Analysis of Market Structures: Apple, Tesco, and Porter's Five Forces
VerifiedAdded on 2021/05/06
|7
|2690
|19
Report
AI Summary
This report delves into the market structures of Apple and Tesco, examining their competitive environments and strategic behaviors within the mobile phone and supermarket industries, respectively. It begins by defining and differentiating various market structures, including perfect competition, monopolies, oligopolies, and monopolistic competition. The analysis then applies Porter's Five Forces model to assess the competitiveness of both Apple and Tesco's markets, considering factors such as rivalry among competitors, the threat of new entrants, the threat of substitutes, and the bargaining power of buyers and suppliers. The report highlights Apple's dominance in the mobile phone industry and Tesco's position in the UK grocery market, classifying them as operating within an oligopoly. It explores how these companies leverage marketing, branding, and product differentiation to compete, including Apple's focus on brand image and Tesco's customer experience enhancements. The report also analyzes Apple's adaptation to the Indian market by introducing a more affordable iPhone model and Tesco's strategic decisions in Poland, linking these to the companies' responses to globalization and economic conditions. The conclusion emphasizes the challenges of maintaining market positions in a globalized world and the importance of tailoring strategies to local market dynamics.
Over time we have gained significant insight concerning the environment whereby business
activities unwind, allowing us to categorise the different market structures and the role they have
on determining the competitiveness of industries and organisational behaviour. Following, we
will be looking at these market structures and their effect on the behaviour of two behemoth-
firms: Apple and Tesco, we will then use Porter’s five forces model to assess the competitiveness
of their market structure, as well as discussing how they develop in a highly competitive and
globalized market.
“Perfect competition” is a structure where barriers for entry and exit do not exist, there are many
sellers, and they sell identical products to well-informed buyers. Organisations in this structure
are considered price takers; under the assumption that consumer looks after their own interest,
consumers know how much they are supposed to pay. Opposite to perfect competition, is a
“Monopoly”, where one organisation trades a unique good or service. Customer do not have
options available, so this firm influences the price of good and services to make super-normal
profits, this looks attractive for new entrants, but due to high barriers of entry and exit, the firm
continues to set prices and make super-normal profits due to lacking competition.
An “Oligopoly” is a market dominated by a few big firms, offering identical yet heavily
differentiated products or services. Organisations in this structure are interdependent, in some
Oligopolies, organisations liaise with each other to set prices that work for them or join
a cartel to increase their market share. This structure has high barriers of entry and exit, due to
high set up costs and capital needed to invest in product differentiation, such as through
advertising.
The combined characteristics of perfect competition and a monopoly conform to a “Monopolistic
Competition”. Information is available for customers to make an informed decision prior to
purchase. Organisations in this market decide the price of their products, and as there are no
major barriers for entry or exit, it is a highly competitive market. Due to this, firms work hard to
differentiate their products by showcasing unique characteristics, not only to offer choices for
customers but to charge higher prices, they are price setters.
Following, we will use Porter’s five forces model to analyse the competitiveness of these
organisation’s market structure, and how this ultimately affects their behaviour.
MOBILE PHONE INDUSTRY:
Rivalry among existing competitors: Due to high barriers of entry and exit, there are few
competitors with a significant market share. Companies have the capital to invest heavily in
advertising and non-price competition and they all share as part of their strategy innovation and
encouraging customer advocacy. Firms file lawsuits and create patents to minimise the risk of
new entrants and reduce the market share of competitors, ergo the rivalry in the industry is high.
Threat of new entrants: High barriers of entry and exit due to the high costs of production,
infrastructure, high level of specialisation. Strong presence of existing firms in the market and
the capital invested in branding and marketing strategies, incumbent firms have strong customer
activities unwind, allowing us to categorise the different market structures and the role they have
on determining the competitiveness of industries and organisational behaviour. Following, we
will be looking at these market structures and their effect on the behaviour of two behemoth-
firms: Apple and Tesco, we will then use Porter’s five forces model to assess the competitiveness
of their market structure, as well as discussing how they develop in a highly competitive and
globalized market.
“Perfect competition” is a structure where barriers for entry and exit do not exist, there are many
sellers, and they sell identical products to well-informed buyers. Organisations in this structure
are considered price takers; under the assumption that consumer looks after their own interest,
consumers know how much they are supposed to pay. Opposite to perfect competition, is a
“Monopoly”, where one organisation trades a unique good or service. Customer do not have
options available, so this firm influences the price of good and services to make super-normal
profits, this looks attractive for new entrants, but due to high barriers of entry and exit, the firm
continues to set prices and make super-normal profits due to lacking competition.
