Mediquip S.A.

®
SU B M IT T ED B Y
GROUP A14
G AU R AV SIN G H | VAIBH AV J ET WAN I | R AH U L R AVEEN D R AN | KASH IF
H AID ER
Background

Lohmann University Hospital approached Mediquip for purchase of CT scanner

Kurt Thaldorf, a sales engineer was assigned to customer on May 5

Mediquip loses the customer to competitor Sigma

2
About the company (Mediquip –
Seller)

Product Worldwide Key Buyers

Range reputation • Public sector,
for advance health Minor share
• CT scanner, X – Competent
ray, ultrasonic technology agencies goes to
after sales (Government
and nuclear private
diagnostic • “Two years service owned, non
ahead of their profit
sector
equipment
most advance organization)
competition”

3
About the Buyer – Lohmann
University
Large general hospital

New Task (New product, new vendor)

• Awareness  Information search  Evaluation  Decision  Post purchase behavior

Lohman & Mediquip

• Never had any transaction before
• Private buyer

LHU has excellent reputation

4
Buying Centre
LUH Remarks
User and Professor Steinborn • Initiated the deal
Initiators Head of radiology department • His services is sought by doctors
• Write technical specifications
Dr. Rufer
Influencer • Domain expert
Hospital’s Physicist
• Suggested by Professor Steinborn
• Inside information
Gatekeepers Secretary of hartmann
• Information about key factors for decision making
Carl Hartmann
Decision Maker
General Director

Other Important Factor:

Buying Objective  Task Objective

Buying Involvement  Vertical (Boss- Subordinate) | Complex
5
Possible GAPS
Lack of preparation
• Didn’t have price quotation when asked by Professor Steinborn

Ignorance / Over confidence

• Secretary gave hint about Buying centre
“Final decision was made up by committee having Hartmann, Steinborn and ‘one other
person’
• Transactional approach
Doesn’t spend time for relationship building
• Cancellation of Paris trip
If this happened due to budget constraint then bad decision

6
Action and possible negative
impact
POD not mentioned Loss of competitive advantage
effectively Unimpressive first meet

Doesn’t have price Unprofessional behavior

estimate Lack of interest

No testimonial or They themselves contacted client

feedback from client Asked ability to serve client

7
Action and possible negative
impact Contd..
Too much dependency Impression of lack of knowledge
on Broachers Less impact on buyer

Lack of knowledge / “ All the companies claim they have the latest
technology”
Convincing skill (Doesn’t have info to compare)

Fluctuation in price Doubt about quality (Contradicts initial claim)

offering (Lowers price Looks company trying to take advantage of
by 5 Lakh Euros) Lohmann

8
Action and possible negative
impact Contd..

High time gap Difficult to build rapport and trust

between sales call Less impact on buyer

By not revealing
price to Professor Unprofessional behaviour and
created conflict among members
Steinborn

9
Key Learning from Case
• Preparation before sales pitch
• Understand stakeholders

10
Key Learning from Case Contd…
• For superior quality product high price is justifiable
• Mistake of discount
Appropriate pricing strategy
• Puts power in LUH’s hand
• Contradict to quality statement

• Educational  “Best technology for best hospital”

Communicate relevant benefit
• Financial  “Easier to upgrade, won’t become obsolete”

Training • Had expertise only to deal government client

11
THANK YOU

12