Brick rigs ps4 gamestop4/18/2023 The article ends with a number of implications for research and practice. To illustrate competitor mapping, measures of these two constructs are proposed, and an example is offered. The idea of competitive asymmetry is introduced, that is, the notion that a given pair of firms may not pose an equal degree of threat to each other. Each firm has a unique market profile and strategic resource endowment, and a pair-wise comparison with a given competitor along these two dimensions will help to illuminate the prebattle competitive tension between these two firms and to predict how a focal firm may interact with each of its competitors. The joint consideration of these two constructs shows the complementarity of these two prominent but contrasting strategy theories. Through a refined conceptualization of competitor analysis, the article introduces two firm-specific, theory-based constructs: market commonality, developed from the literature on multiple-point competition, and resource similarity, derived from the resource-based theory of the firm. This article bridges two important subjects in strategy: competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry. Fundamental questions-such as who a focal firm's competitors are, and how much competition the firm faces from each rival-have been implicitly or explicitly addressed by a variety Previous research has explored a number of important issues, including conjecture variation (Amit, Domowitz, & Fershtman, 1988), competitor identification (Porac & Thomas, 1990), and blind spots (Zajac & Bazerman, 1991), and has made advances in such areas as theoretical integra- tion of competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry (Chen, 1996). Competitor analysis is central to strategy and or- ganization research (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2005 Porter, 1980). In business practice, a similar phenomenon exists: when tension that one opponent imposes on another triggers rivalrous actions. In science, there is a steady state in which op- posing forces hold each other in check until the build-up of tension turns the static relationship into dynamic interplay-the point when the steel cable snaps, the steam chamber's pressure valve opens, or one psychological force overwhelms the other. Our results provide a new avenue for studying competitors and the relationship between compet- itor analysis and interfirm rivalry. Drawing on the awareness-motivation-capability perspective, we show how perceived compet- itive tension, as constructed from managers' and industry stakeholders' competitor assessments, is influenced by the independent and interactive effects of three factors: relative scale, rival's attack volume, and rival's capability to contest. This paper investigates competitive tension, or the strain between a focal firm and a given rival that is likely to result in the firm taking action against the rival. At the graduate level, MBAs could discuss competitive dynamics facing GameStop and how it might find areas for future strategic growth. At the undergraduate level, it would be best taught when discussing industry life cycle or competitive dynamics. This case could be taught at either the graduate or undergraduate level strategy course. Given its unique market share in gaming memorabilia and trade-in values, students are tasked with finding GameStop’s existing competitive advantages or identifying potential new ones that can be leveraged in a technology-driven industry. GameStop’s core competencies were no longer aligned with market conditions, and its executives were now questioning where it could expand the organization’s operations as they focused on finding untapped areas of the market that have an opportunity for a new competitive advantage. As it planned to close at least 150 of its 7,500 stores, the company was starting to take measures to reduce operational costs and restructure to sectors that best fit consumer interests. With high uncertainty shown by stakeholders about the future of GameStop coupled with falling share prices, the company must find a way to stay in play given the rapidly growing digital gaming market. In writing this case, the research team conducted thorough analysis through primary data collection in stores as well as secondary data collection through the use of market research tools, such as IBIS World, MergentOnline, S&P Net Advantage, and academic journals, trade magazines, and websites. The case requires students to consider how GameStop might revise its generic strategy based on the new competitive landscape in which it operates. With technological shifts and the introduction of digital downloads, this strategy is less effective. The case describes GameStop’s previous differentiation approach, executed through physical stores and knowledgeable staff. The theoretical basis for this case is a focus on strategic positioning as related to Porter’s generic strategies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |