Learn more about building your own Frameworks from scratch through our "Landscape Technique" in the Frameworks Module of our free course! You'll also find framework practice drills inside that module, which will help you build the confidence to structure any case without relying on pre-made frameworks. Get instant access at www.craftingcases.com/freecourse
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🎯 Introduction to Case Frameworks* - Explanation of the goal to teach effective techniques for case interviews. - Introduction of the presenter as an ex-McKinsey consultant. - Overview of the video content: structuring a business strategy case from scratch. 01:15 *📋 Case Question and Initial Steps* - Presentation of the case question: high-end European haircare brand entering the Asian market. - Importance of asking clarification questions and structuring a broad market entry case. 02:43 *🗺️ Framework Overview* - Four main questions to answer for the market entry decision. - Additional two questions to strengthen the argument. - Introduction of the first main question: market attractiveness. 04:06 *📈 Market Attractiveness Analysis* - Three sub-questions for determining market attractiveness. - Data needed: sales, growth, profitability, and competition behavior. 05:51 *🔍 Product Fit Analysis* - Assessing product benefits and positioning against market needs. - Comparison with other brands and identifying gaps in the market. 06:40 *🛒 Distribution Channels Analysis* - Evaluating the openness of B2C and B2B channels to new suppliers. - Talking to experts and potential challenges in distribution. 07:33 *🏆 Sustainable Competitive Advantage* - Identifying product, brand, and distribution advantages. - Importance of sustainable competitive advantage for market entry decision. 08:27 *💰 Investment Payoff Analysis* - Modeling return on investment for different market share scenarios. - Evaluating investment required and potential returns. 09:21 *🌍 Long-term Consequences* - Assessing the long-term impact of not entering the Asian market. - Importance of Asia's market share and profitability in the future. 10:44 *✨ Framework Customization Benefits* - Importance of a fully customized, prioritized, and relevant framework. - Comparison with generic frameworks and the value of tailoring to the problem. 12:07 *🎯 Being Concise and Direct* - Importance of having key questions and specific tests. - Structuring responses to be comprehensive yet to the point. 13:27 *📖 Clear Communication* - Ensuring the framework is easy to understand and follow. - Breakdown of tasks to different team members and project management. 15:14 *📚 Learning and Next Steps* - Encouragement to learn how to build tailored frameworks. - Promotion of the Case Interview Fundamentals course and additional resources. Made with HARPA AI
Good solution but not exhaustive. There are other very important factors that needs to be considered without which market entry strategy would not be complete i) barriers to entry and exit ii) can I enter the market through acquisitions or joint venture?
I really like the structure you presented in this video. If I use this hype of objective-driven framework, it seems like each bucket itself is the hypothesis we want to test, so we don’t need to reiterate our hypothesis again. Is that correct? It’s much more concise and efficient!
Hey Xingyi, yes, that's what we call objective-driven structures! They are indeed much more concise and efficiency, this is how most consultants structure their own problems. The problem with these structures is that it's much much harder to assure you're being MECE, so they carry extra risk unless you really know what you're doing.
@@CraftingCases Thank you so much for the reply! I've started watching your free courses and practicing the techniques. It's really helpful! I just came back from a McKinsey three-day immersive event and what you teach is exactly what they teach in the interview workshop lol. I'm fully convinced this is really how McKinsey consultants crack cases!
Hi, I did like your structure and I did compare it with traditional types and my own. We are entering the Asian market and we are not talking about the barrier to enter be it governement regulations or e even language. I also see less opportunity for quantification. What about price point that customers can pay there. Apart from this I think it is pretty fine. I wouldn't know where to fit the issues I mentioned in your buckets though
Hey Owura, very nice points you've raised. Regarding barriers to entry, you wouldn't be able to fit them in this Frameworks - you'd have to add a new category such as "Can they / Do they have the capabilities to enter this market?". And regarding the Price Point, you could fit it under the Market Attractiveness analysis. Now, some food for thought: what would be the consequences of me not adding those two points in my structure in a real case? Are they already covered indirectly somewhere? And if not, how much of a difference would this make in a real interviewer's perception of my performance?
Hey Bruno, Why didn't you add mode of entry? This would affect the cost and timing of entry no? which would affect the decision, based on the decision criteria Appreciate your thoughts.
How about the reverse? What if you were told that the European company previously considered entering the Asian market but it was determined not viable/profitable. What data would you need to gather to determine if this was a missed opportunity or affirm the decision not to enter?
You can use the same framework and questions to address the problem. If the answers to most of the questions are in affirmative then they missed an opportunity to invest in Asia.
I like how practical this approach is but it doesn’t seem very MECE. Is there a layer of structuring that should go before these 6 initial questions to organize them in a MECE fashion?
CraftingCases Under market attractiveness you discussed the competition’s potential reaction to a new entrant (engaging in price wars or increasing ad spend) and then the 4th bucket is evaluating the likelihood of a sustainable competitive advantage, so you discuss competition again. Then distribution channels are talked about in buckets 3&4, first about setting them up in Asia and then about locking them up to have a distribution advantage over competitors. I was concerned the buckets weren’t exclusive enough. Is there a way to evaluate a framework to test for exclusivity? Again, love this video and my question isn’t a criticism, I’m just trying to better understand how to set-up MECE frameworks/test for exclusivity. Thanks for all of this great content, really appreciate it!
Haha no worries about criticism, I was actually trying to understand the question. So, the way you’re thinking makes sense but with a caveat. If your buckets are named after types of players involved (e.g: Company, Customers, Competitors, Distribution Channels, etc.), then all questions about each type of player should be together. Example: all questions regarding competition should be in the competition bucket. This is in fact what we teach in our free course to create frameworks from scratch. But there are other techniques/logics/ways to organize information. In this example I used a different type of structure (which we call “objective-driven”, and teach in our advanced course on structuring) and under this logic, the organization of the ideas is different. For instance, under “Market Attractiveness”, every single think there should be regarding, well, whether the market is attractive or not. This might include things from the customers, the competition, the distribution channels, the regulator, whatever. Same is true for other buckets. It’s simply a different way to organize information. Still, there’s no rule that all questions about competitors should be in the same bucket. If there were, then you’d be compelled to have a “Competitors” bucket in every single case, which of course makes no sense since you’re free to organize your information under any logic you want. MECE means your logic is internally consistent, not exactly like an arbitrary framework you’ve read somewhere. Please let me know if this makes sense or if it’s not clear as I sometimes struggle to get this point across!
CraftingCases ok, that makes sense that the objectives for each bucket are different, thereby you can discuss competition or distribution channels for different reasons in multiple buckets. Got it! Thank you!
@@CraftingCases Isn't it true that MECE is a fairly arbitrary concept anyway and not a true black or white distinction? It could be argued that the structure in the video is not MECE because it disregards, for example, aspects such as the supply chain model of our production (what if all our manufacturing is based in Europe and margins are not high enough to justify shipping to Asia; but manufacturing in Asia is difficult because of regulatory issues surrounding certain ingredients we use, shipping pipelines to Asia for critical ingredients lack flexibility etc. etc.). On the other hand, one might reasonably say that this is covered in "can we open up distribution channels", or even in "do we have a fitting product" (as we wouldn't have one if we couldn't manufacture it profitably), or in "can we establish distribution" (which implicitly presupposes feasible production). The way I see it, a structure is more MECE the less contrived and the more obvious and natural these justifications feel.
Very good structure. two questions: 1/ What about the risks though ? I thought they are an important section to consider before deciding to enter the market, and 2/ What if you need to evaluate how to enter the market (develop from scratch, JV or acquisition) ? Thanks
Hey Rafic, I think it's fine to ask about the risks -- I didn't add that as I couldn't see any plausible ones besides execution risk (which is covered in all the issues I raised). As for the "how to enter the market" question, it falls out of the scope of the case question which is whether they should do it or not. If you have good reason to believe that it is relevant and would change the decision to enter or not, feel free to add it too. However, be aware of these two things: (1) My guess is you just suggested this because "everyone does it" in market entry cases... But the reason why everyone does it is that it is a recommended framework for market entry cases in case in point, not because they're actually thinking about the problem. (2) This is a terrible framework for "options on how to enter a market" because the "options" laid out don't actually mean much without specificity. There are a thousand ways to "develop from scratch", a thousand different types of JVs that could be done and dozens of acquisition targets in different parts of the value chain. Just speaking of these concepts in the abstract make it impossible to choose one of them, which renders this framework ultimately useless, even for a straight-up "how should we enter this market" case.
@@CraftingCases Hey guys, I agree with you on the complexity behind the options to enter the market, however, the reason I suggested this is not because it's in Case in Point. It is because I came across a market entry case that turned out to be an M&A case. So i adapted my framework accordingly and now I ask an additional question to address that. I talk about comparing the different options to enter the market based on how fast we want to acquire market share, and also to circumvent some cultural challenges by partnering with local players. Now I agree with you that the whole section wouldn't pass the toothbrush test. So what is more important ? Taking into account all the possibilities or being super specific ?
Also thinking about this again, i have a 3rd question. 3/ Are we not missing something with regards to "can we actually produce and ship to asia, so we have the right supply chain to respond to the market there?" Or you consider that this is less important than Distribution channels and branding so it's not even worth mentioning ? The way I would structure this would be as follows.I'd love to know what you think : 1- is the market attractive ? => very similar to yours 2- Do we have the capabilities to capture this market ? (I think this is better than "would the product fit the market because we can change the product if we want to as long as we have flexible formulas) 2.a. Can we develop the right product for the market 2.b. Do we have a competitive advantage (that is your section 4) 2.c. do we have the value chain to support the asian market ? (are we gonna build factories there or our current factories are scalable and we gonna ship to there ?) 2.d. Can we actually do it on our own, or we need to partner (JV or acquisitions of some parts of the value chain I wouldn't have thought about the importance of the distribution channel before watching your videos, so I wouldn't have done that myself but after seeing your structure, I think that is great. So I would keep nb 3 the same as yours 4- Does the business case meet our expectations ? This is usually my section 3 about ROI, but I also add non financial considerations, that's why i say "business case meet expectations" then I split expectations into financial and non financial 5- Can we mitigate all the risks ?
@@raficassaf3514 I think the most important thing is to answer the question, and the question is if they should, not how should they. In my opinion, in this specific situation you don't have to answer how they should to answer if they should, so I kept that out of the structure. You're welcome to include it in a similar case as long as you can defend to your interviewer why you think that is necessary to answer the question.
@@raficassaf3514 I think you're overthinking this one Rafic, and overbloating your structure due to that. The idea of a structure is to be the minimum set of questions you need to answer to be able to give a recommendation to the client. Is being able to produce/ship to Asia important? Yes. Is it relevant? I don't think so. I could probably do it myself (many individuals with DTC brands do), so why can't a high-end European brand do it as well? It's important for your structure to be exhaustive, but it's also important for it to not waste time in things that simply aren't that relevant in the real world. Be careful with that.
Bruno, many thanks again for another fantastic video - I will definitely go and check out your free course and perhaps more. Just one Q: what happened to the hypothesis tests which you refer to in other videos? Or did you do that implicitly without stating it?
Very good question! The buckets are the hypotheses and the things within each bucket are the tests. The reason why this is different than the frameworks in the other videos is that I used a different technique to build it, which we call “objective-driven structures”. The technique used in the other videos are the “context-driven structures”. Context-driven is much easier, but objective-driven is better (crisper, more to the point, more insightful). Objective-driven structures are too risky though (high risk of not being MECE), especially it you haven’t mastered context-driven first. Also, context-driven is enough to get the job. For those reasons, we only teach objective-driven structures in our more advanced course on structuring. Anyway, they all have the same principles (MECE buckets, hypotheses, tests), which is why they both work. Hope this clarifies!
very clear, thank you. Have you ever done a case interview on health insurance or any form of insurance within profit loss, revenue loss and market entry? Would love to have a case study with at least market entry. Can we use a similar structure as in this video? Do you have a standard market entry/exit framework?
Hey B Paul, I have never done a case on that, but I think the point is to not need to know about specific industries. And my advice is to not look for a standard framework for market entry/exit as an interviewer can easily come up with a case of that type that doesn't fit a standard framework. There's a video in our channel called "Perfect Framework Example", which is on Market Entry and we also teach an approach to create customized frameworks for anything in our free course.
Awesome video! Thank you so much! One question: You categorise drug stores and supermarkets as B2C distribution channels and distributers and wholesailers as B2B. Can anyone tell me why? Until now I thought B2C relations were always relations with the consumers (only now I realize that it would be called Business-to-consumer rather than business-to-customer relations then). In other words, what is the purpose of this distinction? Thanks!
You're confusing b2c with d2c I think. In b2c, you can have a middle man eg a retailer that distributes to the end user, an individual. In b2b, your end user is enterprise.
Thank you for the great content. I was hoping you could clarify how this structure is different to the previous video within this playlist? Would both frameworks be suitable to use in an MBB case interview?
Both are suitable for an MBB interview. The one from the last video (the Framework Teardown one) is easier to make and "simpler". It's build using what we call the Landscape Technique (which we teach in our free course), which is the safest way to make a custom framework and pass the interview. That structure was organized by the players who could affect the decision. The one from this video uses a more "advanced" technique to be built, which we teach in our structuring course. We call it an "objective-driven structure" and it's better than the other one because it's more to the point (shorter, more concise and better prioritized). It's organized around the underlying goals of the client. The risk of using this type of structure is that if you're not 100% sure of what you're doing, you'll probably lack MECEness and be rejected. (The prize of using a structure like this, though, is that it perfectly fits the problem and is similar to what an experienced consultant would build).
I got a question: the framework looks great, but when being interviewed with this problem, shall we just stop here, at completing the framework? I thought the interviewer is still gonna ask for the suggestion. What do you do to answer “all your questions/results” on the left of this framework to conclude “to go or not” during an interview?
Hey Gordon - pricing is tough because it depends completely on the context of the situation. Example: pricing a rational-purchase item (such as industrial insurance) is completely different than pricing an emotional-based luxury good (such as an engagement ring). One thing I'd say: ALWAYS do value-based pricing. No one would hire a consulting firm to do cost-plus or copy your competitor's prices. The way value-based pricing works is to see what value you'll add ON TOP of your competitors TO YOUR SPECIFIC SEGMENT and then price that added value on top of your competitor's prices. If you have no competitors or substitutes, you can just see what value you add and how much you want to capture. Back when I was preparing I came up with different "root-frameworks" for different pricing situations using a book called "The Strategies and Tactics of Pricing" - top-notch ideas and frameworks within the book.
