they have purchased it.
 PROBLEM: What makes students refuse to run the
simulation?
◦ ill-instructed
◦ feel not involved enough
◦ interest is lost
◦ HBP’s MSim is demanding, a time-consuming process of
learning
 CLUE: Rehearse a “Blue Ocean Strategy” scenario!

13. 59%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Number of students purchased
the Marketing Simulation
Number of students completed
the Marketing Simulation
Relative share of students with completed
simulation (2011/12)

14.  17 of 29 students have completed MSim .
 Above 40% of students have not completed MSim
 4 students have not run MSim at all
 The highest number of rounds (running MSim through 12
fiscal quarters) is 41 rounds per student. The lowest one is
just once; the average number of rounds per student is 8.
 The most effective student runs totally 7 rounds and
reaches the highest score in the group twice (81 point).
 The most diligent student runs MSim 41 rounds and reaches
the score of 80 points.
 The average efficiency of the rounds – in 8-9 completed
rounds the individual result is above 50 points.
 The overall group activity hesitantly surpasses 50 per cent

15. 1) “Status quo Strategy”
2) “Increase Price
Strategy”
3) “Commodity Play
Strategy”
Das Narayandas, Marketing Simulation: Managing Segments and Customers. HBR No. 4048, March 2010.
Their
loyals High-end
switchers
Our loyals
1) MM
Competitors
Low-end
switchers
A2
A1
2)
3)

17. 2
5
8
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30-43 44-57 58-71 72-85 86-100
Users
Total score
Distribution of class results by best individual score.
Total score
(2011/12)

18.  The prevailing and active part of the 2011/12
class (47%) has got moderate individual
scores – between 58-71 points.
 There is no an excellent score – above 85
points
 There are 2 interesting playing behaviours
with the highest scores: of the most efficient
student, and of the most diligent student
(who run the MSim 41 rounds).

19. 5
12
0 0 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1-6% 7-12% 13-19% 20-25% 26-31%
Users
Market share %
Distribution of class results by best individual score.
Market share (%)
(2011/12)

20.  Gaining a portion of market share means,
more or less, obtaining new customers
among the pursued segments.
 “Up to 12% market share” displays defensive
and retentive decision students made.

21. 2
1
7
5
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
$30,000,000 до $39,999,999$40,000,000 до $49,999,999$50,000,000 до $59,999,999$60,000,000 до $69,999,999$70,000,000 до $80,000,000
Users
Cumulative revenue (USD)
Distribution of class results by best
individual score . Cumulative revenue
(USD)
7 7
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
$0 до
$3,999,999
$4,000,000 до
$7,999,999
$8,000,000 до
$11,999,999
Users
Cumulative profit (USD)
Distribution of class results by best
individual score .
Cumulative profit (USD)

22.  Results display properly applied tactics of
“retention of existing customer” and “market
penetration” strategy (70 % of the 2011/12 class
hit $50,000,000 – $69,999,999 cumulative
revenue)
 Students do not base Investment policy in
product performance on high levels of
cumulative profit.
 They operationalize the improvements in product
features.
 Students are focused on serving and paying for
customer satisfaction, grounded on short-term
profits

23.  Postgraduate IT students usually run Marketing
Simulation© in a pragmatic manner, rather then
in a holistic one.
 Marketing strategies developed – predominantly
“Status quo Strategy” with hybrid elements of
“Increase Price Strategy”
 Individual results of the classes (2009-12) under
consideration imply that students understand the
simple interrelations between:
• segment behaviour,
• customer satisfaction and retention,
• competitor behaviour,
• product feature investments,
• price and discount decisions,
when segments and customers are managed.

24.  Student motivation about “learning by
playing” in Marketing
 Instructor’s role and classroom debrief –
“learning before and along playing”
 No single correct solution – “self-debriefing
and learning”