Schedule mock interviews on the Meeting Board, join the latest community discussions in our Consulting Q&A and find like-minded Interview Partners to connect and practice with!
Back to overview

Which framework is better for this BCG Market Entry case?

Hi everyone,

I'm practicing a BCG case and would like your opinion on two different ways to structure the initial framework.

Prompt: A leading German facility management company (cleaning/repairs) has seen its profit margins drop from 15% to 7%. The CEO wants to enter the fire protection services market to close this profit gap by cross-selling to their large existing customer base. The question is: Should they proceed with this market entry?

Which of these two frameworks would you consider to be the stronger, more "BCG-style" approach, and why?

Approach A: The "Market-First" Framework

  1. Market Opportunity: Analyze the size, growth, and competitive landscape of the fire protection market.
  2. Financial Viability: Build a business case, forecasting revenue from cross-selling and analyzing the costs and profitability.
  3. Strategic Fit & Risks: Assess the company's capabilities and the implementation risks.

Approach B: The "Breakeven-First" Framework

  1. Business Case / Breakeven: First, calculate the exact profit gap that needs to be closed. Then, determine the required sales volume of fire protection services needed to achieve this.
  2. Market Feasibility: Size the total market and determine if capturing the required sales volume is a realistic market share, given the competition.
  3. Strategic Fit & Risks: Assess capabilities and implementation risks.

Essentially, Approach A is a broad strategic analysis, while Approach B is a more focused, "fail-fast" approach that starts with the financial hurdle.

Which one would you choose and why?

Thanks!

4
< 100
0
Be the first to answer!
Nobody has responded to this question yet.
Top answer
Pallav
Coach
on Jul 31, 2025
Non-target expert | Ex-BCG | >200 cases

You’re right — there’s no single “correct” framework here, and both are structurally sound. But if I had to choose, I’d go with Approach B, and here’s why:

Why Approach B fits better (especially for BCG)

  • It starts from the objective: The prompt isn’t just about exploring a shiny new market — it’s about closing a specific profit gap. Approach B tackles this head-on by calculating what’s needed to bridge the gap and then assessing feasibility.
  • It enables early decision-making: BCG interviewers often value hypothesis-driven thinking and efficient prioritization. Starting with breakeven makes it easier to “kill the idea early” if the numbers clearly don’t add up — something consultants do all the time.
  • It lets you lead the case: Since Approach B is structured around a clear financial yardstick, it helps you drive the conversation toward actionable insight rather than just exploring markets passively.
  • It mimics real client thinking: A CEO looking to close a 7–8% margin gap is going to ask, “Can this new service realistically get us there?” — not “What’s the CAGR of the fire safety industry?”

Caveat: Use A if your interviewer wants depth on the market

If you sense your interviewer wants to dive into market dynamics or test your ability to assess market attractiveness broadly, Approach A could still work well — just make sure to tie every insight back to the profitability objective.

TL;DR:

I’d choose Approach B — it’s more goal-oriented, lets you pressure test feasibility early, and keeps the case focused on the key question: “Can this solve the margin problem?” That’s classic BCG style — rigorous, structured, and purposeful.

Let me know if you’d like help building out the math or pressure-testing your assumptions — happy to walk through it.

on Jul 31, 2025
#1 Rated McKinsey Coach | Top MBB Coach | Verifiable success rates

Actually, they are both rather good. So good job! Of course, it comes down to how you actually develop then each bullet point, how specific you are and how you draw interdependencies between the areas. 

What I do think it's important and I would include as the first area in the structure, is a clarification / ideation session with the client on what is it that they are optimising for. Profit or what? What is the goal? Anything else that they care about?

Best,
Cristian

Mariana
Coach
on Jul 31, 2025
xMckinsey | Consulting and Tech | 1.5h session | +200 sessions | Free 20-min introductory call

Hello there,

Clarification questions are key here and may help you decide whether A or B are better options.

I personally prefer option B, as it basically says: IF these criteria are met, THEN it is a yes. However, having a “risk” bucket is sometimes not well seeing, so make sure to frame it in terms of the largest risk if possible. I.e.: instead of “risk” you could say “Operations dynamics”. 

Best,

Mari

Evelina
Coach
9 hrs ago
EY-Parthenon (7 years) l BCG offer holder l 97% success rate l 10% off first session l free 15' intro call l LBS

Hi there,

Both frameworks are solid, but from a BCG-style perspective, Approach B is stronger. Here's why:

  • Problem-back thinking: It starts by quantifying the profit gap and asking whether fire protection can realistically close it – exactly the kind of sharp, goal-driven framing BCG prefers.
  • Fail-fast mindset: It quickly tests feasibility before diving into full market analysis, saving time if the numbers don’t work.
  • Hypothesis-driven: It leads with the critical financial hurdle and only explores broader strategy if justified.

Approach A is broader but less targeted. B aligns better with BCG’s style: focused, data-led, and client-outcome driven.

Happy to help you prep – feel free to reach out.
 

Best,
Evelina

Similar Questions
Consulting
BCG Summer Associate Internship Turnaround
on Aug 31, 2024
USA
4
2.3k
79
4 Answers
2.3k Views
Consulting
BCG Office Locations (NYC vs NJ vs CHI vs SF)
on Sep 04, 2024
USA
2
2.8k
60
2 Answers
2.8k Views
Consulting
BCG ADC response time after R1
on Sep 08, 2024
USA
4
1.9k
80
4 Answers
1.9k Views
Consulting
BCG ADC final round - what to expect?
on Sep 09, 2024
USA
3
1.9k
73
3 Answers
1.9k Views
Show more