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

Luca

100% Recommendation Rate

48 Meetings

2,595 Q&A Upvotes

USD 189 / Coaching

2

Question on market size

The potential market size for this case is determined by calculating the revenue per flight based on the price elasticity diagram. It's said that because the potential per flight is the highest at $15, the market size is $15 * 99m (potential users) * 20% (users that will buy at $15) = $297m. However, if we price it at $15 shouldn't we be able to grab the willigness to pay of those that would pay more than $15? Meaning our potential market size would be 99m (potential users) * (20% (WtP = $15) + 10% (WtP = $20) + 5% (WtP = $25)) * $15 = $520m.

Did I misunderstood something or is there a mistake in the solution?

The potential market size for this case is determined by calculating the revenue per flight based on the price elasticity diagram. It's said that because the potential per flight is the highest at $15, the market size is $15 * 99m (potential users) * 20% (users that will buy at $15) = $297m. However, if we price it at $15 shouldn't we be able to grab the willigness to pay of those that would pay more than $15? Meaning our potential market size would be 99m (potential users) * (20% (WtP = $15) + 10% (WtP = $20) + 5% (WtP = $25)) * $15 = $520m.

Did I misunderstood something or is there a mistake in the solution?

2 answers

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

100% Recommendation Rate

48 Meetings

2,595 Q&A Upvotes

USD 189 / Coaching

Hello,

Everytime that you see an exhibit like this, you have to consider only the percentage related to you price. In other words, it's like people that would pay more than 15$ are already included in your 20%.
Does it make sense?
Best,
Luca

Hello,

Everytime that you see an exhibit like this, you have to consider only the percentage related to you price. In other words, it's like people that would pay more than 15$ are already included in your 20%.
Does it make sense?
Best,
Luca

Hi Luca, thanks for the quick answer. But I still disagree. Simon Kucher & Partners has a similar case on their website with the same type of exhibit. For the exhibit they have an additional note that states: "Common Traps: Not realizing that a lower price captures the customers with a higher willingness-to-pay". — Nicholas on Feb 29, 2020

Send me the exhibit, I'm sure it is different from this. — Luca on Feb 29, 2020

Book a coaching with Clara

100% Recommendation Rate

59 Meetings

16,243 Q&A Upvotes

USD 229 / Coaching

Hello!

I think it´s a fair point to be adressed with the interviewer, since indeed we might capture some clients with higher willigness to pay. However, taking it for granted and including them is too much, since you cannot be sure either.

Think, for instance, making an extreme case, that then Zara could "asume" that they can absorbe all the market from higher-price brands, when in reality they don´t, since the value proposition of the higher-priced segment is other.

Cheers,

Clara

Hello!

I think it´s a fair point to be adressed with the interviewer, since indeed we might capture some clients with higher willigness to pay. However, taking it for granted and including them is too much, since you cannot be sure either.

Think, for instance, making an extreme case, that then Zara could "asume" that they can absorbe all the market from higher-price brands, when in reality they don´t, since the value proposition of the higher-priced segment is other.

Cheers,

Clara

Similar questions

No similar questions available