An “Oligopoly” is a market dominated by a few big firms, offering identical yet heavily
differentiated products or services. Organisations in this structure are interdependent, in some
Oligopolies, organisations liaise with each other to set prices that work for them or join
a cartel to increase their market share. This structure has high barriers of entry and exit, due to
high set up costs and capital needed to invest in product differentiation, such as through
advertising.
The combined characteristics of perfect competition and a monopoly conform to a “Monopolistic
Competition”. Information is available for customers to make an informed decision prior to
purchase. Organisations in this market decide the price of their products, and as there are no
major barriers for entry or exit, it is a highly competitive market. Due to this, firms work hard to
differentiate their products by showcasing unique characteristics, not only to offer choices for
customers but to charge higher prices, they are price setters.
Following, we will use Porter’s five forces model to analyse the competitiveness of these
organisation’s market structure, and how this ultimately affects their behaviour.
MOBILE PHONE INDUSTRY:
Rivalry among existing competitors: Due to high barriers of entry and exit, there are few
competitors with a significant market share. Companies have the capital to invest heavily in
advertising and non-price competition and they all share as part of their strategy innovation and
encouraging customer advocacy. Firms file lawsuits and create patents to minimise the risk of
new entrants and reduce the market share of competitors, ergo the rivalry in the industry is high.
Threat of new entrants: High barriers of entry and exit due to the high costs of production,
infrastructure, high level of specialisation. Strong presence of existing firms in the market and
the capital invested in branding and marketing strategies, incumbent firms have strong customer
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
advocacy, making it unattractive for new companies, thus the threat of new entrants is low to
medium.
Threat of substitutes: Threat of substitutes is low as the innovative gadgets brought by this
industry cannot be replaced unless consumers decided to move back to the old days without
smartphones.
Bargaining power of buyers: The internet facilitates information to buyers and the ability to shop
around. Due to the industry’s innovative nature, whoever has the most attractive invention gets
more demand. Competitors invest in marketing and advertising, differentiating their products and
making them stand out, so the bargaining power of buyer is medium to medium to high.
Bargaining power of suppliers: Suppliers supply components and raw materials to produce their
products. Organisations require unique, trusted, and efficient suppliers which reduce the chances
of companies with high standards to switch to another provider. Most firms, unless having own
operating systems, will require a contract with a unique product supplier. Based on this the
bargaining power of suppliers is medium to high.
SUPERMARKET INDUSTRY:
Rivalry among existing competitors: There are few big competitors in the industry and they
directly affect each other. Due to the lack of differentiation in products, customers can switch to
another chain if cheaper. Firms highly engage in non-price competition and work in encouraging
customer advocacy which costs significant capital. Some firms might engage in price wars,
affecting other firms that must match prices to not lose sales. Based on this the rivalry within the
market is high.
Threat of new entrants: Threat of new entrants is relatively low. Firms in the market are already
big enough, with enough money to invest in advertising, existing contracts with suppliers and
marketing campaigns. Big firms can take advantage of the economy of scales thus their prices
will be more competitive than small independent businesses.
Threat of substitutes: The threat of substitutes is low to medium. Although consumers can
substitute supermarkets by shopping in small local markets and corner shops, these still do not
offer the variety and competitive prices big firms do.
Bargaining power of buyers: The power of buyers is high; customers have access to free
information and there is high price sensitivity, customer can easily buy elsewhere without
switching costs.
Bargaining power of suppliers: The bargaining power of suppliers is low. There are several
providers and they do not sell unique products. Farm products such as milk and vegetables are
likely to have similar prices around providers, Supermarkets can shop around aiming to make
more profit.
medium.
Threat of substitutes: Threat of substitutes is low as the innovative gadgets brought by this
industry cannot be replaced unless consumers decided to move back to the old days without
smartphones.
Bargaining power of buyers: The internet facilitates information to buyers and the ability to shop
around. Due to the industry’s innovative nature, whoever has the most attractive invention gets
more demand. Competitors invest in marketing and advertising, differentiating their products and
making them stand out, so the bargaining power of buyer is medium to medium to high.
