Description
I need you to write kind of a discussion topic i would say around 700-850 wordsanswering these 2 questions:What are the characteristics of the current competitive landscape? What two factors are the primary drivers of this landscape?You might want to use this info that I uploaded below
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1-1The Competitive
Landscape
The fundamental nature of competition in many of the
world’s industries is changing. Although financial capital is
no longer scarce due to the deep recession, markets are
increasingly volatile. Because of this, the pace of change is
relentless and ever-increasing. Even determining the
boundaries of an industry has become challenging. Consider,
for example, how advances in interactive computer networks
and telecommunications have blurred the boundaries of the
entertainment industry. Today, not only do cable companies
and satellite networks compete for entertainment revenue
from television, but telecommunication companies are
moving into the entertainment business through significant
improvements in fiber-optic lines. More recently, internet
only streaming services have started to compete with cable,
satellite, and telecommunication offerings. “Sling TV is part
of a growing wave of offerings expected from tech, telecom
and media companies in the coming year, posing a threat to
the established television business, which takes in $170
billion a year. Meanwhile, the streaming outlets of Amazon,
Hulu and Netflix continue to pour resources into developing
more robust offerings. Sony, CBS, HBO and others are
starting Internet-only subscription offerings.”
Interestingly, Netflix and other streaming content
providers such as Amazon are producing their own content;
Netflix is producing repeat series such as “House of Cards,”
“Orange Is the New Black,” and “Marco Polo”. As noted in
the Opening Case, Alibaba intends to enter the entertainment
business as Netflix and other content distributors and
producers enter international markets.
Other characteristics of the current competitive landscape
are noteworthy. Conventional sources of competitive
advantage such as economies of scale and huge advertising
budgets are not as effective as they once were (e.g., due to
social media advertising) in terms of helping firms earn
above-average returns. Moreover, the traditional managerial
mind-set is unlikely to lead a firm to strategic
competitiveness. Managers must adopt a new mind-set that
values flexibility, speed, innovation, integration, and the
challenges that evolve from constantly changing conditions.
The conditions of the competitive landscape result in a
perilous business world, one in which the investments that
are required to compete on a global scale are enormous and
the consequences of failure are severe. Effective use of the
strategic management process reduces the likelihood of
failure for firms as they encounter the conditions of today’s
competitive landscape.
Hypercompetition describes competition that is excessive
such that it creates inherent instability and necessitates
constant disruptive change for firms in the competitive
landscape. Hypercompetition results from the dynamics of
strategic maneuvering among global and innovative
combatants. It is a condition of rapidly escalating
competition based on price-quality positioning, competition
to create new know-how and establish first-mover
advantage, and competition to protect or invade established
product or geographic markets. In a hypercompetitive
market, firms often aggressively challenge their competitors
in the hopes of improving their competitive position and
ultimately their performance.
Several factors create hypercompetitive environments and
influence the nature of the current competitive landscape.
The emergence of a global economy and technology,
specifically rapid technological change, are the two primary
drivers of hypercompetitive environments and the nature of
today’s competitive landscape.
1-1aThe Global Economy
A global economy is one in which goods, services, people, skills, and
ideas move freely across geographic borders. Relatively unfettered
by artificial constraints, such as tariffs, the global economy
significantly expands and complicates a firm’s competitive
environment.
Interesting opportunities and challenges are associated with the
emergence of the global economy. For example, the European
Union (a group of European countries that participates in the world
economy as one economic unit and operates under one official
currency, the euro) has become one of the world’s largest markets,
with 700 million potential customers. “In the past, China was
generally seen as a low-competition market and a low-cost producer.
Today, China is an extremely competitive market in which local
market-seeking multinational corporations (MNCs) must fiercely
compete against other MNCs and against those local companies that
are more cost effective and faster in product development. While
China has been viewed as a country from which to source low-cost
goods, lately, many MNCs such as Procter & Gamble (P&G), are
actually net exporters of local management talent; they have been
dispatching more Chinese abroad than bringing foreign expatriates
to China.” China has become the second-largest economy in the
world, surpassing Japan. India, the world’s largest democracy, has an
economy that also is growing rapidly and now ranks as the fourth
largest in the world. Simultaneously, many firms in these
emerging economies are moving into international markets and are
now regarded as MNCs. This fact is demonstrated by the case of
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., a Chinese company that has entered
the U.S. market. Barriers to entering foreign markets still exist and
Huawei has encountered several, such as the inability to gain the U.S.
government’s approval for acquisition of U.S. firms. Essentially,
Huawei must build credibility in the U.S. market, and especially build
a positive relationship with stakeholders such as the U.S.
government.
