LBO strategy presentation
-
Upload
mojdeh-ghanbari -
Category
Marketing
-
view
157 -
download
2
description
Transcript of LBO strategy presentation
Holographic Projector For Smart Cities
Chestnut Cohort ‘Team 5’
Dennis Abraham, Oday Abu Shehab, Mojdeh Ghanbari Chinedu Kama, Qin Xie
STEEPLE
Political: More transparency
Environment: Less CO2 Emissions, safer, energy saving, population increase
Social: Info sharing, more compatible, education, free usage
Technological: Innovative, advanced, interactive
Legal: Lax privacy policies
Economical: Cheaper, easy application
Choice Carousel
Challenges:
*Investments from VC for LBO to profitably play in Beijing
Objectives: *Cover 15% of the city subways, public schools in the first year.
Opportunities: *Blue Ocean
*Build strong partnerships with the GOV
*Build a strong brand image
Advantages: *Low cost
*Energy-saving
*High quality
Activities: *Test the technology Beijing state to
*Use VC capital for implementation
*Win-win situation cause it’s a 2 sided market
The Product
• LBO world's leading projection systems
• Magnifies and focuses images
• Large image at long distance • Highly tolerant to pixel failure
• Patented
Application
Corporations
Subways Airports Public Universities
Museums
Market Funnel Total market of laser projectors
Potential market
Accessible market
Realistic share of accessible market
• Approx. 100 smart cities worldwide
by 2023 • Asia Pacific and
Europe 25% • Estimated
industry revenue $10 B by 2023
• Estimated industry growth of 16% in 2023
• Estimated
investments from smart cities:
• Reach $63 B by 2023
• Approx. $ 630 M per city
• By 2023 cover 10% of smart cities worldwide
• 10% of each participative smart city’s investment
2 Sided Market
Advertisers The Public
Customer Pays for Ads $$$
Consumer Free Usage
Platform Information/Ads
Opportunities External:
� Blue Ocean: Collaboration with GOVs and public sectors to make smart cities more efficient.
� Partnerships: Venture Capitalists
� Deals: Advertisers
Internal: � Organizational decentralization � Trend Spotting:
� Data gathering through consumer behavior � Data will be analyzed and sold
Value Chain
• Algorithms/ Holographic (HUDs)
• Reduced laser speckle
• Have avg pixel intensi>es of 10% to 25% respec>vely
• Features
• Adver>sing
• Integra>on Strategy
• Strategic Partnership
• Marke>ng & Logis>cs
• Applica>ons • Devices
• Offer second line support
Research & Development
Enabling Technology
Connec9vity & Collabora9on User Interface Service
Porter’s 5 Forces: Market attractiveness is HIGH
Rivalry
Low
Threat of new
entrants Moderate
Bargaining power of buyers
High
Threat of Substitutes
High
Bargaining power of suppliers
Low
Diversified customer base as sales are expected to grow by 4.4% over the next 5 years.
Product variation due to customization
Venture Capital
� Already had 4 series of funding for 25% ownership � $ 57.5 m
� 5th Funding:
� 5% ownership à $ 10 m
� Enterprise Value at $ 225 m
� In total 30% will be owned by VC
� Benefits:
� $810,900 profit from 3rd year
Activities: Proposition � Test the technology in Beijing State
� They get 25% of profits
� 1st year test phase:
� First 8 months:
� Install devices in 33 subway stations
� $45,000 per display = $5.94 m
� Final 4 months:
� Install in 10 Universities = $2.25 m
� Installation costs:
� Approximately $ 3000
Mayor of Beijing Mr. Wang Anshun
� Safety for cars � Smartphones
Plan B & Product Line Extension
Thank You! Q&A?
‘Be Part of Change’ ‘Unique Investment Opportunity’
‘Win-Win Situation’ ‘Invest Now’
Appendix 1: Benefits � 2nd year breakeven � 3rd year start making profit: Subway;
33 x 4 x $132,000 = $17,424,000 � Universities; 10 x 5 x $84,000 =
$4,200,000
Appendix 2: SWOT Relative Strengths
• Robust design, High-resolution,
wide throw angle, focus-free Holographic laser
• Strategic Partnership
• Integration Strategy
• Patent
• High R&D investment
Relative Weaknesses
• Scarce Financial Resources
• Marketing: Reach, Distribution, & Awareness
Opportunities
• Economies of scale
• Systems integration
• Market and Business Development
Threats
• Accelerated expectations vs.
capacity