Case Study 5 Forces Of Porter

Apple has achieved success as one of the most valuable companies in the world. This Five Forces analysis gives insights about the external factors influencing the firm. Apple’s Five Forces analysis also sheds light on what the company does to ensure leadership despite the negative effects of external factors in the competitive landscape. Established in 1976, Apple has been through low times. However, under the leadership of Steve Jobs, the company has succeeded to become an industry leader. Based on this Five Forces analysis, Apple continues to address competition and the bargaining power of buyers, which are among the most significant external factors impacting the firm. Also, this Five Forces analysis indicates that Apple must focus its efforts on these two external factors to keep its leadership in the industry.

Apple’s Five Forces analysis (Porter’s model) of external factors in the firm’s industry environment points to competitive rivalry or intensity of competition, and the bargaining power of buyers or customers as the most significant factors that should be included in strategic formulation to ensure the continued success of Apple products.

Overview: Apple Inc.’s Five Forces Analysis

Apple’s strategies are partly based on the need to address forces in the external business environment. These forces can limit or reduce the firm’s market share and revenues. Apple’s Five Forces analysis, based on Porter’s model, shows the following strengths or intensities of external factors in the industry environment:

  1. Competitive rivalry or competition (strong force)
  2. Bargaining power of buyers or customers (strong force)
  3. Bargaining power of suppliers (weak force)
  4. Threat of substitutes or substitution (weak force)
  5. Threat of new entrants or new entry (moderate force)

Considering these five forces, Apple must focus its attention on competitive rivalry and the bargaining power of buyers. The analysis supports Apple’s current position of continuous innovation. The firm effectively addresses the five forces in its external environment, although much of its effort is to strengthen its position against competitors and to keep attracting customers to Apple products.

Competitive Rivalry or Competition with Apple (Strong Force)

Apple faces the strong force of competitive rivalry or competition. This component of Porter’s Five Forces analysis model determines the intensity of influence competitors have on each other. In Apple’s case, this influence is based on the following external factors:

  1. High aggressiveness of firms (strong force)
  2. Low switching cost (strong force)

Companies like BlackBerry, Samsung, LG, and others aggressively compete with Apple. Such aggressiveness is observable in rapid innovation, aggressive advertising, and imitation. On the other hand, switching cost is low, which means that it is easy for customers to switch from Apple to other brands, thereby making competition even tougher. Thus, this part of the Five Forces analysis shows that competitive rivalry is among the most significant considerations in Apple’s strategic formulation.

Bargaining Power of Apple’s Customers/Buyers (Strong Force)

The bargaining power of buyers is strong in affecting Apple’s business. This component of Porter’s Five Forces analysis model determines how buyers impact businesses. In Apple’s case, buyers’ strong power is based on the following external factors:

  1. Low switching cost (strong force)
  2. Small size of individual buyers (weak force)

It is easy for customers to change brands, thereby making them powerful in compelling companies like Apple to ensure customer satisfaction. On the other hand, each buyer’s purchase is small compared to Apple’s total revenues. This condition makes customers weak at the individual level. However, because it is easy to shift from Apple to other brands, buyers still exert a strong force. Thus, this part of the Five Forces analysis shows that Apple must include the bargaining power of buyers or customers as one of the most significant variables in developing strategies.

Bargaining Power of Apple’s Suppliers (Weak Force)

Apple experiences the weak force of the bargaining power of suppliers. This component of Porter’s Five Forces analysis model indicates the influence of suppliers in imposing their demands. In Apple’s case, suppliers have a weak bargaining power based on the following external factors:

  1. High number of suppliers (weak force)
  2. High overall supply (weak force)

Even though Apple has less than 200 suppliers of components for its products, the company has more options because there are many suppliers around the world. This condition makes individual suppliers weak in imposing their demands on firms like Apple. In relation, there is a high level of supply for most components of Apple products. Thus, this part of the Five Forces analysis shows that Apple does not need to prioritize the bargaining power of suppliers in developing strategies for innovation and industry leadership.

Threat of Substitutes or Substitution (Weak Force)

The threat of substitution is weak in affecting Apple’s business. This component of Porter’s Five Forces analysis model determines the strength of substitute products in attracting customers. In Apple’s case, substitutes exert a weak force based on the following external factors:

  1. High availability of substitutes (moderate force)
  2. Low performance of substitutes (weak force)

Substitutes to Apple products are readily available in the market. For example, people can easily use digital cameras instead of the iPhone to take pictures. They can also use landline telephones to make calls. However, these substitutes have low performance because they have limited features. Many customers would rather use Apple products because of their advanced features. Thus, substitution has a weak force in impacting Apple’s business. This part of the Five Forces analysis shows that Apple does not need to prioritize the threat of substitution in business processes like marketing and product design and development.

