V.A. Moshnov, Ph.D.

Where SOS– own working capital; OA– the total amount of current assets.

The specified document establishes a normal limit for this indicator: K about 0.1. If the ratio of own working capital at the end of the reporting period is less than 0.1, then the structure of the organization’s balance sheet is considered unsatisfactory, and the organization itself is considered insolvent.

3.Efficiency of marketing activities. Analyzing various definitions and formulations, we believe that the most accurate definition of the effectiveness of marketing activities can be formulated as follows - this is the degree of use of marketing tools in conjunction with the means and capabilities of the enterprise. In monetary form, this characteristic can be assessed by the ratio of commercial results and costs of marketing activities.

Data on gross income and gross costs is information contained in the accounting and financial statements of the enterprise, so obtaining such information does not cause any particular difficulties. Some difficulties arise when collecting other data, since marketing costs are more difficult to calculate, because accounting does not contain information on printing costs, advertising costs, etc.

From our point of view, return on sales is a comprehensive characteristic of the specific profitability per ruble of costs for the production of a specific type of product.

In general, this indicator ( Rk) can be calculated using the following formula:

Where, R– selling price of the enterprise; S– unit cost of production.

5. Image (brand capital) of the enterprise. According to S.N. Chernogortsev, the focus on conquering more and more new markets, satisfying customer requests through product differentiation encourages firms to strive to meet consumer preferences to the greatest extent possible, as well as to work to simplify the process of informing consumers about the increasingly complex properties and parameters of manufactured products. Through the advertising activity of companies, a trademark (the name under which a company advertises and sells its products), as one of the marketing tools, helps disseminate information about the quality of the product, reducing the distance between the manufacturer and the consumer. In conditions of growing competition, the buyer is interested in expanding his awareness of the quality of the product.

In the practice of countries with developed market economies, the combination of various forms of marking (trademark) is called a brand, which also includes design, quality, product properties, and packaging. Being a means of product differentiation, brands give their owners the opportunity to occupy a monopoly position in the product market, which leads to relatively higher income per unit of product. A brand can be considered as a factor in the production of the value of a product. In order for it to begin to generate additional income, the manufacturer must not only create it, but also invest the necessary financial resources, both in its development and in order to ensure its protection. Thanks to this, the process of creating a positive brand can well be regarded as a capital intangible asset. The capital nature of a brand as an asset is due to its informational nature. When exchanging or selling information, it remains with the owner, i.e. may be sold repeatedly, but information may become obsolete. The consequences of brand deterioration differ from the economic consequences of deterioration of a tangible asset precisely in that the demand not only for a specific product deteriorates, but for all products of the company with which it is associated among consumers. Firms strive to create different brands so that the “aging” of one of them does not affect the promotion and consumption of others.

Research carried out by G. Foxall (UK), R. Goldsmith (USA) and S. Brown (Ireland) confirmed the existence of patterns in a stable market (sales indicators are stable and tend to grow slightly annually) based on the assertion that consumer intentions make a purchase of any of the brands they previously purchased are closely related to future purchasing behavior. That is, a consumer who is satisfied with the use of a particular brand is likely to demand it again, and “ongoing” purchases of that brand are very likely to follow. Buyer intentions are a function of past experience and its consequences, which can be assessed as follows:

Where I– intention to buy the brand again; U– past use; k– a constant that varies in different markets.

The importance of attitudinal research here is not that it predicts purchases of specific brands, but that it explains why consumers buy certain brands and not others.

Thus, a quantitative measure of the effectiveness of management () of an enterprise is an indicator calculated by the formula:

Where, P r– profit from product sales.

To ensure quantitative comparability of indicators, reducing coefficients of calculated values ​​should be used: for the effectiveness of marketing activities - 0.05; for return on sales – 0.1; for the financial condition of the enterprise – 10.

The given list of competitiveness indicators is not constant and exhaustive. The number of components of an enterprise’s competitiveness depends on the type and complexity of the product in technical and operational terms, as well as on the required accuracy of assessment, the purpose of the study and other factors.

The set of given parameters can be supplemented by detailing the above components or enlarged in the case of combining individual characteristics into aggregate indicators. Such decisions are determined by the subjective characteristics of the objects of competitive analysis or the possibilities of information support for the assessment procedure. If the analyzed enterprise belongs to an industry characterized by a high rate of renewal of the range of products, then it is advisable to consider the level of innovative potential of the business entity as an independent component. In the case of a shortage of material and technical resources involved in economic circulation, it seems necessary to supplement the above list with the element resource saving, etc., as an independent characteristic.

Such specification is not of a fundamental nature and in the model under consideration acts as a condition affecting the accuracy and objectivity of the assessment.

The main requirement for any model that formalizes the goals set by an enterprise is its applicability for comparison and ordering (ranking) of various economic solution options.

In our opinion, the assessment of competitiveness can be interpreted as a geometric figure that serves as a quantitative measure of the sustainability of the competitive state of the enterprise. The stability of such a geometric figure characterizes the real competitive position of the enterprise.

The competitiveness polygon can serve as the basis for constructing a simulation model of market equilibrium in conditions of competitive rivalry among commodity producers. This basis, consisting of ray vectors, will determine the degree of potential competitiveness of the enterprise. Each vector in its maximum value represents the radius of a circle corresponding to the maximum potential of the internal capabilities of an economic entity (ideal option). Calculating the volume of the resulting pyramid will determine the final assessment of the real competitiveness of the enterprise.

