1.

To find the size of the market, we can use the following equation

(Average Boots Price) * (% of male population that bought work boots in past year)

* (total population for the segment) * (number of pairs bought in a year)

One gives us the populaces for each fragment and the rates that purchased boots. Along
these lines, we need to locate the quantity of boots sold and the normal cost of each pair.
For this inquiry, the competitor should make a few suspicions.

1) Normal number of boots acquired per user

For work boots, we realize that regular laborers buy a normal of 2 sets for each year.

Middle-class laborers and understudies who purchase work boots presumably utilize them
less thoroughly and less oftentimes, along these lines likely just buy 1 set for every year.

For easygoing boots, we can make a sensible presumption, realizing that easygoing boots
are bought basically for quite a long time and light wear, so the normal number of sets
should be close to work boots from Show 1 (pair every year)

2) Average price per pair of boots

The entire advertise esteem will at that point be the whole, for each fragment, of the
following equation:

Work boots fetched more (compare Blue Collar vs. Understudy), so the normal cost ought to
be higher than 140 EUR for all (150 EUR is sensible); casual ones ought to be lower than the
understudy (100-110 EUR is reasonable).

(Average Boots Cost) * (% of the male populace that bought work boots in the past year)

* (total population for the segment) * (number of pairs bought in a year)

(€150 * 60%* 11 MM * 2) + (€150 * 25% * 12 MM * 1) + (€150 * 15% * 7 MM*1)=EUR 2,588
MM

(Average Boots Price) * (% of male population that bought work boots in past year)
(total population for the segment) * (number of pairs bought in a year)
(€100 * 20%* 11 MM * 1) + (€100 * 35% * 12 MM * 1) + (€100 * 55% * 7 MM * 1) = EUR
1,025 MM

The estimate of the workboot showcase is -€2.6 billion. The casual boot showcase is -€1.0
billion expansive. Duraflex produces €414 million from work boots and €410 million from
casual boots. Depending on the suspicions taken, work may be marginally bigger, but the
two ought to be moderately near.
2. According to the data,we know as industry dynamics, the report can be divided in 4 main
fields that would require more study:

 Distribution
 Buyer Purchase Criteria by Brand (BPC)
 Pricing
 Cost Analysis

*Distribution

Work boots are being purchased but Duraflex is not sold .Appear 2 appears that Badger’s
and Steeler’s boots are regularly acquired in security /work channels, while Duraflex does
not have a critical nearness in them.Hence, Duraflex will have to be broaden distribution if it
is to extend its share; it has to get rack space within the significant channels

*Buyer Purchase Criteria by Brand (BPCs)

Exhibit 3 appears us that Badger’s best two related criteria are: “Quality / Durability” (45%)
and “Comfort” (39%). The same holds genuine for Steeler. In this way, these appear to be
basic criteria for work boot market • However, Duraflex’s beat criteria are “Styling” (45%)
and “Quality / Durability” (37%), with “Comfort” being a removed 3rd at 19%, distant from
its competitor’s figures .Duraflex isn't assembly the key needs of blue collar workers and will
ought to reinforce its “Comfort” recognition .Also, we ought to note that Pester has built up
a faithful client base: “past experience” as a criteria speaks to 30% and is 3rd on its list of
related criteria .

*Pricing
That Badger is propelling an “aggressively priced” work boot line. Duraflex can modify its
estimating methodology, e.g. lower its possess boot cost.looking at Show 3, among the
more grounded work boot advertise competitors, we see that as it were Steeler appears
cost as a best BPC (and after that it is the least one) – possibly since they are the lower
taken a toll choice in this showcase .Given that cost does not show up to be an imperative
measure for work boot shoppers, Duraflex will likely not realize extraordinary benefits from
this procedure and will too lower its benefits in doing so. We know from the case that
Duraflex incorporates a premium cost situating; thus, bringing down its cost may lead to the
discernment of bringing down quality.

*Cost Analysis
Comparing Badger to Duraflex work boots, from Display 4, there's one key range where
Pester proportionately and completely spends more than Duraflex: “Materials.” This
underpins their discernment of “Quality / Durability” and “Comfort” among their buyers.
Moreover, they spend more on “labor.” Retailer margin is lower for Badger – due to critical
nearness in security/work channel Sales & Showcasing spend lower for Pester –potentially
driven by lower promoting necessities in security/work channel and a built-up brand title
among blue-collar laborers. Moreover, Pester has built a steadfast client base, and it is less
expensive to preserve existing clients than pull in modern ones .

Duraflex isn't sold where work boots are being purchased . Duraflex isn't assembly the key
needs of blue-collar laborers, because it is weaker than competitors on the basic “Comfort”
dimension .Badger costs its boots more competitively, which is likely to be especially
engaging to the expansive work boot advertise; this has made a difference create a huge
and steadfast buyer base . Badger has lower retailer edges (both outright and relative) and
spends less on Deals & Showcasing .

3. Two sensible answers to this address. The company can either:

– Focus on increasing its work boots activities, or

– Emphasize casual boots

Increased Work Boot Market Focus

Justification:
Represents around 40% of Duraflex’s trade (from address 1), making it exceptionally
troublesome to disregard this market beneficially . While Duraflex does have a more
prominent advertise share within the casual boot advertise, we know from data given within
the case that the casual boot showcase is littler in estimate than the work boot advertise,
which may demonstrate less opportunity for share development; moreover, we infer lower
edges (15% vs. 21%) from casual boots (from Show 4) . Given that Pester is presenting an
unused work line, they may see unused development potential within the advertise which
Duraflex may moreover need to capitalize on . Building a more grounded picture among
blue-collar specialists may lure them into undertaking other Duraflex footwear items .

Implications:
Enter security/work channel – we may be confronted with weight from Pester applying
impact on retailers in this channel . Build “Comfort” and “Quality / Durability” recognition
among blue-collar workers . Increase the extent of costs apportioned to materials and work
– possibly diminishing company margin. There may be interesting / specialty positionings
for Duraflex (proposals ought to be well thought through) Introduce sub-brand or increment
advancement of the brand with a center on blue-collar specialists: may incorporate on-site
advancements, promoting in industry distributions, or publicizing in magazines / on tv amid
programs with the next blue collar readership /viewership .

Emphasise Casual Boots

Justification:
Stronghold for Duraflex right presently (40%market share) Fastest developing market
Represents around 40% of Duraflex’s commerce (from address 1), making it exceptionally
troublesome to productively overlook this market .Focusing extra assets on the work boot
showcase would hazard estranging casual boot buyers (white collar specialists and students)
“Style” is the best BPC for Duraflex (from Show 3). From the insights on Pester and Steeler,
we know usually likely not an imperative criteria for the work boot advertise. By centering
on the casual boot advertise Duraflex can give extra assets to keeping up with styles to way
better request to this target
Implications: Unlikely to be a solid competitor response, since Duraflex is as of now
prevailing player . Duraflex will not ought to enter modern conveyance channels . Candidate
ought to examine a procedure for work boot showcase – either winding down, upkeep etc.
and suggestions of this .