Two nationally recognized computer manufacturers compete for market share of lap top sales. Company B. has 50% market share for lap tops within the United States, while Company A has 10% share. Company A plans to use competitive advertising in order to acquire more market share. Since the remaining 40% U.S. market share is dispersed among various companies with no clear path to substantial acquisition, Company A decides that Company B's market share represents a target for its streamlined acquisition of market share. Effectively, Company A's advertising team devises to pull market share directly from Company B. Negative advertising poised to make Company B. appear to have inferior products relative to Company A's lap top offerings threatens Company B's market share.
However, Company B. does have a collective, non-physical barrier in place to thwart the results of negative advertising imposed by Company A. A few aspects combine to comprise this barrier: the production of high quality lap tops, branding synonymous with effective and high quality products as well as world-class customer service and appreciation.
Company A projected to usurp 15% market share from Company B. through the implementation of a series of competitive advertising messages. However, Company B. had anticipated such a competitive campaign, and already had positioned a strategic barrier to absorb the onslaught of negative messaging. In fact, not only had Company B. been progressively sending out branding messages that emphasized how the company has manufactured quality, creative products and delivered outstanding customer value and experiences, it had prepared marketing messages that would amplify its current branding messages, product initiatives, and dedication to customer satisfaction. Company B. had planned...
from numerous angles. Company A, for instance, attempted to purport that Company B. era of leading had passed and Company B's technology had become ancient. The immediate results favored Company A: it garnered an additional 2% market share. While the campaign did not reach the forecasted 15% market share, Company A did sway some consumers to purchase its products rather than Company B's offerings.
Company B. had successfully carried out a response campaign to ameliorate Company A's efforts to undermine its market positions with negative, competitive advertising messages. Without Company B. imposing defensive action, Company A may have reached its definitive, forecasted goal of intercepting 15% market share. While the permanency of the 2% loss of market share is not known, Company B. realized a loss. Company B's barrier system was effective but not full proof.
Since Company B. sustained a loss, its management team decided to perform barrier analysis to glean insight on how Company B's competitive campaign penetrated Company B's barrier or whether some other factor manifested the change in market share. According to Reality Charting (2014), barrier analysis, "identifies barriers used to protect a target from harm and analyzes the event to see if the barriers held, failed, or were compromised in some way by tracing the path to the threat from the harmful action to the target." Given Company B. had enacted a non-physical barrier, a breach of the barrier is difficult to determine, unless consistent, historical data were available to qualitatively and quantitatively benchmark the effects of the synergistic barrier. Company B. had not had to respond to a large competitive advertising campaign before.
Thus, Company B. could only speculate if its responsive messaging was strong enough or whether it needed to extend the quantity of ads to help obstruct the negative messaging. Or, possibly Company B's marketing policy to only put forth positive advertisement when responding to competitive advertising impeded its ability to construct certain functional barriers. Reality Charting (2014) describes the how barrier analysis can pinpoint implications and identify barriers, but does not necessarily solidify why a barrier…
Organizational Health Educational institutions generally approach organizational improvement by addressing the performance standards to which students, educators, and administrators are held. The standards movement has been a dominant theme in educational policy arenas and in the public eye. With roots in the 1950s Cold War mentality, the thrust of educational improvement has been prodded by perceptions of international industrial and scientific competition. If the rigor of educational standards in the nation