Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Prompt: Our client, Medical Devices Co., is a medical device company that manufactures a blood
clotting product called BloodStopper. This product is currently sold in liquid vials. The
product is typically applied with a sponge during post-op. Medical Devices is considering a
deal with a sponge manufacturer named Spongy’s to create a hybrid product that combines a
sponge with the BloodStopper product. The combined product will include BloodStopper in
a dry, tablet form. Spongy’s will sell the final product.
Should Medical Devices do a deal with Spongy’s? If so, what terms should they negotiate?
For Interviewer:
This case has three main components -
1. Analysis to determine the potential price of the new combined product
2. Analysis to determine how the cost structure for the combined product would change
from the original products, and what difference that makes for each company’s margin
3. Brainstorm/conclusion on how the deal should be structured given (1) and (2)
A. Consumers - Who are they? Where, and how many? What benefit does the combined product provide
to consumers versus the original liquid vial? What is the WTP for liquid vial and the sponge
independently? What is the WTP for the combined product?
A. Product – Does Medical Device Co. own the IP on BloodStopper? Is there anything “unique” about the
sponge? What is the difference in cost between the liquid form and tablet form of BloodStopper? What
are the margins on the sponge? What are the margins for each player in the combined product?
A. Competition – Are there other companies making a product like BloodStopper? What are the barriers to
entry? Are there other sponge manufacturers?
A. Deal Structure – Should Medical Device Co. proceed by selling to Spongy’s, seek out a different
partner, or restructure the arrangement?
Cost Breakdown
The costs to Medical Device Co. for the BloodStopper product in the original liquid
vial form versus in tablet form are as follows:
Per Unit
BloodStopper BloodStopper
Liquid Vial Tablet Form
Cost of Goods Sold
Raw materials $1.00 $0.90
Manufacturing $0.25 $0.20
Packaging $0.15 $0.10
Direct Labor $2.10 $1.80
C. Competition – Candidate should recognize that BloodStopper is not in a competitive market, while
Spongy’s product is common enough that there are several players.
Candidate sample questions: Are there other companies making a product like BloodStopper? What are the
barriers to entry? Are there other sponge manufacturers?
D. Deal Structure – Ask the candidate if current deal structure makes sense, and what could be some
alternatives?
● Current deal – Could be a challenge since Spongy’s would have such a high COGS if Medical Devic Co.
maintains its margin
● Vertical integration – Who should buy whom? Why?
○ Given that Medical Device has much higher margins and a more “special” product,
● Volume-based discounting – Incentivizes Spongy’s to push sales
● Revenue Sharing – Implement thresholds to encourage sales
Conclusion
Should Medical Device Co. sell their product to Spongy’s, and if so how?
Sample Conclusion: Medical Device Co. should not do the do the deal as proposed. For Medical Device Co. to
maintain its $80 margin per product, Spongy’s would have to assume a high COGS and would realize a much
lower profit than Medical Device Co. This could put Medical Device Co. at risk of not having the improved
access to marketing and distribution channels partially intended by going into business with Spongy’s. As an
alternative, Medical Device Co. should plan to vertically integrate by buying the sponges from Spongy’s or
acquiring another sponge manufacturer, since there are numerous potential targets and Medical Device Co.
has a stronger financial position relative to Spongy’s.
A strong conclusion:
● Recognizes current deal economics may not favor Spongy’s as end distributor of the product
● Proposes alternative deal structure and puts forth the “why?”