MRKT 4504 Week 6 Market Entry Mode Case Example

Course	MRKT 4504 Global Marketing
Week	Week 6
Paper type	Market entry case
Length	About 800 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	BS in Business Administration
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MRKT 4504 Week 6

Ship, License or Build? A Market Entry Case for a Barbecue Sauce Maker Weighing Export, Licensing and Local Production on Commitment, Control and Risk, Ending in a Staged Recommendation

Student Name

Walden University

MRKT 4504: Global Marketing

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the three routes and the recommendation's shape, a sequence rather than a single choice.

Ship, License or Build? A Market Entry Case for a Barbecue Sauce Maker Weighing Export, Licensing and Local Production on Commitment, Control and Risk, Ending in a Staged Recommendation

The Routes

Ember County Smokehouse has three broad ways into Market A. It can export finished bottles from Kansas to an importer-distributor. It can license a local sauce maker to produce Original Hickory under Ember County's recipe and brand, paying a royalty on each bottle. Or it can build locally, either through a joint venture with a local food company or through a wholly owned plant. The routes differ in how much money Ember County puts at risk, how much control it keeps over the recipe and brand and how quickly it can reach shoppers.

What this page is doingThe case lays out all routes before judging any, at rising levels of commitment.

Comparison

Table 1

Entry Modes Compared

Factor	Direct export to importer	Licensing to local maker	Joint venture or own plant \|
Capital required	Low; inventory and shipping	Very low	High; plant, equipment or share of a venture \|
Control over recipe and brand	High; made in Kansas	Low to moderate; licensee produces	Moderate in a venture; high in own plant \|
Exposure to local partner's conduct	Moderate; importer handles sales	High; licensee makes and sells	High in a venture \|
Speed to market	Fast; importer already in place	Slow; licensee must set up production	Slowest \|
Cost per bottle on the shelf	Highest; freight and duty	Lower; local production	Lowest at scale \|
Risk to recipe knowledge	Low	High; recipe shared	Moderate \|
Ease of exit	Easy	Moderate; contract terms	Difficult and costly \|

Composite company and market.

Reading the Comparison Through Two Theories

The Uppsala model of Johanson and Vahlne (1977) describes internationalization as a gradual process: firms commit resources step by step as they learn about a market, beginning with low-commitment modes such as exporting through agents and moving to higher-commitment modes as knowledge grows. For Ember County, which has shipped two pallets and knows little about Market A's shoppers, the model points to exporting first.

The eclectic paradigm set out by Dunning (1988) asks why a firm would produce abroad rather than export or license. It suggests that firms invest in foreign production when they have ownership advantages, such as a brand or recipe, that are worth guarding inside the firm; when the place itself helps, through cheaper inputs or nearness to buyers; and when running the activity in-house beats handing it to another company. Ember County's ownership advantage is its recipe and brand. Licensing would share both with a local firm and risk the recipe leaking to a future competitor. Local production would protect them but requires volume Ember County does not have. At current scale, exporting protects the advantage at the lowest cost.

What this page is doingTwo theories are used because each explains a different part of the choice.

Recommendation

The recommendation is staged. Begin with direct export to the importer who placed the first order, under a two-year agreement that gives the importer exclusive rights in Market A's supermarket channel but not online. This keeps capital low, keeps the recipe in Kansas and lets Ember County learn the market.

Move to licensing only if three conditions are met: annual sales in Market A exceed about 40,000 bottles, so that freight and duty make up a large share of the shelf price; the firm has found a licensee with a strong food safety record; and the license protects the recipe with clear confidentiality terms and the right to audit production. Local production through a joint venture or plant should not be considered unless Market A and a second market in the region together justify it, which is unlikely within five years.

Evidence That Would Justify the Next Step

The step from exporting to licensing should rest on evidence, not hope. The firm should track three things: annual bottles sold, the share of the shelf price taken by freight and duty and the importer's sell-through in its supermarket accounts. If sell-through is strong and freight and duty push the shelf price above rival imported sauces, the economics begin to favor local production under license. Cateora et al. (2020) note that firms often move to licensing too early, before they understand the market well enough to choose a partner; the conditions above are designed to prevent that.

