Market Entry question - shall we decide how to enter first or look at financial impact first?

Question

Which below Market Entry framework makes more sense?

Framework 1:

1. Market attractiveness (size, growth, competition, customer needs etc.)

2. Company's capability and How to enter (build, borrow, buy etc.)

3. Financial impact and implementation (e.g. GTM strategy)

The logis is: since how to enter is based on the company's capability, and financial impact will be based on what method we choose to enter.

Framework 2:

1. Market attractiveness

2. Can we win - 1) financial impact 2) capability & offerings

3. How to enter and Implementation

The reason I put financial impact analysis earlier is since it's normally the key analysis of the case.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Hi there,

There's a similar question that was just asked here: https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/how-to-identify-which-market-to-grow-10910

Both of your proposed frameworks work - it depends on 1) How you articulate the buckets and go through them and 2) the specific case/prompt you've been given.

Ultimately, they look good enough on paper, but a proper assessment can only be made upon hearing it!

Answer 2

Framework 1 is better & more comprehensive!

Answer 3

Hi there. Both of the frameworks work in general. However, best to clarify what's the client's goal before you choose/tailor the framework.

For example, consider below two scenarios:

1). Client wants your help to decide the best way to enter African market. In this case, how to enter matters more.

2). Client wants your help to decide whether to enter African or Asian market. In this case, financial impact matters more.

Just a very general example. Let me know if you need further clarification!