Threat of New Entrants or New Entry (Moderate Force)

Apple experiences the moderate force of the threat of new entrants. This component of Porter’s Five Forces analysis model indicates the effect and possibility of new competitors entering the market. In Apple’s case, new entrants exert a moderate force based on the following external factors:

  1. High capital requirements (weak force)
  2. High cost of brand development (weak force)
  3. Capacity of potential new entrants (strong force)

Establishing a business to compete against firms like Apple requires high capitalization. Also, it is considerable costly to develop a strong brand to compete against large firms like Apple. These factors make new entrants weak. However, there are large firms with the financial capacity to enter the market and impact Apple. Google has already done so through products like Nexus smartphones. Samsung also used to be a new entrant. These examples show that there are large companies that have potential to directly compete against Apple. Thus, the threat of new entry is moderate. This part of the Five Forces analysis shows that Apple must maintain its competitive advantage through innovation and marketing to remain strong against new entrants.

References
  • Apple Inc. Form 10-K, 2014.
  • Apple Info.
  • Burke, A., van Stel, A., & Thurik, R. (2010). Blue ocean vs. five forces. Harvard Business Review88(5), 28-29.
  • Dobbs, M. (2014). Guidelines for applying Porter’s five forces framework: a set of industry analysis templates. Competitiveness Review24(1), 32-45.
  • Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., Franklin, S., & Hil, D. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication28(2), 74-84.
  • Gershon, R. A. (2013). Digital media innovation and the Apple iPad: Three perspectives on the future of computer tablets and news delivery. Journal of Media Business Studies10(1), 41-61.
  • Grundy, T. (2006). Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter’s five forces model. Strategic Change15(5), 213-229.
  • Karagiannopoulos, G. D., Georgopoulos, N., & Nikolopoulos, K. (2005). Fathoming Porter’s five forces model in the internet era. Info7(6), 66-76.
  • Low, D. K., & Pittaway, A. P. (2008). The ‘iPhone’ induction–a novel use for the Apple iPhone. Pediatric Anesthesia18(6), 573-574.
  • Mozur, P. (2013, April 24). Apple Faces Dilemma Over Strategy in China. The Wall Street Journal.
  • Sherr, I. (2013, September 21). iPhone Sales Test Apple Strategy. The Wall Street Journal.

Apple Inc., Case Study & Case Analysis, Porter's Five Forces Analysis, Strategy

COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s. Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved. Small parts of this article may be quoted or paraphrased for research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.

Starbucks Coffee Company’s success is based on its effectiveness in addressing the negative impacts of the five forces in its industry environment. These external factors are outlined in Michael Porter’s Five Forces model. Starbucks must suitable respond to these five forces to maintain its market position. This analysis of Starbucks Coffee indicates the intensities of the five forces on the firm, and the bases of these forces. Starbucks Coffee’s success indicates its effectiveness in addressing these external factors in its industry environment. However, this Five Forces analysis highlights current industry conditions that impose current and emerging concerns relevant to Starbucks Coffee’s business.

This Five Forces analysis (based on Porter’s model) of external factors in Starbucks Coffee’s industry environment reveals the most significant issues facing the company. Success potential is based on how Starbucks positions its business to address or overcome these five forces.

Overview: Starbucks Coffee’s Five Forces Analysis

Starbucks Coffee faces the influence of the five forces, as outlined in Porter’s model. These five forces have varying intensities or strengths based on Starbucks’ position, as follows:

  1. Competitive rivalry or competition (strong force)
  2. Bargaining power of buyers or customers (strong force)
  3. Bargaining power of suppliers (weak force)
  4. Threat of substitutes or substitution (strong force)
  5. Threat of new entrants or new entry (moderate force)

Starbucks Coffee has a variety of challenges linked to these five forces. Only the bargaining power of suppliers presents the least concern for the company. Based on this five forces analysis, Starbucks must ensure effective measures to prioritize competitive rivalry, the bargaining power of customers, and the threat of substitution.

Competitive Rivalry or Competition with Starbucks Coffee (Strong Force)

Starbucks Coffee faces the strong force of competitive rivalry or competition. In the Five Forces analysis model, this force pertains to the influence of competitors on each other. In Starbucks Coffee’s case, the following external factors contribute to the strong force of competition:

  • Large number of firms (strong force)
  • Low switching cost (strong force)
  • Variety of firms (moderate force)

This part of the Five Forces analysis shows that competition is among the most important of Starbucks Coffee’s concerns. The company faces a large number of competitors, which have different sizes, specialties and strategies. For example, Starbucks faces the competitive force of McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts, as well as other specialty coffee companies. The strong force of competition is also due to the low switching cost, which means that it is easy for customers to shift from Starbucks to other brands. Thus, based on this component of the Five Forces analysis, competition should be among Starbucks Coffee’s top-priority challenges.

