You're not there yet

You reached the core case answer with support: volume decline, offline-to-online shift, Amazon price pressure, grey-market cost disadvantage, and a supplier negotiation route. The main gap was consistency of independent reasoning under quantitative and commercial pressure, especially around the revenue/margin math and the first recommendation.

• Framing
  3.0

  You built a workable profit tree at 02:06 with revenue as volume times price and costs split into fixed and variable, then eventually pivoted to volume and the market after the interviewer ruled out price, mix, and costs. A 4 would have named a sharper initial hypothesis and immediately concluded that flat price plus flat unit cost means a pure volume/share issue without needing the second prompt.

  • 02:06"profitability with framework which is revenue minus costs"
• Commercial judgement
  3.0

  You got to the right commercial battlefield at 06:38 by identifying competitors, channels, service, and price, and you later understood that an 8% operating margin leaves little room to price-match. A 4 would have connected Amazon's price advantage to sourcing mechanics more independently and treated joining the grey market as risky before the interviewer flagged it.

  • 06:38"they may compete either on prices or on mix"
• Rigor
  2.0

  You recovered several calculations, including fixed costs and grey-market sizing, but your first 2022 revenue estimate was materially wrong and your margin labels/numbers needed correction at 15:07. A 3 would have written and spoken the arithmetic cleanly on the first pass, landing around €1.05bn revenue, 60% gross margin, and 8% operating margin with a quick sense-check.

  • 11:21"As I said, around 2 billion."
• Creativity
  2.0

  You proposed using the grey market and then, after pushback, going directly to suppliers to ask for comparable pricing, but the option set stayed narrow. A 3 would have offered two or three distinct routes with trade-offs, such as supplier pressure, strategic partnership, private label, premium experience, or fixed-cost reduction to fund selective price moves.

  • 22:32"start procuring from the grey market doing it wisely of course"
• Synthesis
  3.0

  You gave a recommendation to change procurement strategy, negotiate with manufacturers, and compete on price, while acknowledging the need for de-risking. A 4 would have been more top-down and balanced: do not directly join the grey market, use measured supplier pressure plus partnership, protect the price premium, state the risk clearly, and give a concrete next step.

  • 24:27"we need to change our procurement strategy, go direct to the manufacturers"

You stayed engaged, asked for time where needed, and generally worked collaboratively with the interviewer. The communication gap was precision: several answers were rambling or numerically unclear, which made the interviewer work harder to follow your logic.

• Presence
  3.0

  You remained composed enough to ask for time during the fixed-cost calculation and corrected yourself rather than defending the first number. A 4 would have kept the same calm control while also reducing the visible hesitation and label confusion during the quantitative sections.

  • 12:23"Okay, give me one minute, please."
• Precision
  2.0

  You often had the right general idea, but imprecise wording and labels created confusion, especially when you said total revenue was around €2bn and later mixed up gross and operating profit. A 3 would have signposted each calculation and conclusion in one clean sentence before elaborating.

  • 15:07"So operating margin would be roughly 280 and then gross margin would be, sorry"
• Listening
  3.0

  You generally incorporated interviewer nudges, including moving from product switching to channel and competitor dynamics and correcting the fixed-cost build when asked to walk it through. A 4 would have caught key clues faster, especially the implication of flat selling prices at 03:03 and the request for cost of goods rather than fixed-cost advantages at 17:41.

  • 06:38"Okay, so if we're not producing goods and we're on the selling exams then yes it's a distribution problem."
• Relationship-building
  3.0

  You were polite, collaborative, and comfortable asking for clarification when exhibits were not visible, which made the interaction workable. A 4 would have added a slightly warmer, more confident teaming style while maintaining momentum, rather than sounding transactional during parts of the case.

  • 06:57"I don't see an exhibit yet, so maybe you can spell this out for me."