INTRODUCTION
In recent years, solar energy has undoubtedly become a growing as well as a promising trend. In the very beginning, solar energy used to be very expensive but the frontiers of energy technology have finally started to move forward and finally it is a global effort to promote it. Although the produced solar energy in 2006 was about only 0.4 %, due to its high cost , about 2.70$ per watt, the alertness for global warm and the excessive prices of fossil fuels, led to the emerging of solar industries. (Economist, 2008). The demand of the solar energy was determined by the incentives, like feed-in-tariffs, given for each country. When the ‘grid parity’ was reached, these subsidies were reduced. Throughout this paper, the term ‘feed-in-tariffs’ will refer to the long-term contracts between the power providers and the owners, which enable the first ones to buy energy at higher rates. In addition, reaching ‘grid parity’ means that the solar source has expanded its power and there is no need for further incentives. ( I. Susman, 2008, p. 2489). In 2008, the worldwide demand climbed at 5.95 GigaWatts, an increase approximately 110% over 2007. The production followed the same pattern reaching 6.85 GW. The dominant players of the market were the c-Si firms, which used silicon, based modules, and succeeded efficiencies between 13%-19%. However, this breakthrough gave the opportunity to start-up companies to launch , which used thin-film technology and represented the 13% of the production in 2008. ( J. Steenburg & Berkley Wagonfeld, 2009, p.2).The advantage of these companies was their far lower prices due to their low –cost production. The model company for all that thin-film companies was First Solar which established in 2006, while 2 years later, Nanosolar was about to come to the forefront with its patent. The aim of this paper is to critically examine the question if Nanosolar’s low-price strategy was enough in order to imitate the progress of the leader First Solar. Chapter two explores the marketing strategy and the geographical target position of the first, whereas the third section compares the business characteristics and strategic plans of First Solar with those of Nanosolar. Consequently, this paper aims to focus on how Nanosolar as well as First Solar operate their marketing strategies, to evaluate their tactics’ gap and to give reasons in order to prove that the first one cannot reach the success of its bigger rival.
1. Nanosolar: Background and Marketing Strategy
This chapter will give a brief overview of the Nanosolar’s emerging, its marketing components as well as the policies followed by every geographical region.
Nanosolar, having raised over $400million in fundings, is using nanoparticle inks on low-cost aluminium foil, utilizing its proprietary high-throughput roll-to-roll printable semiconductor technology to enable the world’s lowest-cost solar panels. Its value proposition was the innovation as well as the effort to reduce the purchasing and installation cost per watt through the years. As M. Roscheisen the CEO of the company stated ‘’we print CIGS onto inexpensive metal foil, something that some have been skeptical can work while others have been wondering whether it can deliver cells better than 6% efficient”(Cheyney, 2009). Actually, the utility panel was 50% less energy efficient than bulkier c-Si modules, but made up for this fact by being 90% less expensive to produce. Additionally, because thin-film modules required 43% more roof space per watt generated, it was more valuable to larger commercial and utility customers than residential customers. Nevertheless, there was a trend toward using the sleeker thin-film panels in residential installations due to aesthetics, and Nanosolar’s primary competitor, First Solar had established this market. ( J. Steenburgh & Berkley Wagonfeld, 2009, p. 6).
