The report aims to summarize results and analyze quarter decisions made by our

team - HEXTON, on the Practice Marketing PC Edition simulation. Based on differing

strategies, the quarters were divided into different stages referring to the Product’s

life cycle. We first penetrated the market as a first-mover but end-up using

competitive-based tactics.

Quarter 1,2,3:

Based on a complete analysis of the market and its opportunities, HEXTON first

entered the market as a Prospector, using the Pioneer strategy and Niche

penetration program. The market includes four main segments, with those falling into

three main categories: low, medium, and high customer segmentations. However,

HEXTON only focuses on Workhorse and Costcutter as they are ranged as low

segment- low price and low performance, matching the company's distinctive

competencies as the low price provider in the market. Also, the two segments'

customer needs and use patterns were available functions that HEXTON could

provide immediately, unlike Innovator or Mercedes with super performance that

needs future development. Furthermore, with financial potential computed in

Appendix A showing that Costcutter and Workhorse were 5,821 and 9,235

respectively; or with 12-month potential demand (Appendix B), it can be observed

that Costcutter was 2,910 and Workhorse was 3,145, both take the highest rate in

the segments. Those market data on financial potential and demand potential were

the last two components to strengthen our specialization in Workhorse and

Costcutter. In the introduction stage, we set the price as low as possible with limited

distribution in Chicago and Shanghai, with competitively high financial potential.

Quarter 4:

Quarter 4 can be seen as a growth stage in the product life cycle, showing how

customers react to the initial marketing strategy. The overall problem is that

HEXTON lost market share in two target segments: 22% in Costcutter and 9% in

Workhorse, both ranking 3rd in the market (Appendix C). Together with bad results

in other segments, HEXTON holds the second-lowest market share, proving the

weakness in our team's strategy.

Pricing is the first look-at because even though DUCO and DDUCO set the lowest

price among competitors, they did not gain customers' high price judgment rate. One

difference here is the price rebate, which is only 90, even lower than the standard

rate and the overall market. Therefore, HEXTON upper the price rebate to 200 to be

distinctively competitive and create more market awareness and interest. However,

the price was far too low, which can hurt the profitability and the overall image of the

company. We remain our strategy as penetration, aiming to achieve rapid market

development, hence, upper the price to around 2,000 while ensuring that it is still the

lowest price among that of competitors.

Quarter 5,6,7:

In quarter 5, a brighter performance was reported to HEXTON, responding to their

appropriate strategy in the last quarter. This is the mature stage as HEXTON

successfully became the market leader with 32%, taking 1/3 market share. In detail,

it took 46%- approximately a half in Costcutter market share, 24% in Workhorse-

second leader, and Traveler with 42%- the market leader (Appendix F). However, it

is also the problem of HEXTON holding the highest market share in Traveler, a
segment that it did not focus on. It led to a decision that HEXTON would change their

priority segment from Workhorse to Traveler in quarter 5. This move was not wise as

HEXTON did not analyze the market carefully. They took Traveler's market share

because they are the only company entering the APAC market, not that their laptops

are functionally attractive enough to bring value to customers, which is the primary

value for the long-term future of any products (figure 1). The evidence showed in

laptop selling markets like Americas and AMEA, where Microsonic and HEXTON

held nearly the same brand judgment of 70 and 69, both far from In2Te; the same

trend goes on for AMEA, but In2Te did not enter this market (Appendix G). As a

result, in quarter 6, Microsonic realized and entered even more markets, so

HEXTON lost the market share of the Traveler segment into their hands. Seeing the

demand potential of Mercedes and Innovator, R&D function plus limited positive

rating in these segments, HEXTON's ambition is penetrating those to increase the

company market share. Therefore, they launched a product line, NOUVO, and

boosted eDDUCO pro features to compete with others. The same strategy was

applied for quarter 7, proving these two quarters' product life cycle stage is extension

type.

Quarter 8:

HEXTON held 24% market share in the final quarter, being the second-largest

provider in the microcomputer business (Appendix H). Compared to the competitors,

HEXTON brought out the second winner in cumulative market performance and

wealth, the third winner in marketing effectiveness, leading to 33 points in total

performance as the second-best (Appendix I). The biggest rival of HEXTON was

Microsonic, which made our team's strategy change to frontal attack from quarter 6
and directly competed with them. They were a strong one with increasingly higher

performance in every aspect, from brand management and advertising to sales

channels.

The biggest regret of HEXTON is that we did not perform so well in advertising. From

quarter 6, by applying a competitive-based strategy, we utilize potential aspects of

rivals' best ads to ours. However, it was ineffective as competitors continuously

improved their strategy, and applying the old ads was only temporary. It did not help

HEXTON achieve the highest rating in ad judgment. In quarter 8, we did not spend

on R&D investment even though there was a fail-proof ultra cap feature that

participated in almost all segments' needs. It is also the key difference that

distinguishes Microsonic's demand over HEXTON. Those, together with some

fragment errors in the management process, make HEXTON only the second leader

in the market.

The game was interesting enough, giving our team a simulation environment to

understand how the market would work in real life. By far, approaching marketing

research was the most meaningful and helped improve individual critical and logical

thinking.
 Appendix

Appendix A: 12-month potential demand of the market.

Appendix B: Financial potential of the market.

 Appendix C: Costcutter’s market share in quarter 4.

Appendix D: Price and priority in the Americas in quarter 4.

Appendix E: Price and priority in APAC in quarter 4.

Appendix F: Detail market share in quarter 5.
Appendix G: Brand judgment in quarter 5.
 Appendix H: Market share in quarter 8.

Appendix I: Cumulative results.

Figure 1: Managing Marketing Strategies and the Marketing Mix (Kotler, 2018).
 References

Walker, O. C., Mullins, J. W., & Mavondo, F. T. (2015). Marketing strategy: A

decision-focused approach. North Ryde: McGraw-Hill Education.

Kotler, Philip, Armstrong, Gary, Opresnik, Marc Oliver. (2018). Principles of

marketing 17th ed. (17th ed., Global Ed.). Harlow: Pearson.