Interesting. Perhaps we can sell more books if we spice it up with a
dramatic word or 3 - 'devastate,' 'deceive,' 'Crush,' 'Shock & Awe.'
Whoops, that one's been used; try 'massive & overwhelming force.'
[Slap your own face, Jay. Cynicism is a no-no. How else can you get a
book noticed?]
Seriously, I agree that many of these 'strategies' get used frequently.
However I am a bit concerned with the focus, at least in the on-line
discussion, on the competition. Bill Conway in one of his books points
out the case of his firm making a disk drive (or some such). the
'industry standard' for one characteristic was around 65% of
theoretical. His firm met the standard with the best of them. then
they improved their product/processing, and over a year or so got up to
90+% of theoretical, an competitively earthshaking improvement.
Mr. Conway wrapped it up by saying, that if they had aimed at their
competition, they would never have focused on that characteristic, and
never made the improvements.
In Christensen's book, "The Innovators' Solution," he wants managers to
focus on what purpose/intent the customer has, when they buy the
product. (Speaking of language, the phrase is "hire the product" to
perform a task.) When we focus on the competition, we are assuming that
they have insight into the customer's aims that (a) we don't, so we have
to get it from the competition, or (b) we and the competition share
already, so the customer is not an issue. Case (a) is silly - it makes
difficult data even further removed. Case (b) makes a serious
assumption, failure of which will hurt badly.
Which brings me back to those 5 basic strategies. How else do we
"devastate rivals' profit sanctuaries" unless we make a product/service
that is more desirable to a specific group of customers? I can see that
identifying a 'profit sanctuary' may be a good way to identify subgroups
of markets associated with subgroups of customers. However, when you
play 'me too' will you ever do more than catch up?
I'm asking.
Cheers,
Jay
Fred Nickols wrote:
>Both lists addressed by this message had posts about George Stalk's new book
>and an earlier HBR article. I've read the article and assuming the book and
>article are consistent with one another, there's nothing particularly harsh
>or brutal about what Stalk has to say. Indeed, my own reaction after
>reading the article was, "So what? Sounds like 'business as usual' to me."
>Stalk and co-author Rob Lachenauer (also with Boston Consulting Group)
>present and illustrate five basic strategies for use in "trouncing" one's
>competitors:
>
>1. Devastate Rival's Profit Sanctuaries
>2. Plagiarize with Pride
>3. Deceive the Competition
>4. Unleash Massive & Overwhelming Force
>5. Raise Competitor's Costs
>
>One surprise awaited me. Messrs Stalk and Lachenauer make it quite clear
>that extremely detailed knowledge about your competitors is essential. What
>they don't discuss is how such information is obtained. I'm left with the
>opinion that, although the strategies aren't particularly vicious in and of
>themselves, it does seem clear that some very aggressive and extremely
>accurate corporate espionage is required to enable those strategies.
>
>I was able to obtain the Stalk & Lachenauer HBR article because I subscribe
>to Harvard Business Online's "Ideas@Work Interactive" and they are making
>the article available as a free download. Registration is free and the link
>below should enable that if you're interested.
>
>https://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/user/acct_signin.jhtml
>
>Regards,
>
>Fred Nickols, CPT
>Distance Consulting
>"Assistance at a Distance"
>
nickols@att.net
>www.nickols.us
>
>
>
>
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email:
quality@a2q.com
web:
http://www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?