Cookie and Privacy Settings

This website uses cookies to enable essential functions like the user login and sessions. We also use cookies and third-party tools to improve your surfing experience on preplounge.com. You can choose to activate only essential cookies or all cookies. You can always change your preference in the cookie and privacy settings. This link can also be found in the footer of the site. If you need more information, please visit our privacy policy.

Data processing in the USA: By clicking on "I accept", you also consent, in accordance with article 49 paragraph 1 sentence 1 lit. GDPR, to your data being processed in the USA (by Google LLC, Facebook Inc., LinkedIn Inc., Stripe, Paypal).

Manage settings individually I accept
expert
Expert with best answer

Sidi

99% Recommendation Rate

428 Meetings

4,300 Q&A Upvotes

USD 539 / Coaching

8

Competition

Hello community,

Why is a fragmented competitive landscape usually prefered over a concentrated one?

Hello community,

Why is a fragmented competitive landscape usually prefered over a concentrated one?

(edited)

8 answers

  • Upvotes
  • Date ascending
  • Date descending
Best Answer
Book a coaching with Sidi

99% Recommendation Rate

428 Meetings

4,300 Q&A Upvotes

USD 539 / Coaching

Hi!

I'm no sure I agree with the basic premise of your question ("a fragmented market structure is usually preferred over a concentrated one").

The question is how easily an entrant could reach a strong market position. Usually, it is easier to grab a sizable chunk of the market demand if there are fewer competitors (especially when you have a clear USP), and it is harder if the competitive intensity is very high and there are many granular players. It is much easier to get, say, 5% market share if you only have 2 or 3 players in the market, as opposed to a situation with dozens of competitors, where 5% market share would be equivalent to becoming a leading player immediately (usually not very realistic). However the context might also reverse that rationale. One thing you have to check for example is whether there is an Oligopoly structure which has erected market entry barriers (e.g., created lock-in effects for the customers). In this case it might become very hard to break this Oligopoly.

So in summary – if there are fewer competitors and there are no fundamental entry barriers, then this is a much better scenario then a granular market with dozens of competitors.

Cheers, Sidi

Hi!

I'm no sure I agree with the basic premise of your question ("a fragmented market structure is usually preferred over a concentrated one").

The question is how easily an entrant could reach a strong market position. Usually, it is easier to grab a sizable chunk of the market demand if there are fewer competitors (especially when you have a clear USP), and it is harder if the competitive intensity is very high and there are many granular players. It is much easier to get, say, 5% market share if you only have 2 or 3 players in the market, as opposed to a situation with dozens of competitors, where 5% market share would be equivalent to becoming a leading player immediately (usually not very realistic). However the context might also reverse that rationale. One thing you have to check for example is whether there is an Oligopoly structure which has erected market entry barriers (e.g., created lock-in effects for the customers). In this case it might become very hard to break this Oligopoly.

So in summary – if there are fewer competitors and there are no fundamental entry barriers, then this is a much better scenario then a granular market with dozens of competitors.

Cheers, Sidi

(edited)

Book a coaching with Anton

100% Recommendation Rate

4 Meetings

1,091 Q&A Upvotes

USD 179 / Coaching

Hi,

It highly depends on the constraints that your client has.

Competitive market with numerous players would usually signal that the entry barriers are not high but it will be more difficult to reach a high market share.

Concentrated market would usually signal that there are high entry barriers but once you manage to overcome it you can get a higher share.

Conclusion: without understanding of a particular client situation any piece of advice is useless.

Best,

Anton

Hi,

It highly depends on the constraints that your client has.

Competitive market with numerous players would usually signal that the entry barriers are not high but it will be more difficult to reach a high market share.

Concentrated market would usually signal that there are high entry barriers but once you manage to overcome it you can get a higher share.

Conclusion: without understanding of a particular client situation any piece of advice is useless.

Best,

Anton

Book a coaching with Robert

97% Recommendation Rate

348 Meetings

3,688 Q&A Upvotes

USD 219 / Coaching

Hi Anonymous,

Tactically speaking from thousands of cases I saw in my life, in a simplified case interview world a fragmented competitive landscape is usually preferred because it's easier to enter a market without well-established dominent players who can easily force you out of the game.

Howerver, above is just tactical advice valid for most interview cases - but in reality you need to think and analyse the landscape in more detail to understand whether a fragmented or concentraed landscape is preferred. Let's just think of a simple scenario in which you have a couple of huge well-established players, however with an outdated business model from previous century - if for example you can fundamentally change your competitive position with technology, it might be easier to handle a few big competitors and attack them on their weak points, than many small ones. Just one example - so don't use general statements but rather push yourself to think about the specific situation at hand!

Hope that helps - if so, please be so kind and give it a thumbs-up with the green upvote button below!

Robert

Hi Anonymous,

Tactically speaking from thousands of cases I saw in my life, in a simplified case interview world a fragmented competitive landscape is usually preferred because it's easier to enter a market without well-established dominent players who can easily force you out of the game.

Howerver, above is just tactical advice valid for most interview cases - but in reality you need to think and analyse the landscape in more detail to understand whether a fragmented or concentraed landscape is preferred. Let's just think of a simple scenario in which you have a couple of huge well-established players, however with an outdated business model from previous century - if for example you can fundamentally change your competitive position with technology, it might be easier to handle a few big competitors and attack them on their weak points, than many small ones. Just one example - so don't use general statements but rather push yourself to think about the specific situation at hand!

Hope that helps - if so, please be so kind and give it a thumbs-up with the green upvote button below!

Robert

Book a coaching with Clara

100% Recommendation Rate

62 Meetings

16,625 Q&A Upvotes

USD 229 / Coaching

Hello!

First of all, it´s a big dangerous, without other context, to state something like that in general terms.

However, it´s true that, in most cases, fragmented markets are easier to penetrate (e.g., groth cases, new product launch, etc.) than concentrated ones.

When there is one/two big big players that dominate the industry, they are very well stablished and it´s more difficult to gain access. However, when they are many many little/smaller players, "enemy" is divided and it´s easier to find the entry way.

Hope it helps!

Cheers,

Clara

Hello!

First of all, it´s a big dangerous, without other context, to state something like that in general terms.

However, it´s true that, in most cases, fragmented markets are easier to penetrate (e.g., groth cases, new product launch, etc.) than concentrated ones.

When there is one/two big big players that dominate the industry, they are very well stablished and it´s more difficult to gain access. However, when they are many many little/smaller players, "enemy" is divided and it´s easier to find the entry way.

Hope it helps!

Cheers,

Clara

Book a coaching with Deepti

0 Meetings

16 Q&A Upvotes

USD 869 / Coaching

Fragmented usually means there is no clear market leader, which is most likely the case if the Competitive landscape is concentrated.

It also implies any one competitor cannot influence market pricing.

There is room for consolidation between players to become more efficient.

Fragmented usually means there is no clear market leader, which is most likely the case if the Competitive landscape is concentrated.

It also implies any one competitor cannot influence market pricing.

There is room for consolidation between players to become more efficient.

Book a coaching with Francesco

100% Recommendation Rate

3,546 Meetings

18,845 Q&A Upvotes

USD 479 / Coaching

Hi there,

There are several reasons why you may want to target a fragmented market. You would have:

  • Weaker reaction of competitors - think about the probability of starting a price war in a fragmented market vs concentrated
  • Lower barriers to entry - at least most of the time
  • More space to get market share from weak players - which by definition are fewer in a concentrated market
  • Higher likelihood to find niches where you can expand – offering future growth opportunities

This doesn’t mean a fragmented market is always better though. You could have

  • Continuous competition due to the low barriers (eg restaurant industry)
  • Weak direct competition but strong substitutes (eg apartment owners vs hotels chains)

Also, if your product is extremely innovative, a concentrated market could be better. You could attack the big player directly and steal most of its market share through its weak points (eg digital banking vs traditional banking). However, extremely innovative products are not the standard. Moreover, the competitors' reaction could kill the profits of the market – or you!

Best,

Francesco

Hi there,

There are several reasons why you may want to target a fragmented market. You would have:

  • Weaker reaction of competitors - think about the probability of starting a price war in a fragmented market vs concentrated
  • Lower barriers to entry - at least most of the time
  • More space to get market share from weak players - which by definition are fewer in a concentrated market
  • Higher likelihood to find niches where you can expand – offering future growth opportunities

This doesn’t mean a fragmented market is always better though. You could have

  • Continuous competition due to the low barriers (eg restaurant industry)
  • Weak direct competition but strong substitutes (eg apartment owners vs hotels chains)

Also, if your product is extremely innovative, a concentrated market could be better. You could attack the big player directly and steal most of its market share through its weak points (eg digital banking vs traditional banking). However, extremely innovative products are not the standard. Moreover, the competitors' reaction could kill the profits of the market – or you!

