Shoes for Moos - Competitive Analysis
Autor: yangruidi • April 22, 2019 • Case Study • 383 Words (2 Pages) • 500 Views
Competitive Analysis
There were not many businesses that provide related footwear for hoof disease. There were currently two major competitors in the market for hoof disease. One competitor sold a hoof shoe. This type of shoe is mainly aimed at the structural problems of the cow's foot rather than treating the disease. This type of shoe is mainly aimed at the structural problems of the cow's foot rather than treating the disease. According to the size, this kind of shoes was divided into pink yellow and blue so that the size of the cow shoes could be clearly known. It only advertised through the direct mail catalogues from the United States. Although the shoes were cheap, the price was only $21.8. But there was an obvious shortcoming that made the infection of the hooves more serious due to the height of the shoes.
Another competitor produced boots which are used on horses. This was a strictly clinical use hydrotherapy shoe. The cost of the boots was $400 per pair so the price for individual farmers was very expensive for them to afford. This was the main limitation for the hydrotherapy shoe.
These two products were not typically used for hoof disease. Therefore this is the obvious advantage for Shoes for Moos.
Company internal SWOT analysis
Strength and opportunities
The Shoe for Moos was a family-owned business. Family business has a high degree of cohesiveness and can quickly gather talents at a lower cost with unique kinship. It has an advantage in management. It had a potential identifiable distributor and promotion plan. The product had a high quality with a reasonable price. There was no debt for Shoe for Moos in the finance.
Weakness and threats
Although Shoe for Moos was a family-owned business, Jim and his brother-in-law had their own jobs. So they cannot pay full attention on the company. Shoe for Moos did not have a mature distribution network so it was not conducive to the sale of products. In the meanwhile, it did not have experienced salesman. It also caused the difficulty in sales. In the case of two competitors, these conditions were not conducive to the sale of products. Shoe for Moos had limited capitals which were only $25,000 for the investment. There was also another weakness that they had a minimum inventory of 100 shoes.
...