Suppliers Bargaining Power
The Suppliers’ bargaining power is one of Porter’s Five Forces Company Analysis and reflects the buyers’ negotiating power. For example, suppliers can put more pressure on companies by deteriorating their quality, raising their prices, or decreasing the availability of their products. The supplier’s negotiating power determines buyers’ competitive climate and profit potential in an industry (Kitamura et al., 2017). The customers are the firms, and the suppliers provide the companies with goods and services. Another factor influencing an industry’s competitive environment and attractiveness is supplier bargaining power. Competition, bargaining power of buyers, the danger of replacements, and the threat new companies pose as they enter the market are only some of the other forces at play.
It is difficult for Google’s vendors to bargain with the company because Google operates in markets where suppliers have historically had little or no negotiating power, the company has a distinct competitive edge. Google does not deal with hardware like other companies like Apple. A software firm or an online service provider is the most likely candidate if you are looking for an online service provider. The majority of the services provided by Google are created in-house with the assistance of Google’s developers and cutting-edge technology. Therefore, suppliers have minimal influence over Google’s fundamental goods and services (Cho et al., 2019). This also has the additional benefit of lowering Google’s operating expenses and increasing its profitability. If Google has become the richest company on the planet, it largely owes that it does not have to spend a large amount of money on raw materials every year.
Supply chain partners who supply components for some Google hardware products, such as smartphones and Chromebooks, and some components for providing Google’s services globally, have a very limited negotiation power in the larger scheme of things. Suppliers have greater bargaining power when it comes to contract talks because of the restricted number of suppliers available and the substantial danger of forwarding integration. On the other hand, Google does not operate in this manner (Shantia et al., 2021). When suppliers are not reliant on a single buyer, their negotiating power grows as a result. On the other hand, Google is one of the most influential consumers in the world, making it tough for its suppliers to negotiate favorable terms. Despite the fact that a supplier’s product is unique and the buyer confronts high switching costs, the supplier’s negotiation clout remains significant in most cases. In this situation, Google is also in an excellent position to compete. It enjoys a more favorable negotiation position than its vendors and suppliers.
The suppliers’ power is weak in Google because so many providers to select from. Suppliers have a poor impact on Google because of the following external factors: Suppliers are plentiful, and there are a vast number of them, yet Google’s suppliers are small or medium-sized businesses. The negotiating strength of a single supplier in the face of Google’s company is diminished by the abundance of supply and the broad population of suppliers. In the framework of the Five Forces study, this suggests that the technological behemoth may easily switch suppliers. Its suppliers are diversified Because of the wide range of items offered by the online retailer. Computer hardware manufacturers are among these suppliers (Cho et al., 2019). Most of these suppliers are also modest compared to Google Company. A company that deals with technology may force its demands on suppliers and use its scale as leverage against them due to the vulnerability of their suppliers, as indicated by this Five Forces analysis. Suppliers and Google’s business direction can be more closely aligned as a result of Google’s corporate social responsibility approach.
Buyers Bargaining Power
According to Porter’s Five Forces Company Analysis framework, buyers’ negotiation power force is defined as the ability of customers or consumers to pressure companies to produce better quality products, offer better customer service, and sell their goods at lower prices. Businesses need to be aware that purchasers’ bargaining strength is evaluated from the standpoint of the seller or company. A company’s customers or consumers have negotiating power since they use its products and services (Omsa et al., 2017). Customers or buyers have the potential to pinch company margins by putting pressure on vendors to improve the quality of services or products or lower prices. When doing an external examination of the industry, buyer power is critical since it gives insight into the industry’s profitability. The industry’s profitability and attractiveness are negatively impacted by high buyer power. New companies may be deterred from entering the market, while current businesses may make more strategic moves to enhance profitability.
Individual buyers’ bargaining power is quite weak when it comes to Google. Google’s services and products are used by billions of people across the world every day. Google services like Gmail, Google Chrome, and Google search products have far more market share than their competitors. The company also has the greatest global market share in digital advertising. With the exception of a few well-known brands, smaller firms or buyers have little or no negotiating leverage when it comes to advertising services. Buyers’ bargaining leverage is limited when dealing with Google due to the sheer volume of purchases. The negotiating power of buyers would have been greater if there were fewer customers than suppliers or sellers like Google. As a result, Google has more bargaining power than ever before, as it has millions of businesses throughout the world and billions of individual customers who use its products and services (Gago-Rodríguez et al., 2021). Even when there is a huge supply of alternatives, customers’ negotiating power increases when they can quickly purchase equivalent items or services from other vendors. Buyers’ negotiating power would be larger than suppliers’ if the product given by a supplier is not significantly differentiated. Therefore, there are limited numbers of alternatives to Google’s services and products, affecting the buyers’ bargaining power because they do not have many alternatives in the market. Overall, Google Company enjoys its bargaining compared to its buyers and suppliers bargaining power.
