The format of the interview is in the form of a day-long assessment centre. In total, there were 3 candidates and upon arrival, we were all ushered into 3 different rooms and it was not until the last activity that we were allowed to meet. The 3 candidates were myself, a business student from SMU and a masters student from Mannheim, Germany, whom I felt was a career switcher into an entry-level role; I might be wrong.
The first activity was a straight-up face to face interview with 2 Wood Mackenzie consultants. One of them was a team leader and the other was the consultant who gave me a phone interview 1 month earlier. So I broke the ice by referencing the phone interview and mentioning it earnestly how pleasant it was to finally be able to put a face to the name. The reception was mutual. The face to face interview here covered a variety of aspects.
They began by asking me for a self introduction. During my introduction, they asked for a clarification of some of the terms I used. They also asked for a greater explanation of my involvement of projects in my resume.
Following this, they asked for my career aspirations, what attracted me into being an energy consultant. From here it was important that i related the same consistent message i iterated in the phone interview earlier. I mentioned that the career of a consultant was intellectually engaging and rewarding. Professional currency with global happenings is a key requisite and this ties in nicely with my desire to someone kept up to date with worldly affairs. I also made special mention of how enticing an energy consultant role was, as it was a sweet spot between consulting and a technical role leveraging on my engineering background. On this, the team leader jumped at me with a question. He understood my process oriented engineering training background, and he was concerned if i had the right concept of what Wood Mackenzie does. He said that we are not in the business of conducting feasibility studies(of which he mentioned competent companies for that business function, such as Baker Hughes or Haliburton), but more like high level, macroscopic assessments of opportunities. I assured him that I am open to a career deviating from process-orientation and that I am comfortable with where the work will take me.
The other consultant then proceeded to give me a walkthrough of how Wood Mackenzie functions as a group, paying heed to its research arm in relation to its consulting arm. Conclusively, it was an educational interview for me as well.
When the 2 consultants were done, I was then interviewed by HR. A HR representative walked in and gave me a long list of competency and behavioural questions. Very standard stuff and questions are pretty much recycled from online interview coaching sites. The basic essentials are strengths, weaknesses, group working behaviour, career aspirations (again!), and a little bit of situational questions (if you are not able to do x, what will you do to achieve y?).
The next activity was for me to give a 15 minute presentation on a question: what will global energy demand be like in the next 20 years? I was provided with data involving population growth of various countries, as well as energy demand, across a 10 year period. I was also given the 2010 energy fuel mix globally. i was given 20 minutes in the room alone to construct the presentation with a whiteboard and a marker. i split up the board into 6 squares. my factors are projected growth rate of energy demand, the myth of peak oil, discovery of new technologies, middle east tensions, shale gas, with a last square dedicated to taking into account all the factors and arriving at a conclusion of whether energy demand can or cannot be met easily in 20 years.
20 minutes expired and in walked 7 people from Wood Mackenzie. The HR rep, head of HR, head of Singapore office, and 4 consultants. I then presented. Interesting points that I made: the law of 70 to calculate the doubling rate to have a rough estimate of where energy demand will be in 20 years. I also debunked the myth of peak oil, that peak oil is never peak oil because previously unextractable oil become extractable with new found tech. I also drew a rough chart to display how peak oil has shifted over the years, from contextual knowledge.
After my presentation I was quickfired questions by the panel. I was asked how do you think carbon taxation would affect the demand for energy in future?
I kind of glanced the question with my answering because I approached it from the CDM direction. I blasted the inefficacy of the system mainly because it was vulnerable to many shortcomings, such as the problem of additionality, carbon leakage, etc. The asker tried to route me back to his question again by repeating the question. I was sensitive enough to know that I haven't exactly answered his question so I tried a different approach. I pretty much said that carbon taxation will spur firms to look for greener ways to source for energy, pushing the energy supply curve rightwards and simultanously reduce oil dependence.
I was also asked what other information I would like to have to make a better assessment of the original question for the presentation. This one kind of stumbled me and I couldn't really think of much. I said that I would like a chronological account of the various changes in energy policies around the world. Asker agreed. On hindsight, I should have asked for an energy mix portfolio for 10 years, as opposed to having only the 2010 one.
