1. Surprising Information
The headline, "eliminating rivals is a risky strategy" was interesting to me. I've never considered what might happen to a business who successfully eliminated all of its competitors, apart from the business receiving more customers, increased sales, and larger profit margins. I found it interesting that the business in question would actually be putting itself in great risk if it were to eliminate all competition in that new business would then be free to enter the market and existing customers may become dissatisfied with the particular business's selection due to lack of choices in terms of actual products and product prices.
2. Confusing Information
The section discussing the role of the government in being a sixth competitive force was a bit confusing. The author did not cover much information on this topic and argued that the government neither helps nor inhibits businesses' profitability. He stated that government policy such as patents, pro-union movements, and bankruptcy rules has an impact on business-to-business rivalry and affects each of the five competitive forces. He stated that the government should not really be considered a sixth competitive force based on these factors,and we are left uncertain about how to accurately categorize the government's role in the industry.
3. Disagreements
This article was very informative and information was given based on factual data rather than opinion, so I did not find anything specific that I disagree with.
4. Two Questions to the Author
If industry structure is always changing, why doesn't industry profitability follow suit?
You claimed that "the expiration of a patent...may unleash new entrants." Speaking solely on how this competitive opportunity will effect existing business, I can understand why you would word this statement with a negative connotation, but would you agree that this new outlet to entry is actually good for the US economy and unemployment rate?
No comments:
Post a Comment