Put four growth ideas on the same page
Brindle, a hypothetical supplier of refillable cleaning products to independent cafés, has four proposals for next year’s growth. Sales wants more café accounts. An operations lead suggests selling to hotels. Product wants a dispenser subscription. Another team proposes a consumer laundry brand. Every proposal promises growth, but each asks the company to learn something different.
The Ansoff matrix classifies growth options by whether products and markets are existing or new. AQA’s teaching guide describes the four directions used here. The matrix helps Brindle make the difference between its proposals visible before comparing budgets. All company details and decisions in this example are invented.
Define what existing means
Brindle uses its current refill range as the existing product and independent cafés in its served region as the existing market. That is a decision boundary for this exercise. Hotels count as a new market because buying, installation, and service requirements could differ, even when the liquid in the bottle is unchanged.
A small packaging adjustment need not create a new product. A dispenser with installation, maintenance, and recurring billing might. Write down the distinction so a project cannot become familiar simply through optimistic labeling.
Two dimensions: products and markets, each existing or new
Existing product · existing market
Market penetration
Sell more of the current offer to the market already served.
Existing product · new market
Market development
Take the current offer to a different customer group or region.
New product · existing market
Product development
Create a new offer for customers the business already serves.
New product · new market
Diversification
Enter a new market with a new offer.
Ask what each proposal requires you to learn
More café accounts fit market penetration. Brindle already understands the offer and customer type, but it must still establish that reachable demand remains. A discount could increase volume while reducing contribution after delivery costs. Familiarity reduces some uncertainty; it does not remove the need for commercial evidence.
Hotels fit market development. The first questions concern procurement, room-service workflows, and whether Brindle can meet delivery expectations. Launching a broad advertising campaign before answering those questions would spend money on an untested route to purchase.
A dispenser subscription for cafés fits product development. Existing relationships may help recruit trial customers. They do not establish that customers want a maintenance contract or that Brindle can service it economically. The team needs a delivery model as well as interest in the idea.
A consumer laundry brand fits diversification. Product performance, retail acquisition, household demand, and fulfillment could all be unfamiliar. The team would need to explain which existing capabilities transfer and which must be built or bought.
Turn a label into an investigation
Brindle compares the hotel and dispenser options with a small decision worksheet. This is FrameworkWorld’s application advice, not another part of the matrix.
| Option | Important unknown | First investigation | Reason to pause |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hotels | Can the current range meet purchasing requirements? | Speak with buyers and inspect their onboarding process | Mandatory service levels exceed current capacity |
| Dispensers | Can a subscription cover installation and maintenance? | Cost a limited service trial with willing café owners | Expected service work consumes the subscription margin |
The worksheet changes the next meeting. Rather than arguing about which quadrant sounds ambitious, the team can ask which unknown is most important and cheapest to investigate. Neither investigation is a commitment to a full launch, and neither has yet produced a result.
Define an owner, spending limit, review date, and decision criterion before starting. If buyers require support Brindle cannot provide, the company should revise the offer or pause. Calling the idea market development cannot solve the service gap.
Use the matrix without inventing a risk score
The model does not calculate revenue, probability of failure, or return on investment. Diversification adds unfamiliar territory, but a particular penetration campaign can still be expensive or poorly timed. Compare the actual constraints behind each proposal.
The cells can also hide dependencies. A hotel pilot might need a new dispenser, combining market and product development. Record that combined scope instead of forcing a complicated proposal into one reassuring cell.
Start your own review by listing concrete options, agreeing the current product and market boundaries, placing the options, and identifying the evidence each needs. Then compare capacity and economics alongside the map.
Use SWOT analysis to inspect capabilities and external conditions behind a growth option. Use the BCG matrix when the question concerns allocating resources across an existing portfolio. Ansoff instead helps explain which kind of growth a proposal represents.
Brindle’s next decision is whether to fund a bounded hotel investigation or dispenser trial. The matrix has clarified the learning burden; it has not selected the investment.
Sources and further reading
- AQA, Teaching guide: Ansoff matrix model. Secondary educational explanation of the product/market directions.