1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
I was surprised to see how detailed and difficult it is to define a releveant industry. I did'nt know that much attention to detail was required. If you define your relevant industry too broad, you obscure differences among your product and customers which can be important to competition. If you define your relevant industry too narrowly, you may overlook details thats are important in gaining a competitive advantage. I was just surprised at all of the time and market research that goes into this tiny but crucial decision in entering into a new market.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
I was confused with the technical jargon used when describing supply and demand side economies of scale. I have heard of those two terms before in a management class, but the jargon was confusing to me. I understand this is a Harvard Business Article, but the language made it hard to decipher the reasons for entry on the supply and demand side.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
After reading this article, I don't really understand why it is risky to eliminate your rivals? I understand that you need to outperform and learn from your rivals, but isn't that in a sense, eliminating them from your worries. I thought the author could have gone into a little bit more detail about physically vs. theoretically eliminating the competition while entrepreneurs are starting to penetrate a new market.
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
This article was super informational and didn't have many opinions embedded in the article. Therefore, I don't disagree with really anything the author said because it was packed with information, not opinion. It is hard to disagree with hard facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment