英语论文网

ce model of competition' presented by Porter (1979) in Appendix 2, briefly summarized as below: 1. The rivalry among competing sellers with the average score 7.5. According to the facts provided in the case, the fast food industry is becoming saturation in US markets with annually growth rate only 2 % (MARINO, 2005). As a result, all the major players in the fast food industry took measures to compete against each other, such as price cutting, launching new product and focus on new advertisement schemes to promote brand awareness and actively explore the international markets. (MARINO, 2005). 2. Under the force Potential Entry of new competitors, the average score was 2.3 (Appendix 2), the fast food industry faced less pressure under this force. With the established economies of scales of the major players in the fast food industry, most of them enjoy the cost advantages associated with large scale operation, while price competition in this industry was low due to the fierce markets, which left less room for the new entry to earn profits. Besides, the systemwide outlets and large portion of market share owned by existing major players in the industry (MARINO, 2005, pp. 6-8) can dramatically increased the cost of the new entry to attract customers and access the distribution channels (Thompson, 2005, pp 56-8). 3. The average score of the pressures from the sellers of substitutes products for fast food industry was 5, Although the trends mentioned by the case (MARINO, 2005, pp, 5-6) that more health-conscious consumers might turn to more healthy food, the 2 unique characteristics from the fast food was hard to be replaced, The 1st one is cheap and 2nd one is fast. Furthermore, with the campaigns launched by major players to develop healthier food (MARINO, 2005, p.7), the threats from substitutes reduced as well. 4. The average score of the pressure from the bargaining power of the suppliers was 2, it was fairly clear cut that the supplier for the fast food industry did not own too much power, although the case did not provide too many evidences on that, the volume purchased by the major player in the industry and the commodity like goods provided by the supplier and the low switch costs of the buyers decided that bargaining power of the fast food industry was on buyers' sides. 5. From the detail analysis in the Appendix 2, this average score of the pressures stemming from buyer bargaining power was 6. The low switch costs, the more health-conscious concerns leading to weaker buyer's demand, and well informed costs of the product decided higher buyers bargaining power, however, the individual consumer to fast food industry undermined that power per se. The collective strength of these forces determines the ultimate profit potential of an industry (Porter, 1979, p. 1). From the above analysis, the overall strength of competitive pressures for fast food industry was moderate with average score 4.6 if same weight assigned to each of 5 forces, however, As Thompson (2005, p. 50) mentioned 'The strongest of the five competitive forces is nearly always the pressure from rivalry among competing sellers'. With the higher pressure under this force (score 7.5), the attractiveness of the fast food industry is relatively low and 'the profit margins of most industry members are squeeze to bare-bone levels' (Thompson, 2005, p. 55). Question 3: From the detail analysis in Appendix 3, The major strengths that McDonald's owned were: 1. Ta