Now let's determine what is considered the height of the pyramid. This mathematical argument must also be approached with the utmost care. After all, many factors influence the competitiveness of an enterprise in real life. And many criteria can claim to be the height of the pyramid - market share, industry growth rates, intensity of competitive rivalry, and many others. The degree of stability of an enterprise’s competitive position in the market is usually characterized by market share.

Market share is an important indicator, the value of which must be determined and predicted. Market share is the ratio of the sales volume of a certain product of a given enterprise to the total sales volume of this product carried out by all entities operating in a given market.

This indicator is key when assessing the competitive position of an enterprise. Since an economic entity with a high market share produces and sells more products, the cost per unit of product of this enterprise is lower compared to its competitors. The position of an enterprise with a larger market share in the competition is preferable.

An enterprise can achieve competitive advantages and strengthen its position by:

• ensuring lower costs for production and sales of goods;
• ensuring product indispensability through differentiation.

Differentiation means the company's ability to offer the buyer a product that has greater value, i.e. greater use value. Differentiation allows you to charge higher prices, which leads to greater profits.

In addition, the enterprise is faced with the task of: in what “broad front” market should it compete – in the entire market or in any part of it (segment). This choice can be made using the relationship between market share and firm profitability.

The thesis that one of the decisive factors for ensuring competitiveness is the market share owned by an enterprise is generally accepted today. In most cases, industrial enterprises that have a larger market share compared to their competitors also have higher profitability indicators.

Firms that do not have the ability to gain market leadership must concentrate their efforts on a specific segment and strive to increase their advantages over competitors there.

Success is achieved not only by large firms with a larger market share, but also by relatively small, highly specialized enterprises. The desire of small enterprises to duplicate the behavior of large firms, regardless of their real capabilities, leads to negative consequences - to the loss of competitive positions.

To succeed, such enterprises must follow the rule: “Segment the market. Narrow down your production program. Achieve and maintain maximum share in a minimum market.”

The size of the optimal market share is regulated by a combination of objective and subjective factors. Namely, in accordance with the current legislation, the state, within the framework of antimonopoly regulation, sets limit values ​​for the concentration of production in the hands of an individual commodity producer (65%), the excess of which entails the application of sanctions and forced restrictions on the activities of an individual commodity producer in a specific market.

On the other hand, it is necessary to take into account the nature and development trends of the product market or industry itself, since the initially favorable situation of a growing market stimulates the emergence of new competitors in it. Moreover, the higher the growth rate of the industry, the more attractive the prospects for large businesses.

The internal resources and characteristics of the business entity itself act as subjective factors, since maintaining and strengthening competitive positions in the market, as a rule, is accompanied by the need to attract additional resources, which are directed either to reducing costs (thereby creating stronger positions within the framework of price competition), or on offering unique products. Both characterize the internal capabilities of the enterprise to create high entry barriers.

Consequently, establishing an acceptable or optimal market share controlled by an economic entity involves the process of finding a compromise solution, determined by a combination of objective and subjective factors that influence the quantitative measure of the market share occupied by the enterprise.

The actual or desired expansion of market share obviously depends on various factors, including the strength of competitors, the amount of resources required to implement the strategy, and the willingness of management to “sacrifice” current profits for the sake of future profits. The article "Market Share is the Key to Profitability" by Robert Buzzell, Bradley Gale, and Ralph Saltan categorizes business unit market share strategies into three groups:

1. growth strategies are based on active actions aimed at increasing market share through the introduction of new products, additional marketing programs, etc.;
2. retention strategies aimed at maintaining the existing market share;
3. harvesting strategies pursue the goal of obtaining short-term profits and cash while reducing the market share owned by the business unit.

So, a quantitative measure characterizing the real position of an enterprise in a competitive environment is market share ( N), – acts as the height of the pyramid, as an optimal quantitative parameter.

Calculating the volume of the pyramid characterizes the real result of assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise, i.e. the value of this parameter determines the quantitative assessment of competitiveness. The base of the pyramid is formed by six ray vectors that determine the internal competitiveness of the enterprise, the value of which can be calculated as follows:

Where P con– area of ​​the base of the pyramid (polygon of product competitiveness); sina– the angle between the vectors in the polygon (base), because There are six vectors in the model, then the angle will be equal to 60°.

Each vector in its limiting value represents the radius of a circle corresponding to the maximum value (ideal option) of the evaluation indicator (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1.Graphic interpretation of a model for assessing the competitiveness of an industrial enterprise

Using the parameters of the internal competitiveness of the enterprise P con and the resulting parameter N, Let's transform the proposed expression, then the final formula for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise will have the following form:

, (22)

Where E k– assessment of the competitiveness of an industrial enterprise.

As noted earlier, the composition of the factors taken into account in the model and its structure can be adjusted as the model is improved. The universal nature of the model under consideration allows us to vary the range of parameters being assessed, based on information capabilities, the level of qualifications of the experts involved, and the degree of specialization of production.

This methodological approach makes it possible to analyze the influence of individual factors that ensure the competitive position of an enterprise in the market, as well as assess the possible consequences of their changes in the future.

The market is a self-regulating and balanced system that reflects the relationship between consumers and producers, from the standpoint of an objective assessment of the correspondence between the characteristics of effective demand and production capabilities, when, through commercial transactions, a compromise solution is reached that satisfies both parties involved in the process of market exchange. The ideal idea of ​​market equilibrium can be graphically interpreted as a sphere, which is characterized as a geometric figure with a constant center of gravity.

Comparison of the position of an economic entity in the general model of market equilibrium makes it possible to quantitatively assess its competitive position and substantiate the strategic prospects for its functioning. The share of a particular commodity producer in the market makes it possible to interpret its real position in comparison with competitors in the commodity market.

This approach is a methodological basis for justifying an acceptable scenario for the market behavior of an enterprise. The results of the situational analysis predetermine the choice of management decision.

The universal nature of the model under consideration allows us to evaluate not only the internal capabilities of the enterprise, but also the actual market reaction to a possible (intended) scenario of its behavior in a specific situation. The most typical hypotheses for market development are its growth, stability or collapse, which in the proposed model is interpreted as a change in the fundamental characteristic of the model - the diameter of the sphere. From this point of view, with the absolute characteristics of an economic entity remaining unchanged, it becomes possible to quantitatively assess its position in comparison with other economic entities - competitors.

The use of this model for practical purposes reduces the risks of management decisions and can serve as a basis for assessing their effectiveness. The proposed methodology is acceptable for justifying decisions regarding the management of the current activities of an enterprise, as well as acting as an argument confirming the feasibility of investment decisions.

The ideal version of the model for the monopoly market has the following form: all six values ​​of internal competitive advantages are equal to the maximum value - 1. The ideal model has a height value ( N) equals 0.65, since the current legislation of the state, within the framework of antimonopoly regulation, sets maximum values ​​for the concentration of production in the hands of an individual commodity producer (65%) (Fig. 2).

The model of perfect competition can be represented as a sphere consisting (divided) of n equal sectors. As an example of using a methodology for assessing the competitiveness of an economic entity, it is proposed to consider a situation where two “pyramids” of the nth number of participants are laid out on the plane of a sphere (Fig. 3).

The model was developed using a computer program " MathCAD Professional 2001 ».

Let's consider the main stages of building a model. The first stage is entering data characterizing internal competitive advantages (Table 1).

As an object of study, it is proposed to evaluate the competitiveness of " enterprises", its main " competitor" and as a basic option " ideal option».

Table 1
Internal competitive advantages	"Enterprise"	"Competitor"	"Ideal option"
1. Product competitiveness
2. Financial condition of the enterprise
Efficiency of marketing activities
3. Profitability of sales
Image (brand capital) of the enterprise
4. Management efficiency

Note: the table should not contain “absolute” zeros, however, it is allowed to use values ​​close to zero (for example, 0.0000001), which is due to the features associated with calculating the volumes of geometric bodies. « SUBJECT» is assigned "0" if we construct a polygon of internal competitive advantages for " enterprises" and "1" – for " competitor».

The second stage is the construction of a polygon of internal competitive advantages for “ enterprises», « competitor" And " ideal option».

The polygon is constructed according to the following rules:

• the circle is divided by radial rating scales into equal sectors, the number of which is equal to the number of criteria (in our case, six sectors);
• as you move away from the center of the circle, the value of the criterion improves;
• the scales inside the evaluation circle are calibrated so that all values ​​lie within the evaluation circle (in our case, the maximum value is 1).

The method under consideration makes it possible to determine a generalized criterion for the internal competitiveness of an enterprise:

, (23)

where is the area of ​​the polygon of a certain economic entity (the area of ​​the polygon is equal to the sum of the areas of its six sectors); – area of ​​the unit circle (in our case, the radius of the evaluation circle is 1, therefore ).

We compare the areas and get the following results (Table 2):

The third stage is the construction of a simulation model of market equilibrium in conditions of competitive rivalry between commodity producers (sphere) based on an assessment of the competitiveness of a specific economic entity:

• specifying the coordinates of points to construct a sphere;
• graduation;
• development of a data matrix;
• development of formulas for calculating volumes;
• determining the value of the sphere radius;
• interpretation of the model “Market assessment of the competitive position of an enterprise”;
• calculating the volume of a sphere;
• calculating the volume of a geometric figure inscribed in a sphere, characterizing the competitiveness of an economic entity;
• determining the ratio of the volume of an inscribed figure to the volume of a sphere.

Quantitatively, competitiveness can be calculated as the sum of the volumes of six sectors of the figure inscribed in the sphere:

where are the sectors into which the inscribed pyramid is divided.

The relative competitiveness of an economic entity is calculated as follows:

where is the volume of the sphere (in our case).

A comparison of the results of the calculations performed is presented in Table. 3:

Thus, based on the calculations performed, it can be stated that the enterprise is less competitive than its most significant competitor.

Rice. 2. An ideal version of the monopoly market model

Rice. 3. An ideal version of the perfect competition market model

Footnotes

Azoev G.L. Competition: analysis, strategy and practice. – M.: Center for Economics and Marketing, 1996.

Marketing / G.L. Bagiev, V.M. Tarasevich, H. Ann / edited by. ed. G.L. Bagieva, - M.: OJSC Publishing House "Economy", 1999.

Roman M.I. Scientific foundations of competitiveness management. Educational method. allowance. Vladimir, 2001.

Order of the Federal Administration for Insolvency (Bankruptcy) No. 31-r dated 08.12.94.

Bondarev A.A. “Improving the management of an industrial enterprise based on assessing the effectiveness of marketing activities,” Diss. ...cand. econ. Sciences, Vladimir, 2002.

Borisov A.B. Large economic dictionary. – M.: Book World, 2002.