Bargaining Power of Starbucks Coffee’s Customers/Buyers (Strong Force)

Starbucks Coffee experiences the strong force or bargaining power of buyers or customers. In the Five Forces analysis model, this force is based on the effect that individual and grouped customers have on business. In Starbucks Coffee’s case, the following external factors contribute to the strong bargaining power of customers:

  • Low switching cost (strong force)
  • Substitute availability (strong force)
  • Small size of individual buyers (weak force)

In this component of the Five Forces analysis model, the bargaining power of buyers is also among the most significant forces affecting Starbucks Coffee’s business. Customers can easily shift from Starbucks to other brands because it is affordable to do so. Customers can also stay away from Starbucks if they want to, because there are many substitutes, such as instant beverages and drinks from restaurants. These strong factors overshadow the fact that individual purchases are small compared to Starbucks Coffee’s total revenues. Thus, this aspect of the Five Forces analysis model shows that the bargaining power of customers should also be among Starbucks Coffee’s top-priority challenges.

Bargaining Power of Starbucks Coffee’s Suppliers (Weak Force)

Starbucks Coffee faces the weak force or bargaining power of suppliers. In the Five Forces analysis model, this force refers to the influence that suppliers have. In Starbucks Coffee’s case, the following external factors contribute to the weak force or bargaining power of suppliers:

  • High variety of suppliers (weak force)
  • Large overall supply (weak force)
  • Moderate size of individual suppliers (moderate force)

This part of the Five Forces analysis model shows that suppliers do not have much impact on Starbucks. The large overall supply lessens the effect of any single supplier on the company. Also, Starbucks has a policy for diversifying its supply chain. This policy reduces the influence of suppliers on the business even though each supplier has a moderate size compared to the Starbucks supply chain. Thus, based on this aspect of the Five Forces analysis model, Starbucks Coffee does not need to prioritize the concerns or demands of suppliers.

Threat of Substitution or Substitutes to Starbucks Products (Strong Force)

Starbucks Coffee also experiences the strong force of the threat of substitutes or substitution. In the Five Forces analysis model, this force pertains to the impact of substitute goods or services. In Starbucks Coffee’s case, the following external factors contribute to the strong force of the threat of substitution:

  • Availability of substitutes (strong force)
  • Low switching cost (strong force)
  • Low cost of substitutes (strong force)

This component of the Five Forces analysis model indicates that substitutes have strong potential to negatively impact Starbucks Coffee’s business. Starbucks customers can easily shift to substitutes because there are many substitutes, such as beverages from restaurants, and instant and bottled beverages and other goods from grocery stores. The cost of shifting to substitutes is low because Starbucks customers do not need to spend for the shifting process. In addition, many of these substitutes cost less than Starbucks products. Thus, based on this part of the Five Forces analysis, Starbucks must consider the threat of substitutes as among its top-priority concerns.

Threat of New Entrants or New Entry (Moderate Force)

Starbucks faces the moderate force of the threat of new entrants or new entry. In the Five Forces analysis model, this force refers to the potential effect of new players in the industry. In Starbucks Coffee’s case, the following external factors contribute to the moderate force of the threat of new entrants:

  • Moderate cost of doing business (moderate force)
  • Moderate supply chain cost (moderate force)
  • High cost of brand development (weak force)

This part of the Five Forces analysis model shows that new entrants have significant but not strong effect on Starbucks Coffee’s business. New entrants can compete against Starbucks because of the moderate costs of doing business and supply chain development. However, new entrants find it difficult to compete against established brands like Starbucks because it is very costly to develop a strong brand. Thus, this component of the Five Forces analysis indicates that the threat of new entrants should be a secondary priority in Starbucks Coffee’s strategies.

References
  • Burke, A., van Stel, A., & Thurik, R. (2010). Blue ocean vs. five forces. Harvard Business Review88(5), 28-29.
  • Dobbs, M. (2014). Guidelines for applying Porter’s five forces framework: a set of industry analysis templates. Competitiveness Review24(1), 32-45.
  • Grundy, T. (2006). Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter’s five forces model. Strategic Change15(5), 213-229.
  • Karagiannopoulos, G. D., Georgopoulos, N., & Nikolopoulos, K. (2005). Fathoming Porter’s five forces model in the internet era. info7(6), 66-76.
  • Koehn, N. F. (2002). Howard Schultz and Starbucks Coffee Company. Harvard Business School.
  • Maybury, M. T., & Belardo, S. (1992, January). Five forces. In System Sciences, 1992. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 579-588). IEEE.
  • Roy, D. (2011). Strategic Foresight and Porter’s Five Forces. GRIN Verlag.
  • Starbucks Coffee Company (2015). Company Information – Starbucks Coffee Company.
  • Starbucks Coffee Company (2015). Supplier Diversity Program.

Porter's Five Forces Analysis, Starbucks Coffee, Strategy

COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s. Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved. Small parts of this article may be quoted or paraphrased for research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.

One thought on “Case Study 5 Forces Of Porter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *