Competing internationally

Competing Internationally Competing Internationally Best Approach for Competing Internationally When case studies are not considered, there really is no best strategy for competing internationally. The success of each of the three approaches depends on the type, size, and goals of the company, and different companies in different industries cannot be compared on a head-to-head platform based on one approach. McDonald’s is an example of a company that has successfully implemented the “think global-act local” approach (Strategic Direction, 2010a). One of the primary objectives of the firm is to create a uniform portfolio of products that taste the same in spite of the country in which they are sold. By implementing this approach while maintaining its potential to adapt to specific environmental conditions, McDonald’s has created a successful glocalization strategy (Strategic Direction, 2011b).There are many instances in which the company has changed its products in order to satisfy religious laws and traditions in a country. For instance, in order to fulfill the needs of the Indian market, McDonald’s sells vegetable McNuggets and a Maharaja Mac that is based on mutton (Yeu et al., 2012). This is very visionary and innovative, especially when one considers that India’s population comprises Hindus (who do not consume beef) Muslims (who do not consume pork) and Jains (who do not consume any kind of meat). The glocalized approach has helped McDonald’s to avoid exhibiting American ignorance by assuming that the preferences of its people apply in every region or country (Yeu et al., 2012). This sensitivity necessitated by a glocalized approach has seen the company grow in popularity in India, proving how successful the strategy has been. Global Planning at DisneyWalt Disney’s corporate strategy is based on creating and broadcasting high-quality family programs, exploiting technological advancements to create more memorable and exciting entertainment experiences, and global growth (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble and Strickland, 2014). The third element was incorporated later when the company underwent rapid growth domestically and set its sights on the international market. All the industries represented in Walt Disney’s portfolio are and will likely remain attractive in the long-term. Segments like theme parks and movie production and distribution can only keep growing because the demand is always high; only the formats and media change. Other industries like cable TV networks also have very high growth potential and are mostly stable (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble and Strickland, 2014). This makes them attractive long-term investment options for any individuals or groups seeking high returns. Walt Disney’s different business units are highly competitive because they are highly attractive investment vehicles for both short and long-term planning. Cable networks and motion picture production and distribution are the most competitive, while theme parks and live shows are moderately competitive. Walt Disney’s portfolio shows excellent strategic fit. Value chain matchups include the creation of high-quality audio and video content that consumers can access online either through registration or free sites (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble and Strickland, 2014). This also includes regular provision of quality programs with streaming options for different regions. Opportunities for skills transfer and brand and cost sharing exist in motion picture production and the development of technologies to facilitate content sharing and distribution. Walt Disney should implement an intensive differentiation approach to outmatch rivals and ensure relevance in the long term. Differentiation is a highly desirable in the entertainment industry because consumers want variety. Walt Disney should also increase and enhance its marketing and advertising activities, especially with regards to divisions like theme parks whose success depends on visibility. ReferencesStrategic Direction. (2010). Supersize this: McDonalds and the sustainability story. Strategic Direction, 26(9), 29-32.Strategic Direction. (2011). Back to the future: IBM, McDonalds and Google reinvent themselves. Strategic Direction, 27(9), 6-9.Thompson, A., Peteraf, M., Gamble, J., & Strickland, A. (2014). Crafting and executing strategy: The quest for competitive advantage: Concepts and readings (19th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Yeu, C., Leong, K., Tong, L., Hang, S., Tang, Y., Bashawir, A., & Subhan, M. (2012). A Comparative Study on International Marketing Mix in China and India: The Case of McDonalds. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65(3), 1054-1059.