Mediquip S.A.
-
Upload
gaurav-singh -
Category
Technology
-
view
1.431 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Mediquip S.A.
Mediquip S.A. ®
SUBMITTED BY
GROUP A14
GAURAV SINGH | VAIBHAV JETWANI | RAHUL RAVEENDRAN | KASHIF HAIDER
2
Background
Mediquip loses the customer to competitor Sigma
Kurt Thaldorf, a sales engineer was assigned to customer on May 5
Lohmann University Hospital approached Mediquip for purchase of CT scanner
3
About the company (Mediquip – Seller)
Product Range• CT scanner, X –
ray, ultrasonic and nuclear diagnostic equipment
Worldwide reputation for advance technology• “Two years
ahead of their most advance competition”
Competent after sales
service
Key Buyers• Public sector,
health agencies (Government owned, non profit organization)
Minor share goes to private sector
4
About the Buyer – Lohmann University
Large general hospital
New Task (New product, new vendor)• Awareness Information search Evaluation Decision Post purchase behavior
Lohman & Mediquip• Never had any transaction before• Private buyer
LHU has excellent reputation
5
Buying CentreLUH Remarks
User and Initiators
Professor SteinbornHead of radiology department
• Initiated the deal• His services is sought by doctors
Influencer Dr. RuferHospital’s Physicist
• Write technical specifications• Domain expert• Suggested by Professor Steinborn
Gatekeepers Secretary of hartmann • Inside information• Information about key factors for decision making
Decision Maker Carl HartmannGeneral Director
Other Important Factor:
Buying Objective Task ObjectiveBuying Involvement Vertical (Boss- Subordinate) | Complex
6
Possible GAPS
Lack of preparation• Didn’t have price quotation when asked by Professor Steinborn
Ignorance / Over confidence• Secretary gave hint about Buying centre
“Final decision was made up by committee having Hartmann, Steinborn and ‘one other person’
• Transactional approachDoesn’t spend time for relationship building
• Cancellation of Paris tripIf this happened due to budget constraint then bad decision
7
Action and possible negative impact
POD not mentioned effectively
● Loss of competitive advantage● Unimpressive first meet
Doesn’t have price estimate
● Unprofessional behavior
● Lack of interest
No testimonial or feedback from client
● They themselves contacted client
● Asked ability to serve client
8
Action and possible negative impact Contd..
Too much dependency on Broachers
● Impression of lack of knowledge● Less impact on buyer
Lack of knowledge / Convincing skill
● “ All the companies claim they have the latest technology”(Doesn’t have info to compare)
Fluctuation in price offering (Lowers price
by 5 Lakh Euros)
● Doubt about quality (Contradicts initial claim)
● Looks company trying to take advantage of Lohmann
9
Action and possible negative impact Contd..
High time gap between sales call
● Difficult to build rapport and trust
● Less impact on buyer
By not revealing price to Professor
Steinborn ●Unprofessional behaviour and created conflict among members
10
Key Learning from Case
• Preparation before sales pitch
• Understand stakeholders
11
Key Learning from Case Contd…
• For superior quality product high price is justifiable• Mistake of discount
• Puts power in LUH’s hand• Contradict to quality statement
Appropriate pricing strategy
• Educational “Best technology for best hospital”• Financial “Easier to upgrade, won’t become obsolete”Communicate relevant benefit
• Had expertise only to deal government clientTraining
12
THANK YOU