The nature of the global economy reflects the realities of a
hypercompetitive business environment and challenges individual
firms to seriously evaluate the markets in which they will compete.
This is reflected in General Motor’s actions and outcomes. General
Motors sold 3.54 million vehicles in China while selling less in North
America, 3.4 million. One result of China being the largest
domestic sales market is the increased competition GM now
experiences in China from other competitors.
Consider the case of General Electric (GE). Although headquartered
in the United States, GE expects that as much as 60 percent of its
revenue growth through 2015 will be generated by competing in
rapidly developing economies (e.g., China and India). The decision to
count on revenue growth in emerging economies instead of in
developed countries such as the United States and in Europe seems
quite reasonable in the global economy. GE achieved significant
growth in 2010 partly because of signing contracts for large
infrastructure projects in China and Russia. GE’s Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), Jeffrey Immelt, argues that we have entered a new
economic era in which the global economy will be more volatile and
that most of the growth will come from emerging economies such as
Brazil, China, and India. Therefore, GE is investing significantly in
these emerging economies, in order to improve its competitive
position in vital geographic sources of revenue and profitability.
For example, Netflix, a subscription media streaming-video service
provider, has seen its growth slow domestically. In the fourth
quarter of 2014, Netflix added 1.9 million domestic U.S. streaming
subscribers, which was down from 2.3 million in the fourth period a
year earlier. However, Netflix was able to add 4.3 streaming
customers overall because foreign markets grew faster than
expected. When this was announced, its stock price increased 16
percent in after-hours trading. Netflix plans to expand to over 200
countries by 2017, up from its current 50 countries, while likewise
seeking to stay profitable. Reed Hastings, Netflix’s CEO, was
encouraged by profitable results in Canada, Nordic countries, and
Latin American countries. This group turned profitable
notwithstanding the significant investment necessary to bring
streaming services to these countries. In the first part of 2015, the
company expects to add Australia and New Zealand and is exploring
entering the Chinese market as well. Overall, Netflix added over 2.43
million subscribers outside of the United States, which exceed its
expectation of 2.15 million subscribers. Besides international
expansion, Netflix is adding a significant number of original shows
including “House of Cards,” “Orange Is the New Black,” and “Marco
Polo.” It finds that this original content costs less given viewer
support compared to licensed content from major studios. This
proprietary content as well as its expansion of licensing has lured
customers away from cable and satellite TV providers. Its superior
technology in providing precisely what consumers want and when
they want it provides a domestic advantage which will carry over
into its international expansion push (see Chapter 8 Opening
Case for an expansion on Netflix’s international strategy).
Along with its international push, Netflix has expanded its ability to
allow content to be viewed on many devices (including mobile
devices) beside regular TVs, as is shown in the photo.
M4OS Photos / Alamy
The March of Globalization
Globalization is the increasing economic interdependence among
countries and their organizations as reflected in the flow of goods
and services, financial capital, and knowledge across country
borders. Globalization is a product of a large number of firms
competing against one another in an increasing number of global
economies.
In globalized markets and industries, financial capital might be
obtained in one national market and used to buy raw materials in
another. Manufacturing equipment bought from a third national
market can then be used to produce products that are sold in yet a
fourth market. Thus, globalization increases the range of
opportunities for companies competing in the current competitive
landscape.
Firms engaging in globalization of their operations must make
culturally sensitive decisions when using the strategic management
process, as is the case in Starbucks’ operations in European
countries. Additionally, highly globalized firms must anticipate everincreasing complexity in their operations as goods, services, people,
and so forth move freely across geographic borders and throughout
different economic markets.
Overall, it is important to note that globalization has led to higher
performance standards in many competitive dimensions, including
those of quality, cost, productivity, product introduction time, and
operational efficiency. In addition to firms competing in the global
economy, these standards affect firms competing on a domestic-only
basis. The reason that customers will purchase from a global
competitor rather than a domestic firm is that the global company’s
good or service is superior. Workers now flow rather freely among
global economies, and employees are a key source of competitive
advantage. Thus, managers have to learn how to operate
effectively in a “multi-polar” world with many important countries
having unique interests and environments. Firms must learn how
to deal with the reality that in the competitive landscape of the
twenty-first century, only companies capable of meeting, if not
exceeding, global standards typically have the capability to earn
above-average returns.
