Practical Use of the Boston Matrix

Relative market share

This indicates likely cash generation, because the higher the share the more cash will be generated. As a result of 'economies of scale' (a basic assumption of the Boston Matrix), it is assumed that these earnings will grow faster the higher the share.

The exact measure is the brand's share relative to its largest competitor. Thus, if the brand had a share of 20 per cent, and the largest competitor had the same, the ratio would be 1:1. If the largest competitor had a share of 60 per cent, however, the ratio would be 1:3, implying that the organization's brand was in a relatively weak position. If the largest competitor only had a share of 5 per cent, the ratio would be 4:1, implying that the brand owned was in a relatively strong position, which might be reflected in profits and cashflow. If this technique is used in practice, this scale is logarithmic, not linear.

On the other hand, exactly what is a high relative share is a matter of some debate. The best evidence is that the most stable position (at least in FMCG markets) is for the brand leader to have a share double that of the second brand, and treble that of the third. Brand leaders in this position tend to be very stable - and profitable; the Rule of 123.

The reason for choosing relative market share, rather than just profits, is that it carries more information than just cashflow. It shows where the brand is positioned against its main competitors, and indicates where it might be likely to go in the future. It can also show what type of marketing activities might be expected to be effective.

Market growth rate

Rapidly growing brands, in rapidly growing markets, are what organizations strive for; but, as we have seen, the penalty is that they are usually net cash users - they require investment. The reason for this is often because the growth is being 'bought' by the high investment, in the reasonable expectation that a high market share will eventually turn into a sound investment in future profits. The theory behind the matrix assumes, therefore, that a higher growth rate is indicative of accompanying demands on investment.

The cut-off point is usually chosen as 10 per cent per annum. Determining this cut-off point, the rate above which the growth is deemed to be significant (and likely to lead to extra demands on cash) is a critical requirement of the technique; and one that, again, makes the use of the Boston Matrix problematical in some product areas. What is more, the evidence, from FMCG markets at least, is that the most typical pattern is of very low growth, less than 1 per cent per annum. This is outside the range normally considered in Boston Matrix work, which may make application of this form of analysis unworkable in many markets.

Where it can be applied, however, the market growth rate says more about the brand position than just its cashflow. It is a good indicator of that market's strength, of its future potential (of its 'maturity' in terms of the market life-cycle), and also of its attractiveness to future competitors. It can also be used in growth analysis.

Copyright 2008 - France BtoB from Wikipédia