Question

1. Of the 4 strategic approaches to international markets, which one(s) might be the best for a manufacturing company? a financial services company? or a company like Coke or Pepsi? Thoughts? 2. What strategy option for entering a foreign market might you employ if your firm is technology-centric? 3. What strategy option for entering a foreign market might you use if you were a start-up or smaller firm? 4. Why is the Think Global- Act Local strategy appear to be the best for many companies wishing to go global?

Answer 1

Answer:

1a. For manufacturing company– Buying a local manufacturing company

b. For a financial services company– Partnership

c. A company like Coke or Pepsi– Greenfield Investments

Explanation:

1a. Buying a local company saves valuable resources for the foreign manufacturing, and it allows for quick market knowledge since this company has already been in operations for a long time.

b. A partnership would be best for a financial services company, this would involve a smooth transition into new markets without having to spend much on physical structures as the domestic company is already having necessary infrastructures in place.

c. Coke and Pepsi would preferably choose to use the Greenfield investment strategy by building a new plant from the ground up because of its established quality standards as well as trade mark and intellectual property protection.

2. A technology-centric firm would benefit most by buying a Company because of the already available market share as well as benefiting from reduced government regulations.

3. If one is operating a start-up or smaller firm of course cost would be a major consideration, therefore selling out License to foreign companies may be effective. This would transfer the rights to use a product or service in a different market geography.

4. It provides a good foresight into the requirements needed to enter foreign markets.