(This is my second attempt at GMAT essay writing...rip it up, don't worry about salving my ego. I'm hoping this at least rates a "5". If not, why? Thanks.)
"The presence of a competitor is always beneficial to a company. Competition forces a company to change itself in ways that improve its practices."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
The argument that the presence of a competitor is always beneficial to a company has strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, the impact of a competitor's presence on a company varies from case to case, sometimes in ways that validate this argument, other times in ways that refute it.
Clearly, competition between companies in the marketplace is the grist that generates economic tension which, in the long run, enable companies to understand what is and is not working regarding their organization, strategy, and performance. The presence of several competitors in a single market means that consumers have choices concerning which services and goods to purchase or reject. In this respect, competition means that companies can intricately assess and analyze the value of their own products relative to those of competitors. Valuable also is that this observation of consumer reactions enables companies to experiment with different market, production, and organizational strategies in order to dispose of failing business approaches while simultaneously discovering which practices are valuable and successful. Without the presence of a competitor in the marketplace, a company might grow complacent about its business practices, which could lead to stagnation and the crystalization of many inefficient business customs. Such a company, ultimately, would survive only as long as consumers have no choice except to purchase the company's goods and services, and it would collapse at that future time when the appearance of the more dynamic competitor presents consumers with a preferable choice.
On the other hand, the argument can be faulted for overlooking that the ultimate goal in competition is to win, and in the consumer marketplace, winning is sometimes characterized by total market dominance. A company that has absorbed its competitors or driven them out of business is often a dyanamic, highly efficient organization that is succeeding because it is delivering products to consumers which are clearly superior to all other available brands. Such companies, upon achieving market dominance, are not necessarily fated to succumb to complacence and slow but inevitable deterioration in the merits of their goods and services. Quite the contrary: a company which emerges as the sole operator in a marketplace through successfully competing with rivals may have a superb organizational culture which ensures that it will continue to improve its products and adapt to fluctuations in consumers needs and preferences over time.
Overall, then, the presence of a competitor may or may not be beneficial to a company, depending on the overall market situation and the broader, deeper economic realities in which the market is functioning.
"The presence of a competitor is always beneficial to a company. Competition forces a company to change itself in ways that improve its practices."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
The argument that the presence of a competitor is always beneficial to a company has strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, the impact of a competitor's presence on a company varies from case to case, sometimes in ways that validate this argument, other times in ways that refute it.
Clearly, competition between companies in the marketplace is the grist that generates economic tension which, in the long run, enable companies to understand what is and is not working regarding their organization, strategy, and performance. The presence of several competitors in a single market means that consumers have choices concerning which services and goods to purchase or reject. In this respect, competition means that companies can intricately assess and analyze the value of their own products relative to those of competitors. Valuable also is that this observation of consumer reactions enables companies to experiment with different market, production, and organizational strategies in order to dispose of failing business approaches while simultaneously discovering which practices are valuable and successful. Without the presence of a competitor in the marketplace, a company might grow complacent about its business practices, which could lead to stagnation and the crystalization of many inefficient business customs. Such a company, ultimately, would survive only as long as consumers have no choice except to purchase the company's goods and services, and it would collapse at that future time when the appearance of the more dynamic competitor presents consumers with a preferable choice.
On the other hand, the argument can be faulted for overlooking that the ultimate goal in competition is to win, and in the consumer marketplace, winning is sometimes characterized by total market dominance. A company that has absorbed its competitors or driven them out of business is often a dyanamic, highly efficient organization that is succeeding because it is delivering products to consumers which are clearly superior to all other available brands. Such companies, upon achieving market dominance, are not necessarily fated to succumb to complacence and slow but inevitable deterioration in the merits of their goods and services. Quite the contrary: a company which emerges as the sole operator in a marketplace through successfully competing with rivals may have a superb organizational culture which ensures that it will continue to improve its products and adapt to fluctuations in consumers needs and preferences over time.
Overall, then, the presence of a competitor may or may not be beneficial to a company, depending on the overall market situation and the broader, deeper economic realities in which the market is functioning.
