Vanya Slantcheva-Baneva, Ph.D.

an online-based interactive tool

a single-player marketing exercise

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

39

55

44

28

17

3028

6

2927

3

17

Student participation in playing Marketing Simulation®for three academic years

(2009-2012)

Total number of students attending Marketing management course

Number of students enrolled for Marketing Simulation

Number of students purchased the Marketing Simulation

Number of students completed the Marketing Simulation

The simulation is paid and it is more likely students not to be enthusiastic enough, but less demanding before the pragmatic choice not to overload their personal academic duties.

More than half of the class might become “leads” (they are inclined to pay for but not to play the simulation for sure).

Actual number of participants might reach the moiety. There are objective and subjective factors that influence student’s vote.

The instructor is issued when students pay for their enrollment but actually apathetically run the simulation, moreover when they do not run it at all.

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

39

55

44

28

6

29

Number of IT students who choose to learn by Marketing Simulation ®

(2009-2012)

Total number of students attending Marketing management course

Number of students purchased the Marketing Simulation

In 2010 72% of students purchased the Marketing Simulation®.

In 2011– hardly 11%.

In 2012– their number raised to 61%.

Marketing Simulation® is eligible one, and the figures above could be suggested as good enough.

More then 5-year history is required to outline a trend of an actual student demands to learn by the simulation tool.

Should students consider their extracurricular tasks, they decide whether to play the simulation. They draw attention to the following:

◦ Objective factors – attendance, employment, participations in student contests, etc.

◦ Subjective factors – family, motivation, interest in the course, individual perception of the instructor’s capabilities and charisma.

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

28

6

2927

3

17

IT student activity in playing Marketing Simulation®(2009-2012)

Number of students purchased the Marketing Simulation

Number of students completed the Marketing Simulation

In the academic 2009/10 year student activity reaches about 100 per cent – 27 of 28 enrolled students, run and completed the simulation.

In 2011/12 student activity, compared to 2009/10 declines almost twice: the number of students purchased the simulation is 29, but 17of them completed it.

The academic 2010/11 is a precedent: the number of students in class is the highest one –55, but those who purchased the simulation, is modestly 6, and even 3 of them played and completed it.

96%

50%

59%

0

5

10

15

20

25

302009/10

2010/11 2011/12

Relative share of students who completed the Marketing Simulation®

Relative share of students purchased the MSim®Relative share of students completed the MSim®

CHALLENGE: “The red triangle” is growing smallerthen “the blue one”. Approx. 50 per cent of the students do not complete the MSim®, regardless they have purchased it.

PROBLEM: What makes students refuse to run the simulation?

◦ i l l-inst ructed

◦ feel not involved enough

◦ interest is lost

◦ MS® is demanding, a t ime-consuming process of learning

CLUE: Rehearse a “Blue Ocean Strategy” scenario!

59%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of students purchased the Marketing Simulation

Number of students completed the Marketing Simulation

Relative share of students with completed simulation (2011/12)

17 of 29 students have completed MSim®.

Above 40% of students have not completed MSim®

4 students have not run MSim® at all

The highest number of rounds (running MSim® through 12 fiscal quarters) is 41 rounds per student. The lowest one is just once; the average number of rounds per student is 8.

The most effective student runs totally 7 rounds and reaches the highest score in the group twice (81 point).

The most diligent student runs MSim® 41 rounds and reaches the score of 80 points.

The average efficiency of the rounds – in 8-9 completed rounds the individual result is above 50 points.

The overall group activity hesitantly surpasses 50 per cent

1) “Status quo Strategy”

2) “Increase Price Strategy”

3) “Commodity Play Strategy”

Das Narayandas, Marketing Simulation: Managing Segments and Customers. HBR No. 4048, March 2010.

Their loyals High-end

switchers

Our loyals

1) MM

Competitors

Low-end switchers

A2

A1

2)

3)

2

5

8

2

00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30-43 44-57 58-71 72-85 86-100

Use

rs

Total score

Distribution of class results by best individual score. Total score (2011/12)

The prevailing and active part of the 2011/12 class (47%) has got moderate individual scores – between 58-71 points.

There is no an excellent score – above 85points

There are 2 interesting playing behaviourswith the highest scores: of the most efficientstudent, and of the most diligent student (who run the MS® 41 rounds) .

5

12

0 0 00

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1-6% 7-12% 13-19% 20-25% 26-31%

Use

rs

Market share %

Distribution of class results by best individual score. Market share (%)

(2011/12)

Gaining a portion of market share means, more or less, obtaining new customers among the pursued segments.

“Up to 12% market share” displays defensive and retentive decision students made.

2

1

7

5

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

$30,000,000 до $39,999,999

$50,000,000 до $59,999,999

$70,000,000 до $80,000,000

Use

rs

Cumulative revenue (USD)

Distribution of class results by best individual score . Cumulative revenue

(USD)

7 7

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

$0 до $3,999,999

$4,000,000 до $7,999,999

$8,000,000 до $11,999,999

Use

rs

Cumulative profit (USD)

Distribution of class results by best individual score .

Cumulative profit (USD)

Results display properly applied tactics of “retention of existing customer” and “market penetration” strategy (70 % of the 2011/12 class hit $50,000,000 – $69,999,999 cumulative revenue)

Students do not base Investment policy in product performance on high levels of cumulative profit.

They operationalize the improvements in product features.

Students are focused on serving and paying for customer satisfaction, grounded on short-term profits

Master’s IT students usually run Marketing Simulation® in a pragmatic manner, rather then in a holistic one.

Marketing strategies developed – predominantly “Status quo Strategy” with hybrid elements of “Increase Price Strategy”

Individual results of the classes (2009-12) under consideration imply that students understand the simple interrelations between: • segment behaviour,• customer satisfaction and retention,• competitor behaviour,• product feature investments, • price and discount decisions,

when segments and customers are managed.

Student motivation about “learning by playing” in Marketing

Instructor’s role and classroom debrief –“learning before and along playing”

No single correct solution – “self-debriefing and learning”