The negotiating power of its customers does not influence Google’s business. According to Porter’s Five Forces approach, buyers’ weak force has little influence on strategic management decisions in technology companies. The small size of Google’s consumers, the high and rising demand from buyers, and the middling quality of the information for customers are all external factors contributing to the limited bargaining power of Google customers. As a result, each customer has only a limited impact on Google’s bottom line. Individual customers have little influence on the company and the whole industry because the demand for technology companies’ products and services keeps increasing (Au-Yeung et al., 2017). Customers’ knowledge is referred to as “moderate quality of information” in this Five Forces examination of Google. When it comes to the volatility and complexity of the internet advertising market, advertisers have access to limited analytics data. This section of the Five Forces study relies on using Google’s 4Ps of the marketing mix to control the buyers’ negotiation power.
Threat from substitute products
The concept of Porter’s threat of substitutes is a product that consumers can choose to acquire instead of the company’s offering. A replacement product is a product from a different industry that provides the same advantages to the buyers as the product produced by the company’. The framework of an industry is shaped by the threat of substitutes which is one of Porter’s five factors. Having the threat of being replaced by another company influences the competitive climate and profitability (Cusumano et al. 2020). The threat of replacement may negatively impact profit margins because consumers choose to select a less-priced alternative to their preferred product. Companies in a market may see their profit margins shrink when close substitutes become more widely available. Having few or no competing products and services improves profit possibilities for companies and makes them less competitive. On the other side, the beverage business is an example of a market with multiple rivals that presents a danger of alternatives.
Substitute products pose no danger to Google’s business model. Only a few companies provide identical products and services, and Google’s total product quality surpasses competitors by a wide margin. Google services and products are not only of higher quality, but they are also better suited to their intended purposes because it is a cutting-edge technology company. The four other major tech companies that challenge Google’s dominance include Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft. Microsoft is a major search rival, but it has a far lesser market share than Google’s search engine. Facebook is one of Google’s major competitors in the technological advertising market. On the other hand, Facebook has a significantly smaller percentage of digital advertising income than Google (Cusumano et al. 2020). If you are a cloud company, AWS and Azure have a wider selection of alternative goods and more customers than Google, increasing the threat of substitute products. This is where Google is most vulnerable to the threat of replacement products. The corporation has to diversify into other markets to lessen the risk of replacements.
Google’s services and products substitution like radio, television, print media, and other advertising channels, pose a minor threat to Google Company’s business. Moderate switching costs between Google and its competitors, moderate to high alternative availability, and low to moderate substitutes are all external elements that lead to a moderate threat of competition for Google. As a result of the low barrier to entry, users may easily migrate away from Google’s products and services, including advertising services (Pratap, 2020). According to Porter’s Five Forces approach, this element has a modest influence on technology companies. It is also worth noting that users have a wide range of alternatives to leave Google. As a result, many of these replacements have a worse performance to price than the company’s items and services. As an illustration, television advertisements, while successful, are more expensive than web advertising. Substitution is countered by Google’s SWOT analysis’s company strengths. According to the Five Forces study, Google identified a moderate threat of entry from other new technology companies.
Threat from new entrants
A new competitor’s threat to current competitors is referred to as the “threat of a new entrant.” The more profitable an industry is, the more competition it will attract. If new entrants can join the market with minimal barriers to entry, they represent a danger to the current players. Higher production capacity without increased customer demand results in a decrease in profit margins. Porter’s five forces describe the competitive structure of an industry, and new entrants are one of the factors (Powles and Hodson, 2017). As a result, Porter’s characterization of the threat of new entrants altered how industry participants viewed competition. Introducing new entrants into the market can significantly impact the competitive climate and the profitability of current businesses. New rivals may be enticed to enter because of the industry’s profitability, which increases the danger of entrance. The introduction of new rivals into the market can either decrease or threaten current competitors’ profitability and market share and result in changes to existing pricing levels and product quality. Low barriers to entry in the graphic design profession are a good example of Porter’s danger of newcomers.
In addition to increasing competition, a high risk of new entrants can also reduce profit margins for the industry’s current rivals. Conversely, a low threat of market entrance lowers the level of competition and increases the profit margin of already existing businesses. Barriers to the entrance are a deterrent to new entrants. Google Company has a little danger from new entrants. In the industries where Google is active, no new entrant can obtain a major footing or share of the market. Competition with Google is only possible if you are a big, established player like Microsoft or Facebook (Pratap, 2020). With Google dominating the digital advertising and cloud computing sectors, it is nearly difficult for any new company to compete on the same level of size and scale. Gaining a major piece of the market will take considerable time and money for any new entrant because of the fierce rivalry. Human capital is a significant investment in the technology business, and companies like Google are proactive in maintaining their market share and leadership position. The ever-expanding web of restrictions likewise deters new players to the sector. Customers in the sector are not always simple to keep happy. As a result, the sector’s entrance and departure barriers are substantial. New entrants are not much of a danger to Google because of these considerations.
The prospect of new competitors modestly impacts Google Company. Ventures and investments from technology companies or small startups that offer products and services similar to Google’s are considered new entrants. The cost of doing technology business is low, and many of the new companies can easily enter the market and start competing with Google (Soto-Acosta et al., 2017). As a result, new entrants to the technology and internet services sector have an easier time establishing themselves and competing. However, the expense of developing a brand is prohibitive for many new firms, especially because Google has one of the most valuable brands in the world, to begin with. Based on the Five Forces model’s danger of entrance, a technology business’s management and strategic development face a moderate challenge.
Level of competitive rivalry in the industry
Firms within a particular market competition level with one another, putting pressure on each other and limiting their profit potential, referred to as industrial rivalry. In a market where competition is severe, companies are fighting for profits and market share. As a result, profits for all companies in the industry are reduced. According to Porter’s five forces theory, the level of competition among companies is one of the primary factors shaping an industry’s competitive structure. Porter’s measure of industry rivalry’s intensity affects a firm’s capacity to profit and the competitive climate. A high level of rivalry, for example, suggests that companies are actively seeking one other’s markets and setting prices for their products that are aggressive. This might have a significant impact on the industry as a whole (Kilduff, 2019). Increasing the level of competition in a market reduces the profit margins available to the current players. The industry is less competitive if there is a low level of competitive rivalry. Additionally, it enhances the profitability of current businesses. Firms already operating in a sector with a low level of rivalry are better positioned to generate money. To put it another way, an industry with a high level of competition is not as desirable as one with a low level of competition. It is important to assess the level of competition among existing businesses when examining an industry’s structural environment using Porter’s five forces framework for competitive dynamics.
The level of competitiveness between Google and its competitors is strong in the industries in which it operates. Even though only a few major tech companies actively compete with Google, these are some of the most influential players in the business. As a result, competition for a larger piece of the market becomes more intense. While Amazon is the industry’s biggest spender on R&D, the other businesses are as aggressive in their research and development efforts (Dolata, 2017). As one of the most cutting-edge digital companies, Google has a constant focus on increasing the quality of its goods and services to serve its customers better. Advertisement, search, and cloud sector giants are all vying for market share and market share growth. For Google, the cloud industry’s struggle for market share is particularly severe because Amazon, Microsoft, and other major firms like Oracle and Salesforce compete for market share.
It is hard for other technology companies to keep up with Google Company because it has a high market share. According to Porter’s Five Forces, companies in the internet and technology services sector are hampered from expanding their operations because of intense rivalry. When it comes to strong competition in the information technologies and internet services industry, Google has to take into account the following external variables: the vast number of firms, the substantial diversity of technical enterprises, and the low switching costs for consumers (Pontes and Pontes, 2021). Competition for Google is wide-ranging, but the most important threats come from Internet service providers and associated platforms. Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, Comcast, and Amazon are just a few companies that compete with Google. New products, including Chromecast, Pixel devices, and others, have been added to the Google product range. Porter’s Five forces analysis shows that this vast range of products corresponds to many competitors in the technology industry and market. This circumstance significantly impacts Google’s operations. Clients also enjoy low switching costs because leaving Google for another service provider is easy. In this part of the Five Forces study, the technology business faces competition because of the low switching costs.
References
Au-Yeung, B., Chu, D., Enfante, M., Logan, G., & Saelee, K. (2017). Industry Analysis: Cloud Computing. MIS Majors, 48.
Cho, W., Ke, J. Y. F., & Han, C. (2019). An empirical examination of the use of bargaining power and its impacts on supply chain financial performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(4), 100550.
Cusumano, M., Yoffie, D., & Gawer, A. (2020). The future of platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review.
Dolata, U. (2017). Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft: Market concentration-competition-innovation strategies (No. 2017-01). SOI Discussion Paper.
Gago-Rodríguez, S., Márquez-Illescas, G., & Núñez-Nickel, M. (2021). Bargaining power as moderator of the “delay costs effect” in supply chain negotiations. Management Accounting Research, 51, 100737.
Kilduff, G. J. (2019). Interfirm relational rivalry: Implications for competitive strategy. Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 775-799.
Kitamura, H., Matsushima, N., & Sato, M. (2017). Exclusive contracts and bargaining power. Economics Letters, 151, 1-3.
Omsa, S., Abdullah, I. H., & Jamali, H. (2017). Five competitive forces model and the implementation of Porter’s generic strategies to gain firm performances.
Pontes, N., & Pontes, V. (2021). Spillover effects of competitive rivalry on brand extensions. Journal of Brand Management, 28(4), 402-412.+
Powles, J., & Hodson, H. (2017). Google DeepMind and healthcare in an age of algorithms. Health and Technology, 7(4), 351-367.
Pratap A. (2020, October 10). Five forces analysis of Google .notesmatic. https://notesmatic.com/five-forces-analysis-of-google/
Shantia, A., Aflaki, S., & Masini, A. (2021). Contracting for technology improvement: The effect of asymmetric bargaining power and investment uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 293(2), 481-494.
Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2017). Social web knowledge sharing and innovation performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 425-440.
write