The last acitivity was a group activity involving the other 2 candidates. This was the first time that we get to see each other. After shaking hands, we were instructed to discuss how to present on how to advise a company to align its product with the market in view of the changing global energy demand that we have presented earlier. We were given a very un-detailed case and extremely open-ended. We were also not to ask for extra information, quite unlike the standard case interview. Throughout our discussion, the 5 of the original 7 Wood Mac people were seated around us and assessing us while we discussed.
The actual case presentation was very disastrous and it made 0 sense to me. We had actually very little time to work on it and as such, I suspected that it was more to assess our teamworking capabilities than our content. It was really a case of cognitive dissonance to me, talking about something I didn't fully believe in, so I didn't find myself performing as well. My counterparts were rambling so much that I felt embarrassed for them. My lack of air time was recognised when one of the consultants directed a question at me specifically, asking for how I would change the presentation of data on the board. I said something that he agreed with, only for one of my team members to chip in with "oh actually he meant to say......". To me, this was a seriously jackass move, and to anyone reading this, never ever do that. For me to be able to make it to the final round of an interview, I would expect, and even my interviewers would expect, that I know what I am saying and do not need someone else to clarify for me.
After this, it was the end.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Keppel Land Managent Associate Program
There were 5 of us in total. 2 from NUS real estate, 1 from NUS biz, and 1 guy who studied business in washington.
We had to be present at 2:30 and the interview or group discussion began at 3:15 proper. Before the discussion, we were given 20mins to read an article. So I expected something like this, but I didnt prepare adequately for it. I fumbled around before reading it twice. As I began reading, I noticed my compatriots started to furiously scribble on the sheet of paper. Not wanting to feel left out, I took out my pen and started underlining important facts and numbers, and summarizing statements. Of course it didn't add much value except to make me feel more secure.
We headed up to the 14th level to enter the interview room where there were a panel of 3 people, including 2 from HR. We started off by giving a short introduction to ourselves as we sat around the conference table. After that began the start of the discussion, which was led by a supposedly senior staff.
The discussion began with one of us giving a brief summary of the article. And each person had to take the opportunity to speak up on how we felt about the issue. the main point of the absd was to curb demand from investors. I can't really recall what other people mentioned but I remember the interviewer saying that another aspect of the ABSD was to allow a trickle down effect to other sectors of the society. So I casually commented that it may not be a very effective measure as this substitution effect remains to be seen. just because private properties become cheaper does not mean that locals will start snapping up units due to income differences.
Another issue was on whether the government should have a consultation process with the private sector on what measures to include to curb demand. Some mentioned that it should have, and some was against it. I said that the consultation process would require a call for white papers which could be a long drawn out process which might take a long time to come into effect. This could lead to speculation in the market which might make it more difficult to control the growth of demand in the future.
So his next point was that if we were the management of Keppel invited to consult on this issue, What would be a suggested measure? Someone mentioned that the developer could have the ability to limit how many units were bought by locals versus foreigners so as to allow the locals to ahve a more level playing field in terms of pricing. While I agreed that such a measure could possibly work, the market segmentation policy might be difficult to implement in future as the issue of whether foreigners can sell to locals and vice versa.
We then went on to the topic of what the business strategy keppel shoudl take in the view of such changes in the real estate market imposed by the government. Someone said that keppel has the branding and should leverage on that to develop luxurious properties in the suburban areas. I also mentioned that with its ability to charge a price premium due to product differentiation keppel should not expand to cater for the mass market as this might lead to dilution of its image. Instead they should also consider expanding to ermerging markets where the branding of keppel and singapore could play to its advantages. Someone else said that keppel should diversify its portfolio of real estate to industrial etc.
Finally, we had to mention why we would be good candidates for keppel land and what we can contribute. I mentioned my engineering degree will add to to the diversity and i spoke about my internship and some of my attributes. To top it off, we had to suggest ways to improve the keppel land website to make it more attractive. Before we go, we also had to complete a simple peer evaluation form.
We had to be present at 2:30 and the interview or group discussion began at 3:15 proper. Before the discussion, we were given 20mins to read an article. So I expected something like this, but I didnt prepare adequately for it. I fumbled around before reading it twice. As I began reading, I noticed my compatriots started to furiously scribble on the sheet of paper. Not wanting to feel left out, I took out my pen and started underlining important facts and numbers, and summarizing statements. Of course it didn't add much value except to make me feel more secure.
We headed up to the 14th level to enter the interview room where there were a panel of 3 people, including 2 from HR. We started off by giving a short introduction to ourselves as we sat around the conference table. After that began the start of the discussion, which was led by a supposedly senior staff.
