Market Entry Case Interview: Framework and Worked Example

A market entry case asks whether a company should enter a new market, and if so, how. You solve it in four steps: assess how attractive the market is, run the economics to see if entry is profitable, evaluate whether the company has a right to win, and choose the entry mode. The answer is not always yes. A good candidate is just as ready to recommend staying out, and says so clearly.

I sat across the table for more than 100 McKinsey interviews, and market entry cases reveal something fast: whether you can hold a structure across four distinct questions without collapsing them into a vague "let's look at the market." Each step answers a different thing. Mix them up and your analysis turns to mush. Keep them separate and you look like a consultant.

The four-step structure

Here is the whole approach on one page. Memorize the four questions, not a rigid template, because the order and emphasis shift with the case.

This is a structure you build from first principles, not a list you recite. If structuring cases is still shaky for you, start with how to structure a case interview before you tackle entry cases, because everything here assumes you can decompose a problem cleanly.

Step 1: Is the market attractive?

First, size it and check its growth. You need to know the prize before you decide whether to chase it. You can size top-down (start from a large population and narrow down) or bottom-up (build from units and price). I cover the mechanics in detail in my market sizing case interview guide, and a good entry case almost always opens with a sizing.

Once you know the market is big enough, judge its structure with Porter's five forces. You are asking how easy it is to make money in this industry at all:

• Threat of new entrants: low barriers to entry make a market less attractive, because anyone can pile in. A food truck market is less attractive than a computer chip market.
• Bargaining power of suppliers: if a few suppliers control a critical input, they squeeze your margins. Think Intel's leverage over PC makers.
• Bargaining power of buyers: if customers are few and have many alternatives, they demand better terms.
• Threat of substitutes: if a cheaper or better substitute exists, the whole industry is exposed. Lab-grown diamonds versus mined diamonds is the classic case.
• Rivalry among competitors: fierce price wars make a market less attractive than a market where competitors coexist.

You do not need to recite all five mechanically. Hit the two or three that matter most for this specific industry and say why.

There is a second half to attractiveness that candidates forget: timing and trend. A market that is shrinking can still look big in a snapshot. Ask whether the market is growing, flat, or declining, and why. A 5 billion dollar market growing 15 percent a year is a far better prize than a 5 billion dollar market shrinking 3 percent a year, even though they are the same size today. The reason behind the trend matters too, because a market growing because of a regulatory tailwind can reverse the moment the regulation changes. Treat market size as a starting fact and the growth story as the thing that tells you whether the prize is getting bigger or smaller.

Step 2: Will entry be profitable?

Market attractiveness tells you the industry is good. Step two tells you whether your specific entry makes money. This is where you run the same Profit = Revenue minus Cost logic from a profitability case, but forward-looking. Estimate the revenue you could capture (your realistic market share times market size times price) and the cost to serve it, including the upfront investment to enter.

Because entry usually means a large upfront cost, this is where break-even and return on investment earn their keep. Break-even period is Cost of Investment divided by Annual Increase in Profit, and it tells you how many years until the entry pays for itself. A market can be attractive and still fail this test if the entry cost is too high or your share too small.

Be honest about the market share you assume, because this is where weak candidates lie to themselves. Walking into an established market and claiming 20 percent share in year one is not analysis, it is fantasy. Anchor your share estimate to something defensible: the number of existing competitors, how differentiated your client's offer is, and how fast customers switch. If five entrenched players already split the market, capturing 5 to 10 percent over several years is an aggressive but credible base case, and you should say which assumptions would make it higher or lower. An interviewer trusts a candidate who states a modest share and explains it far more than one who pencils in a big number with no reasoning.

Step 3: Do we have a right to win?

This is the step candidates skip, and skipping it is fatal. A market can be attractive and profitable in the abstract, but that does not mean your client can win in it. Right to win asks whether this specific company has the internal capabilities to succeed: the right distribution network, brand, technology, regulatory understanding, cultural fit, or cost position.

A useful test for whether sales and marketing will work is simple: is the customer lifetime value greater than the cost to acquire a customer? If acquiring a customer costs more than that customer is worth over their lifetime, growth burns cash. State that comparison explicitly when the case gives you the numbers.

Right to win is also where you should think about what the incumbents will do when your client shows up. Entry is never into an empty room. Existing players can cut prices, lock up distribution, or out-spend a newcomer on marketing, and a strong candidate names that competitive reaction as part of the right-to-win assessment. If your client's only advantage is being slightly cheaper, an incumbent can erase that advantage overnight by matching the price. A durable right to win comes from something hard to copy: a proprietary technology, an exclusive supply relationship, a cost structure competitors cannot match, or a capability the client already runs at scale elsewhere.

Step 4: How should we enter?

If the first three steps say go, the last question is how. There are three broad entry modes, each with a trade-off:

• Build organically: full control and you keep all the profit, but it is slow and you start from zero on brand and distribution.
• Acquire a player already in the market: fast, you buy share and capability instantly, but it is expensive and integration is risky.
• Partner or joint venture: lower cost and shared risk, you borrow a partner's distribution, but you split the upside and cede some control.

Match the mode to the bottleneck you found in step three. If the gap is distribution, partnering or acquiring solves it faster than building. If the client already has the capabilities and just lacks presence, building may be cleanest.

A worked example

Our client is a large European fitness chain considering entering the United States. They want to know whether to enter and how.

Step one, attractiveness. I size the market. Say the US has 330 million people, roughly 20 percent hold a gym membership, so about 66 million members, paying an average of 40 dollars a month, which is 480 dollars a year. That is a market of roughly 32 billion dollars a year. Large and growing. On five forces, barriers to entry are low (anyone can open a gym), and rivalry is intense, with budget chains and boutiques everywhere. So the market is big but crowded, a mixed picture.

Step two, economics. The client thinks they can capture 1 percent of the market over five years, which is 320 million dollars in annual revenue. Opening enough locations to support that costs, say, 200 million dollars upfront, and they expect 40 million dollars in added annual profit once mature. Break-even is 200 divided by 40, which is 5 years. Acceptable but not fast.

Step three, right to win. Here is the catch. Their European brand is unknown in the US, and gym choice is heavily driven by location and price, not brand loyalty carried across an ocean. They have no US distribution and no real estate footprint. Their right to win is weak on its own.

Step four, entry mode. Because the gap is brand and footprint, building from scratch is slow and risky against entrenched local players. I would recommend entry through acquisition of an existing regional chain, which buys instant locations, members, and local brand, then layering the client's operating model on top. If they are not willing to spend that, my recommendation flips to "do not enter," because organic entry into a crowded, low-loyalty market without a right to win is how money gets burned.

Notice the recommendation is conditional and clear: enter by acquiring, or do not enter at all. That decisiveness is what gets you the offer.

The bottom line

A market entry case is four separate questions, not one. Is the market attractive, will entry be profitable, can we specifically win, and how should we get in. Run them in order, keep them distinct, and be willing to recommend staying out. The strongest answer ties the entry mode directly to the capability gap you found, and states a clear go or no-go.

To see this structure run alongside profitability and sizing cases in full, work through my case interview examples.

Go deeper

Market entry is one of the case archetypes I drill inside Cut to the Case using the CaseMap system, so you can recognize the pattern instantly and run all four steps without freezing.

Get the complete Cut to the Case course →

One payment, lifetime access, 30-day guarantee.