@@CraftingCases Thanks a lot! I've obtained the book and it seems really interesting.. any tips on how root frameworks for pricing situations could be structured? Could you maybe provide an example? Thing is, pricing cases are not that common and I have an interview coming up with a pricing consultancy, but I've been having difficulty with structuring pricing cases (in comparison to more straight-forward ones such as profitability, market entry and revenue growth).. I understand pricing strategy, however I don't really know how it would come up with a case and how to structure the case around it in a MECE way
@@gordon777juws I'm afraid it would take more than a RUclips comment to help you out with that... And with just a day's notice, there's not much else I can do. My suggestion is to find different types of pricing cases (different types of products, different situations, different objectives) and try to structure those. Pricing cases vary wildly from one another, so there's no one-size-fits-all solution (market sizing/m&a cases are much more similar to each other, for instance). Some pricing cases are going to be very numerical (how to maximize revenues/profits/market share by switching prices), others are going to be very strategic (should we price new innovation at $10, $100 or $1000?), others are going to involve everything marketing related (positioning, going niche vs. mass market, which channels to pick, pricing higher or advertising less, etc) and others are going to even involve financing and operations (e.g. I can price higher if I can finance the equipment for you and guarantee 24h support). In many ways, pricing is strategy, so it's tough to simplify without oversimplifying.
@@CraftingCases That is already a big help for me! It is so difficult to find proper guidance on case interviews at all, but I have started your course and it is a massive improvement over existing material! I'm doing my best to learn how to structure cases my own way, rather than following generic frameworks.. Look forward to seeing more material from you, thanks again for the help!
Hi, The structure presented is exhaustive, but not MECE. i)You are already asking questions about competition in 1st part (Market analysis) ii)You are taliking about distribution channel as a sub-question to 4h part, while ist has already been spoken about in the 3rd part. Further, the structure of 3C&P is much easier to remember & recall and then deploy. One cann't start with asking these questions, without having a bck-up structure i mind
Hey Jatin, appreciate your comment. Being Mutually Exclusive is not about mentioning competition in just one bucket or distribution channels in just one bucket. If that were the case, the only type of MECE structure would be the 3Cs and its variations. Being Mutually Exclusive is about not doing the same analysis twice (no overlaps), so to address your specific concerns: 1) The competition aspect I mention in the 1st bucket is regarding their reactiveness to new entrants, which would make the market less attractive to us (as the bucket is called Market Attractiveness). The aspects regarding competition I mention in the 2nd bucket are regarding their product-market fit which is a completely different issue - so even though both are related to competition, they are different topics. 2) Same with distribution channels - on bucket 3 I want to know if we can GET ACCESS to them, on bucket 4 I want to know if we can LOCK THEM UP (get exclusivity), which would be a source of competitive advantage. Of course I could raise the same issues using a context-driven structure (the 3C1P + Distribution channels, in this case). It would also be MECE, but this type of structure shown in this video (we call them objective-driven structures) is as MECE as the other and has many advantages (more efficient, easier to divide de workload and the synthesis of the case is pre-made into the buckets). You can learn more about these types of structures in our free course, there’s a video for each. Now, I agree the 3Cs are easier to remember and if you want to go with that in your interviews, it’s your call. It works for many people. Just remember you’re not being evaluated by your ability to remember, but by your ability to create and adapt structures. As for people not being able to create a structure like this without having a structure backed-up in their minds, I disagree as any good consultant can do it and as we’ve trained candidates to do the same in their interviews. You can actually learn it in our course by learning the context-driven technique, then the interweaving technique and then bu watching the video on objective-driven structures. It does take a ton of practice and if you have less than a few months to your interviews I’d probably go with a more traditional structure. But if you do have that amount of time, it pays off. Hope I have helped and if there’s anything in your head still just let me know so I can help you!
Your own LinkedIn says you've been an analyst at Mckinsey for 5 years. Do not falsely advertise yourself as ex-McKinsey consultant, because you aren't.
My LinkedIn is not updated. I was a McKinsey BA for just under 2 years and LinkedIn assumes I haven’t left because I haven’t told that to LinkedIn. I am not falsely advertising anything. “Consultant” within McKinsey is not a position, but a term used to describe all client-facing roles, from Analyst to Partner. Get your facts straight before coming into our channel and making accusations.
@@CraftingCases No matter how experienced you were in McKinsey, you're still the best teacher so far in teaching our cases online. Keep it on and do not care about negative comments~~
Learn more about building your own Frameworks from scratch through our "Landscape Technique" in the Frameworks Module of our free course! You'll also find framework practice drills inside that module, which will help you build the confidence to structure any case without relying on pre-made frameworks. Get instant access at www.craftingcases.com/freecourse
Bruno, thank you for sharing this framework and for sharing your knowledge, approach and experience 💗
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:00 *🎯 Introduction to Case Frameworks*
- Explanation of the goal to teach effective techniques for case interviews.
- Introduction of the presenter as an ex-McKinsey consultant.
- Overview of the video content: structuring a business strategy case from scratch.
01:15 *📋 Case Question and Initial Steps*
- Presentation of the case question: high-end European haircare brand entering the Asian market.