The discussion began with one of us giving a brief summary of the article. And each person had to take the opportunity to speak up on how we felt about the issue. the main point of the absd was to curb demand from investors. I can't really recall what other people mentioned but I remember the interviewer saying that another aspect of the ABSD was to allow a trickle down effect to other sectors of the society. So I casually commented that it may not be a very effective measure as this substitution effect remains to be seen. just because private properties become cheaper does not mean that locals will start snapping up units due to income differences.
Another issue was on whether the government should have a consultation process with the private sector on what measures to include to curb demand. Some mentioned that it should have, and some was against it. I said that the consultation process would require a call for white papers which could be a long drawn out process which might take a long time to come into effect. This could lead to speculation in the market which might make it more difficult to control the growth of demand in the future.
So his next point was that if we were the management of Keppel invited to consult on this issue, What would be a suggested measure? Someone mentioned that the developer could have the ability to limit how many units were bought by locals versus foreigners so as to allow the locals to ahve a more level playing field in terms of pricing. While I agreed that such a measure could possibly work, the market segmentation policy might be difficult to implement in future as the issue of whether foreigners can sell to locals and vice versa.
We then went on to the topic of what the business strategy keppel shoudl take in the view of such changes in the real estate market imposed by the government. Someone said that keppel has the branding and should leverage on that to develop luxurious properties in the suburban areas. I also mentioned that with its ability to charge a price premium due to product differentiation keppel should not expand to cater for the mass market as this might lead to dilution of its image. Instead they should also consider expanding to ermerging markets where the branding of keppel and singapore could play to its advantages. Someone else said that keppel should diversify its portfolio of real estate to industrial etc.
Finally, we had to mention why we would be good candidates for keppel land and what we can contribute. I mentioned my engineering degree will add to to the diversity and i spoke about my internship and some of my attributes. To top it off, we had to suggest ways to improve the keppel land website to make it more attractive. Before we go, we also had to complete a simple peer evaluation form.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Droege Group Management Consulting Business Analyst Interview
i was tasked to create two sets of presentation, one in english, the other in a native language. both presentations were stored in a thumb drive, and ultimately, only the mandarin one was used. it was ultimately a disaster, to put it nicely. i did give some thought to doing a dry run in front of the mirror, but fatigue got the better of me and i slacked off. might have scored some brownie points with a mediocre delivery, seeing that i was like a slack-jawed daffodil, but comfort came when they said another language is a plus, not a requirement.
interview format involved 2 consultants, each taking up an hour. the first was the principal. after a short introduction in english following the disastrous mandarin powerpoint presentation, we delved into the case interviews.
he spoke of a company from germany facing a rather peculiar situation. the firm sees growth in revenue. the firm does not see increases in operating costs. however, the company does also see a declining gross margin over time. i kind of panicked because prima facie, this is an extremely unlikely scenario, but i calmed my nerves and asked some questions to find a footing.
has the company seen increasing costs of production for the product?
the answer was that costs of production related directly to the product such as direct labour cost, materials cost, etc, have stayed the same.
has the products been selling for a high price level?
no prices have been kept at constant.
these two questions and answers did nothing for me. they only reinforced the difficult situation i was tasked to identify the cause for. so i tried another approach of questioning.
are we talking about a single product? or a variety?
the company sells a variety of products.
great, we are going somewhere, i thought. i labelled up to 3 products a,b and c as proxies. i then inquired about the sale pattern of each product. b was unchanged. a was identified as a premium product and quantity sold has stayed the same. c was identified as a cheap product and 1/3 the cost of a, has seen increasing quantity sold. based on this, i felt that i was ready to come to a conclusion and asked for a moment.
i resolved that increasing demand for product c has resulted in the company looking to meet this demand by increasing factors of production. however, somehow, the company unknowingly incurred diminishing returns by increasing their production, a situation where they did not take into account a substantial increase in marginal cost of production for an additional unit of product. consequently, this translates as an increase in cost of production for product c and hence, the increasing revenue was countered by the increasing cost as well, perhaps more, to result in a declining gross margin over time.
he then said that this was a logical approach to the problem, but in reality, such an issue arise from improper product mix, and basically is a result of portfolio misalignment according to market needs and cost of production.
