1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
One thing that stood out to me was when the author mentioned that a new product has to basically replace another product and essentially be better. I think this is actually very motivating for both parties to ensure that they are they are the best product out there.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
I felt that overall the article was much more confusing than the text book. I wasn't sure what the author meant by "substitutes" because the examples he gave were major, front running companies. I think the author could've done a better job at explaining different terms and differentiating between the various aspects he mentions.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
I would like to ask the author how to persuade distributors to accept a product and also how often a business should try to change their structure and methods.
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
I think that the author was wrong in the last paragraph of his article in saying that the economy would be better as a whole if more companies looked at competition in a different way. I think the industries would just become more aggressive and strategic for their own benefit and ultimately end up making the economy worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment