The Current Advertising And Market Strategies For GE And May

The Current Advertising and Market Strategies for GE and Maytag

The discussion focuses on the strategic considerations faced by GE and Maytag regarding advertising expenditures and market entry decisions within the home appliance industry. It presents an analysis of how advertising budgets influence profits and market share, and considers the risks and benefits associated with increased advertising spending. Additionally, the discussion explores broader strategies such as differentiation and low-cost approaches and examines their implications for sustaining competitive advantage.

The core issue centers around GE’s current advertising expenditure of $12 million compared to Maytag’s minimal spending of $0.7 million. The scenario indicates that if Maytag refrains from entering the market, GE’s profits could be as high as $35 million with a lower advertising outlay. However, if Maytag decides to enter, GE's profits could decrease to $20 million if Maytag invests $1 million in advertising, reflecting a potential loss of $10 million. Furthermore, the model considers that maintaining a higher advertising budget of $12 million in the face of Maytag's entry could lead to profits of only $15 million for GE, revealing a significant risk of profit erosion.

This dynamic resembles a mutual dependence recognition in an oligopoly, where strategic decisions about advertising influence market outcomes. Douglas (2012) describes such strategic interactions as part of game theory applications in marketing. In this context, GE faces the dilemma of whether to increase advertising to deter Maytag or to hold steady, knowing that aggressive advertising might not prevent market entry and could actually diminish profits. The analysis suggests that increasing advertising expenditures might not be the optimal strategy for GE, especially considering the risk of Maytag entering the market in response.

The case of high-profile advertising investments, such as Super Bowl ads, illustrates the costs and questionable return on investment in large-scale marketing campaigns. For example, a 30-second Super Bowl ad spot can cost around $3.5 million, but the incremental market share gained by companies like Hyundai and Toyota has been marginal (24/7 Wall St., 2012). Coca-Cola's persistent advertising efforts during this event highlight how even substantial spending does not guarantee competitive gains, often resulting in losses or minimal incremental profit (Douglas, 2012). This example emphasizes the importance of strategic allocation of advertising budgets relative to anticipated benefits.

In terms of strategic marketing approaches, companies can adopt differentiation or low-cost strategies to sustain competitive advantage. Differentiation involves offering unique, high-quality products, often supported by superior customer service, which appeals to consumer preferences and allows a company to command premium prices (Douglas, 2012). For instance, retail franchises like McDonald's maintain consistency and quality across outlets to protect brand value, but vertical restraints like supply chain quality control are critical to avoid brand dilution. Conversely, low-cost strategies require a keen understanding of cost management and efficiency, focusing on standardization and volume sales to maximize contribution margins (Douglas, 2012).

The decision to implement either strategy depends on market conditions, competitive dynamics, and consumer preferences. Many organizations blend both approaches to adapt to different product segments, as exemplified by Sony's historically competitive position in personal electronics and Apple's current market dominance with premium offerings. Maintaining awareness of evolving customer needs and competitive threats is essential in crafting sustainable strategies that foster long-term growth.

Paper For Above instruction

The competitive landscape of the home appliance market presents a complex decision-making environment for industry giants like General Electric (GE) and emerging competitors such as Maytag. Critical to this environment is understanding how advertising expenditures influence market share and profitability, along with strategic considerations around market entry and differentiation. Analyzing these factors within the framework of game theory and strategic marketing reveals critical insights into optimal decision-making under uncertainty and rivalry.

GE’s current advertising expenditure of $12 million contrasts sharply with Maytag’s modest outlay of $0.7 million. Modeling the strategic interactions shows that if Maytag chooses to stay out of the market, GE’s profits can reach upwards of $35 million. However, upon Maytag's market entry, especially at a lower advertising budget, GE’s profits are likely to diminish significantly—down to approximately $20 million—representing a potential loss of $10 million. Increasing GE’s advertising could further complicate this scenario; for example, elevating GE’s advertising to $14 million might marginally increase its profits, but the overall profitability could decline due to increased costs without a guaranteed deterrent effect on Maytag’s entry.

The game theoretical analysis underscores that aggressive advertising might not serve as an effective barrier to entry. Maytag, recognizing GE’s advertising strategy, might choose to enter regardless, leading to a competitive race that erodes profits for both firms. Douglas (2012) explains how strategic interactions in oligopolies involve such considerations, where firms anticipate competitors' responses to their own actions. In this context, maintaining moderate advertising levels, such as at $12 million, could be more advantageous, avoiding unnecessary expenditure while preserving profitability.

This strategic calculus is further exemplified by large-scale advertising investments such as Super Bowl commercials. Despite enormous costs—approximately $3.5 million for a 30-second spot—such campaigns often yield uncertain results. Companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have continued investing heavily in Super Bowl ads, but their incremental contribution to market share or profits is often minimal or negative, exemplifying the concept of diminishing returns (24/7 Wall St., 2012). These examples reinforce the importance of cost-effective advertising strategies aligned with realistic expectations of market impact.

Beyond advertising, firms can pursue alternative strategies such as differentiation or cost leadership to sustain competitive advantages. Differentiation involves creating products that offer distinct benefits—be it quality, branding, or customer service—that justify premium pricing (Douglas, 2012). For example, brands like McDonald’s maintain consistent quality across outlets through rigorous supply chain controls, thus protecting brand integrity. Vertical restraints ensure supply chain quality, especially in food franchises, to prevent brand dilution. On the other hand, cost leadership entails rigorous cost management and standardization to enable lower prices and higher sales volumes (Douglas, 2012). Companies such as Walmart exemplify this approach, achieving competitive advantage through efficient supply chains and economies of scale. Businesses that can successfully blend these strategies often position themselves favorably in dynamic markets by leveraging both cost efficiencies and differentiated offerings, tailored to consumer preferences and competitive pressures.

Strategic decision-making in the home appliance industry and beyond requires a nuanced understanding of market dynamics, consumer behavior, and competitive responses. Firms must carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of advertising investments, the likelihood of competitor actions, and the potential to create sustainable differentiation. Effective strategies often involve balancing aggressive marketing with prudent resource allocation, complemented by product innovation and operational efficiency. Ultimately, the goal is to forge a resilient market position that withstands competitive pressures and adapts to evolving consumer demands.

References

• Douglas, E. J. (2012). Managerial Economics. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
• 24/7 Wall St. (2012). Here Are The 8 Companies That Wasted The Most Money On Super Bowl Advertising. Retrieved December 3, 2020, from https://247wallst.com
• Shamburger, T. (2020). GE Maytag Advertising Strategies. Unpublished course discussion notes.
• Shamburger, T. (2020). Competitive Advertising and Market Entry Dynamics. Unpublished course discussion notes.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press.
• Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing Management (15th ed.). Pearson.
• Raynor, M., & Ahmed, S. (2013). The Strategy Paradox. Harvard Business Review, 91(7/8), 76-84.
• Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Review, 38(4), 45-56.
• Porter, M. E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.
• Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2015). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage. Pearson.