Market Entry Approach

Question

Hello all,

I have a question regarding the approach for a market entry case.

In Marc Cosentino's book “Case in Point” it is advised to first analyze the company and the market it is in before analyzing the new market in order to look at the new market through the eyes of the company.

After reading some cases and watching some videos on PrepLounge, I notice it is often not done in the beginning.

Is there a “correct” way to do this?

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Mats

Answer 1

Hi Mats,

Let's think of market entry in a real project scenario.

If a NEW client comes to you saying they want to enter Market ABC, your natural reaction would be: 1) who, and 2) why, before you sit down with the team to plan your approach.

Depending on the case format and exact prompt, you may or may not have such information. If the interviewer gives you sufficient information about the client's business and rationales for market entry, and you can think in the shoes of the client, start analyzing the market.

If you don't know enough about the client and its rationale, and the interviewer withholds such information, go ahead with the company issue, at least you need to figure out what they are doing, what's the real issue there (some clients wanted to enter a new market for growth, but in reality they need to first turn around), what new markets would make sense (too far stretch? geopolitical / regulatory issues? just name a few).

Chers

Answer 2

Hi There,

I would strongly suggest to keep Market entry questions fairly straightforward. You don't have to re-invent the wheel for every single market entry question.

The motivation behind the entry should be asked as a clarifying question before you develop an approach. The two most common reasons for market entries include - a) growth (e.g., stagnating growth in the core business), b) responding to competitor actions to defend/re-claim turf

Your approach needs to be clean and simple and incorporate answers to your clarifying questions (this would make your approach relevant and contextual - which is the most important part of any approach).

You can solve any market entry question using the four questions I list below:

1) Is the market client thinking of entering attractive? (you should have a good understanding of what makes a market attractive)

2) Is there is a good fit between client offerings and customer needs? (product/service market fit is essential)

3) Will the entry be financially viable and operationally feasible? (you should have a good grasp of assessing financial viability of decisions and go-to-market strategies)

4) What are the most relevant risks? (keep them down to 2-3 most important risks if any. you don't have to have a risk bucket always)

In the end it does not matter whether you analyze market first or after company assessment. What matters is that you make your approach specific for the client. This is what will make you stand out. Your level 1 buckets for each market entry case can be the same. PLEASE DON'T OVERTHINK THIS. What will make or break your structure is what you mention underneath each bucket. Whether is just generic consulting jargon or specific and relevant Level 2 issues.

Hope this helps and feel free to DM in case you have follow-up questions.

Thanks

Nilay

Answer 3

Hi there,

The simple answer is: If you want to receive an offer with any top consulting firm these days you need to learn how to create structures from scratch and move towards a first-principles problem-solving approach.

Using a memorized framework for a specific case does not work as every market entry case is different (if you even get one - all consulting firms have moved away from standard case types from 20 years ago…)

This is also not what's evaluated, since you mention “correct approach.”

There are many viable approaches to every problem and if you would ask 10 McKinsey partners to structure a case you would get 10, partially vastly different answers, yet they all rely on certain principles and that is what you should practice, not memorizing.

I am quoting a few portions of an article I wrote on the topic:

Consider the following recent prompts from consulting firm interviews:

"A hotel has lower bookings: Who would you talk to?
"Machines break down more often: What factors could be contributing to this issue?"
"Airline customer satisfaction is down: How would you analyze the situation?

These scenarios cannot be answered through memorized frameworks. Trying to fit these unique problems into a pre-existing framework often leads to frustration and poor performance.

Why framework memorization fails

1. No points for problem-solving

Case interviews are designed to test your problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, not your ability to regurgitate memorized information. Frameworks are meant to be a guide, not a script. Using a memorized framework can make it obvious that you are not thinking critically about the problem at hand. Interviewers want to see tailored, relevant, and concrete analytical constructs. Using generic categories and ideas not tailored to the case will score poorly in problem-solving.

2. Creative and unique scenarios

Case interviews often involve unique and unpredictable scenarios. No two cases are the same, so a memorized framework will not apply to the specific problem you are presented with. For example:

"You are working with an operator of a specific type of machine. They break down at different rates at different locations. What factors can you think of why that would happen?"

Which Victor Cheng framework or Cosentino idea would you present here? There isn’t a single bucket that would work. We covered that before.

Even in more traditional settings, firms want to see your own perspective, no cookie-cutter approach

3. Limiting creativity

Using a memorized framework limits your ability to think creatively. If you always have something to fall back on, then your mind will automatically stop looking at new ideas and angles for a case.

When you try to fit the problem into a pre-existing framework, you may miss opportunities to come up with innovative solutions. Welcome to the 99% of non-offer holders...

4. Lack of rationale

Case interviews also test your ability to communicate and present your thought process effectively. When relying on a memorized framework, you may struggle to explain the reasoning behind your solutions. You have no clear hypotheses.

Interviewers want to understand why you think a certain way, not just what you think. Memorizing frameworks can hinder your ability to support and defend your choices.

The memorized framework approach was developed by Marc Cosentino, a career advisor with no skin in the game who has never seen a consulting firm's office from the inside. When I was at McKinsey there was a saying that his advice is preventing more offers than the actual difficulty of the interviews. Something that makes you think…

There is a reason why only 1% of applicants get the offer, yet everyone continues to rely on the faulty framework approach.

How to change this?

At the core, all consulting firms want to see creative ideas communicated in a structured manner, the more exhaustive the better.

Your goal should be to develop a tailored and creative answer that fits the question. The framework should - broadly speaking - follow these three characteristics:

Broad
Deep
Insightful

You would need to go into detail and qualify your answer with practical examples and more details.

To work on this, please reach out either for coaching or the following: I am launching a free case interview foundations course and am happy to include you as a beta tester.

All the best,

Florian