answer the case discussion questins

KEY TERMS competitors 144 competitive rivalry 144 competitive behavior 144 competitive dynamics 144 competitive action 152 competitive response 152 first mover 153 fast-cycle markets 161 late mover 155 multimarket competition 144 market commonality 148 quality 156 resource similarity 148 strategic action 152 strategic response 152 second mover 154 slow-cycle markets 159 standard-cycle markets 162 tactical action 152 tactical response 152 action? REVIEW QUESTIONS Who are competitors? How are competitive rivalry competitive behavior and competitive dynamics defined in the chapter? 2. What is market commonality? What is resource similarity? In what way are these concepts the building blocks for a compet itor analysis? 3. How do awareness, motivation, and ability affect the firm's competitive behavior? What factors affect the likelihood a fem will take a competitive What factors affect the likelihood a firm wil initiate a compet- tive response to a competitors actions? 6. What competitive dynamics can be expected among firms competing in slow cycle markets? in fast-cycle markets in standard cycle markets? Mini-Case FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS): Maintaining Success while Competing Aggressively Identified recently as one of the so greatest or most in attempting to create superior stakeholder value and intense competitive rivalries of all time, FedEx and UPS to avoid direct, head-to-head competition in a host of are similar in many ways, including their resources, the product segments and markets. In this regard, FedEx markets they serve, and the competitive dimensions that *intends to leverage and extend the FedEx brand and they emphasize to implement similar strategies. These to provide customers with seamless access to its entire similarities mean that the firms are direct competi- portfolio of integrated transportation services, while tors and that they are keenly aware of each other and UPS "seeks to position itself as the primary coordinator have the motivation and ability to respond to the com- of the flow of goods, information, and funds throughout petitive actions they take against each other. The two the entire supply chain (the movement from the raw firms are the largest global courier delivery companies in materials and parts stage through final consumption of what is a highly competitive industry on a global basis. the finished product)." FedEx and UPS compete in many of the same Thus, while these firms are similar, they also seek to product markets, including next day delivery, cheaper differentiate themselves in ways that enhance the pos- ground delivery, time-guaranteed delivery (both sibility of being able to gain strategic competitiveness domestically and internationally), and freight services. and earn above-average returns. In broad-stroke terms However, the firms concentrate on different segments FedEx concentrates more on transportation services and Chapter : Competitive Rivalry and Competitive Dynamic 167 international markets. (Recently, FedEx was generating growth engine for the foreseeable future. To enhance its 48 percent of revenue internationally, while UPS was ability to compete against UPS and other rivals as well. carning aa percent of its revenue from international mar FedEx is restructuring some of its operations to increase kets.) Meanwhile, UPS concentrates more on the entire efficiency. Similarly, the firm is increasing its emphasis value chain while competing domestically. FedEx is the on finding ways for its independent express, ground, and world's largest international air shipping firm, while UPS freight networks to work together more synergistically is the world's largest package delivery company. Although the rivalry between FedEx and UPS is There are many actions the firms have recently taken intense and aggressive, it is also likely that this rivalry to sharpen their ability to outcompete their primary makes each firm stronger and more agile because cach competitor. In mid-2013, FedEx learned that its contract has to be at its best in order to outperform the other. to fly domestic mail for the U.S. Postal Service had been Thus in many ways, each of these firms is a good com- selected for renewal. UPS also bid on the contract, and petitor" for the other one thus it lost this competitive battle to its rival. To support Source2013. Fedex Corp. Standard Per Stack.Report, its strength in logistics as part of the entire supply chain, darpos.comMay 26 2013. United Par Services, Inc, Sa UPS recently agreed to buy "Hungary-based pharmaceu- Per Stuck Report www.canadandpoon.com, May 25 2018, Fed CEO Track flesta algum die Ware tical-logistics company Cemelog Zrt for an undisclosed Journal, wc.com. March ;. Mock, 2013. US to appeal to block of amount in a deal to strengthen its health-care business TNT merger Wort. www.ci . Mer in Europe, giving it access to the increasingly import- 1. Schlie 2013 Fedilecek serand cheaper Set ant markets of Central and Eastern Europe." UPS is also Wic.com, March 20. Schlet 2013, Online shopping boots for LIPS, Street Raci.com April 25. Sed 2013. emphasizing trans-border European Union services as a fend rival for US Poal Wall Street.com.pl Case Discussion Questions FedEx and UPS have many similar resources and compete across many of the same markets. How are they different? Stated differently, how do they differentiate themselves 1 What are some of the major and unique strategic actions taken by each firm? Have these actions been successful Based on Information in the case and from your research which of these firms do you predict will be the most successful in the future? Please explain your reasons. NOTES 5 B S. Carnahan & Somaya, 23. Alumni effects and relational advantage The impact of outsourcing when your buyer hines employees from your competitors Academy of Management ouma se 1975-00M.Chen Mile 2013 Competitive dynamics Themes trends and a prospective research am Academy of Management Anna-MChen, 1996. Competitornysis and Infom way. Toward a theoretical integration Academy of Management Review 100-34 MG Jacobides & Closin bottlenecks and value dynamic song a sector. Organion Science, la press: Patel S.A. Fernhaber McDougal Corvin & R R van der Mars 2014 Beating composto international markets. The value of geographically balanced networks 4 for innovation, Stepic Management Journals 5 B. Chol & C WL 2014. The impact of Innovation Intensity ope and spillovers on sales growth in Chinese. Ale Podific Journal of Management - T.Zehavi&.0.industry diversification and firm performance Strategic Management Journal KM Park Kung & C. Noh, 2014 Segic actions and customer mobility: Antecedents and consequences of strategie actions in the Korean mobile telecommunications service industry Asie Pacific journal of Management -993 RTM Ingen van der Lans 20. Relating price tages and price setting practices. Furpean Journal of Marketing 021-5 2. Masu Mon AL de Gure Martin Aayetvar within and bestic groups Stronie Morgenmas- Derfus. RG MagiCMG 6 KG. Smith. The reducen elect Competitive actions and firm performance Academy of Managementumol. s - C. MAKS 2001 Strategy Action Competitie Dynamics and Competitive advantage. New York Oxford University Press Giachet & Dagnina 2014 Detecting the lationship between competitive and improduct line length: Evidence from the worldwide mobile phone industry. So Management mal- R. Macay SRO 2012 oct. chance 2 6