How to Structure a Market Entry Strategy Prompt

Great question – this is exactly where many strong candidates get tripped up.

The issue is not that “how to enter” has too many factors. The issue is that most people try to structure dimensions instead of decisions.

Here is the reframe that fixes it.

When the prompt is “how should we enter?”, the client is not asking for a checklist. They are asking you to choose one concrete entry path and explain why that path is the right one. So your structure should start from the decision, not from all possible variables.

Step 1 – Anchor on mutually exclusive entry paths (this is where MECE comes from)
Almost every market entry boils down to a small set of entry archetypes:

• Build organically
• Acquire an existing player
• Partner / JV / license

These are MECE by nature. Start here. This immediately signals senior, decision-oriented thinking.

Step 2 – Define the few criteria that actually decide between those options
Now comes the part most candidates overcomplicate. You do not need to cover product, pricing, channels, marketing, ops, etc. separately. Those are inputs, not decision criteria.

Instead, ask: what would realistically make one entry mode better than the others in this case?
Typically 3–4 criteria max, for example:

• Speed to scale (how fast do we need to be in the market?)
• Capability gap (what must we own vs can we borrow?)
• Capital and risk appetite
• Control and long-term economics

Notice: each of these implicitly captures many of the “missing” buckets you are worried about. Pricing, channels, competition, and customers all sit inside these criteria without being separate branches.

Step 3 – Only then zoom in where needed
Once you pick a direction (e.g., acquire), then you can drill into specifics like:

• What type of target
• What capabilities we buy vs integrate
• What risks to manage post-entry

You do this after the decision, not upfront.

Why this works in interviews

• It is naturally MECE because entry modes are mutually exclusive
• It is top-down and decision-led, which is what interviewers want
• It avoids laundry lists and shows judgment under ambiguity

If you ever feel “I might be missing a bucket,” that is usually a sign you are structuring inputs instead of choices.

This shift – from frameworks to decisions – is exactly what separates solid candidates from ones who feel like future consultants in the room.

hope it helps,

You're overcomplicating this. The "how to enter" question is simpler than you think.

Here's the difference:

"Should we enter" is about deciding yes or no.

"How should we enter" means the decision is already made. Now you're figuring out how to do it.

A simple way to think about it:

Break it into three parts:

• What are we selling? The product, how it might need to change for this market, and how it compares to competitors.
• How do we reach people? Channels, distribution, partnerships, marketing.
• How do we get in? Build it ourselves, buy a company, partner with someone, or license.

That's it. Product, reach, entry model. Everything else fits inside these three.

On being MECE:

Don't worry too much about being perfectly MECE.

What matters is your structure fits the question. Entering a new country? Focus on entry model and distribution. Entering a new customer group? Focus on product fit.

Good structures aren't rigid. They just make sense for the problem.

Something that helps:

After you share your structure, ask yourself: if I answer all of these, can I give a clear recommendation?

If yes, you're set. If something feels missing, add it.

Don't try to cover everything. Just cover what matters.

Hi!

Great question, a few thoughts on this.

For “should they enter this market”, you’re generally on the right track. One personal preference: I’m not a big fan of the “risk” bucket, as it often becomes a catch-all. Nothing wrong with it per se, but depending on the prompt, I may also add an additional bucket, such as product–market fit.

For “how should they enter”, one clean way to think about this is to anchor the structure around the actual entry options, which are typically MECE:

1. Enter organically (build)
2. Acquire an existing player
3. Partner / JV

Then evaluate these options against a set of decision criteria, for example:

• Market readiness (customer needs, competitive landscape)
• Speed to market
• Investment required

and evaluate each criteria against the client's objectives. This keeps the structure tight, decision-oriented, and easy for the interviewer to follow. From there, you can tailor the criteria based on the case specifics.

Hope this helps! Feel free to reach out if you need anything else. 

Hey,

Moving from "whether" to "how" to enter a market is about shifting from analysis to actionable strategy. It's complex because there are a lot of things involved. Here is a modified version of the classic 4Ps that I used on an actual study at McKinsey.

Think of it as a mental checklist. Use the detailed version below to ensure you don't miss a crucial aspect, then tailor it to the specific case.

The Detailed Five-Element Framework:

1. Product: What will you sell? Look at: what customers want, your capabilities, and what competitors offer.

2. Customers: Who will you sell to? Define by geography, industry, or other segments relevant to the business.

3. Place/Channel: How will you reach customers? (e.g., direct, resellers). More importantly, what is your entry mode—build from scratch, acquire, or partner?