Bargaining power of suppliers: Suppliers supply components and raw materials to produce their
products. Organisations require unique, trusted, and efficient suppliers which reduce the chances
of companies with high standards to switch to another provider. Most firms, unless having own
operating systems, will require a contract with a unique product supplier. Based on this the
bargaining power of suppliers is medium to high.
SUPERMARKET INDUSTRY:
Rivalry among existing competitors: There are few big competitors in the industry and they
directly affect each other. Due to the lack of differentiation in products, customers can switch to
another chain if cheaper. Firms highly engage in non-price competition and work in encouraging
customer advocacy which costs significant capital. Some firms might engage in price wars,
affecting other firms that must match prices to not lose sales. Based on this the rivalry within the
market is high.
Threat of new entrants: Threat of new entrants is relatively low. Firms in the market are already
big enough, with enough money to invest in advertising, existing contracts with suppliers and
marketing campaigns. Big firms can take advantage of the economy of scales thus their prices
will be more competitive than small independent businesses.
Threat of substitutes: The threat of substitutes is low to medium. Although consumers can
substitute supermarkets by shopping in small local markets and corner shops, these still do not
offer the variety and competitive prices big firms do.
Bargaining power of buyers: The power of buyers is high; customers have access to free
information and there is high price sensitivity, customer can easily buy elsewhere without
switching costs.
Bargaining power of suppliers: The bargaining power of suppliers is low. There are several
providers and they do not sell unique products. Farm products such as milk and vegetables are
likely to have similar prices around providers, Supermarkets can shop around aiming to make
more profit.
Apple’s market share in the mobile phone industry is currently at 28.19% (Statscounter, 2020)
and Tesco’s market share of grocery stores in the UK is of 27% (Kantar, 2020). Regulative
standards consider both organisations a monopoly, but as they share the market with other few
competitors, they belong to an Oligopoly. This makes visible why these organisations invest
significant capital in marketing, advertising, and engaging in non-pricing competition. Although
there is a tough rivalry between them and other firms, they are also interdependent. Apple
considers the strategy of other competitors, but instead of engaging on price wars, they take pride
in the uniqueness of its products and highly differentiate their brand under this concept.
Similarly, Tesco also looks at what competitors are doing, for example, Tesco to recover market
share decided to reduce the price for hundreds of their products calling the offer “Aldi Price
Match”, while implementing customer experience enhancers, such as self-checkout and “traffic
lights” during Covid, to differentiate themselves over discount stores.
Back in 2010, before the socioeconomic situation in Venezuela worsened, Apple’s market share
(15.22%) almost tripled Samsung’s (4.22%). Nowadays, Samsung is leading the market
(35.17%), while Apple (7.7%) is falling behind from brands who target customers with an
affordable range of phones, such as Xiaomi (20.2%) and Huawei (8.33%). This implies that
Apple’s “one-size-fits-all-approach” (Hovivian, 2019), that brought incredible success in most
developed economies under their branding of quality over quantity, seems to be stopping them
from achieving dominance over competitors in developing economies, where price sensitivity
overrules product differentiation.
The above data serves as evidence of the benefits of product customisation to meet the demand
and price sensitivity of a country; by offering a cheaper range of products, even the newest
competitors can find themselves leading over incumbent firms. This year Apple got access to
India through the opening of an online store, making accessible for Indian customers to obtain an
iPhone. Apple for the first time is customising its approach to suit the Indian population, contrary
to their known approach in developed economies, the firm is launching the Apple SE, an
affordable iPhone that fits Indian’s demographic, aiming to overtake this crucial part of the
global market, this move although jeopardized by the recent pandemic shows encouraging results
as their market share has gone up 0.73% from last year (2.61%).
Tesco, back in 2006, when Poland’s economy saw a significant rise of GPD to 6.131
(theworldbank, nd), was second in the Polish market with 6.3%, just behind Biedroka with
12.9%. Naturally, the country’s conditions of growing employment and wages resulted in less
price sensitivity, thus Tesco’s standard approach that focused on product differentiation showed
effective due to more customer’s valuing unique features over price. The firm recently
announced the close of their market in Poland, mainly due to failure to implement an adequate
strategic approach to the market’s demography. In 2019 Poland saw a decreased of GPD 4.541,
the lowest recorded since 1994. Although Poland has always been a price-sensitive market, at
this point discount stores were soaring in attractiveness due to more customers being influenced
by price over product uniqueness. Competitors such as Lidl used promotions and discounts as
high of 70% (Harper, 2019) while Tesco stuck to its standard approach focussed on customer
experience, not engaging on price wars with discount stores, resulting in the firm leaving this
market.
and Tesco’s market share of grocery stores in the UK is of 27% (Kantar, 2020). Regulative
standards consider both organisations a monopoly, but as they share the market with other few
competitors, they belong to an Oligopoly. This makes visible why these organisations invest
significant capital in marketing, advertising, and engaging in non-pricing competition. Although
there is a tough rivalry between them and other firms, they are also interdependent. Apple
considers the strategy of other competitors, but instead of engaging on price wars, they take pride
in the uniqueness of its products and highly differentiate their brand under this concept.
