MT330 Unit 2 International Market Screening Exercise Example

Course	MT330 International Marketing and Business Development
Unit	Unit 2
Paper type	International market screening exercise
Length	About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	BS in Business Administration
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MT330 Unit 2

Spain by a Tenth of a Point: An MT330 Unit 2 Market Screening Exercise for a Pickleball Paddle Maker

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT330: International Marketing and Business Development

Unit 2 Market Screening Exercise

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The firm, scores and weights are composite; the screening method and sources cited are real, and indicator values should be checked against current data.

What this part is doingAdmitting in the lead that the margin is thin tells the reader the weights, not the scores, carry the argument.

Step 1: Knockouts

Knockouts are limits of the firm, not judgments about the countries. Blue Ridge Paddle Co., the composite firm, has two export staff, who work in English and Spanish, and its product needs organized pickleball or padel play to have buyers.

The language limit removes Germany, Japan, Brazil, South Korea and the Netherlands, each a reasonable market for a firm with different staff. The organized-play test removes Ireland, where neither sport yet has a national body with regular leagues. Five countries remain: Spain, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and Mexico.

Step 2: Weights, Fixed Before Scoring

Weights are set and defended before any country is scored, so the totals cannot be tuned afterward.

Court base receives 25, because a paddle sells only where people play on courts they can book. Competitive room receives 20, the heaviest contested weight, because a newcomer's premium paddle cannot win shelf space where American market leaders already sell directly with strong distribution. Household spending on sporting goods receives 15, and channel access 15, since specialist shops and clubs must be reachable. Trade access and logistics receive 10 each, as tariffs and freight affect price but rarely decide entry for a light product. Product rules receive 5, because the paddle needs only modest changes in any of the five markets.

Ghemawat (2001) argued that firms underestimate the costs of distance, cultural, administrative, geographic and economic, when they rank markets by size alone. The weights try to reflect those distances for this firm rather than the attractiveness of each market in general.

Step 3: Scores

Each country is scored from 1 to 5 on each indicator, with higher scores meaning more favorable for this firm. Scores are listed in the order of the weights above: court base, competitive room, spending, channel access, trade access, logistics, product rules.

Spain: 5, 4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 3. About 20,000 padel courts by industry estimates, any of which can host pickleball with temporary lines; few American paddle brands sell directly; spending per household is moderate; specialist padel shops and clubs are numerous; EU tariffs apply; ocean freight is slower than to Canada; EU product rules need modest changes.

Canada: 4, 2, 4, 3, 5, 5, 4. Pickleball is growing fast; American brands already sell directly across the border; spending is high; channels are concentrated in a few national chains; trade is tariff-free under USMCA; freight is by truck; rules are close to American ones.

Australia: 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4. Growing play; some competition; strong spending and specialist retail; low tariffs; long freight times.

United Kingdom: 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, 3, 3. Smaller court base; open channels through online and specialist retail; post-Brexit customs procedures.

Mexico: 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2. Some organized play; little competition; lower spending; fragmented channels; tariff-free trade; product labeling rules require Spanish and specific formats.

Step 4: Weighted Totals

A short script multiplies each score by its weight and sums the results.

Spain 3.75. Canada 3.65. Australia 3.35. United Kingdom 3.20. Mexico 2.95.

Spain wins because the firm decided that room to compete matters more than ease of shipping, and that decision is the whole result.

What this part is doingLocating the outcome in one weighting choice shows the exercise understood its own sensitivity.

Step 5: Sensitivity

If competitive room fell from 20 to 10 and logistics rose from 10 to 20, Canada would score 3.95 and Spain 3.55, reversing the result. No other single change of ten points reverses the order of the top two. The choice therefore rests on whether a newcomer can win shelf space in Canada against American brands already present. Johanson and Vahlne (1977) found that firms often enter markets that seem close, in language and business practice, before distant ones, and Canada would be that conventional choice. The firm's two export staff were asked how many Canadian shops had turned down the paddle at a trade show in Toronto; the answer, seven of nine, supports keeping competitive room at 20.

What the Scores Cannot Show

The scores compress a great deal of judgment into single numbers. A score of 4 for Spain's channel access reflects the number of specialist padel shops, but not whether those shops would take a new brand. A score of 2 for Canada's competitive room reflects the presence of American brands, but some Canadian shops might welcome a second American option. Cavusgil et al. (2020) recommend that screening be treated as a way to narrow choices, not to make them, and the next units test the scores that matter most. The scores are also only as recent as their sources; court counts in particular are changing quickly in both countries.

Step 6: Choice

Spain, with Canada held as the alternative if Spanish clubs prove unwilling to give pickleball court time. The narrow margin means the next units should test Spain's advantages directly rather than assume them.

What this part is doingNaming the condition under which the choice would be reversed shows the screening is a starting point, not a verdict.

References

Cavusgil, S. T., Knight, G., & Riesenberger, J. R. (2020). International business: The new realities (5th ed.). Pearson.

Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137-147.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676

MT330 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms

In Unit 2 students screen several countries for one product and choose a market to study further. The exercise should begin with knockout criteria that reflect the firm's own limits, so countries are removed for stated reasons. Instructors expect weights to be fixed and justified before any country is scored, since adjusting weights after scoring makes the result meaningless. Each score should carry a source or reason. Weighted totals should be calculated clearly, often with a spreadsheet or short script. Most prompts ask for a sensitivity check showing whether the choice changes if a weight changes. The exercise should end with a choice and the condition under which it would be reversed. Two tables, one for knockouts and one for scores, usually carry most of the work.

Inside the MT330 Unit 2 example

The sample's knockout step removes five countries for language and one for lack of organized play, framed as limits of the firm. The weights step defends each weight, especially competitive room, and cites Ghemawat on distance. The scores step gives each country seven scores in a fixed order with a short reason for each. Totals follow, under the highlighted line that Spain wins because the firm valued room to compete over ease of shipping. Sensitivity shows that swapping ten points between competitive room and logistics reverses the result, and a trade show response from Canadian shops supports the original weight, with Johanson and Vahlne explaining the usual pull toward nearby markets. A section on what scores cannot show precedes the choice.

MT330 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points

Market screening exercises are mostly assessed on logical knockouts, defended weights, sourced scores, correct calculation and an honest sensitivity check. Graders reward weights set before scoring and justified in terms of the firm's situation. Each score should have a reason the reader can check. Calculations should be shown or reproducible. Sensitivity analysis should identify which assumption the choice depends on. A narrow margin should be acknowledged rather than hidden. The choice should state the condition that would reverse it. Frameworks and data sources appear in APA 7. Exercises that score countries without stated weights, or that present a large margin produced by weights chosen after the fact, tend to receive lower marks.

Common MT330 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Screening exercises often rank countries by size or familiarity without explaining the criteria. Another common weakness is choosing weights after scoring, which makes the result look stronger than it is. Some students give scores with no source. Sensitivity checks are rarely done. Knockouts may be framed as judgments about countries rather than limits of the firm. Before drafting, write down what your firm cannot do, such as languages it cannot support, and use that as your knockout list. Then fix your weights and write one sentence defending each before you look up a single country's figures. Doing it in that order is what makes the final ranking trustworthy.

Get an MT330 Unit 2 example written to your instructions

Tell us the product, the firm's real limits such as languages, budget or shipping, and any countries your prompt names. With the Unit 2 instructions and rubric, a screening exercise is built in 24-48h with knockouts, weights fixed before scores, printed totals and a sensitivity test. The first request is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More MT330 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT330 Unit 2 questions, answered

How many countries should the screen include?

Enough to make the choice meaningful, typically five to twelve at the start and fewer after knockouts, though many prompts specify a number. Starting wide and cutting with stated tests shows reasoning; starting with three countries you already like shows little. Keep the final weighted comparison to a handful so each score can carry a real source or reason.

Where do the indicator scores come from?

Convert published data where it exists, such as spending figures, tariff schedules or freight quotes, into a scale you define, and state the conversion. Where data is thin, use a reasoned estimate and label it. Many sections accept 1 to 5 scales, provided the reader can see what separates a 3 from a 4 on each indicator.

What if my screen picks a country I did not expect?

Report it and examine why. Sometimes the surprise is right, and sometimes it exposes a weight you would not defend on reflection. Changing weights after seeing the result without saying so is the problem to avoid. If you revise, show both versions and explain the reason, which graders usually treat as evidence of careful work.

Where can I find a free MT330 Unit 2 sample paper?

The complete MT330 Unit 2 market screening exercise is on this page, ranking five countries for a pickleball paddle maker.

Which weight decides the result in the MT330 Unit 2 sample?

Competitive room at 20; lowering it to 10 and raising logistics to 20 would put Canada ahead of Spain.