Walt Disney Company Strategy Selection Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

The internal and external factors matrix that affect Walt Disney’s Theme Parks come from the internal factors evaluation model and external factors evaluation matrix. Walt Disney has good management structures, well thought out plans, and unbeaten brand recognition. The Universal Studios and the Six Flags are doing fairly well but cannot equal the market strength of Walt Disney.

Strengths
– Horizontal expansion by acquiring Star Wars
– Vertical expansion
– Ability to manage risk and return portfolio effectively
– Strategic business units
– Increase in net income
– Positive current ratio
– Continuous growth over five years
Weaknesses
– Loss of income to competitors because of property right violation.
Opportunities
– Market strength
– Diversified portfolio
– Customer preference
– Consistent growth rate
– Growth in its parks and resorts
– Strong stock prices
– Outperformed the industrial average in the 1stquarter of 2012
– Substantial competitive advantage
– Brand recognition
– Successful acquisition deals
– Solid theme parks
– Steady pricing
Threats
– Six Flags
– Universal Studios
– New in the business

The SWOT analysis is one of the tools the company used for strategy formulation (David, 2015). Some of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are in the table below. The main threats were its competitors the Universal Studios and Six Flags (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). Although they did not pose any danger to the company since their performance indicated that they had so much to do to attain Disney Parks’ success. The business was also new but manageable (Vecchio, 2007).

The Strategic Position and Action Evaluation Matrix measured Disney’s competitive advantages, industry strength, financial strength, and environmental stability as follows:

Internal Strategic PositionExternal strategic position
Competitive AdvantageIndustry Strength
Product quality
Market share
Brand and Image
Product life cycle
Growth potential
Barriers to entry
Consolidation
Financial StrengthEnvironmental Stability
ROA
Leverage
Liquidity
Cash flow
Demand elasticity
Taxation
Technology

The SWOT analysis and the SPACE matrices are the best tools for strategy selection due to their simplicity (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). The two accommodated the most important information for decision making. The company should acquire legal property rights to prevent losses and continue strengthening itself internally. The two matrices provide the management with holistic information that help to prioritize the decision making process.

Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix
Alternative 1Alternative 2
Critical FactorsAcquire CompetitorExpand Internally
WeightAttractiveness ScoreTotal Attractiveness ScoreWeightAttractiveness ScoreTotal Attractiveness Score
Strengths
Diversified Portfolio0.1120.220.140.4
Successful innovation0.0830.240.1440.56
Satellite growth0.1510.150.0730.21
Targeted approach0.1140.440.1130.33
Inventory reduction0.06000.0930.27
Version effort0.1220.240.0730.21
Weaknesses
Product differentiation0.140.40.110.1
Target audience0.1120.220.1230.36
Uncertain Theme Park Growth0.0830.240.0620.12
Control over SBUs0.0810.080.1420.28
sum Weights100%100%
Opportunities
Market strength0.140.40.0920.18
Diversified portfolio0.1840.720.120.2
Customer preference0.1540.60.542
Competitive advantage0.0930.270.2830.84
Threats0
Universal Studios0.130.30.0210.02
Six Flags0.220.40.0110.01
New in business0.1820.36010
sum Weights100%100%
Total Attractiveness Score5.286.09

The QSPM indicate that internal expansion is better than acquiring competitors. The attractiveness figure for domestic development is 6.09 while that of buying competitors has a smaller score of 5.28.

The best decision, according to the matrices, is to concentrate on internal development because the threats are manageable. No competitor can match a strong organization that has invested heavily in itself.

References

David, F. (2015). Strategic management concepts (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work. Portland, Me.: Stenhouse Publishers.

Vecchio, R. (2007). Leadership. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2020, April 9). Walt Disney Company Strategy Selection. https://ivypanda.com/essays/walt-disney-company-strategy-selection/

Work Cited

"Walt Disney Company Strategy Selection." IvyPanda, 9 Apr. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/walt-disney-company-strategy-selection/.

References

IvyPanda. (2020) 'Walt Disney Company Strategy Selection'. 9 April.

References

IvyPanda. 2020. "Walt Disney Company Strategy Selection." April 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/walt-disney-company-strategy-selection/.

1. IvyPanda. "Walt Disney Company Strategy Selection." April 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/walt-disney-company-strategy-selection/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Walt Disney Company Strategy Selection." April 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/walt-disney-company-strategy-selection/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1