ANNEXES
Exhibit 3 Philips’s share price
Exhibit 4 Philips returns on assets
Exhibit 5 Philips share price versus competitors
Exhibit 6 DAP complementary alliances with Douwe Egberts, Nike, Nivea, and Unilever
Table 1 Five forces and value net analysis per Philips product division
|
Force \ PD |
Consumer Electronics |
DAP |
Lighting |
Medical |
Semiconductors |
|
Suppliers |
Many products are outsourced to OEDs and OEMs Low bargaining power of raw material suppliers |
Same as CE |
Same as CE |
Low bargaining power of hardware providers |
Some products are outsourced to OEDs and OEMs Low bargaining power of raw material suppliers |
|
Buyers |
Strong retailers: They ask for two things: · High quality (low field-call-rate[1]) · Supreme supply chain[2] |
The same as DAP |
High negotiation power of strong retailers and carmakers |
Hospitals: difficult to gain those locked in by major competitors (high switching costs) |
Strong B2B clients |
|
Entrants |
Relatively easy to copy or reengineer products Possibility to use OEM / OED solutions High brand presence Price competition from Chinese |
High brand presence Price competition from Chinese |
Easy to enter in conventional lamp business: already fierce competition from Chinese Patent protect high tech solutions |
Difficult to get licenses as well as new customers |
High capital required |
|
Substitutes |
Sometimes it is hard to find a substitute for an electronic product, unless not using it at all |
Same as CE |
Rising LEDs, though Philips is among the first here |
Less high tech solution provide less service level, very viable for health care domain |
Same as CE |
|
Complementors |
Potential cross-product advertisement and lock-in |
Many alliances (see also Exhibit 5) |
Complementary products from video/audio from other Philips divisions |
Other hospital equipment and entertainment |
Wide spectre of technology solutions to satisfy all customer needs |
|
Competitors |
Number of strong competitors, mainly Japanese and Chinese |
Number of strong brands in the market |
Few major competitors: GE, Osram, with Philips leading |
Two strong competitors: GE and Siemens |
Strong competition, especially from Asians |
Legend (cell colour depicts level of attractiveness from Philips prospective):
- Unattractive
- Neither attractive nor unattractive
- Attractive
[1] Field call rate – rate of products rejected by final customers due to quality or other reasons
[2] The producer of the goods should be able to satisfy flexible demand dictated by major retailers
Open all references in tabs: [1 – 4]
[…] stock price, return on assets, and relative stock price as compared to competitors all presented in Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, and Exhibit 5 respectively. All three graphs show stable poor performance until 1996, […]
[…] 1 in Annexes presents analysis of suppliers, buyers, entrants, substitutes, complementors, and competitors per […]