Chernogortseva S.N. Development of a trademark (brand) as a factor in increasing competitiveness // Materials of interregional. scientific conference "Economics and management: in search of something new." Vladimir, 2001.

Foxall G., Goldsmith R., Brown S. Consumer psychology in marketing / Transl. from English edited by I.V. Andreeva. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001.

Doyle P. Cost-oriented marketing / Translated from English. edited by Yu.N. Kapturevsky. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001.

Abchuk V.A. Management: Textbook. – St. Petersburg: Soyuz Publishing House, 2002.

Sheremet A.D., Suits V.P. Audit: Textbook. – M.: Infra-M, 1995.

Classics of marketing / Compiled by Enis B.M., Cox K.T., Mokva M.P. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001.

Competitiveness polygon

Flow Company, Forum Company

In the figure we see that the company “Flow” is a leader in four criteria (financial position, brand awareness, sales) relative to its main competitor and is inferior only in two areas, such as price and efficiency of communication with the external environment. This suggests that Flow has a fairly high level of competitiveness in the snowboard market, which means the threats are minimal.

Product competitiveness

Table 6.

We will assess the competitiveness of snowboards from the company “Flow” in comparison with the products of the company “Forum Snowboards”

1. Regulatory parameters

The product of the company “Flow” and the company “Forum Snowboards” meets the requirements of regulatory parameters and therefore J A np =1, J H np =1.

2. Technical parameters.

Technical indicators for assessing the competitiveness of snowboards.

Table 7.

Table 8. Assessment of the importance of individual technical parameters of snowboards for the consumer

Indicators		Reliability			Geometry
Reliability
Geometry

Table 9. We calculate specific and general indicators of competitiveness by technical parameters.

Indicators	Importance to the consumer	Single parametric indicator biA from Flow	Single parametric indicator biH from Forum Snowboards
reliability
geometry

Thus, we got J A tp =0.931, J H tp =0.907, that is

Consequently, Flow snowboards are technically more competitive in the market than Forum Snowboards.

3. Economic parameters

The consumption price of snowboards is

C p A = 10,500 rub.

C p O =17,000 rub.

C p H =9120 rub.

General indicators of competitiveness by economic parameters:

J ep A = =10500/17000=0.61

J ep N = =9120/17000=0.53

Forum Snowboards snowboards are more competitive in terms of economic parameters.

We calculate the integral indicator.

The integral indicator for Flow snowboards is slightly worse, therefore, the product is slightly, but inferior in competitiveness.

Competitor research should be aimed at the same areas that were the subject of analyzing the potential of your own enterprise. This can ensure comparability of data. A convenient tool for comparing the capabilities of an enterprise and its main competitors is the construction of competitiveness polygons, which are graphical connections of assessments of the position of the enterprise and competitors in the most significant areas of activity, presented in the form of axes vectors.

By superimposing the polygon of the competitiveness of various enterprises on top of each other, it is possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of one enterprise in relation to another.

Similarly, this method can be used to assess the competitiveness of goods. To determine the characteristics by which products will be compared, an expert method or a consumer survey can be used.

To quantify the characteristics, the expert method and the scaling method are used. Most often, a seven- or five-point scale is used.

Fig. 2 Competitiveness polygon

The main disadvantages of the method are:

· Application of the expert method, i.e. bringing your own subjective assessment.

· Difficulty in quantifying quality characteristics such as after-sales service, etc.

· This method does not provide an accurate quantitative assessment of the characteristics of goods/enterprises according to specified criteria.

The positive aspects of this method:

· Clearly shows the strengths of products and businesses.

· Allows you to quickly and easily determine the position of the product/enterprise under study relative to its competitors.

Matrix method (Boston Consulting Group matrix)

The methodology is based on an analysis of competitiveness taking into account the life cycle of a product/service. The essence of the assessment is to analyze a matrix constructed according to the principle of a coordinate system: horizontally – growth rates / reduction in the number of sales on a linear scale; vertically – the relative share of the totality of goods/services on the market. The most competitive are enterprises that occupy a large share of a fast-growing market, i.e. are “stars” (Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. Boston Consulting Group Matrix

Similarly, this method can be used for one or a group of similar products. In this case, the most competitive product will be a product/group of homogeneous products that occupy a significant share in a fast-growing market.

Advantages of the method: if reliable information about sales volumes is available, the method allows for a highly representative assessment.

Disadvantage of the method: it excludes the analysis of the causes of what is happening and complicates the development of management decisions.

Model “Market attractiveness – competitive advantages”

This model is a development of the model described above. The defining features of the model are market attractiveness and competitive advantages. The attractiveness of a market consists of the characteristics of the market itself, the supply base and other conditions. Competitive advantage is determined by relative market position, product potential, research capabilities, and the qualifications of managers and employees (Figure 4).

This matrix allows you to determine the position of the product/enterprise in question in the market relative to other competitors, and also allows you to develop strategic recommendations for improving the level of competitiveness of the product/company.

Rice. 4. Model “Market attractiveness – competitive advantages”

Disadvantages of the model:

· Determining model factors requires a large amount of information, which is most often simply unavailable.

· Difficult to quantify qualitative characteristics.

· The model is static and reflects only a given period of time.

Porter Matrix

This matrix is ​​built on the basis of the concept of competitive strategy: the focus of the enterprise is not only on meeting the needs of the enterprise, but also on competing market forces.

Rice. 5. Porter matrix

Based on the factors that are most significant for the competitive position of an enterprise, M. Porter developed a competition matrix (Fig. 5):

1. Cost leadership: all actions and decisions of the company should be aimed at reducing costs. Other characteristics are subordinate.

2. Differentiation strategy: the company's product must be different from the competitor's product and have something unique from the point of view of consumers.

3. Segment Focus: Targeting one or more market segments and achieving cost leadership, a distinctive position, or both there.

Flaws:

· This concept provides for the presence of a special position in relation to competitors, the means of achieving this position are unknown;

· Concentrating on one of these strategies can be dangerous when market conditions change rapidly.

The main disadvantage of the method is its limitations: either one group of factors influencing the competitiveness of an enterprise is assessed, and based on the data obtained, a conclusion is drawn about the level of competitiveness of the entire enterprise, or the method is too complex and difficult for practical use. Using only one method does not give a complete picture of the level of competitiveness of an enterprise. Therefore, when assessing the competitiveness of a product and an enterprise, it is necessary to use an integrated approach.

Classification of methods for assessing the competitiveness of goods and enterprises

Analytical methods for assessing the competitiveness of a product
Number of parameters (coordinate axes)	Method name	Formula	Advantages of the method	Disadvantages of the method
Number of parameters ≤2	Rosenberg model		Easy to compare products: each product can be assigned a specific number	It is difficult to determine and evaluate the most important characteristics of a product from the consumer's point of view; No comparison with ideal product characteristics
Integral indicator of competitiveness		Fairly easy comparison with competing products; The general analysis is done based on the analysis of individual indicators.	Application of the expert method; difficulty in determining parameters and their significance.
Assessment of product competitiveness based on sales level		Formulas allow you to determine the position of a product on the market; the method takes into account the influence of various environmental factors	Static model. The method is based on expert assessments.
Number of parameters>2	Ideal point model		The method gives an idea of ​​the ideal product, allows you to determine the degree of deviation of this product from the ideal	Accuracy in determining the characteristics of the ideal and considered goods, the use of expert assessments.
Analytical methods for assessing the competitiveness of an enterprise
Number of parameters≤2	Rating method		The method quite accurately determines the place of a given enterprise relative to its competitor.	Difficulty in calculating the indicator, obtaining initial data, lack of forecast information
Valuation based on market share calculation		The method allows you to determine the type of company in the market and determine its place there.	It is impossible to determine the reasons for the identified position of the company and develop the necessary strategy
Number of parameters>2	Assessment method based on the theory of effective competition		The method covers all the most important economic assessments. activity of the enterprise, the possibility of using the method as operational control of individual services.
Valuation method based on consumer value		Assessment of competitiveness taking into account the factors of the company's internal environment.	Complexity of calculations and collection of necessary initial information.
Graphic methods for assessing the competitiveness of goods and enterprises
Number of coordinate axes=2	Matrix BKG12	Figure 3	If sufficiently reliable information is available, it accurately shows the position of the enterprise	Lack of predictability, does not show the reasons for this position of the company
Market Attractiveness Model - Advantages of Competition"	Figure 4	Allows you to determine the position of the company relative to other competitors and develop further strategies	The model is static, it is difficult to determine qualitative characteristics.
Porter Matrix	Figure 5	Visual structuring of achieving competition	Does not provide specific recommendations for achieving competitive advantage.
Number of coordinate axes>2	Method "polygon of enterprise competitiveness"	Figure 2	Sufficient ease of use for operational analysis of the situation, determining the current position relative to competitors	Difficulty in calculating the indicator, obtaining initial data, lack of forecast information.

Ereskov Alexey Olegovich

Trepov Alexander Igorevich

student, Department of Marketing, Donetsk State University of Management

Burtseva Elena Egorovna

scientific supervisor, senior lecturer, Department of Marketing, Donetsk State University of Management

This paper examines the features of assessing the competitiveness of goods using the “Conformity of Competitive Advantages” method, and substantiates the indicators, the modification of which makes it possible to increase the competitiveness coefficient of the goods under study.

Relevance. With the development of market relations, consideration of problems of competition and competitiveness is becoming an increasingly pressing issue for the effective and profitable functioning of enterprises. Assessing the industry attractiveness and competitive capabilities of a company based on value chain analysis makes it possible to determine the position of a business in the industry, as well as determine its real competitive advantage, expressed in exceeding the industry average level of profitability. Competitive advantage is achieved based on how the company organizes and performs individual activities. Through these activities, firms create certain values ​​for their customers. The ultimate value created by a firm is determined by how much customers are willing to pay for the goods or services offered by the firm.

Purpose of the work consists of studying the competitive advantages of a product using the “Compliance of Competitive Advantages” method and identifying areas for increasing competitiveness for the products under study.

Analysis of the latest research and publications. To date, the problem of increasing the competitiveness of goods in their scientific works has been considered by both domestic and foreign scientists. Among them: Akulich M.V. , Grebnev E.T. , Zagoruiko V.L. , Ivanenko A.V. , Lifits I.M. .In their works, these scientists studied the theoretical, methodological and economic-organizational aspects of ensuring the competitiveness of products and enterprises.

Presentation of the main material. Adam Smith also said that an invisible hand rules the world, and the market economy does not fall apart because competition puts everything in its place, and people who seek only to satisfy their own interests ultimately work for the benefit of society. A radical breakthrough in this area is associated with the name of Michael Porter. To gain a competitive advantage, a firm must either provide customers with approximately the same value as its competitors, but produce the product at a lower cost (lower-cost strategy), or it must be able to provide customers with a product with greater value for which it can get a higher price (differentiation strategy). . Firms gain competitive advantage by developing new ways of performing activities, introducing new technologies or input components of production. How long a competitive advantage can be maintained depends on three factors:

1. The first factor is determined by what the source of advantage is. Low-ranking advantages, such as cheap labor or raw materials, can be obtained quite easily by competitors. They can copy these advantages by finding another source of cheap labor or raw materials, or they can nullify them by producing their own products or getting resources from the same place as the leader. Higher-order advantages (proprietary technology, differentiation based on unique products or services, a firm's reputation based on enhanced marketing efforts, or close customer ties enhanced by the cost of changing suppliers) can be sustained over a longer period of time. They have certain characteristics.

2. Greater skills and abilities - specialized and better trained personnel, adequate technical equipment and, in many cases, close relationships with major clients.

3. The third and most important reason for maintaining a competitive advantage is the constant modernization of production and other activities.

In this work, for a practical illustration of the application of the competitiveness assessment method “Conformity of Competitive Advantages”, two similar products were selected - Gorenje FS 900W and Philips HD 9120/00 bread makers.

Bread maker ― a household small-sized electromechanical device, the main function of which is the automated production of tin bread, starting from kneading the dough and ending with baking the finished bakery product. Baking time is 1–6 hours, depending on the type of bread and manufacturing method.

The first bread machine was developed in 1987 by the Japanese company Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd. (current name: Panasonic Corporation).

The innovation of Japanese engineers was that they combined in one device a dough mixing machine - the kneading form of which is a baking form - a proofing cabinet and a baking oven, and automated the technological process controlled by a computing device. The bread maker first appeared on the post-Soviet market in 1994.

When choosing a bread maker, special attention should be paid to technical parameters, power, unit housing, weight and dimensions. The weight of the bread maker can be from 4 to 7.5 kg, the power of the unit can be from 450 to 950 W. The greater the power of the unit, the faster it works, but the electricity consumption is also greater. The smaller the size of a bread machine that has all the functions, the higher its cost. The body of the device is made of stainless steel or plastic. You should also pay attention to the number of baking programs: from 3 to 17.

One of the graphical methods for assessing the competitiveness (product) of a company is the competitiveness polygon. Competitiveness polygon represents a graphical combination of assessments of the position of the product (enterprise) and competitors in the most significant areas of activity and allows you to compare the capabilities of enterprises. By overlaying one polygon on another, you can identify the strengths and weaknesses of enterprises relative to each other. The use of the expert method and, as a consequence, a decrease in the objectivity of assessments and difficulty in assessing certain characteristics are the main disadvantages of the method. The clarity of the result and the convenience of analysis are the advantages of this method.

For the practical use of this method, the work provides a comparative description of the Gorenje FS 900W and Philips HD 9120/00 bread makers (Table 1), as the initial data for calculating the competitiveness coefficient.

Table 1.

Comparative characteristics of bread makers "GorenjeFS 900 W» And« PhilipsHD9120/00"

Product performance	Gorenje FS 900W(№ 1)	Philips HD 9120/00 (№2)		Ideal product
Quality indicators (account for 49.5%)
Standard indicators (8%)		Manufactured in accordance with regulatory documents and DSTU		Manufactured in accordance with regulatory documents and DSTU
Consumer indicators (account for 37%)
Power
Number of containers (4%)
Water tank (3%)
Control type (1.5%)	Electronic(2 points)		Mechanical(1 point)		Electronic(2 points)
Housing material (4%)	Plastic (1 point)		Plastic (1 point)		Plastic (1 point)
Timer (2%)	Digital (2 points)		Manual (1 point)		Digital (2 points)
LCD display	Yes (1 point)		No (0 points)		Yes (1 point)
Acoustic signal (1.5%)	Yes (1 point)		Yes (1 point)		Yes (1 point)
Overheat protection (4.5%)	No (0 points)		Yes (1 point)		Yes (1 point)
Protection against switching on without water (3.5%)	No (0 points)		Yes (1 point)		Yes (1 point)
Color (2.5%)	Two colors (2 points)		Three colors		Three colors
Economic indicators: (account for 30.5%)
Transport costs.	Delivery in Kyiv is free; In Ukraine - 60 UAH		Delivery in Kyiv is free; In Ukraine - 60 UAH		Delivery in Kyiv is free; In Ukraine - 60 UAH
Guarantee (8%)	2 years (2 points)		2 years (2 points)		2 years (2 points)
Availability of spare parts(4%)	Freely available		Freely available		Freely available
Availability of service centers (3.5%)	Available in limited quantities, mainly in regional centers				Available in limited quantities (the number of service centers is greater than that of Gorenje FS 900W) (2 points)
Marketing Metrics (account for 20%)
Brand awareness
Consumer loyalty
Overall competitiveness coefficient

The product competitiveness index is calculated using formula 1:

Ik = ∑(Q*Ii/I) (1)

where: Q is the specific weight of the indicator;

Іі ― the value of the і-th parameter for the analyzed product (і=1,2,3…n);

I is the parameter value at which the need is fully satisfied;

n is the number of parameters;

Using the data in Table 1, we will calculate the competitiveness coefficient of the two products under study:

Gorenje FS 900W = 0,7309

Philips HD 9120/00 = 0,9615

Analyzing these competitiveness coefficients, we can conclude that the Philips HD 9120/00 bread maker has a great competitive advantage over the Gorenje FS 900 W bread maker.

