Mediquip S.A. CAse analysis

1. Mediquip S.A. ®
SU B M IT T ED B Y
GROUP A14
G AU R AV SIN G H | VAIBH AV J ET WAN I | R AH U L R AVEEN D R AN | KASH IF
H AID ER

2. Background
Lohmann University Hospital approached Mediquip for purchase of CT scanner
Kurt Thaldorf, a sales engineer was assigned to customer on May 5
Mediquip loses the customer to competitor Sigma
2

3. About the company (Mediquip –
Seller)
Product
Range
• CT scanner, X –
ray, ultrasonic
and nuclear
diagnostic
equipment
Worldwide
reputation
for advance
technology
• “Two years
ahead of their
most advance
competition”
Key Buyers
Competent
after sales
service
• Public sector,
health
agencies
(Government
owned, non
profit
organization)
Minor share
goes to
private
sector
3

4. About the Buyer – Lohmann
University
Large general hospital
New Task (New product, new vendor)
• Awareness  Information search  Evaluation  Decision  Post purchase behavior
Lohman & Mediquip
• Never had any transaction before
• Private buyer
LHU has excellent reputation
4

5. Buying Centre
LUH
Remarks
User and
Initiators
Professor Steinborn
Head of radiology department
• Initiated the deal
• His services is sought by doctors
Influencer
Dr. Rufer
Hospital’s Physicist
• Write technical specifications
• Domain expert
• Suggested by Professor Steinborn
Gatekeepers
Secretary of hartmann
• Inside information
• Information about key factors for decision making
Decision Maker
Carl Hartmann
General Director
Other Important Factor:
Buying Objective  Task Objective
Buying Involvement  Vertical (Boss- Subordinate) | Complex
5

6. Possible GAPS
Lack of preparation
• Didn’t have price quotation when asked by Professor Steinborn
Ignorance / Over confidence
• Secretary gave hint about Buying centre
“Final decision was made up by committee having Hartmann, Steinborn and ‘one other
person’
• Transactional approach
Doesn’t spend time for relationship building
• Cancellation of Paris trip
If this happened due to budget constraint then bad decision
6

7. Action and possible negative
impact
POD not mentioned
effectively
Doesn’t have price
estimate
No testimonial or
feedback from client
Loss of competitive advantage
Unimpressive first meet
Unprofessional behavior
Lack of interest
They themselves contacted client
Asked ability to serve client
7

8. Action and possible negative
impact Contd..
Too much dependency
on Broachers
Lack of knowledge /
Convincing skill
Fluctuation in price
offering (Lowers price
by 5 Lakh Euros)
Impression of lack of knowledge
Less impact on buyer
“ All the companies claim they have the latest
technology”
(Doesn’t have info to compare)
Doubt about quality (Contradicts initial claim)
Looks company trying to take advantage of
Lohmann
8

9. Action and possible negative
impact Contd..
High time gap
between sales call
By not revealing
price to Professor
Steinborn
Difficult to build rapport and trust
Less impact on buyer
Unprofessional behaviour and
created conflict among members
9

10. Key Learning from Case
• Preparation before sales pitch
• Understand stakeholders
10

11. Key Learning from Case Contd…
Appropriate pricing strategy
Communicate relevant benefit
Training
• For superior quality product high price is justifiable
• Mistake of discount
• Puts power in LUH’s hand
• Contradict to quality statement
• Educational  “Best technology for best hospital”
• Financial  “Easier to upgrade, won’t become obsolete”
• Had expertise only to deal government client
11

12. THANK YOU
12