Although globalization offers potential benefits to firms, it is not
without risks. Collectively, the risks of participating outside of a
firm’s domestic markets in the global economy are labeled a “liability
of foreignness.” One risk of entering the global market is the
amount of time typically required for firms to learn how to compete
in markets that are new to them. A firm’s performance can suffer
until this knowledge is either developed locally or transferred from
the home market to the newly established global location.
Additionally, a firm’s performance may suffer with substantial
amounts of globalization. In this instance, firms may over diversify
internationally beyond their ability to manage these extended
operations. Over diversification can have strong negative effects
on a firm’s overall performance.
A major factor in the global economy in recent years has been the
growth in the influence of emerging economies. The important
emerging economies include not only the BRIC countries (Brazil,
Russia, India, and China) but also the VISTA countries (Vietnam,
Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey, and Argentina). Mexico and
Thailand have also become increasingly important markets.
Obviously, as these economies have grown, their markets have
become targets for entry by large multinational firms. Emerging
economy firms have also began to compete in global markets, some
with increasing success. For example, there are now more than
1,000 multinational firms home-based in emerging economies with
more than $1 billion in annual sales. In fact, the emergence of
emerging-market MNCs in international markets has forced large
MNCs based in developed markets to enrich their own capabilities to
compete effectively in global markets.
Thus, entry into international markets, even for firms with
substantial experience in the global economy, requires effective use
of the strategic management process. It is also important to note that
even though global markets are an attractive strategic option for
some companies, they are not the only source of strategic
competitiveness. In fact, for most companies, even for those capable
of competing successfully in global markets, it is critical to remain
committed to and strategically competitive in both domestic and
international markets by staying attuned to technological
opportunities and potential competitive disruptions that innovations
create. As illustrated in the Strategic Focus, Starbucks has
increased its revenue per store through an emphasis on innovation
in addition to its international expansion.
Strategic Focus
Starbucks Is “Juicing” Its Earnings per Store through
Technological Innovations
An important signal for a company is who is chosen as the new CEO. Howard Schultz of
Starbucks has led the company through successful strategic execution over much of its
history. In 2015, Kevin Johnson, a former CEO of Juniper Networks and 16 year veteran
of Microsoft took over as CEO of Starbucks, succeeding Schultz. Johnson has engaged
with the company’s digital operations and will supervise information technology and
supply chain operations.
Many brick and mortar stores have experienced decreasing sales in the United States as
online traffic has increased. Interestingly, 2014 Starbuck sales store operations have
risen 5 percent in the fourth quarter; this 5 percent came from increased traffic (2
percent from growth in sales and 3 percent in increased ticket size). The driver of this
increase in sales is mainly an increase in technology applications.
To facilitate this increase in sales per store, Starbucks is ramping up its digital tools
such as mobile-payment platforms. Furthermore, it has ramped up online sales of gift
cards as a way to drive revenue. In December 2014, it allowed customers to place online
orders and pick them up in about 150 Starbucks outlets in the Portland, Oregon area.
Besides leadership and a focus on technology, Starbucks receives suggestions, ideas, and
experimentation from its employees. Starbucks employees, called baristas, are seen as
partners who blend, steam, and brew the brand’s specialty coffee in over 21,000 stores
worldwide. Schultz credits the employees as a dominant force in helping it to build its
revenue gains.
To further incentivize employees, Starbucks was one of the first to provide
comprehensive health benefits and stock option ownership to part-time employees.
Currently, employees have received more than $1 billion worth of financial gain through
the stock option program. As an additional perk for U.S. employees, Schultz created a
program to pay 100 percent of workers’ tuition to finish their degrees through Arizona
State University. To date, 1,000 workers have enrolled in this program.
Starbucks is also known for its innovations in new types of stores. For instance, it is
testing smaller express stores in New York City that reduce client wait times. As noted
earlier, Starbucks has emphasized online payment in its approaches which facilitates
the speed of transaction. It now gives Starbucks rewards for mobile payment
applications to its 12 million active users. Interestingly, this puts it ahead of iTunes and
American Express Serve with its Starbucks mobile payment app in regard to number of
users.
