This case study examines the challenges facing Music Games International (MGI), a startup founded by Igor, Roman, and Sasha whose music education game achieved critical acclaim but poor commercial sales. The paper analyzes the team's core problems: a lack of unified direction, persistent personality conflicts, and a critical leadership void among the founders and their consultants. It evaluates the strategic debate between targeting the education market versus the entertainment industry, arguing that a structured SWOT analysis of both sectors is needed for objective decision-making. The paper ultimately recommends that MGI prioritize the education market to establish brand recognition and capital before pursuing the more competitive entertainment space.
Music Games International (MGI) had a product they wanted to develop but were uncertain how to bring it to market. The company's founders — Igor, Roman, and Sasha — had already produced a game that used a gaming platform to introduce youth to music, and it had been a critical success. Unfortunately, the game did not sell well, leaving the three essentially broke and searching for a way to reinvigorate the concept. Each year, a university business plan contest allows students to showcase their talents, permitting teams to work with outside developers, and that is how Henry and Dana became involved with MGI.
The task was to create a business plan out of the previously disorganized work of the original founders and determine what was needed to present the concept to investors. There were many personality conflicts and differing ideas about what the vision should be. At some point the founders brought in two additional people — Alex as a music industry consultant and Dav as a technical consultant — which further complicated the process. The disjointedness of the meetings concerned the university students Dana and Henry, and they tried to bring all of the ideas together into a cohesive whole.
The biggest issue to date, beyond the personality conflicts, is which industry the team should focus on for marketing purposes. The founders believe they should seek a foothold in the ultracompetitive music entertainment industry, while the university students believe the team should focus on the education market. This fundamental disagreement is making it difficult for the team to move forward.
The inexperience of the original three founders led them to bring in university students for the purpose of entering the business plan contest, but also for their ability to act as consultants. Sasha, the graduate already on the team, was the most volatile and disorganized member throughout the process, jumping from idea to idea. This meant that a more logical approach was needed — precisely what Henry and Dana wanted to bring to the team, though they were constantly in conflict, especially with Sasha, over the team's vision.
Henry and Dana made several strong points regarding entering the education industry versus the entertainment industry immediately. The two need to differentiate between the options by producing a SWOT analysis of both industries as they relate to the product MGI is marketing (Berry, 2007). With a detailed analysis of the two industries, the team would be able to objectively evaluate which represents the best immediate fit. From a cursory review of the case, it does appear that MGI should first enter the education industry to establish a brand and accumulate capital, and then move into the entertainment industry as that becomes more feasible.
"Direction, leadership void, and market indecision"
The team needs to make a decision. Henry and Dana are not able to continue working with them for much longer, and the project deadline is quickly approaching. The university students must also consider what is best for their own careers. In addition, Dana's suggestion that the team seek out a leader with greater business experience should be taken seriously, as bringing in experienced leadership may be the most important step toward resolving the conflicts and moving the company forward.
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.