Best,

Francesco

Dear A,

Fragmented competitive landscape is preferred over a concentrated, because there are more smaller players, the competition is mre fare and you could easily increase marketure in this segment compare to the concentrated one, where companies are in a sort of oligopoly. Therefore it's better to have fragmented competitive landscape.

Best,

André

Dear A,

Fragmented competitive landscape is preferred over a concentrated, because there are more smaller players, the competition is mre fare and you could easily increase marketure in this segment compare to the concentrated one, where companies are in a sort of oligopoly. Therefore it's better to have fragmented competitive landscape.

Best,

André

Book a coaching with Axel

100% Recommendation Rate

54 Meetings

813 Q&A Upvotes

USD 249 / Coaching

Hi

If I were to generalize:

1. Fragmented markets:

- More competitive, lower profitability

- Low barriers to entry

2. Consolidated markets

- Less competitive pressure, higher profitability

- Typically high barriers to enter

If you are already in the market, you would prefer to be in a consolidated one because you will be more profitable all things equal and you are protected from the competitive pressure of new entrants. If you want to enter a market, a more fragmented market may be more preferable assuming you have a feasible way to consolidate the market / gain market share.

-A

Hi

If I were to generalize:

1. Fragmented markets:

- More competitive, lower profitability

- Low barriers to entry

2. Consolidated markets

- Less competitive pressure, higher profitability

- Typically high barriers to enter

If you are already in the market, you would prefer to be in a consolidated one because you will be more profitable all things equal and you are protected from the competitive pressure of new entrants. If you want to enter a market, a more fragmented market may be more preferable assuming you have a feasible way to consolidate the market / gain market share.

-A

Related case(s)

MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education

Solved 19.3k times
MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education Our client is SmartBridge, a nonprofit educational institution offering face-to-face tutoring services. The client operates in the US. The mission of SmartBridge is to help as many students as possible to complete studies and prevent that they drop from the school system, in particular in disadvantaged areas. The client is considering starting operations for its services in the Chicago area. They hired us to understand if that makes sense. Due to the nonprofit regulation, SmartBridge should operate on its own in the market, without any partnership. How would you help our client?
4.6 5 649
| Rating: (4.6 / 5.0)

Our client is SmartBridge, a nonprofit educational institution offering face-to-face tutoring services. The client operates in the US. The mission of SmartBridge is to help as many students as possible to complete studies and prevent that they drop from the school system, in particular in disadvant ... Open whole case

Chinese Chess - Airline Business During COVID-19

Solved 4.4k times
Chinese Chess - Airline Business During COVID-19 Sky China, a government-backed Chinese airline, has recently seen profits plummet due to COVID-19. Profits are down 80% in the months of February and March, but are showing early signs of a rebound in April.  They've brought you in to first investigate what can be done immediatedly to prevent hemorrhaging cash and surive in the short-term. They are also looking to see how the current situation can be viewed as an opportunity, and what can be done to prepare for the future. 
4.3 5 121
| Rating: (4.3 / 5.0)

Sky China, a government-backed Chinese airline, has recently seen profits plummet due to COVID-19. Profits are down 80% in the months of February and March, but are showing early signs of a rebound in April. They've brought you in to first investigate what can be done immediatedly to prevent hemor ... Open whole case

Bain 1st Round Case – BlissOttica

Solved 3.2k times
Bain 1st Round Case – BlissOttica Our client is a BlissOttica, an Eyewear Manufacturer that is looking to reach a 10% increase in profits. How would you help our client?
4.3 5 134
| Rating: (4.3 / 5.0)

Our client is a BlissOttica, an Eyewear Manufacturer that is looking to reach a 10% increase in profits. How would you help our client? Open whole case

Merger of two beer manufacturers

Solved 400+ times
Merger of two beer manufacturers Our clients are two beer manufacturers from a well-developed country who just decided to merge. We can call them Company A and Company B. The decision about the merger has already been taken and our clients are certain it will soon be approved by regulators. What is expected from you is to help them with two objectives: Firstly, they would like you to help them decrease the costs of their post-merger operations. Secondly, they would like you to help them develop a new marketing strategy. How would you like to go about helping our clients?
4.0 5 1
| Rating: (4.0 / 5.0)

Our clients are two beer manufacturers from a well-developed country who just decided to merge. We can call them Company A and Company B. The decision about the merger has already been taken and our clients are certain it will soon be approved by regulators. What is expected from you is to help the ... Open whole case