- Importance of asking clarification questions and structuring a broad market entry case.
02:43 *🗺️ Framework Overview*
- Four main questions to answer for the market entry decision.
- Additional two questions to strengthen the argument.
- Introduction of the first main question: market attractiveness.
04:06 *📈 Market Attractiveness Analysis*
- Three sub-questions for determining market attractiveness.
- Data needed: sales, growth, profitability, and competition behavior.
05:51 *🔍 Product Fit Analysis*
- Assessing product benefits and positioning against market needs.
- Comparison with other brands and identifying gaps in the market.
06:40 *🛒 Distribution Channels Analysis*
- Evaluating the openness of B2C and B2B channels to new suppliers.
- Talking to experts and potential challenges in distribution.
07:33 *🏆 Sustainable Competitive Advantage*
- Identifying product, brand, and distribution advantages.
- Importance of sustainable competitive advantage for market entry decision.
08:27 *💰 Investment Payoff Analysis*
- Modeling return on investment for different market share scenarios.
- Evaluating investment required and potential returns.
09:21 *🌍 Long-term Consequences*
- Assessing the long-term impact of not entering the Asian market.
- Importance of Asia's market share and profitability in the future.
10:44 *✨ Framework Customization Benefits*
- Importance of a fully customized, prioritized, and relevant framework.
- Comparison with generic frameworks and the value of tailoring to the problem.
12:07 *🎯 Being Concise and Direct*
- Importance of having key questions and specific tests.
- Structuring responses to be comprehensive yet to the point.
13:27 *📖 Clear Communication*
- Ensuring the framework is easy to understand and follow.
- Breakdown of tasks to different team members and project management.
15:14 *📚 Learning and Next Steps*
- Encouragement to learn how to build tailored frameworks.
- Promotion of the Case Interview Fundamentals course and additional resources.
Made with HARPA AI
Good solution but not exhaustive. There are other very important factors that needs to be considered without which market entry strategy would not be complete i) barriers to entry and exit ii) can I enter the market through acquisitions or joint venture?
This framework is simple yet effective. Thank you for sharing it.
i have a question, actually you used around 6 mins to present your framework, in real case interview, will that be too long?
thanks Bruno these videos help so much!
Thank you so much for sharing. Very useful
I really like the structure you presented in this video. If I use this hype of objective-driven framework, it seems like each bucket itself is the hypothesis we want to test, so we don’t need to reiterate our hypothesis again. Is that correct? It’s much more concise and efficient!
Hey Xingyi, yes, that's what we call objective-driven structures! They are indeed much more concise and efficiency, this is how most consultants structure their own problems. The problem with these structures is that it's much much harder to assure you're being MECE, so they carry extra risk unless you really know what you're doing.
@@CraftingCases Thank you so much for the reply! I've started watching your free courses and practicing the techniques. It's really helpful! I just came back from a McKinsey three-day immersive event and what you teach is exactly what they teach in the interview workshop lol. I'm fully convinced this is really how McKinsey consultants crack cases!
Hi, I did like your structure and I did compare it with traditional types and my own. We are entering the Asian market and we are not talking about the barrier to enter be it governement regulations or e even language. I also see less opportunity for quantification. What about price point that customers can pay there. Apart from this I think it is pretty fine. I wouldn't know where to fit the issues I mentioned in your buckets though
Hey Owura, very nice points you've raised.
Regarding barriers to entry, you wouldn't be able to fit them in this Frameworks - you'd have to add a new category such as "Can they / Do they have the capabilities to enter this market?".
And regarding the Price Point, you could fit it under the Market Attractiveness analysis.
Now, some food for thought: what would be the consequences of me not adding those two points in my structure in a real case? Are they already covered indirectly somewhere? And if not, how much of a difference would this make in a real interviewer's perception of my performance?
@@CraftingCases i think they are indeed at least partly covered in "distribution channels access" and "beat competitor buckets"
amazing, thanks so much
Good job, really liked it
Very clear, nice job thank you.
Great analysis! I’ll put into practice
Can we call this a SWOT Analysis ?
Hey Bruno,
Why didn't you add mode of entry? This would affect the cost and timing of entry no? which would affect the decision, based on the decision criteria
Appreciate your thoughts.
Great content, guys!
How about the reverse? What if you were told that the European company previously considered entering the Asian market but it was determined not viable/profitable. What data would you need to gather to determine if this was a missed opportunity or affirm the decision not to enter?
You can use the same framework and questions to address the problem. If the answers to most of the questions are in affirmative then they missed an opportunity to invest in Asia.
I like how practical this approach is but it doesn’t seem very MECE. Is there a layer of structuring that should go before these 6 initial questions to organize them in a MECE fashion?
Why doesn’t it look MECE to you?
CraftingCases Under market attractiveness you discussed the competition’s potential reaction to a new entrant (engaging in price wars or increasing ad spend) and then the 4th bucket is evaluating the likelihood of a sustainable competitive advantage, so you discuss competition again. Then distribution channels are talked about in buckets 3&4, first about setting them up in Asia and then about locking them up to have a distribution advantage over competitors. I was concerned the buckets weren’t exclusive enough. Is there a way to evaluate a framework to test for exclusivity? Again, love this video and my question isn’t a criticism, I’m just trying to better understand how to set-up MECE frameworks/test for exclusivity. Thanks for all of this great content, really appreciate it!
Haha no worries about criticism, I was actually trying to understand the question.
So, the way you’re thinking makes sense but with a caveat. If your buckets are named after types of players involved (e.g: Company, Customers, Competitors, Distribution Channels, etc.), then all questions about each type of player should be together. Example: all questions regarding competition should be in the competition bucket.
This is in fact what we teach in our free course to create frameworks from scratch.
But there are other techniques/logics/ways to organize information.
In this example I used a different type of structure (which we call “objective-driven”, and teach in our advanced course on structuring) and under this logic, the organization of the ideas is different.
For instance, under “Market Attractiveness”, every single think there should be regarding, well, whether the market is attractive or not. This might include things from the customers, the competition, the distribution channels, the regulator, whatever.
Same is true for other buckets. It’s simply a different way to organize information. Still, there’s no rule that all questions about competitors should be in the same bucket. If there were, then you’d be compelled to have a “Competitors” bucket in every single case, which of course makes no sense since you’re free to organize your information under any logic you want.
MECE means your logic is internally consistent, not exactly like an arbitrary framework you’ve read somewhere.
Please let me know if this makes sense or if it’s not clear as I sometimes struggle to get this point across!
CraftingCases ok, that makes sense that the objectives for each bucket are different, thereby you can discuss competition or distribution channels for different reasons in multiple buckets. Got it! Thank you!
@@CraftingCases Isn't it true that MECE is a fairly arbitrary concept anyway and not a true black or white distinction? It could be argued that the structure in the video is not MECE because it disregards, for example, aspects such as the supply chain model of our production (what if all our manufacturing is based in Europe and margins are not high enough to justify shipping to Asia; but manufacturing in Asia is difficult because of regulatory issues surrounding certain ingredients we use, shipping pipelines to Asia for critical ingredients lack flexibility etc. etc.). On the other hand, one might reasonably say that this is covered in "can we open up distribution channels", or even in "do we have a fitting product" (as we wouldn't have one if we couldn't manufacture it profitably), or in "can we establish distribution" (which implicitly presupposes feasible production). The way I see it, a structure is more MECE the less contrived and the more obvious and natural these justifications feel.
Very good structure. two questions: 1/ What about the risks though ? I thought they are an important section to consider before deciding to enter the market, and 2/ What if you need to evaluate how to enter the market (develop from scratch, JV or acquisition) ? Thanks
Hey Rafic,
I think it's fine to ask about the risks -- I didn't add that as I couldn't see any plausible ones besides execution risk (which is covered in all the issues I raised).
As for the "how to enter the market" question, it falls out of the scope of the case question which is whether they should do it or not. If you have good reason to believe that it is relevant and would change the decision to enter or not, feel free to add it too. However, be aware of these two things:
(1) My guess is you just suggested this because "everyone does it" in market entry cases... But the reason why everyone does it is that it is a recommended framework for market entry cases in case in point, not because they're actually thinking about the problem.
(2) This is a terrible framework for "options on how to enter a market" because the "options" laid out don't actually mean much without specificity. There are a thousand ways to "develop from scratch", a thousand different types of JVs that could be done and dozens of acquisition targets in different parts of the value chain. Just speaking of these concepts in the abstract make it impossible to choose one of them, which renders this framework ultimately useless, even for a straight-up "how should we enter this market" case.
@@CraftingCases Hey guys, I agree with you on the complexity behind the options to enter the market, however, the reason I suggested this is not because it's in Case in Point. It is because I came across a market entry case that turned out to be an M&A case. So i adapted my framework accordingly and now I ask an additional question to address that. I talk about comparing the different options to enter the market based on how fast we want to acquire market share, and also to circumvent some cultural challenges by partnering with local players. Now I agree with you that the whole section wouldn't pass the toothbrush test. So what is more important ? Taking into account all the possibilities or being super specific ?
Also thinking about this again, i have a 3rd question. 3/ Are we not missing something with regards to "can we actually produce and ship to asia, so we have the right supply chain to respond to the market there?" Or you consider that this is less important than Distribution channels and branding so it's not even worth mentioning ?
The way I would structure this would be as follows.I'd love to know what you think :
1- is the market attractive ? => very similar to yours
2- Do we have the capabilities to capture this market ? (I think this is better than "would the product fit the market because we can change the product if we want to as long as we have flexible formulas)
2.a. Can we develop the right product for the market
2.b. Do we have a competitive advantage (that is your section 4)
2.c. do we have the value chain to support the asian market ? (are we gonna build factories there or our current factories are scalable and we gonna ship to there ?)
