Thank you Kenton for an excellent case interview example! Watching the three parts made me get the gist of providing a great answer. It is also very helpful that you contrast an "ok" answer with a "good" answer, as there are small details that truly stands out. Keep doing what you do!
Thank you so much, Kanton! You helped me a lot in a interview that I was participating. I'd never did this type of interview before. Greetings from Brasil!
Thank you so much. It is quite inspired. I am wondering that Why does 25% of Americans eating breakfast need to change to 20%? Although there may be some young people who can't buy breakfasts, their parents will pay for it. Therefore, I think changing 25% to 20% is unnecessary because if someone eats breakfasts, someone will pay.
Once again, great video! Being able to compare the qualitative differences between the answers gives an awesome insight. Question: When doing your final calculation for market valuation, could it be a smart idea to do a range to arrive at your final answer? For example, could you say: "In my experience, quick service breakfast is usually between $4-$7." Then give that range and find the median or low-median to be conservative? Or is it best to just go with a straight answer?
Thanks Kenton for this great video, I was wondering how would you approach the sanity check if you didn't know the overall size of the quick service market? Is there an alternate check to see if $32b is a reasonable number?
Hello buddy, I'm not Kenton but I would say know the GDP of the country before your interview and compare your answer to this. Moreover, you might want to know the revenue of certain big companies e.g Amazon, Walmart and if you're lucky you may have researched McDonald's revenue before hand, which would help.
Thank you so much Kenton ! Great video. However, I wonder why you decided to change 25% of people taking breakfast daily to 20%. In the case that a certain segment couldn't afford it, given that the percentages are always presented in a MECE framework, shouldn't it be already considered within other groups?. For instance, if a teenager cannot afford to have breakfast at our client's company - or similar - shouldn't he be considered either within 75% of people not having breakfast daily or within 30% of people having breakfast at home ? Because in that case, the correct percentage of daily people taking breakfast - no matter how many people can afford it or not - should be 25 anyways. Really helpful. Thanks so much.
I agree. On top of that, I would argue that we actually currently underestimating the market size, since we ignore people not buying breakfast everyday. So I would tend to increase the 25% rather than decreasing it.
It’s not the best idea to present 3 similar videos first and only then tell your thoughts on them. By the time you watch a third one you can’t say how it is different from the first one. Just a suggestion
First off how can you just "assume certain things"... I think the proper way would be to do primary market research and ask a sample set of 1000 candidates and figure out from there....
because rounding messier numbers (like 365) is key to doing the math quickly. AND because the goal is directionally accurate NOT precision. The interviewers want to see your logic and basic math... on the job everyone knows you'll have Excel for precision
@@rocketblocks hi Kenton. Can you provide a little detail on the basic maths needed for these types of off cuff estimations? I see that it's basic add/sub/mult/div, but I actually would have trouble doing some live, without writing it out