he moved on to the next problem: what factors do we consider for a company who wants to set up a plant in asia for a product (pneumatic springs) that it has been successfully exporting to asia and has 80% market share of?
i arranged the factors into two large groups, internal and external factors.
external factors: i began with the obvious, labour cost and land cost. land cost is definitely a driver for the plant, china is huge and cheap. i made a strong caveat for labour cost, the product has been assumed to be manufactured and mass produced. i cautioned that the possibility of automative production means headcounts for labour force is low. despite lower wage levels in china, savings from wage levels arbitrage will be insignificant in impact relatively.
then i went on to resource origination. i said that the plant situating in china would mean resource origination would be cheaper, considering the proximity of raw materials such as iron ore for stainless steel springs. herein, i made an error of assuming metal ores can be found in china. he corrected me by saying that china is only rich in coal, and metal ores originate from southern america. i proceeded to salvage the situation by building upon that. "knowing that the ores originate from south america, we should investigate the cost of transporting ores from s.a to china vis a vis transporting ore to a plant in germany then transporting the finished product to china." this was met with grave agreement.
i also mentioned existing companies producing similar products and how developed they are in china. should the companies be mature in their field, a sense of market fragmentation may be present and it would be ideal for the company to come in an cause an acquisition of most of the plants already existing. this brownfield approach is lighter on the balance sheet and defnitely cheaper to execute.
i also mentioned the imitability of the company's technology, juxtaposed with the chinese art of copying. i mentioned that tech should be protected with strong patents. to this he mentioned that the imitability is not an issue, but that the product itself is more reliable than china made springs. i guess we had a communication breakdown here. he did not seem very pleased when i reiterated that it is the technology behind more reliable springs that can be copied and that patents must be present to protect. things do get lost in translation.
lastly, i spoke of timing of the expansion of the company. ideally, the company should strive to seek equity funding in a bullish market to obtain a good valuation of the company and hence, the greatest value driven by giving away equity. alternatively, it could also consider debt funding should they be confident of performance in the chinese market. conversely, equity funding could be seen as a hedge against a lack of performance post expansion. this point was agreed with well.
finally i touched on the internal factors: i only had one lol. i spoke of the health of the company in terms of its cash flow. a strong positive cashflow would mean that it is more able to fund these expansion plans themselves and do not require to seek funding from equity or debt, which would definitely be more expensive.
after the 2 cases, we had a short chat about droege, its business in singapore and what i can expect as a job scope as an analyst there.
following a short toilet break, the senior consultant came in. he was full of energy and i literally fed off his energy and both of us embarked on an extremely jovial and animated exchange for the next our.
we began by discussing droege's business again, and a small focus on the private equity aspect of droege in asia. we also had a short discussion on the characteristics of asian companies, paying great heed to the tendency to see companies as legacies and the general unwillingness to part with equity.
first case from him was a discussion for a sensor producing company. the company would like to know how it ranked against the other companies in its field. i almost shouted out benchmarking, just before realising that doing this i'm just cutting short my speech and not exactly explaining the process.
so i clarified again. sensors production for automated manufacturing covers a wide variety of products, from nanotech to automotives, what exactly are we looking at?
he answered that we are looking at making machinery, fmcg and automotives.
from here on i basically went on a tirade, interjected by his points of information and some questions.
i started by saying identify the competitors for each arm of products that sensors are provided for. then we look at the market share of each product and this will give a clear indication of where the company stands. i also looked at the price levels that the products are selling for. if price levels are similar amongst all participants in the market, the company is performing at benchmark. if the product is priced at a premium, there is the chance that the product as certain characteristic advantage. if there is a price premium on top of significant market share, it is a strong position.
i also mentioned that we should look at the supply chain of each competitor, in terms of resource origination(are we paying the right price or maybe cheaper for raw materials compared to others), manufacturing (are we producing at most efficient levels? related to tech advancement), distribution channels(have we exhausted all distribution channels? if companies are more diverse than us in channels, might we have missed some customer sectors?).
he then added a question:what if the company wants to expand in china? what factors should we consider?
it was quite similar to the question earlier. i rehashed the point on studying the maturity of the industry, whether there are multiple players with almost equal market share, which equates to a fragmented market that should require a consolidation. at this point, he jumped on my point on maturity and elaborated that indeed we need to see the national development of the country and see if the country is in a position to support the import of such production technology. i should also have added that we could look at general education levels and see if people are educated enough as a labour force to support, just for some brownie points.