The photo illustrates the Starbuck’s app that allows customers to preorder and speed service and payment.
Kevin Schafer/Getty Images
To put its innovation on display, Starbucks opened its first “Reserve Roastery and
Tasting Room.” This is a 15,000 square foot coffee roasting facility and also a consumer
retail outlet. According to Schultz, it’s a retail theater where “you can watch beans being
roasted, talk to master grinders, have your drink brewed in front of you in multiple
ways, lounge in a coffee library, order a selection of gourmet brews and locally prepared
foods.” Schultz calls this store in New York the “Willie Wonka Factory of coffee.” Based
on this concept, Starbucks will open small “reserve” stores inspired by this flagship
roastery concept across New York in 2015.
These technology advances and different store offerings are also taking place
internationally. For example, Starbucks is expanding a new store concept in India and
it’s debuting this new concept store in smaller towns and suburbs. These new outlets
are about half the size of existing Starbuck cafes in India.
Sources: I. Brat & T. Stynes, 2015, Earnings: Starbucks picks a president from technology
industry, Wall Street Journal, www.wsj.com, January 23; A. Adamczyk, 2014, The next big
caffeine craze? Starbucks testing cold-brewed coffee, Forbes, www.forbes.com, August 18;
R. Foroohr, 2014, Go inside Starbucks’ wild new “Willie Wonka Factory of
coffee”, Time, www.time.com, December 8; FRPT-Retail Snapshot, 2014, Starbucks’ strategy
of expansion with profitability: to debut in towns and suburbs with half the size of the new
stores, FRPT-Retail Snapshot, September 28, 9–10; L. Lorenzetti, 2014, Fortune’s world
most admired companies: Starbucks where innovation is always
brewing, Fortune, www.fortune.com, October 30; P. Wahba, 2014, Starbucks to offer
delivery in 2015 in some key markets, Fortune, www.fortune.com, November 4; V. Wong,
2014, Your boss will love the new Starbucks delivery service, Bloomberg
Businessweek, www.businessweek.com, November 3.
1-1bTechnology and
Technological Changes
Technology-related trends and conditions can be placed into three
categories: technology diffusion and disruptive technologies, the
information age, and increasing knowledge intensity. These
categories are significantly altering the nature of competition and as
a result contributing to highly dynamic competitive environments.
Technology Diffusion and Disruptive
Technologies
The rate of technology diffusion, which is the speed at which new
technologies become available and are used, has increased
substantially over the past 15 to 20 years. Consider the following
rates of technology diffusion:
It took the telephone 35 years to get into 25 percent of all homes in the United
States. It took TV 26 years. It took radio 22 years. It took PCs 16 years. It took
the Internet 7 years.
The impact of technological changes on individual firms and
industries has been broad and significant. For example, in the nottoo-distant past, people rented movies on videotapes at retail stores.
Now, movie rentals are almost entirely electronic. The publishing
industry (books, journals, magazines, newspapers) is moving rapidly
from hard copy to electronic format. Many firms in these industries,
operating with a more traditional business model, are suffering.
These changes are also affecting other industries, from trucking to
mail services (public and private).
Perpetual innovation is a term used to describe how rapidly and
consistently new, information-intensive technologies replace older
ones. The shorter product life cycles resulting from these rapid
diffusions of new technologies place a competitive premium on being
able to quickly introduce new, innovative goods and services into the
marketplace.
In fact, when products become somewhat indistinguishable because
of the widespread and rapid diffusion of technologies, speed to
market with innovative products may be the primary source of
competitive advantage (see Chapter 5). Indeed, some argue that
the global economy is increasingly driven by constant innovations.
Not surprisingly, such innovations must be derived from an
understanding of global standards and expectations of product
functionality. Although some argue that large established firms may
have trouble innovating, evidence suggests that today these firms are
developing radically new technologies that transform old industries
or create new ones. Apple is an excellent example of a large
established firm capable of radical innovation. Also, in order to
diffuse the technology and enhance the value of an innovation, firms
need to be innovative in their use of the new technology, building it
into their products.
Another indicator of rapid technology diffusion is that it now may
take only 12 to 18 months for firms to gather information about their
competitors’ research and development (R&D) and product
decisions. In the global economy, competitors can sometimes
imitate a firm’s successful competitive actions within a few days. In
this sense, the rate of technological diffusion has reduced the
competitive benefits of patents. Today, patents may be an effective
way of protecting proprietary technology in a small number of
industries such as pharmaceuticals. Indeed, many firms competing in
the electronics industry often do not apply for patents to prevent
competitors from gaining access to the technological knowledge
included in the patent application.
Disruptive technologies—technologies that destroy the value of an
existing technology and create new markets —surface frequently
in today’s competitive markets. Think of the new markets created by
the technologies underlying the development of products such as
iPods, iPads, Wi-Fi, and the web browser. These types of products
are thought by some to represent radical or breakthrough
innovations (we discuss more about radical innovations in Chapter
13.). A disruptive or radical technology can create what is
essentially a new industry or can harm industry incumbents.
However, some incumbents are able to adapt based on their superior
resources, experience, and ability to gain access to the new
technology through multiple sources (e.g., alliances, acquisitions, and
ongoing internal research).
Clearly, Apple has developed and introduced “disruptive
technologies” such as the iPhone and iPod, and in so doing changed
several industries. For example, the iPhone dramatically changed the
cell phone industry, and the iPod and its complementary iTunes
revolutionized how music is sold to and used by consumers. In
conjunction with other complementary and competitive products
(e.g., Amazon’s Kindle), Apple’s iPad is contributing to and speeding
major changes in the publishing industry, moving from hard copies
to electronic books. Apple’s new technologies and products are also
contributing to the new “information age.” Thus, Apple provides an
example of entrepreneurship through technology emergence across
multiple industries.
The Information Age
Dramatic changes in information technology (IT) have occurred in
recent years. Personal computers, cellular phones, artificial
intelligence, virtual reality, massive databases (“big data”), and
multiple social networking sites are only a few examples of how
information is used differently as a result of technological
developments. An important outcome of these changes is that the
ability to effectively and efficiently access and use information. IT
has become an important source of competitive advantage in
virtually all industries. The Internet and IT advances have given
small firms more flexibility in competing with large firms, if the
technology is used efficiently.
Both the pace of change in IT and its diffusion will continue to
increase. For instance, the number of personal computers in use
globally is expected to surpass 2.3 billion by 2015. More than 372
million were sold globally in 2011. This number is expected to
increase to about 518 million in 2015. The declining costs of IT
and the increased accessibility to them are also evident in the
current competitive landscape. The global proliferation of relatively
inexpensive computing power and its linkage on a global scale via
computer networks combine to increase the speed and diffusion of
IT. Thus, the competitive potential of IT is now available to
companies of all sizes throughout the world, including those in
emerging economies.
Increasing Knowledge Intensity
Knowledge (information, intelligence, and expertise) is the basis of
technology and its application. In the competitive landscape of the
twenty-first century, knowledge is a critical organizational resource
and an increasingly valuable source of competitive advantage.
Indeed, starting in the 1980s, the basis of competition shifted from
hard assets to intangible resources. For example, “Walmart
transformed retailing through its proprietary approach to supply
chain management and its information-rich relationships with
customers and suppliers.” Relationships with customers and
suppliers are an example of an intangible resource which needs to be
managed.
Knowledge is gained through experience, observation, and inference
and is an intangible resource (tangible and intangible resources are
fully described in Chapter 3). The value of intangible resources,
including knowledge, is growing as a proportion of total shareholder
value in today’s competitive landscape. In fact, the Brookings
Institution estimates that intangible resources contribute
approximately 85 percent of total shareholder value. The
probability of achieving strategic competitiveness is enhanced for
the firm that develops the ability to capture intelligence, transform it
into usable knowledge, and diffuse it rapidly throughout the
company. Therefore, firms must develop (e.g., through training
programs) and acquire (e.g., by hiring educated and experienced
employees) knowledge, integrate it into the organization to create
capabilities, and then apply it to gain a competitive advantage.
