Assurance of Learning Exercise #D

Competitive Profile Matrix

McDonald’s Burger King Yum! Brands Inc.

Critical Success Factors | Weight | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score |

Advertising | .15 | 4 | .6 | 2 | .3 | 3 | .45 |

Product Quality | .15 | 2 | .3 | 1 | .15 | 3 | .45 |

Price Competitiveness | .10 | 3 | .3 | 2 | .3 | 4 | .4 |

Management | .10 | 3 | .3 | 1 | .1 | 2 | .2 |

Financial Position | .15 | 4 | .6 | 2 | .3 | 3 | .45 |

Customer Loyalty | .15 | 3 | .45 | 2 | .3 | 4 | .6 |

Global Reach | .15 | 4 | .6 | 3 | .45 | 2 | .3 |

Market Share | .05 | 3 | .15 | 1 | .05 | 2 | .1 |

Total | 1.0 | 26 | 3.3 | 13 | 1.95 | 23 | 2.95 |

In comparing the data in the Cohesion Case between McDonald’s (MCD), Burger King Holdings (BKC), and Yum! Brands Inc. (Yum) it was obvious that MCD’s out ranked both of their competitors financially and by company volume. McDonald's has positioned itself on the forefront of fast-food technology and sets the standards for the rest of the industry. It is because of this that McDonald’s ranks higher than both Burger King Holdings and Yum! Foods Inc. in just about every category of the Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM). The 2008 year end numbers show that McDonald’s revenue of $22.99 billion doubled that of Yum and more surprisingly almost ten times the revenue of Burger King. Yum ended the year with a net income of $928 million, which sounds like a good year until you see that MCD’s year netted $4.35 billion (David, 2011).

With more than 31,000 restaurants in 118 countries and serving nearly 60 million consumers daily, McDonald’s (MCD) has grown to be the largest food service merchant worldwide (David, 2011). MCD’s shareholders received five million one hundred thousand dollars in returns. This return on investment is most staggering when compared to the top two competitors. Although MCD’s revenue has always been good, their operating costs increased by over two billion in 2007 (Rudarakanchana,...