last case was pretty direct: because i mentioned something about consolidation and acquisition, he asked: one of the methods of expansion is looking for an agent in the regent to sell your products. say you wanna sell your pencils in asia, what do you want in an agent?
i said there were basically two ways about this. you could either play it safe and conservative, go for an agent that is already marketing your product or similar products. i added that you are familiar with that and i shouldn't continue for brevity.
the second way would be to identify agents that are exceeding good at creating demand in a market where the demand did not exist before, and proceeding to gain significant market share for that product. i said that a good example, albeit far fetched, would be to find a salesman who can sell refrigerators to eskimoes in the northpole. if you can locate an agent like that, he would definitely have no issues selling your pencils in asia, where education plays a huge role.
he then asked for how do we assess and determine such agents?
i replied that a good gauge would be a track record. i mentioned a good marketing company known as sutl, and that their marketing covers diverse products, from sports wear to cosmetics to liquer. we could leverage on their marketing expertise to create a demand for a product that may have many substitutes and gain significant market share. he agreed that track record is a good measure.
i further added that the agent must believe in and is passionate about marketing the product, to avoid a slipshod management of the marketing process. this too, he agreed.
following this was the end of the interview. he released me for the weekend and wished me a nice pint of beer.
interview format involved 2 consultants, each taking up an hour. the first was the principal. after a short introduction in english following the disastrous mandarin powerpoint presentation, we delved into the case interviews.
he spoke of a company from germany facing a rather peculiar situation. the firm sees growth in revenue. the firm does not see increases in operating costs. however, the company does also see a declining gross margin over time. i kind of panicked because prima facie, this is an extremely unlikely scenario, but i calmed my nerves and asked some questions to find a footing.
has the company seen increasing costs of production for the product?
the answer was that costs of production related directly to the product such as direct labour cost, materials cost, etc, have stayed the same.
has the products been selling for a high price level?
no prices have been kept at constant.
these two questions and answers did nothing for me. they only reinforced the difficult situation i was tasked to identify the cause for. so i tried another approach of questioning.
are we talking about a single product? or a variety?
the company sells a variety of products.
great, we are going somewhere, i thought. i labelled up to 3 products a,b and c as proxies. i then inquired about the sale pattern of each product. b was unchanged. a was identified as a premium product and quantity sold has stayed the same. c was identified as a cheap product and 1/3 the cost of a, has seen increasing quantity sold. based on this, i felt that i was ready to come to a conclusion and asked for a moment.
i resolved that increasing demand for product c has resulted in the company looking to meet this demand by increasing factors of production. however, somehow, the company unknowingly incurred diminishing returns by increasing their production, a situation where they did not take into account a substantial increase in marginal cost of production for an additional unit of product. consequently, this translates as an increase in cost of production for product c and hence, the increasing revenue was countered by the increasing cost as well, perhaps more, to result in a declining gross margin over time.
he then said that this was a logical approach to the problem, but in reality, such an issue arise from improper product mix, and basically is a result of portfolio misalignment according to market needs and cost of production.
he moved on to the next problem: what factors do we consider for a company who wants to set up a plant in asia for a product (pneumatic springs) that it has been successfully exporting to asia and has 80% market share of?
i arranged the factors into two large groups, internal and external factors.
external factors: i began with the obvious, labour cost and land cost. land cost is definitely a driver for the plant, china is huge and cheap. i made a strong caveat for labour cost, the product has been assumed to be manufactured and mass produced. i cautioned that the possibility of automative production means headcounts for labour force is low. despite lower wage levels in china, savings from wage levels arbitrage will be insignificant in impact relatively.
then i went on to resource origination. i said that the plant situating in china would mean resource origination would be cheaper, considering the proximity of raw materials such as iron ore for stainless steel springs. herein, i made an error of assuming metal ores can be found in china. he corrected me by saying that china is only rich in coal, and metal ores originate from southern america. i proceeded to salvage the situation by building upon that. "knowing that the ores originate from south america, we should investigate the cost of transporting ores from s.a to china vis a vis transporting ore to a plant in germany then transporting the finished product to china." this was met with grave agreement.
i also mentioned existing companies producing similar products and how developed they are in china. should the companies be mature in their field, a sense of market fragmentation may be present and it would be ideal for the company to come in an cause an acquisition of most of the plants already existing. this brownfield approach is lighter on the balance sheet and defnitely cheaper to execute.