A strong knowledge-base is necessary to create innovations. In fact,
firms lacking the appropriate internal knowledge resources are less
likely to invest money in R&D. Firms must continue to learn
(building their knowledge-base) because knowledge spillovers to
competitors are common. There are several ways in which
knowledge spillovers occur, including the hiring of professional staff
and managers by competitors. Because of the potential for
spillovers, firms must move quickly to use their knowledge in
productive ways. In addition, firms must build routines that facilitate
the diffusion of local knowledge throughout the organization for use
everywhere that it has value. Firms are better able to do these
things when they have strategic flexibility.
Strategic flexibility is a set of capabilities used to respond to
various demands and opportunities existing in a dynamic and
uncertain competitive environment. Thus, strategic flexibility
involves coping with uncertainty and its accompanying risks.
Firms should try to develop strategic flexibility in all areas of their
operations. However, those working within firms to develop
strategic flexibility should understand that the task is not easy,
largely because of inertia that can build up over time. A firm’s focus
and past core competencies may actually slow change and strategic
flexibility.
To be strategically flexible on a continuing basis and to gain the
competitive benefits of such flexibility, a firm has to develop the
capacity to learn. Continuous learning provides the firm with new
and up-to-date skill sets, which allow it to adapt to its environment
as it encounters changes. Firms capable of rapidly and broadly
applying what they have learned exhibit the strategic flexibility and
the capacity to change in ways that will increase the probability of
successfully dealing with uncertain, hypercompetitive environments.
1-2The I/O Model of Above-
Average Returns
From the 1960s through the 1980s, the external environment was
thought to be the primary determinant of strategies that firms
selected to be successful. The industrial organization (I/O) model
of above-average returns explains the external environment’s
dominant influence on a firm’s strategic actions. The model specifies
that the industry or segment of an industry in which a company
chooses to compete has a stronger influence on performance than do
the choices managers make inside their organizations. The firm’s
performance is believed to be determined primarily by a range of
industry properties, including economies of scale, barriers to market
entry, diversification, product differentiation, the degree of
concentration of firms in the industry, and market frictions. We
examine these industry characteristics in Chapter 2.
Grounded in economics, the I/O model has four underlying
assumptions. First, the external environment is assumed to impose
pressures and constraints that determine the strategies that would
result in above-average returns. Second, most firms competing
within an industry or within a segment of that industry are assumed
to control similar strategically relevant resources and to pursue
similar strategies in light of those resources. Third, resources used to
implement strategies are assumed to be highly mobile across firms,
so any resource differences that might develop between firms will be
short-lived. Fourth, organizational decision makers are assumed to
be rational and committed to acting in the firm’s best interests, as
shown by their profit-maximizing behaviors. The I/O model
challenges firms to find the most attractive industry in which to
compete. Because most firms are assumed to have similar valuable
resources that are mobile across companies, their performance
generally can be increased only when they operate in the industry
with the highest profit potential and learn how to use their resources
to implement the strategy required by the industry’s structural
characteristics. To do so, they must imitate each other.
The five forces model of competition is an analytical tool used to help
firms find the industry that is the most attractive for them. The
model (explained in Chapter 2) encompasses several variables and
tries to capture the complexity of competition. The five forces model
suggests that an industry’s profitability (i.e., its rate of return on
invested capital relative to its cost of capital) is a function of
interactions among five forces: suppliers, buyers, competitive rivalry
among firms currently in the industry, product substitutes, and
potential entrants to the industry.
Firms use the five forces model to identify the attractiveness of an
industry (as measured by its profitability potential) as well as the
most advantageous position for the firm to take in that industry,
given the industry’s structural characteristics. Typically, the
model suggests that firms can earn above-average returns by
producing either standardized goods or services at costs below those
of competitors (a cost leadership strategy) or by producing
differentiated goods or services for which customers are willing to
pay a price premium (a differentiation strategy). The cost leadership
and product differentiation strategies are discussed more fully
in Chapter 4. The fact that the fast food industry faces “higher
commodity costs, fiercer competition, a restaurant industry showing
little to no growth, and a strapped lower-income consumer,”
suggests that fast food giant McDonald’s is competing in a
relatively unattractive industry.
As shown in Figure 1.2, the I/O model suggests that above-average
returns are earned when firms are able to effectively study the
external environment as the foundation for identifying an attractive
industry and implementing the appropriate strategy. For example, in
some industries, firms can reduce competitive rivalry and erect
barriers to entry by forming joint ventures. Because of these
outcomes, the joint ventures increase profitability in the industry.
Companies that develop or acquire the internal ski