2.d. Can we actually do it on our own, or we need to partner (JV or acquisitions of some parts of the value chain
I wouldn't have thought about the importance of the distribution channel before watching your videos, so I wouldn't have done that myself but after seeing your structure, I think that is great. So I would keep nb 3 the same as yours
4- Does the business case meet our expectations ?
This is usually my section 3 about ROI, but I also add non financial considerations, that's why i say "business case meet expectations" then I split expectations into financial and non financial
5- Can we mitigate all the risks ?
@@raficassaf3514 I think the most important thing is to answer the question, and the question is if they should, not how should they.
In my opinion, in this specific situation you don't have to answer how they should to answer if they should, so I kept that out of the structure. You're welcome to include it in a similar case as long as you can defend to your interviewer why you think that is necessary to answer the question.
@@raficassaf3514 I think you're overthinking this one Rafic, and overbloating your structure due to that.
The idea of a structure is to be the minimum set of questions you need to answer to be able to give a recommendation to the client.
Is being able to produce/ship to Asia important? Yes. Is it relevant? I don't think so. I could probably do it myself (many individuals with DTC brands do), so why can't a high-end European brand do it as well?
It's important for your structure to be exhaustive, but it's also important for it to not waste time in things that simply aren't that relevant in the real world. Be careful with that.
THANK YOU!!!
Greetings from UAE
Great video! keep up with the good work. many thanks,
Bruno, many thanks again for another fantastic video - I will definitely go and check out your free course and perhaps more.
Just one Q: what happened to the hypothesis tests which you refer to in other videos? Or did you do that implicitly without stating it?
Very good question!
The buckets are the hypotheses and the things within each bucket are the tests.
The reason why this is different than the frameworks in the other videos is that I used a different technique to build it, which we call “objective-driven structures”. The technique used in the other videos are the “context-driven structures”.
Context-driven is much easier, but objective-driven is better (crisper, more to the point, more insightful). Objective-driven structures are too risky though (high risk of not being MECE), especially it you haven’t mastered context-driven first. Also, context-driven is enough to get the job.
For those reasons, we only teach objective-driven structures in our more advanced course on structuring.
Anyway, they all have the same principles (MECE buckets, hypotheses, tests), which is why they both work.
Hope this clarifies!
@@CraftingCases
That's very clear - thank you very much!
very clear, thank you. Have you ever done a case interview on health insurance or any form of insurance within profit loss, revenue loss and market entry? Would love to have a case study with at least market entry. Can we use a similar structure as in this video? Do you have a standard market entry/exit framework?
Hey B Paul, I have never done a case on that, but I think the point is to not need to know about specific industries.
And my advice is to not look for a standard framework for market entry/exit as an interviewer can easily come up with a case of that type that doesn't fit a standard framework. There's a video in our channel called "Perfect Framework Example", which is on Market Entry and we also teach an approach to create customized frameworks for anything in our free course.
Awesome video! Thank you so much! One question: You categorise drug stores and supermarkets as B2C distribution channels and distributers and wholesailers as B2B. Can anyone tell me why? Until now I thought B2C relations were always relations with the consumers (only now I realize that it would be called Business-to-consumer rather than business-to-customer relations then). In other words, what is the purpose of this distinction? Thanks!
You're confusing b2c with d2c I think. In b2c, you can have a middle man eg a retailer that distributes to the end user, an individual. In b2b, your end user is enterprise.
Thank you for the great content. I was hoping you could clarify how this structure is different to the previous video within this playlist? Would both frameworks be suitable to use in an MBB case interview?
Both are suitable for an MBB interview.
The one from the last video (the Framework Teardown one) is easier to make and "simpler". It's build using what we call the Landscape Technique (which we teach in our free course), which is the safest way to make a custom framework and pass the interview. That structure was organized by the players who could affect the decision.
The one from this video uses a more "advanced" technique to be built, which we teach in our structuring course. We call it an "objective-driven structure" and it's better than the other one because it's more to the point (shorter, more concise and better prioritized). It's organized around the underlying goals of the client. The risk of using this type of structure is that if you're not 100% sure of what you're doing, you'll probably lack MECEness and be rejected. (The prize of using a structure like this, though, is that it perfectly fits the problem and is similar to what an experienced consultant would build).
Art
I got a question:
the framework looks great, but when being interviewed with this problem, shall we just stop here, at completing the framework?
I thought the interviewer is still gonna ask for the suggestion. What do you do to answer “all your questions/results” on the left of this framework to conclude “to go or not” during an interview?
Hi, do you have any advice on how to structure a pricing framework in a similar way?
Hey Gordon - pricing is tough because it depends completely on the context of the situation.
Example: pricing a rational-purchase item (such as industrial insurance) is completely different than pricing an emotional-based luxury good (such as an engagement ring).
One thing I'd say: ALWAYS do value-based pricing. No one would hire a consulting firm to do cost-plus or copy your competitor's prices.
The way value-based pricing works is to see what value you'll add ON TOP of your competitors TO YOUR SPECIFIC SEGMENT and then price that added value on top of your competitor's prices. If you have no competitors or substitutes, you can just see what value you add and how much you want to capture.