Limits

The comparison relies on the composite case's figures. It also treats the importer as a reliable partner on the strength of one order and a trade show conversation. The two-year agreement should therefore include sales targets, reporting of sell-through by account and a clause allowing either side to end the arrangement with ninety days' notice, so that Ember County is not locked into a partner who underperforms. These terms cost nothing to write and protect the low-commitment character of the first step. A real decision would need quotes from potential licensees and an assessment of Market A's rules on foreign ownership and royalty payments.

References

Cateora, P. R., Money, R. B., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2020). International marketing (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Dunning, J. H. (1988). The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490372

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676

What the MRKT 4504 Week 6 instructions ask for

Week 6 asks you to recommend how your firm should enter its chosen market. Compare at least three entry modes on capital required, control, exposure to partners, speed, cost and ease of exit. Use theory to interpret the comparison, such as the Uppsala model for how firms learn and Dunning's eclectic paradigm for why they produce abroad. Recommend a first step and state the evidence that would justify moving to the next. Explain how the first agreement should protect the firm if the partner underperforms. Close with the limits of your comparison and the information a real decision would need, such as rules on foreign ownership and the terms potential partners would actually offer.

How this MRKT 4504 Week 6 example is built

The case opens by laying out three routes at rising commitment. A table compares direct export, licensing and building locally on seven factors. A section applies the Uppsala model of Johanson and Vahlne, pointing to exporting, and the eclectic paradigm of Dunning, showing why licensing risks the recipe. A section recommends a two-year export agreement with exclusive supermarket rights and sets three conditions for licensing. A section names the evidence to track, citing Cateora and colleagues on premature licensing. A limits section adds sales targets, sell-through reporting and a ninety-day exit clause to the agreement. Every row of the comparison table is a factor a family owner would ask about, from capital to how hard it is to leave.

Where the marks sit in the MRKT 4504 Week 6 rubric

Entry cases earn credit for structured comparison and staged thinking. A comparison of several modes on capital, control, risk and speed is weighted heavily. Applying theory to interpret the comparison, rather than summarizing it, shows understanding. A staged recommendation with clear conditions for the next step demonstrates strategic judgment. Protecting the firm's core advantage, such as a recipe or brand, shows awareness of what is at stake. Agreement terms that limit downside show practical sense. Cases that choose the most ambitious mode by default, ignore exit costs or apply theory without connecting it to the case tend to receive lower marks. A short timeline showing when each step might come is helpful. Showing the evidence that would trigger the next step is valued, since it turns a recommendation into a plan.

MRKT 4504 Week 6 help from the desk

List the ways your firm could enter the market, from simply exporting to producing there. For each, ask how much money is at risk, how much control you keep over what makes your product special, how fast you could start and how hard it would be to leave. Then ask what you know about the market today. If the answer is little, the low-commitment route usually comes first. Write down what would need to be true before you moved to the next step. Students often recommend a joint venture without asking whether the firm has the volume or knowledge to manage one. If you are unsure how to apply Dunning's paradigm, our writers can walk through it with your case.

Get a MRKT 4504 Week 6 example written to your instructions

Bring the Week 6 prompt, its rubric and any case your section assigned, and a market entry case weighing export, licensing and local production is delivered in 24 to 48 hours, with the first free. If your firm already exports somewhere, say where; otherwise the case follows a small sauce business that exists only on the page.

More MRKT 4504 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MRKT 4504 Week 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MRKT 4504 Week 6 sample paper?

Every part of the entry case appears below, free to use as a model.

Which routes does the MRKT 4504 Week 6 case compare?

Direct export to an importer, licensing a local producer and building locally.

What does the Uppsala model suggest?

Exporting first, while the firm's knowledge of the market is thin.

Why is licensing risky now?

It would share the recipe, the firm's main ownership advantage, before volume justifies it.

When would licensing be considered?

Past about 40,000 bottles a year, with a proven licensee and recipe protections.