Answer:
Use the following information to answer the following question that refer to the Sure
Foot case.
Sure Foot, Ltd. produces high-quality shoes and boots for serious hikers.
Sure Foot’s shoes have suggested retail prices ranging from just under $40 to about
$150. Usually, the retailer buys the shoes for about 50 percent less than the list price,
and the retailer pays the freight charges from Sure Foot’s plant in Maine. Sure Foot’s
credit terms are 2/10, net 30. Although Sure Foot’s brand appears on every shoe-the
firm does very little mass selling, except for a limited program of cooperative
advertising and some sales promotion at walking events.
Sure Foot’s shoes are carried by “better” sporting goods stores all across the
nation-although usually in fairly small quantities. Its main showroom is in Boston,
where two salaried salespeople handle most of the firm’s large accounts. Sure Foot’s
products are also sold by seven independent “field reps” who are paid a 5 percent
commission on all sales. Each of these field reps is responsible for a several state
territory-emphasizing mostly the small stores in or near major cities. The field reps
carry Sure Foot’s products as a minor line-but none of their lines are competitive with
each other.
The walking shoe market is supplied by 7 large firms and 50 or more smaller firms.
While these firms are competitive, they do vary their materials, styles, prices, and
promotion. The “high-quality” market is supplied by only 5 firms-Sure Foot being the
largest. While these firms are also competitive, they generally offer a more limited
assortment of materials, styles, and prices because the “high-quality” part of the market
is not as large-and does not appear to be growing any more.
In the Sure Foot case, the nature of competition in the hiking shoe market is:
A. monopolistic competition.
B. monopoly.
C. oligopoly.