Similarly, Tesco also looks at what competitors are doing, for example, Tesco to recover market
share decided to reduce the price for hundreds of their products calling the offer “Aldi Price
Match”, while implementing customer experience enhancers, such as self-checkout and “traffic
lights” during Covid, to differentiate themselves over discount stores.
Back in 2010, before the socioeconomic situation in Venezuela worsened, Apple’s market share
(15.22%) almost tripled Samsung’s (4.22%). Nowadays, Samsung is leading the market
(35.17%), while Apple (7.7%) is falling behind from brands who target customers with an
affordable range of phones, such as Xiaomi (20.2%) and Huawei (8.33%). This implies that
Apple’s “one-size-fits-all-approach” (Hovivian, 2019), that brought incredible success in most
developed economies under their branding of quality over quantity, seems to be stopping them
from achieving dominance over competitors in developing economies, where price sensitivity
overrules product differentiation.
The above data serves as evidence of the benefits of product customisation to meet the demand
and price sensitivity of a country; by offering a cheaper range of products, even the newest
competitors can find themselves leading over incumbent firms. This year Apple got access to
India through the opening of an online store, making accessible for Indian customers to obtain an
iPhone. Apple for the first time is customising its approach to suit the Indian population, contrary
to their known approach in developed economies, the firm is launching the Apple SE, an
affordable iPhone that fits Indian’s demographic, aiming to overtake this crucial part of the
global market, this move although jeopardized by the recent pandemic shows encouraging results
as their market share has gone up 0.73% from last year (2.61%).
Tesco, back in 2006, when Poland’s economy saw a significant rise of GPD to 6.131
(theworldbank, nd), was second in the Polish market with 6.3%, just behind Biedroka with
12.9%. Naturally, the country’s conditions of growing employment and wages resulted in less
price sensitivity, thus Tesco’s standard approach that focused on product differentiation showed
effective due to more customer’s valuing unique features over price. The firm recently
announced the close of their market in Poland, mainly due to failure to implement an adequate
strategic approach to the market’s demography. In 2019 Poland saw a decreased of GPD 4.541,
the lowest recorded since 1994. Although Poland has always been a price-sensitive market, at
this point discount stores were soaring in attractiveness due to more customers being influenced
by price over product uniqueness. Competitors such as Lidl used promotions and discounts as
high of 70% (Harper, 2019) while Tesco stuck to its standard approach focussed on customer
experience, not engaging on price wars with discount stores, resulting in the firm leaving this
market.
The collected evidence shows how competitiveness in emerging economies is vastly different
than in developed economies. Making it challenging for organisations that target their products
to consumers who “display status through having the latest model” (Lomas, n.d) or that look to
showcase unique characteristics, such as customer experience, over price. There is no substantial
evidence of customisation of the strategic approach of these firms besides of Apple in India,
making evident how reluctant they are of engaging on price wars due to fear to damage their
brands’ image.
Apple and Tesco share, when engaging in non-price competition, the use of certain aspects of
human psychology to their advantage, especially when looking to develop the brand's image
through marketing campaigns that ignite an emotional response on customers. Apple uses the
human inherited urge of belonging to a social group to their advantage, through their social
media strategy they boost their brand’s image as they engage with customers. The perfect
example of this is Apple’s Instagram account, where the company limits direct promotional
content and instead, they share pictures taken by millions of customers under the hashtag
#shotoniphone. Under the message “everyone has a story to tell”, they promote a
lifestyle or community, building Apple’s trend and showcasing their high-quality product while
incurring minimal costs. Seemingly, Tesco looks to use human emotions to their advantage, an
example of this is the “No naughty list” advert, where they refer to some of the current worries
brought by the pandemic, making customers feel understood by the firm as they acknowledge the
recent difficulties. They also offer online slots to help vulnerable customers to get their food
delivered, ultimately creating a link between this feeling of support and the firm's image, that
aims to be “champion to their customers”.
