A complete BU 323 Unit 2 competitor analysis: rivals chosen by substitution, identical attributes compared from published sources, and the firm's weak ground named. Searches like "bu 323 unit 2 assignment example", "bu323 unit 2 sample" and "bu 323 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished BU 323 Unit 2 competitor analysis looks like
The finished section is a table with an argument on either side of it. Before the table, a short passage explains the selection: which firms were included, which were left out and what a buyer would do if this one vanished, since that question is what makes a rival a rival. The comparison itself runs the same four or five attributes across every competitor, and those attributes are chosen because buyers weigh them rather than because data happened to be available. Each cell carries a source or is marked unknown, and unknown appears more often than students expect. After the table, a passage names the attribute on which each rival leads. The section then states one attribute where this firm is genuinely behind, and closes on the ground the plan should not contest.
How a BU 323 Unit 2 example is structured
Selection is argued before comparison because a table full of the largest firms in an industry measures this business against companies its buyers were never choosing between. Substitution is the test used, and it is stated openly so a marker can follow the reasoning rather than only the result. Attributes are fixed once and applied to every competitor, since a table where each column answers different questions is a set of profiles. Unknown cells are kept rather than filled, as one invented figure corrupts every conclusion drawn from that row. Leadership is assigned attribute by attribute instead of overall, because a single ranking of firms hides where the real threats sit. The firm's weak ground is stated before the close, and the closing sentence about what not to contest is what makes this part of a plan.
Rivals chosen by substitution
Competitors are included because this firm's buyers would purchase from them instead, not because they are the biggest names available.
The same attributes across every column
Four or five buyer-weighted attributes are applied to all rivals, since columns answering different questions produce profiles rather than a comparison.
Unknown cells left unknown
Where published material does not answer an attribute, the cell says so, because one invented figure corrupts every conclusion drawn from that row.
Leadership assigned attribute by attribute
Each rival is credited with what it is actually better at, which surfaces threats a single overall ranking of firms would hide.
One attribute where this firm trails
The section admits genuine weak ground, since a comparison in which the subject wins everywhere was arranged rather than conducted.
Ground the plan should not contest
A closing sentence names where competing would be expensive and unwinnable, which is what makes this section part of a plan.
Where marks go in BU 323 Unit 2
Points go missing when the section becomes a set of company profiles. Three paragraphs each summarizing a rival's history and product range compare nothing, and comparison is the word in the assignment. Competitors chosen by size rather than by substitution measure the firm against companies its buyers never considered. Tables filled edge to edge, with figures for private companies that publish none, contain numbers somebody made up. Attributes drawn from what could be found rather than from what buyers weigh produce a tidy table about the wrong things. Sections in which the subject firm leads every row were arranged rather than researched. Competitive information held through an employer, including pricing sheets and win-loss records, cannot be used, and a rival's internal figures are not public because a trade article repeated them.
Get a BU 323 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 2 instructions with your BU 323 rubric and the competitor set if the assignment fixes one. We write a custom example that argues the selection by substitution, holds the same attributes across every column, leaves unknown cells unknown and closes on ground the plan should not contest. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
BU 323 Unit 2 questions, answered
How many competitors belong in the table?
Three or four is usually right unless the instructions set a number. Beyond that the attributes get thin and the table stops being read. Include one direct rival, one that solves the same problem differently and, where it applies, the option of the buyer doing nothing, which is a real competitor and almost never appears in a first draft.
Where does competitor information come from?
Published material only: their own site and pricing pages, annual reports where the firm is listed, trade coverage, job postings, customer reviews and packaging. Record the date you looked, because prices and claims move. Where an attribute cannot be established from public sources, write that it is unknown rather than estimating, since the table is supposed to be checkable.
Should I include indirect competitors?
Usually yes, and they are often the more interesting rows. A buyer solving the problem another way, or deciding to keep what they already have, is competing for the same money as the firms in your category. Check whether the instructions restrict the set. Where they do not, one indirect entry with the substitution reasoning shown adds more than a fourth direct rival.