For the convenience of analysis and graphical illustration of the competitive advantages of these products, a competitiveness polygon (Fig. 1) is constructed in this work, which is based on the data in Table 1.

Figure 1. Product competitiveness polygon Gorenje FS 900 W And Philips HD 9120 /00

Based on the analysis of the table for assessing competitiveness indicators and the competitiveness polygon constructed on its basis, we can offer recommendations for improving products to improve the competitiveness indicator:

1. The Gorenje FS 900 W bread maker has a lower overall competitiveness coefficient compared to the Philips HD 9120/00 bread maker. The overall competitiveness coefficient was 0,7309 ;

2. The Gorenje FS 900 W bread maker has an advantage in the competitiveness coefficient in the following indicators: the presence of an LCD display, a digital timer and an electronic control type.

3. The Philips HD 9120/00 bread maker has an overall competitiveness coefficient as close as possible to 1, that is, to the overall competitiveness coefficient of an ideal product. The overall competitiveness coefficient for the Philips HD 9120/00 bread machine was 0,9615 ;

4. The Philips HD 9120/00 bread maker has a number of advantages over the Gorenje FS 900 W bread maker. These advantages are expressed in the following indicators: the number of containers, consumer loyalty, brand awareness, protection against turning on without water, protection against overheating and a number of less significant indicators.

5. During the analysis of the competitiveness coefficients of these products, indicators were established in which none of the products had an advantage: standard indicators, warranty, price, case material. Using these indicators, as well as modifying the others, a manufacturing company can increase the competitiveness coefficient of its product relative to the products of its competitors.

6. In this work, two products were examined and their strengths and weaknesses were graphically depicted.

Conclusions. The competitiveness of goods directly affects the sustainable position of the enterprise as a whole. There are many approaches to calculating the competitiveness indicator of a product. The work analyzed the competitiveness of goods using the “Competitive Advantages Correspondence” method, calculated the competitiveness coefficient, the resulting value of which made it possible to give recommendations for improving the quality parameters of the product to strengthen its position in the market. This work can also be used to develop a product development strategy and establish an enterprise’s pricing strategy for these products.

Is there a listteraturs:

1. Akulich M.V. Analysis of product competitiveness in the aspect of relationships with consumers / M.V. Akulich // Marketing. - 2003. - No. 6(73). - pp. 106–112.

2.Grebnev E.T. Analysis of product competitiveness / E.T. Grebnev, D.T. Novikov, A.N. Zakharov // Marketing in Russia and abroad. - 2002. - No. 3 (29). - pp. 136–141.

3.Dikan V.L., Borovik Yu.T., Polyakova O.M. Ensuring the competitiveness of enterprises / V.L. Dikan, Yu.T. Borovik, O.M. Polyakova // Kharkiv: UkrDAZT - 2012.

4. Zagoruiko V.L., Baydakova I.M. The importance of product competitiveness / V.L. Zagoruiko, I.M. Baidakova // [Electronic resource]. ― Access mode: URL: http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/natural/nvvnu/ekonomika/2009_7/R3/Zagoruyko.pdf

5.Ivanenko A.V. Algorithm for assessing the competitiveness of products / A.V. Ivanenko // Newsletter of Economics, Transport and Industry. ― No. 38. ― 2012. ― P. 182–185.

6.Lepyokhin O.V. Product competitiveness as the basis for reducing product productivity / O.V. Lepyokhin // [Electronic resource]. ― Access mode: URL: http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/soc_gum/vsunu/2011_7_2/Lelohin.pdf

7. Lifits I.M. Competitiveness of goods and services / I.M. Lifits // M.: Higher education. - Yurayt-Izdat - 2009. - P. 406.

Fig.10.3

Competitor analysis scheme

Fig.10.2

The Competitor Assessment Test contains 10 items that can be completed quickly at the beginning of a serious and complete assessment of a competitor's strategy and tactics. This test highlights the most basic aspects of your competitive struggle.

Competitor name And competitor's office address can help you clearly identify the enemy. First, large corporations have many different companies and offices, and clear identification of a competing company allows you to specify your tactical actions. Secondly, identifying the correct company name can help in determining the goals of a given competitor company and, therefore, in developing the correct response strategy.

General Director of the company And his/her characteristics necessary to understand the strategic moves of a competing company. The style of decision-making, methods of implementing tactical and strategic actions are largely determined by the head of a given company. Knowledge of the general manager of a competing company can also help in identifying the level of relationships or long-standing ties of this manager with the management of the acquiring company.

Knowing the Success Group Leader And his/her characteristics absolutely necessary for analyzing the tactical steps of a competing company. Just as the strategic decisions of a firm are influenced by the decision-making style of the general manager, so the decisions of a competing success group are strongly influenced by the personal characteristics of its leader.

Experience in selling this product is essential to understanding your opponent's use of competitive tactics. How does a competing company manage to sell its product? How experienced is the company's sales staff? What is the list of references (sales) of the competing company?

Evaluation of a competitor by the client - one of the key points in understanding the relationship between your competitor and the purchasing company. Both the history of their relationship and the state of the relationship are important here. on present day.

Knowing your competitor's advantages necessary to develop your own customer acquisition strategy. In some cases, a competitor’s advantages can be turned into your own advantages, for example, when upgrading your product or skillfully presenting a product to a consumer organization. In any case, early identification of a competitor’s advantages allows us to formulate a proactive competitive game. That is, knowing the strengths of a competitive product or company, you can offer the client stronger options for solving his specific problems.