4. Price/Promotion: What is your price point? (Balance cost vs. customer willingness-to-pay). How will you communicate value? (Marketing, campaigns, discounts).

5. Operations: What do you need to make this work? (Team, supply chain, governance). This can be a major or minor factor depending on the case.

For a cleaner answer in an interview, you can simplify it into three strategic phases:

1. The Offer: What are you selling, and to whom? (Product + Customers)

2. The Go-to-Market (GTM) Plan: How will you reach and convince them? (Place/Channel + Price/Promotion)

3. The Execution Engine: What do you need operationally to make it happen? (Operations)

You won't impress the interviewer by just reciting the 4Ps/any framework. You should use this as a mental guidance guidance to really tailor your answer approach for the industry/business of the case. You can add/remove branches as relevant.

Hope this helps.
Kateryna

That is a totally legitimate struggle. You’re hitting the exact ceiling most candidates do when they move from an analytical "Go/No-Go" decision (which your first structure covers perfectly) to a strategic execution question ("How to Execute"). The difficulty is that the "How" prompt forces you to define an entire operating model, which feels messy and non-MECE.

Here’s how we simplify it internally: When the focus is execution, you need a framework that dictates strategic choice, not just evaluation. I recommend pivoting to a three-part structure designed to capture the core implementation decisions: Target, Offering, and Execution.

1. Target: This defines the specific beachhead. Which customer segment, geography, or product niche will you prioritize first? This anchors the entire strategy.

2. Offering (Value Proposition): This answers what you are actually selling and how it is positioned. This is where you package up the core elements like product definition, features, and crucially, your pricing strategy relative to competitors.

3. Execution and Go-to-Market: This is the implementation engine. Here you detail the distribution channels, the required sales force or marketing spend, key operational needs (supply chain), and, most importantly, the Entry Mode. The decision between Acquisition, Partnership, or Greenfield Build is the ultimate deliverable of a "How to Enter" case, as it dictates risk, speed, and capital requirements.

By grouping the details (Price, Channel, Marketing) under the high-level buckets of Offering and Execution, you ensure you capture all necessary strategic components without losing the MECE structure. Use the Entry Mode as the final, critical pivot point for your recommendation.

All the best!

Let me be very clear. If that's your approach, you will fail the case. Period. 

The fact that you memorized a list of buckets doesn't mean you are not struggling. Only means that you are not aware that you are also failing in that type of questions. (By the way, a list of buckets is NEVER MECE.)

And not only it is bad enough that you are using a list of memorized buckets, you actually chose those that are the worse possible. Capabilities? Financials? Risks? This is generic. This is not MECE at all (risks overlaps the other 3; financials overlaps the previous 2).

What you have to do is something instead. 

First Find their objective. You have then to design and articulate a structure that will CLEARLY deliver an answer on whether they can meet that objective or not. Not the "areas of analysis". But rather, how you will make a decision. What needs to be true in order for it to be successful.

I've helped hundreds of candidates in overcoming this limitation on their performance. Feel free to reach out if you want some coaching. In any case, be aware, your current approach leads necessarily to failure.

P.S. I am as bit worried that only Christian* and I were the only coaches to pick up on this (to be fair, some did not address your suggested structure for the "should they get it", and only commented on the stated question). But this really made a bell ring... Let me be very clear: the structure you are using is not ok. Even you pass the first round, you are very unlikely to pass a second round with a more senior professional and experienced interviewer. 

* and that explains why he's one of the top coaches around here.

hey there :)

A simple out of the box way is to flip it and structure by decisions instead of topics, meaning who to win first, what exact value proposition to lead with, and how to get it to them profitably and fast, with product, pricing, channels and partnerships living naturally inside each decision. Interviewers care less about perfect MECE and more about whether your structure mirrors real management choices, so saying you anchor on customer beachhead, winning offer, and entry vehicle is usually seen as very strong and clean. Happy to dig into an example if you want.

best,
Alessa :)

The structure you're suggesting is relevant but not great. 

If anything, it sounds like the typical structure that a candidate would build. 

It's unclear how to work together to provide an answer to the client. Also, having a standalone 'risk' area is a typical 'case-book' style element that you don't actually find in consulting work (where risk is assessed as part of each individual area). 

I would recommend you get some professional feedback on structuring so you don't internalise the same mistakes you might've noticed other candidates making. If you need any help, don't hesitate to reach out. 

Best,
Cristian