AC Cameras Vs. Drones Case

The initial strategy was to maintain a competitive presence in each segment by keeping our prices aligned with the average for each target market, while maintaining costs low. Specifically, it was our goal to become the leader in Traditional and low-end segments of the sensor business by allocating significant resources to R&D, marketing and promotions for these products. Our differentiator would be the result of a high investment in R&D to ensure our products were the best available.

This paper will discuss the Department of Defense policy surrounding market research, the purpose and when to use it. We will also address the types of information to be gained and the best market research practices.

“We enable consumers to improve the quality and convenience of their lives by providing innovative electronics solutions.”

We perhaps erred on the product design providing far too many features in the entry-level camera resulting in an increased cost of manufacturing. We did fairly well in terms of global prices but fared badly in P / Q ratings. The average Price for an entry-level camera in the global market is ranging from 150 - 175

To address the changes in the exchange rate in the different regions this year, we increased our price points on our entry-level cameras in most case by 6%. Our price with the increase is still 15% below the industry average from last year. Our marketing plan will remain aggressive in year 9. We will continue to create more revenue stream by increasing the amount of online retailers, local camera shops, and multi-chain stores. These changes will increase our overall presence in the market place and meet the demands of our

Primary assumptions to the theory include, high barriers to entry and exit, high sunk costs and imperfect knowledge of the market. In addition, this paper will analyze the company’s current standing in the market along with competitive strategies executed to grasp a greater portion of market share.

With the entry-level cameras, our strategy was to produce them with very minimal cost to ourselves. Furthermore, by having the entry-level cameras relatively low-cost this will potentially lead to mass production, which was our intended goal for these cameras. These cameras were envisioned where any average customer could purchase it comfortably to use on a daily basis. With that being said, we figured that many other companies would attempt to tackle the same price adjustment strategy that we were operating with. We reckoned that many companies were attempting to raise their prices for entry-level cameras, having said that we altered by maintaining a fairly lower price to raise profits. Unfortunately, we realize that this isn’t working out for our company, and decided to modify the prices, however we preformed this adjustment a bit to late for any major outcomes.

There was a price competition between the five different industries for entry-level cameras. Instead, we focused on using multi-featured cameras to make the most of revenue. Multi-level Strategy Our multi-level strategy was defined by providing the top-end cameras for mid-tier prices. This was reflected by our dedication to consistently advance in all product design fields, market . An initial focus on developing R&D and brand-specific components (in years 7 and 8) and later a transition to core-component improvement (years 9-11) outlined the product design approach. From years 7-8, dedication to new product R&D reached its highest peak. In each of the 2 years, $9 million was dedicated to

Imagine you are part of a strategic planning group at a large corporation that is considering developing a new proposed product. The marketing director has asked your team to do a competitive market analysis to determine the product’s potential success. The analysis will focus on your primary competitor in the product’s market.

Our five major competitors within the sensor market pose threats to our business strategy; however since each competing company has a similar starting point to our company it is difficult to identify the intended strategy of these competitors at the present time. Consistent monitoring of the strategic planning of our competition will allow us to adjust our approach to gain a competitive advantage if necessary.

By charging a high price for a high quality product and keeping all unrelated costs low, such as administrative costs, labor, depreciation, we were able to triumph all other competitors at large profit margins with large market share in entry level and the best multi featured camera.

We aimed to win market share by appealing to cost-conscious or price-sensitive customers, which we felt that the majority of consumers consisted of. This would be achieved by having the lowest prices in the target market segment, or at least the lowest price to value ratio (price compared to what customers receive). To succeed at offering the lowest price while still achieving profitability and a high return on investment, it was evident that we had to be able to operate at a lower cost than our rivals. We aimed to achieve this goal though a combination of two methods, the first being achieving a high asset turnover. In the manufacturing of our cameras, we wanted to achieve the production of high volumes of output. In theory this approach meant fixed costs would be spread over a larger number of units of the product or service, resulting in a lower unit cost. We hoped to take advantage of economies of scale and experience curve effects[3]. We hoped and realised that higher levels of output both required and resulted in a higher market share, and created an entry barrier to potential competitors, who may be unable to achieve the scale necessary to match our low costs and prices.

In 2002, Leitax had suffered through poor planning of 3 camera models: the launch of one camera delayed (cost: $19.5 million), another outsold its inventory (costs: $4.5million) and a third model reported sluggish sales ($2.5million). To compensate, Leitax extended the life of an existing model and made a mad scramble to find product and customers but the most costumers preferred to wait for the delayed camera. These

After analyzing the results from the previous quarter, it was determined that the prices set for each segment were not sufficient. Product sales priority were also not properly adjusted. With the R&D investments, sales priorities needed to be changed for the main focus to become the most profitable market segments. Prices were not competitive which in turned decreased revenue, market share, and profitability. To become more competitive we altered the prices in each market segment. The Workhorse product was the first to change, the price was lowered to $2500 in an attempt to increase sales; at this price Team 4 was still making a profit on this product, as well as making the price much more competitive. The Workhorse sales priority was also lowered to 3rd in Americas and 4th in APAC and EMEA. This product was not selling as well as we had hoped, and was no longer as profitable as it once was which led to this decision. Next, the Innovator product’s price was adjusted; this involved a price increase to $4100. This price was adjusted to include the new

Andrews Corporation is a multimillion dollar company that was designed when the parent company was mandated by the SEC in a monopoly settlement. This action resulted in six smaller companies. Along with the other five companies when the government split a monopoly into identical competitors, Andrews manufactures and sells sensors in five diverse market segments. As a monopoly, operating inefficiencies and poor product offerings were not addressed because increasing costs could be passed onto customers. Secondly, mediocre products would sell because customers had no other choices. Although last year’s financial results were decent, it is now our job increase product sales, marketing strategies, efficient production, and proper financial management to achieve financial greatness.