Clear definition competitor strategies can help solve your problems at once. In addition to playing proactively, tactical and strategic actions can be taken to nullify the efforts of a competitor.

It should be noted that it is often impossible to quickly obtain all the answers to a quick competitor assessment test. However, running this test allows you to at least:

Assess your knowledge of competitors,

Outline steps to expand your knowledge

Plan tactical actions in case of rapid developments of events,

Start a detailed competitor analysis.

Let's consider a diagram of a possible detailed analysis of competitors.

The competitor analysis scheme consists of five consecutive blocks (Fig. 10.3).

I. Block future goals involves answering the following questions.

Is the competitor's goal to gain the largest market share, i.e. leadership in the market, or does the competing firm view itself only as being led by another leader?

Is the competitor achieving superiority in specific areas of technology (eg, high efficiency of the product sold, low pollution, fast installation), and how does it capitalize on its advantages?

What is the competitor's attitude towards revenue generation, sales volume, profitability and gaining market share? Is he willing to sacrifice one task to increase the importance of others?

Thus, the “future goals” block allows you to understand the strategic orientation of the competitor, and, consequently, its possible actions in long-term sales.

II. Block current strategy and tactics contains answers to the following questions.

What is the competitor's main strategy? Is it a “unique selling project”?

How does a competitor balance winning its business with penetrating a client's existing structure? What type of forward-looking action does he prefer?

How does a competitor use sales process management?

What is the methodology for reducing (increasing) the price of a product?

How does he balance product supply and price discounts?

To what extent can the success team manage the price flexibility process?

If a customer were asked to describe the advantages and disadvantages of their product, what would they (competitors) answer?

Thus, the block of current strategies and tactics allows you to understand the methodological techniques of competitors when planning the sale of your product.

III. Block possibilities includes answers to the following questions.

What are the competitor's strengths and weaknesses in customer management?

How strict is the client’s requirement for the technical parameters of the product in relation to a competitor?

Where is the competitor vulnerable?

What is the level of desires and sources of the competing company. necessary to win this project?

Therefore, the Competitor Capability Block gives you a description of the strengths and weaknesses of a competing firm and identifies those vulnerabilities that could be the basis for your firm's win.

IV. Block achievements contains the following questions.

What factors does the competitor view as key success factors for the future?

How does a competitor's organizational structure and decision-making process contribute to influencing the customer?

How has the winning approach to the sales process been modified by this competitor?

As you can see, the competitor’s achievements block specifies the tactical and strategic techniques of a competitive company in relation to the process of selling a given product.

V. Block competitor profile is summative and contains mainly the following questions.

What is the division of responsibility between the main office, the regional representative and the success team leader?

What unique advantages does the competitor emphasize when presenting the product to the buyer?

In what areas is the competitor vulnerable?

Price? Product excellence? Technical consulting? Delivery time?

The key result of compiling a competitor profile block is to predict the actions of a competitor and prepare for them.

When performing a competitor analysis, remember that you must convince the client of the competitive advantages of your product or your company. The client will not pay for values ​​that he cannot appreciate.

A convenient tool for identifying your advantages and, accordingly, possible actions is to prepare a competitiveness polygon.

In the face of the market and competitors, the company must identify its strengths and weaknesses and ensure its level of competence in several areas simultaneously. The most important of them are: product concept, quality, cost, trade, foreign policy, finance, pre-sales preparation and after-sales service.

All these directions can be graphically represented in the form of competitiveness polygon vectors, which respectively describe:

concept the product or service on which your company’s activities are based;

quality, expressed in compliance of your product with the high level of products of market leaders and identified through surveys and comparative tests;

pre-sale preparation, which indicates the company’s ability not only to anticipate the needs of future buyers, but also to convince them of the exceptional capabilities of the enterprise to satisfy these needs;

finance - both own and easily mobilized financial resources;

cost, to to which a possible markup should be added;

trade,With point of view of commercial methods and means;

after sales service, allowing the company to secure a permanent clientele;

foreign policy, representing the firm's ability to positively manage its relationships with political authorities, the press and public opinion.

By superimposing the competitiveness polygons of various enterprises on top of each other, you can clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of one enterprise in relation to another (Fig. 10.4).

For example, in the figure below, the profile of the first company is indicated by a solid line, and the second by a dotted line. The first company is a leader in product quality, concept, foreign policy and after-sales service. However, it is inferior to the second company in terms of trade, cost and finance, and very significantly in terms of pre-sale preparation.

It should be noted that the coordinate values ​​on the vectors of the competitiveness polygon related to specific companies can be obtained either by expert means or as a result of marketing research. In both cases, these values ​​are assessed quantitatively, and, therefore, a quantitative analysis of the competitiveness of your company in individual areas can be carried out. This provision is most appropriate when several approximately equivalent competitors simultaneously participate in the market and in order to develop the correct sales strategy you need to conduct a strict quantitative analysis of several competitiveness polygons.

The given example of a competitiveness polygon is not a dogma and can be formed in other commercially important areas of competition. For example, in accordance with the above competitor analysis scheme, such a polygon may include the long-term relationship of firms with the client, the perfection of the technical parameters of the product, an assessment of possible compromise steps of competitors, etc.

Let us now move on to the final stage in assessing competitors in relation to the personal selling strategy - assessing competitors' offers.