It can be concluded that globalisation and free access to information, as well of giving
opportunities for organisations to widen and spread brand awareness, it also comes with its
challenges, as they must show how their brand is superior to other global competitors. Apple and
Tesco are a clear example of how knowing your brand and what it offers can ultimately lead to
success in some markets, while also showing how their presence in markets where the
demography does not appeal their brands’ mission, must be compromised in order to protect
their image. These brands will have to rethink their whole approach and mission, especially in a
world that is recovering from a recession, to maintain their position in the market and any
prospects in developing economies. Apple clearly understand the strategic benefits of having a
strong presence in India, as they for once customise their approach, but failing to implement a
similar tactic on countries facing economic difficulties could mean the end for them in these
economies, as it is with Tesco, who decided to focus on those markets where they seem to thrive,
or as they put it, “simplify the business”.
than in developed economies. Making it challenging for organisations that target their products
to consumers who “display status through having the latest model” (Lomas, n.d) or that look to
showcase unique characteristics, such as customer experience, over price. There is no substantial
evidence of customisation of the strategic approach of these firms besides of Apple in India,
making evident how reluctant they are of engaging on price wars due to fear to damage their
brands’ image.
Apple and Tesco share, when engaging in non-price competition, the use of certain aspects of
human psychology to their advantage, especially when looking to develop the brand's image
through marketing campaigns that ignite an emotional response on customers. Apple uses the
human inherited urge of belonging to a social group to their advantage, through their social
media strategy they boost their brand’s image as they engage with customers. The perfect
example of this is Apple’s Instagram account, where the company limits direct promotional
content and instead, they share pictures taken by millions of customers under the hashtag
#shotoniphone. Under the message “everyone has a story to tell”, they promote a
lifestyle or community, building Apple’s trend and showcasing their high-quality product while
incurring minimal costs. Seemingly, Tesco looks to use human emotions to their advantage, an
example of this is the “No naughty list” advert, where they refer to some of the current worries
brought by the pandemic, making customers feel understood by the firm as they acknowledge the
recent difficulties. They also offer online slots to help vulnerable customers to get their food
delivered, ultimately creating a link between this feeling of support and the firm's image, that
aims to be “champion to their customers”.
It can be concluded that globalisation and free access to information, as well of giving
opportunities for organisations to widen and spread brand awareness, it also comes with its
challenges, as they must show how their brand is superior to other global competitors. Apple and
Tesco are a clear example of how knowing your brand and what it offers can ultimately lead to
success in some markets, while also showing how their presence in markets where the
demography does not appeal their brands’ mission, must be compromised in order to protect
their image. These brands will have to rethink their whole approach and mission, especially in a
world that is recovering from a recession, to maintain their position in the market and any
prospects in developing economies. Apple clearly understand the strategic benefits of having a
strong presence in India, as they for once customise their approach, but failing to implement a
similar tactic on countries facing economic difficulties could mean the end for them in these
economies, as it is with Tesco, who decided to focus on those markets where they seem to thrive,
or as they put it, “simplify the business”.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
References
Harper, J (May, 2019) British retailer Tesco scales down in Poland (Online) Available at:
https://www.dw.com/en/british-retailer-tesco-scales-down-in-poland/a-48984312 (Accessed on
16/12/2020)
Hovivian, F (December, 2019) Globalization: Apple’s one-size-fits-all Approach (Online) Available at:
http://www.brandquarterly.com/globalization-apples-one-size-fits-approach (Accessed on 14/12/2020)
Kantar (November 2020) Grocery Market Share (Online) Available at:
https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/en/grocery-market-share/great-britain (Accessed on 12/12/2020)
Lomas, W (n.d) Market Structures (Online) Available at:
https://wlco.epearl.co.uk/study-material/4923/59197 (Accessed on 11/12/2020)
Statscounter, (November 2020) Mobile Vendor Market Share Worldwide (Online) Available at:
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile (Accessed on 13/12/2020)
