This study covers the latent demand outlook for endoscopic clips across the states and cities of the United States. Latent demand (in millions of U.S. dollars), or potential industry earnings (P.I.E.) estimates are given across some 12,600 cities in the United States. For each city in question, the percent share the city is of its state and of the United States as a whole is reported. These comparative benchmarks allow the reader to quickly gauge a city vis-à-vis others. This statistical approach can prove very useful to distribution and/or sales force strategies. Using econometric models which project fundamental economic dynamics within each state and city, latent demand estimates are created for endoscopic clips. This report does not discuss the specific players in the market serving the latent demand, nor specific details at the product level. The study also does not consider short-term cyclicalities that might affect realized sales. The study, therefore, is strategic in nature, taking an aggregate and long-run view, irrespective of the players or products involved.

In this report we define the sales of endoscopic clips as including all commonly understood products falling within this broad category, irrespective of product packaging, formulation, size, or form. Companies participating in this industry include Boston Scientific, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, PLC, Olympus America, and Stryker. In addition to the sources indicated, additional information available to the public via news and/or press releases published by players in the industry was considered in defining and calibrating this category. All figures are in a common currency (U.S. dollars, millions) and are not adjusted for inflation (i.e., they are current values). Exchange rates used to convert to U.S. dollars are averages for the year in question. Future exchange rates are assumed to be constant in the future at the current level (the average of the year of this publication's release in 2022).

This study does not report actual sales data (which are simply unavailable, in a comparable or consistent manner in virtually all cities in the United States). This study gives, however, Professor Parker's estimates for the latent demand, or potential industry earnings (P.I.E.), for endoscopic clips in the United States. It also shows how the P.I.E. is divided and concentrated across the cities and regional markets of the United States. For each region, he also shows his estimates of how the P.I.E. grows over time. In order to make these estimates, a multi-stage methodology was employed that is often taught in courses on strategic planning at graduate schools of business.

• 1INTRODUCTION
• 1.1OVERVIEW
• 1.2WHAT IS LATENT DEMAND AND THE P.I.E.?
• 1.3THE METHODOLOGY
• 1.3.1STEP 1. PRODUCT DEFINITION AND DATA COLLECTION
• 1.3.2STEP 2. FILTERING AND SMOOTHING
• 1.3.3STEP 3. FILLING IN MISSING VALUES
• 1.3.4STEP 4. VARYING PARAMETER, NON-LINEAR ESTIMATION
• 1.3.5STEP 5. FIXED-PARAMETER LINEAR ESTIMATION
• 1.3.6STEP 6. AGGREGATION AND BENCHMARKING
• 1.4FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
• 1.4.1CATEGORY DEFINITION
• 1.4.2UNITS
• 1.4.3METHODOLOGY
• 2SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
• 2.1LATENT DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES
• 2.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES
• 2.3TOP 100 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
• 3FAR WEST
• 3.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 3.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALASKA
• 3.3CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ALASKA
• 3.4LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CALIFORNIA
• 3.5CITIES SORTED BY RANK - CALIFORNIA
• 3.6LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - HAWAII
• 3.7CITIES SORTED BY RANK - HAWAII
• 3.8LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEVADA
• 3.9CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEVADA
• 3.10LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OREGON
• 3.11CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OREGON
• 3.12LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WASHINGTON
• 3.13CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WASHINGTON
• 4GREAT LAKES
• 4.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 4.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ILLINOIS
• 4.3CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ILLINOIS
• 4.4LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - INDIANA
• 4.5CITIES SORTED BY RANK - INDIANA
• 4.6LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MICHIGAN
• 4.7CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MICHIGAN
• 4.8LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OHIO
• 4.9CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OHIO
• 4.10LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WISCONSIN
• 4.11CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WISCONSIN
• 5MID-ATLANTIC
• 5.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 5.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DELAWARE
• 5.3CITIES SORTED BY RANK - DELAWARE
• 5.4LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
• 5.5CITIES SORTED BY RANK - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
• 5.6LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MARYLAND
• 5.7CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MARYLAND
• 5.8LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW JERSEY
• 5.9CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW JERSEY
• 5.10LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW YORK
• 5.11CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW YORK
• 5.12LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - PENNSYLVANIA
• 5.13CITIES SORTED BY RANK - PENNSYLVANIA
• 6NEW ENGLAND
• 6.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 6.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CONNECTICUT
• 6.3CITIES SORTED BY RANK - CONNECTICUT
• 6.4LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MAINE
• 6.5CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MAINE
• 6.6LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MASSACHUSETTS
• 6.7CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MASSACHUSETTS
• 6.8LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW HAMPSHIRE
• 6.9CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW HAMPSHIRE
• 6.10LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - RHODE ISLAND
• 6.11CITIES SORTED BY RANK - RHODE ISLAND
• 6.12LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VERMONT
• 6.13CITIES SORTED BY RANK - VERMONT
• 7PLAINS
• 7.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 7.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IOWA
• 7.3CITIES SORTED BY RANK - IOWA
• 7.4LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KANSAS
• 7.5CITIES SORTED BY RANK - KANSAS
• 7.6LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MINNESOTA
• 7.7CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MINNESOTA
• 7.8LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSOURI
• 7.9CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MISSOURI
• 7.10LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEBRASKA
• 7.11CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEBRASKA
• 7.12LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH DAKOTA
• 7.13CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NORTH DAKOTA
• 7.14LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH DAKOTA
• 7.15CITIES SORTED BY RANK - SOUTH DAKOTA
• 8ROCKIES
• 8.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 8.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - COLORADO
• 8.3CITIES SORTED BY RANK - COLORADO
• 8.4LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IDAHO
• 8.5CITIES SORTED BY RANK - IDAHO
• 8.6LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MONTANA
• 8.7CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MONTANA
• 8.8LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - UTAH
• 8.9CITIES SORTED BY RANK - UTAH
• 8.10LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WYOMING
• 8.11CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WYOMING
• 9SOUTHEAST
• 9.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 9.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALABAMA
• 9.3CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ALABAMA
• 9.4LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARKANSAS
• 9.5CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ARKANSAS
• 9.6LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - FLORIDA
• 9.7CITIES SORTED BY RANK - FLORIDA
• 9.8LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - GEORGIA
• 9.9CITIES SORTED BY RANK - GEORGIA
• 9.10LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KENTUCKY
• 9.11CITIES SORTED BY RANK - KENTUCKY
• 9.12LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - LOUISIANA
• 9.13CITIES SORTED BY RANK - LOUISIANA
• 9.14LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSISSIPPI
• 9.15CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MISSISSIPPI
• 9.16LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH CAROLINA
• 9.17CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NORTH CAROLINA
• 9.18LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH CAROLINA
• 9.19CITIES SORTED BY RANK - SOUTH CAROLINA
• 9.20LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TENNESSEE
• 9.21CITIES SORTED BY RANK - TENNESSEE
• 9.22LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VIRGINIA
• 9.23CITIES SORTED BY RANK - VIRGINIA
• 9.24LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WEST VIRGINIA
• 9.25CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WEST VIRGINIA
• 10SOUTHWEST
• 10.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• 10.2LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARIZONA
• 10.3CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ARIZONA
• 10.4LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW MEXICO
• 10.5CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW MEXICO
• 10.6LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OKLAHOMA
• 10.7CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OKLAHOMA
• 10.8LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TEXAS
• 10.9CITIES SORTED BY RANK - TEXAS
• 11DISCLAIMERS, WARRANTIES, AND USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
• 11.1DISCLAIMERS & SAFE HARBOR
• 11.2ICON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS