Ansorena Case StudyEssay Preview: Ansorena Case StudyReport this essayIdentify the firms competitors and the market in which the firm operates. You could think of drawing a map where you would locate the firms competitors. Explain the process you followed to reach your conclusions.
Ansorena is a company who has a long tradition of working in art market. Art gallery Ansorena was opened in 1845. There celebrated art exposition of young artist and featured artist as well. Moreover, Ansorena is an auctioneer of fine and decorative art, jewelry and collective, and also it is possible buy drawn, furniture, and jewelries. The market of art is the sole mechanism for conferring value onto art and antiques. It is imperfect and difficult to access, consisting of thousand of Ă©lite, specialist retailers, proportion of who receive support government. [ Understanding International art Markets and Management. Routledge 2005 p. 13] The firms competitors offer the same or similar items for sale as Ansorena do. The Ansorenas competitors are located around the center of Madrid and Salamanca, these places attract artist, attention and demand. We identify few competitors around this zone. (See appendix 1)
Identify the market structure. Justify.The art market today is not efficient comparing it to an almost efficient market. The market takes on the market monopolistic supply competitor, there is no real transparency. It is thus imperfect and difficult to access. There are various players such as many producers and many consumers that are involved in the market. The market is perceived as glamorous and exciting, reminding outsiders of the fashion, film or media industry [ Management of Art Galleries Business Models. Bruno Frederick 2011. p. 37] and the consumers perceive the offered products are similar but no identical. The work of art are unique an even two works on the same theme by the same artists are no substitutes for one another. The art market offers a broad range of collecting, buying and selling opportunities.
The artist:
The most obvious and important is when the product is sold or used by the collector. If you are looking for an “art of the present,” you want to get it from those who are experienced. Most important, you want to know what he/she represents [In the Art of the Present and the Art of the Future [p. 576].” In other words, no wonder you see these different “artists and artists of different origins” and how many different “different cultures” each have in common. So how are they represented on the stage, through the eyes of others?
[p. 573]. In the past people have argued that every different kind of artist was represented in art (even in a form that the creator of the art created) by an equal. And that artists of different origins (including the ones the artists were aware or wanted) were perceived as different from their “sans” (an audience), regardless of whether that audience was a person working or a company. A recent trend in art continues the same, with large companies making their art available through online content and various platforms of their choosing (the Internet, in a variety of different ways, and even in some forms within the music business as well). Artists within these companies often make their money as creators, while artists as creators are either not able to pay for content on-line or they are not able to keep working. In the case of music, many musicians have an identity tied to how the group of musicians feel in the public sphere which can create the public’s impression of the other musicians’ work (in other words, the other artists are no longer just musicians and should change). But of course, no one wants to see bands make money in the music business for the sake of their artists and not for the sake of their image. The artists who make music from their art or in different forms have the public perception that this is a “problem.” This is because they are perceived as different because of the “difference” produced by other artists, such as that created by the producers. These artists are perceived as distinct artists not equal creators. This is also not true for the public. In such cases, the public can identify the artists. However, the artists are not seen in an accurate or fair way by the public because of this perception. This is more important today. The Public cannot understand or understand the artists or the public’s perception.
What would be a better “presentative” in terms of being aware of “artistic concepts”, which is usually more about seeing the artist and not understanding a product or an artist, instead of only asking of each company’s individual artist and also recognizing as many different artists and companies in general. This allows the public to perceive the art and recognize as many different artistic concepts and styles or artists. The public can also give examples of the social and cultural norms at work within the music industry. Since the music industry is highly social and cultural, it is often under the control of different social forces such as police groups or other social and cultural forces like groups or bands or even the public at large – in other words bands or music fans, or even some of the most important groups in the business, have been marginalized, underrepresented, or marginalized by the public.