i also mentioned the imitability of the company's technology, juxtaposed with the chinese art of copying. i mentioned that tech should be protected with strong patents. to this he mentioned that the imitability is not an issue, but that the product itself is more reliable than china made springs. i guess we had a communication breakdown here. he did not seem very pleased when i reiterated that it is the technology behind more reliable springs that can be copied and that patents must be present to protect. things do get lost in translation.
lastly, i spoke of timing of the expansion of the company. ideally, the company should strive to seek equity funding in a bullish market to obtain a good valuation of the company and hence, the greatest value driven by giving away equity. alternatively, it could also consider debt funding should they be confident of performance in the chinese market. conversely, equity funding could be seen as a hedge against a lack of performance post expansion. this point was agreed with well.
finally i touched on the internal factors: i only had one lol. i spoke of the health of the company in terms of its cash flow. a strong positive cashflow would mean that it is more able to fund these expansion plans themselves and do not require to seek funding from equity or debt, which would definitely be more expensive.
after the 2 cases, we had a short chat about droege, its business in singapore and what i can expect as a job scope as an analyst there.
following a short toilet break, the senior consultant came in. he was full of energy and i literally fed off his energy and both of us embarked on an extremely jovial and animated exchange for the next our.
we began by discussing droege's business again, and a small focus on the private equity aspect of droege in asia. we also had a short discussion on the characteristics of asian companies, paying great heed to the tendency to see companies as legacies and the general unwillingness to part with equity.
first case from him was a discussion for a sensor producing company. the company would like to know how it ranked against the other companies in its field. i almost shouted out benchmarking, just before realising that doing this i'm just cutting short my speech and not exactly explaining the process.
so i clarified again. sensors production for automated manufacturing covers a wide variety of products, from nanotech to automotives, what exactly are we looking at?
he answered that we are looking at making machinery, fmcg and automotives.
from here on i basically went on a tirade, interjected by his points of information and some questions.
i started by saying identify the competitors for each arm of products that sensors are provided for. then we look at the market share of each product and this will give a clear indication of where the company stands. i also looked at the price levels that the products are selling for. if price levels are similar amongst all participants in the market, the company is performing at benchmark. if the product is priced at a premium, there is the chance that the product as certain characteristic advantage. if there is a price premium on top of significant market share, it is a strong position.
i also mentioned that we should look at the supply chain of each competitor, in terms of resource origination(are we paying the right price or maybe cheaper for raw materials compared to others), manufacturing (are we producing at most efficient levels? related to tech advancement), distribution channels(have we exhausted all distribution channels? if companies are more diverse than us in channels, might we have missed some customer sectors?).
he then added a question:what if the company wants to expand in china? what factors should we consider?
it was quite similar to the question earlier. i rehashed the point on studying the maturity of the industry, whether there are multiple players with almost equal market share, which equates to a fragmented market that should require a consolidation. at this point, he jumped on my point on maturity and elaborated that indeed we need to see the national development of the country and see if the country is in a position to support the import of such production technology. i should also have added that we could look at general education levels and see if people are educated enough as a labour force to support, just for some brownie points.
last case was pretty direct: because i mentioned something about consolidation and acquisition, he asked: one of the methods of expansion is looking for an agent in the regent to sell your products. say you wanna sell your pencils in asia, what do you want in an agent?
i said there were basically two ways about this. you could either play it safe and conservative, go for an agent that is already marketing your product or similar products. i added that you are familiar with that and i shouldn't continue for brevity.
the second way would be to identify agents that are exceeding good at creating demand in a market where the demand did not exist before, and proceeding to gain significant market share for that product. i said that a good example, albeit far fetched, would be to find a salesman who can sell refrigerators to eskimoes in the northpole. if you can locate an agent like that, he would definitely have no issues selling your pencils in asia, where education plays a huge role.
he then asked for how do we assess and determine such agents?
i replied that a good gauge would be a track record. i mentioned a good marketing company known as sutl, and that their marketing covers diverse products, from sports wear to cosmetics to liquer. we could leverage on their marketing expertise to create a demand for a product that may have many substitutes and gain significant market share. he agreed that track record is a good measure.
i further added that the agent must believe in and is passionate about marketing the product, to avoid a slipshod management of the marketing process. this too, he agreed.
following this was the end of the interview. he released me for the weekend and wished me a nice pint of beer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)