Strategic Analysis Models - GoCom - Case Study Example

?Case Analysis for: GO.COM Overview and Introduction Go.co is a commercial company that has been in existence since 1991. The company has operated asthe official Internet and website delivery country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Colombia (Snyder, 2012). At the center of the company’s operations has been the development and expansion of its entertainment portal for such a long number of years though the primary motive behind its setting up was to concentrate on ccTLD for Columbia as a country (Transparency International, 2012). As of now, at the second level, no forms of registration limitations exist for .co domains, which take their parent entity from go.co. What this means is that any individual or company at all can get registered unto a .co domain. Internet and website pundits such as Alexa classify go.co to generally fall under web portals (Management Study Guide, 2012). For the purpose of the present case study therefore, the company, Go.co will be analyzed as a separate and independent company from the ccTLD category but pushed into the wider web portal category as key competitors seem to be springing up quickly on a daily basis in that broader industry scope as a web portal. Industry Analysis Major International Competitors .com Countries: USA, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Romania Type of Company: Common Stock 30 Day Average Volume: 3,607,911 Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC): Yes Yahoo Country: Germany, Japan, USA, Mexico, Italy Type of Company: Common Stock and ADR 30 Day Average Volume: 23,252,490 DNSSEC: Yes AOL Countries: Germany, USA Type of Company: Common Stock Shares outstanding: 93.97 DNSSEC: No Baidu Country: Singapore, Germany, Mexico, USA Type of Company: Common Stock 30 Day average Volume: 4,581,215 DNSSEC: No .uk Country: UK, Germany Type of Company: Common Stock Shares outstanding: 2.32 DNSSEC: Yes GO.CO Country: France Type of Company: Common Stock Shares outstanding: 1.34 DNSSEC: Yes Xing Countries: Germany, UK Type of Company: Common Stock 30 Day Average Volume: 548 DNSSEC: No Source: Bloomberg (2012) GO.CO is comfortably treated as part of the web portal competitive industry because of the line of business and area of web operation under taken by .CO and the other web portals. In a typical scenario, almost all of these companies provide search engine and online sale services and so can all come under the same umbrella in a comfortable manner (Quick, 2009). From the table, there are two major competitors identified for go.com if the company wants to position itself at a point where it would gain its accolade as an international force in the web portal industry. These companies or competitors are .com and .uk. Already, .com is ranked as the number most popular internet TLD by Alexa, whiles the same source ranks .uk as number two (Roberts, 2009). From the table, which presents the 30 Day Average Volume and shares outstanding, not much can be said to refute this fact. Strategic Analysis Models SWOT Analysis Strengths A globally strong parent company, GO.CO and other major TLD, which is the .com domain. Multi-operational web system and function Reduced capital intensive growth path as a result of existing franchise model Brand equity, which creates a competitive edge. Weaknesses Inability to rise as a third force in the global web portal industry Over dependence on franchise ownership by other subsidiaries of its parent company Static innovative growth to match modern trends of web browsing. Opportunities Ever growing need among internet users for search engines and other web portals Ever growing population of internet users (Quick, 2009) Growing affordability of companies to promote internet use (Vancouver, 2006) Threats Rapid growth of smaller competitors such as AOL and Xing as competitive web portals. Global economic rebasing (Garderner, 2006) Larger competitors entering into further alliances for growth. Porter’s Five Forces Analysis Intensity of Competitive Rivalry Very High The revenue turnover of the key competitor namely Yahoo, and that of the advancing competitor, .com is a serious competitive rivalry that keeps growing at higher rates and heights. It is thus for go.co to have its own strategic principles that would ensure that it matches up to the 23,252,490 30 Day Average by the competitor. Threat of Substitute Products Moderate There are not as many options in terms of substitute products as would be of commercial threat to go.co. To this end, the threat of substitute product is very minimal and highly contagious by go.co. This should however be seen as an opportunity for the company to build on its brand equity to continue to be a force in the industry (Gaski, 1997). Bargaining Power of Buyers Low Web portals are nearly without any definite substitutes (Garderner, 2006). This means that the company is in a very interesting position to keep identifying the very needs of consumers in terms of high quality internet domain delivery because of the absence of alternative substitutes. Bargaining Power of Suppliers Very High Go.co’s main consumer product is seen to be internet domain provision. Meanwhile, this is a product area that .com and other auxiliaries like .net and .org have recently provided vehemently. Subsequently, there is that high bargaining power of suppliers as Porter notes for situations where the product is a backer of a major competitor, it raises the bargaining power of supply (Moy & Wein, 2007 ). Threat of New Entrants High Not much has come in as far as new entrants are concerned. However, there remains the likelihood as internet use and web portal exploration increases, new entrants will be foreseen. What is more is the tendency that some existing companies would make mergers with non web portal companies to act as new market competitors. Trends The registration of internet website owners through the .co domain keeps becoming less restrictive and as such more and more people are getting on board the train of becoming partners with GO.CO As global economic crisis recovers slowly, global business transactions are set to hit its highest heights in the nearly months to come. This means that more and more online commerce is going to be boosted and thus the need to adapt new and modernized ways of doing business through domain registrations. CITE WORKS Garderner, Roberts. The two states of treatment. Oral Roberts Press Limited: New York. 2006. Print. Gaski, Henry.. Sami culture in a new era: The Norwegian experience. Seattle, University of Washington Press. 1997. Print. Management Study Guide. Competitive Analysis: Meaning, Objectives and Significance. 2012. Web. April 1, 2012 from Moy Meyers L., & Wein, Anderson J. 2007. Additional therapies for storage and emptying failure (9th ed.). Philadelphia, Pa: Sauders Elsevier. Quick, Thomas. ‘The Best Kept Secret for Increasing Productivity’, Sales and Marketing Management, July 1989: 34-38. 2009 Roberts, Yin. The Skill for success and how they are grown. 2009. Web. September 10, 2012 from Snyder M. 2012. 11 Examples Of How Insanely Corrupt The U.S. Financial System Has Become. Accessed September 12, 2012 from Transparency International. Transparency International Releases its Report on Corporate Transparency. 2012. Web. September 11, 2012 from Vancouver, Joseph, ‘For Organisations Behaviour: Understanding Humans, Organisations, and Social Processes’, Behavioural Science, Vol. 41: 165-203. 2006 Bloomberg. Financial Performance of Web Portal companies. 2012. Web. October 30, 2012 Read More