Theworldbank (n.d) GDP Growth (Annual %)- Poland (Online) Available at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=PL (Accessed on 16/12/2020)
Harper, J (May, 2019) British retailer Tesco scales down in Poland (Online) Available at:
https://www.dw.com/en/british-retailer-tesco-scales-down-in-poland/a-48984312 (Accessed on
16/12/2020)
Hovivian, F (December, 2019) Globalization: Apple’s one-size-fits-all Approach (Online) Available at:
http://www.brandquarterly.com/globalization-apples-one-size-fits-approach (Accessed on 14/12/2020)
Kantar (November 2020) Grocery Market Share (Online) Available at:
https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/en/grocery-market-share/great-britain (Accessed on 12/12/2020)
Lomas, W (n.d) Market Structures (Online) Available at:
https://wlco.epearl.co.uk/study-material/4923/59197 (Accessed on 11/12/2020)
Statscounter, (November 2020) Mobile Vendor Market Share Worldwide (Online) Available at:
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile (Accessed on 13/12/2020)
Theworldbank (n.d) GDP Growth (Annual %)- Poland (Online) Available at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=PL (Accessed on 16/12/2020)
Bibliography
Harper, J (May, 2019) British retailer Tesco scales down in Poland (Online) Available at:
https://www.dw.com/en/british-retailer-tesco-scales-down-in-poland/a-48984312
Hovivian, F (December, 2019) Globalization: Apple’s one-size-fits-all Approach (Online) Available at:
http://www.brandquarterly.com/globalization-apples-one-size-fits-approach
Kantar (November 2020) Grocery Market Share (Online) Available at:
https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/en/grocery-market-share/great-britain
Lomas, W (n.d) Market Structures (Online) Available at:
https://wlco.epearl.co.uk/study-material/4923/59197 (Accessed on 11/12/2020)
Statscounter, (November 2020) Mobile Vendor Market Share Worldwide (Online) Available at:
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile
Theworldbank (n.d) GDP Growth (Annual %)- Poland (Online) Available at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=PL
Nieuwsbericht, (n.d) Insight of the polish retail and food market (Online) Available at:
https://www.agroberichtenbuitenland.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/04/13/insights-in-the-polish-retail-and-
food-market
Jasper, J (June, 2020) Tesco sells up in Poland to focus on UK (Online) Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/tesco-sells-up-in-poland-to-focus-on-uk
Hessler, N (April 2018) https://medium.com/@nick_hessler/apples-totally-bizarre-social-media-strategy-
that-makes-perfect-sense-a10d050f4d46
Statcounter, (2020) Mobile vendor market share Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Online) Available at:
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/venezuela
Mindtools, (n.d) Porters Five Forces (Online) Available at:
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_08.htm
Prabhjote, G (July 2019) Business insider (Online) Available at: https://www.businessinsider.in/apple-tv-
plus-outdoes-netflix-with-fewer-shows-solving-paradox-of-choice/articleshow/70034870.cms
Harper, J (May, 2019) British retailer Tesco scales down in Poland (Online) Available at:
https://www.dw.com/en/british-retailer-tesco-scales-down-in-poland/a-48984312
Hovivian, F (December, 2019) Globalization: Apple’s one-size-fits-all Approach (Online) Available at:
http://www.brandquarterly.com/globalization-apples-one-size-fits-approach
Kantar (November 2020) Grocery Market Share (Online) Available at:
https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/en/grocery-market-share/great-britain
Lomas, W (n.d) Market Structures (Online) Available at:
https://wlco.epearl.co.uk/study-material/4923/59197 (Accessed on 11/12/2020)
Statscounter, (November 2020) Mobile Vendor Market Share Worldwide (Online) Available at:
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile
Theworldbank (n.d) GDP Growth (Annual %)- Poland (Online) Available at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=PL
Nieuwsbericht, (n.d) Insight of the polish retail and food market (Online) Available at:
https://www.agroberichtenbuitenland.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/04/13/insights-in-the-polish-retail-and-
food-market
Jasper, J (June, 2020) Tesco sells up in Poland to focus on UK (Online) Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/tesco-sells-up-in-poland-to-focus-on-uk
Hessler, N (April 2018) https://medium.com/@nick_hessler/apples-totally-bizarre-social-media-strategy-
that-makes-perfect-sense-a10d050f4d46
Statcounter, (2020) Mobile vendor market share Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Online) Available at:
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/venezuela
Mindtools, (n.d) Porters Five Forces (Online) Available at:
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_08.htm
Prabhjote, G (July 2019) Business insider (Online) Available at: https://www.businessinsider.in/apple-tv-
plus-outdoes-netflix-with-fewer-shows-solving-paradox-of-choice/articleshow/70034870.cms
1 out of 7
Related Documents
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.