0% found this document useful (0 votes)
15 views14 pages

Country Attractiveness Analysis Report

The document presents a comparative analysis of Turkey and Brazil based on various business attractiveness factors, scoring them on market size, growth, buying power, and competitive intensity. It also evaluates competitive strength in relation to China and India, providing final weighted scores for each country. Recommendations for market entry modes and considerations for internal and external factors are discussed, along with aspects of current products, distribution, communications, and pricing strategies.

Uploaded by

Sarah Thoumy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
15 views14 pages

Country Attractiveness Analysis Report

The document presents a comparative analysis of Turkey and Brazil based on various business attractiveness factors, scoring them on market size, growth, buying power, and competitive intensity. It also evaluates competitive strength in relation to China and India, providing final weighted scores for each country. Recommendations for market entry modes and considerations for internal and external factors are discussed, along with aspects of current products, distribution, communications, and pricing strategies.

Uploaded by

Sarah Thoumy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Student Identification

# Student Number NAME, First Name

1 266990 THOUMY Sarah


Importance of the Country Score (from 1 = worst to 5 = best)
Country Attractiveness variable to the
business (%) Turkey Brazil

Market Size 20% 3 3

Market Growth 20% 2 2.5

Buying Power of customers 20% 2.5 2.5

Competitive Intensity (negative: less competition


= higher score ) 15% 2 1.5

***Attention: the higher the distance, the


lower the score)***

Cultural Distance (differences in language, norms,


values, consumer tastes and preferences, etc.) 5% 4 3.5

Administrative Distance (existence/absence of


trade agreements, political convergence, etc.) 5% 3.5 3

Geographic Distance (physical remotness,


difference in climates, etc.) 5% 3 3

Economic Distance (difference of income


between population, infraestructure, salaries,
etc.)
10% 1.5 2

Total 100% 21.5 21

Turkey Brazil
Country's final weighted score
2.47 2.50

Country 1
Country 2
Country 3
Country 4
Country Score (from 1 = w
(from 1 = worst to 5 = best) Importance of the best)
Competitive Strength variable to your
China India business (%) Turkey

5 4
Marketing ability and capacity (country specific
know-how 15% 3

4 3 Product fit to MKT demands 20% 3

5 3 Brand (country) image 20% 4

3 1.5 Product quality 15% 5

the higher the distance, the


wer the score)***
Financial resources 20% 3

3 4 Quality of local distributors/suppliers 10% 4

2.5 3.5 Total 100% 22

2.5 3

1.5 2.5

26.5 24.5

China India Turkey


Country's final weighted score
3.80 3.00 3.60

Reccomendation country 1
Reccomendation country 2
Reccomendation country 3
Reccomendation country 4
Country Score (from 1 = worst to 5 =
Plot all countries in the matrix
best)

Brazil China India

High 5

Country Attractiveness
3 5 4

4 5 4 4

2.5 4.5 4
3
3 5 4.5
c
2.5 4 3.5 2

2.5 3.5 3
Low 1
5 4 3
17.5 27 23

Competitive Strength

Turkey.
Brazil

Brazil China India


2.95 4.55 3.88
es in the matrix

2 1

ve Strength

China.
India
Which mode of Entry is the most appropriate to your company?

Justification
(justify the chosen entry mode with an analysis of the internal and external factors that d

Internal factors: firms resources and capabilities

External factors: particularities of the target market


stification
he internal and external factors that drove your decision)
Current products (describe the current offer
Standardization versus adaptation decision (1 = totally standard; 2
(characteristics and portfolio) of the company in its
adapted; 4 = very much adapted; 5 = tota
local market)

Current distribution (describe the current distribution Standardization versus adaptation decision (1 = totally standard; 2
(channels) of the company in its local market) adapted; 4 = very much adapted; 5 = tota

Current communications (describe the current


Standardization versus adaptation decision (1 = totally standard; 2
communication (type of message) of the company in
adapted; 4 = very much adapted; 5 = tota
its local market)

Current pricing (describe the current pricing strategy Standardization versus adaptation decisoon (1 = totally standard;
of the company in its local market) adapted; 4 = very much adapted; 5 = tota
ation decision (1 = totally standard; 2 = very much standard; 3 = somewhat
pted; 4 = very much adapted; 5 = totally adapted)

ation decision (1 = totally standard; 2 = very much standard; 3 = somewhat


pted; 4 = very much adapted; 5 = totally adapted)

ation decision (1 = totally standard; 2 = very much standard; 3 = somewhat


pted; 4 = very much adapted; 5 = totally adapted)

ation decisoon (1 = totally standard; 2 = very much standard; 3 = somewhat


pted; 4 = very much adapted; 5 = totally adapted)
Justification/Details

Justification/Details

Justification/Details

Justification/Details

You might also like