Back when I was preparing I came up with different "root-frameworks" for different pricing situations using a book called "The Strategies and Tactics of Pricing" - top-notch ideas and frameworks within the book.
@@CraftingCases Thanks a lot! I've obtained the book and it seems really interesting.. any tips on how root frameworks for pricing situations could be structured? Could you maybe provide an example? Thing is, pricing cases are not that common and I have an interview coming up with a pricing consultancy, but I've been having difficulty with structuring pricing cases (in comparison to more straight-forward ones such as profitability, market entry and revenue growth).. I understand pricing strategy, however I don't really know how it would come up with a case and how to structure the case around it in a MECE way
@@gordon777juws I'm afraid it would take more than a RUclips comment to help you out with that... And with just a day's notice, there's not much else I can do.
My suggestion is to find different types of pricing cases (different types of products, different situations, different objectives) and try to structure those. Pricing cases vary wildly from one another, so there's no one-size-fits-all solution (market sizing/m&a cases are much more similar to each other, for instance).
Some pricing cases are going to be very numerical (how to maximize revenues/profits/market share by switching prices), others are going to be very strategic (should we price new innovation at $10, $100 or $1000?), others are going to involve everything marketing related (positioning, going niche vs. mass market, which channels to pick, pricing higher or advertising less, etc) and others are going to even involve financing and operations (e.g. I can price higher if I can finance the equipment for you and guarantee 24h support).
In many ways, pricing is strategy, so it's tough to simplify without oversimplifying.
@@CraftingCases That is already a big help for me! It is so difficult to find proper guidance on case interviews at all, but I have started your course and it is a massive improvement over existing material! I'm doing my best to learn how to structure cases my own way, rather than following generic frameworks.. Look forward to seeing more material from you, thanks again for the help!
Hi, The structure presented is exhaustive, but not MECE.
i)You are already asking questions about competition in 1st part (Market analysis)
ii)You are taliking about distribution channel as a sub-question to 4h part, while ist has already been spoken about in the 3rd part.
Further, the structure of 3C&P is much easier to remember & recall and then deploy.
One cann't start with asking these questions, without having a bck-up structure i mind
Hey Jatin, appreciate your comment.
Being Mutually Exclusive is not about mentioning competition in just one bucket or distribution channels in just one bucket.
If that were the case, the only type of MECE structure would be the 3Cs and its variations.
Being Mutually Exclusive is about not doing the same analysis twice (no overlaps), so to address your specific concerns:
1) The competition aspect I mention in the 1st bucket is regarding their reactiveness to new entrants, which would make the market less attractive to us (as the bucket is called Market Attractiveness). The aspects regarding competition I mention in the 2nd bucket are regarding their product-market fit which is a completely different issue - so even though both are related to competition, they are different topics.
2) Same with distribution channels - on bucket 3 I want to know if we can GET ACCESS to them, on bucket 4 I want to know if we can LOCK THEM UP (get exclusivity), which would be a source of competitive advantage.
Of course I could raise the same issues using a context-driven structure (the 3C1P + Distribution channels, in this case). It would also be MECE, but this type of structure shown in this video (we call them objective-driven structures) is as MECE as the other and has many advantages (more efficient, easier to divide de workload and the synthesis of the case is pre-made into the buckets).
You can learn more about these types of structures in our free course, there’s a video for each.
Now, I agree the 3Cs are easier to remember and if you want to go with that in your interviews, it’s your call. It works for many people. Just remember you’re not being evaluated by your ability to remember, but by your ability to create and adapt structures.
As for people not being able to create a structure like this without having a structure backed-up in their minds, I disagree as any good consultant can do it and as we’ve trained candidates to do the same in their interviews. You can actually learn it in our course by learning the context-driven technique, then the interweaving technique and then bu watching the video on objective-driven structures. It does take a ton of practice and if you have less than a few months to your interviews I’d probably go with a more traditional structure. But if you do have that amount of time, it pays off.
Hope I have helped and if there’s anything in your head still just let me know so I can help you!
@@CraftingCases It is a very useful structure. Thanks
Where’s he from
Brazil
This is a very good answer. inwould hire u!!! And i am a pro Consultant!
bernardoooooooooo silva
Your own LinkedIn says you've been an analyst at Mckinsey for 5 years. Do not falsely advertise yourself as ex-McKinsey consultant, because you aren't.
My LinkedIn is not updated. I was a McKinsey BA for just under 2 years and LinkedIn assumes I haven’t left because I haven’t told that to LinkedIn.
I am not falsely advertising anything. “Consultant” within McKinsey is not a position, but a term used to describe all client-facing roles, from Analyst to Partner.
Get your facts straight before coming into our channel and making accusations.
@@CraftingCases No matter how experienced you were in McKinsey, you're still the best teacher so far in teaching our cases online. Keep it on and do not care about negative comments~~
So what? We still love Bruno's teaching style!!!
lol who cares. the guy is an excellent teacher - im glad he left mckinsey to share these ideas and ways of thinking with us.