FINAL:. I. Food stores compete primarily based on diffe

Added on - 21 Sep 2019

  • 3

    Pages

  • 1699

    Words

  • 116

    Views

  • 0

    Downloads

Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 1 of 3 pages
FINAL:IFood stores compete primarily based on differentiation rather than simply on location andprice.Differentiating factors can include such things as low prices, ethnic appeal, qualitypreparedfoods, expanded variety within a specific category or department, customer service, orperishabledepartments such as meats or produce and Lars, the proprietor, has spent yearscultivatingrelationships with food suppliers. All the suppliers might not be from the same region alsowhereWhole Foods makes the purchase agreement and it also applies for the perishable products. Larsshould make the purchase deal with the small retailers who made no agreement with WholeFoods specially for perishable items because 33% still serves to the People after Whole FoodsComplete their purchase deal to serve the market.Soit can definitely challenge the WholeFoods 1stPolicy would besucceeded.Demandforthefollowingspecifictypesoforganicproductshasincreaseddramaticallyjustoverthe past five years. Whole Foods average price is 12% higher than the other Competitorsorretailers in the Market though it gives 5% discount on Purchases of $250 in groceries, andthereare a good number of customers who checks the price with the other retailers or Sellers.Customer can easily check with other retailers or other Competitors of Whole Foods with theirPrice because except 8-10% of Customer there is a huge percentage of Customer and even it canincrease because We can see the trend of higher demand increasing day by day of all theproducts. Setting a Standardized and Lower Price would help Lars to generate higher number ofCustomers. So,the Challenge to the Second policy will besucceeded.Lars, Super Yurt sells herbal remedies which is a USP for them. This Herbal remedies is theproduct Which Lars sells since beginning and they are expertise on that. So If They can expandinthis particular brand attributes and can easily provide health and beauty aids for Customersalong with more specialized and variant way.So,the Challenge to the Third policy will besucceeded.These three suggestions are with the Antitrust Law as Antitrust Law itself with benefitsofthe Customer and overallefficiency.IIAntitrust Law itself with benefits of the Customer and overall efficiency.Sherman Actattemptstoprevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. It preserves acompetitivemarketplace to protect consumers from abuses. Thenon-discriminatory provisions (“NDPs”)arecompletely with the Sherman Act AntitrustLaw because the “NDPs” not against Sherman actantitrust law and it does not force customer to change decision and even it does not break theCompetitive environment between the competitors.AsanemployeeinAntitrustDivisionoftheDepartmentofJusticeIwillgivemyopiniontothe Supervisor that the Divisions should not pursuetheCase.IIIAs there C5 has no IP Protection and it came after G then by lowering the price of C by 20%with the combined deal by making it as compulsory product is not a Lawful deal. This deal canforce Customer to change their buying decision even though the product is not IP Protected andthere is another product G which came before C5. AntitrustLaw itself with benefits of theCustomer and overall efficiency and Sherman Act protectconsumers fromabuses and protectcompetitive Environment.
desklib-logo
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Click the button to download
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document