Confirming Pages
Chapter 3
Competitive Strategy and Advantage
in the Marketplace
Chapter Learning Objectives
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 34
LO1.
Gain an understanding of competitive strategies frequently used to
provide distinctive industry positioning and competitive advantage in
the marketplace.
LO2.
Recognize industry conditions that favor a market target that is either
broad or narrow and that indicate whether the company should pursue a competitive advantage linked to low costs or product
differentiation.
LO3.
Understand the role of resource-based strategies in supplementing
generic strategies and achieving competitive advantage.
LO4.
Learn how strategic alliances and partnerships can be used to add to
a firm’s collection of resources and competencies.
2/23/08 10:14:02 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
35
In Chapter 1 we introduced the concept of competitive strategy and its
importance in attaining a sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace. The chapter exposed you to proven approaches to winning a sustainable competitive advantage, including strategies keyed to lower costs,
differentiating features, a focus on a narrow market niche, and developing
unmatched resource strengths and competitive capabilities. Regardless of
approach, a company’s competitive strategy deals exclusively with the specifics of management’s game plan for securing a competitive advantage vis-à-vis
rivals.
There are many routes to competitive advantage, but they all involve
giving buyers what they perceive as superior value compared to the offerings of rival sellers. Superior value can mean offering a good product
at a lower price, a superior product that is worth paying more for, or an
attractive combination of price, features, quality, service, and other appealing attributes. This chapter examines approaches to providing customers
with superior value, including strategies that yield distinctive industry
positioning and strategies keyed to exploiting unsurpassed resources and
competencies.
Competitive Strategies and Industry Positioning
There are countless variations in the competitive strategies that companies
employ, mainly because each company’s strategic approach entails customdesigned actions to fit its own circumstances and industry environment.
The custom-tailored nature of each company’s strategy is also the result
of management’s efforts to uniquely position the company in its industry.
Companies are much more likely to achieve competitive advantage and
earn above-average profits if they are able to find a unique way of delivering superior value to customers. For example, during the 1990s, Starbucks’
convenient locations, flavorful coffee drinks, superior customer service, and
appealing store ambiance made it stand out among other restaurants selling coffee and gave it a competitive advantage in the ready-to-drink coffee industry. There have since been an untold number of coffeeshops that
have attempted to imitate Starbucks’ competitive strategy, but none have
been able to achieve a comparable level of success. By choosing a unique
approach to providing value to customers and striving for operational excellence, Starbucks has achieved an enduring brand loyalty that makes it difficult for others to triumph by merely copying its strategic approach. “Me
too” strategies can rarely be expected to deliver competitive advantage and
stellar performance unless the imitator possesses resources or competencies
that allow it to provide greater value to customers than that offered by firms
with similar strategic approaches.
Competitive strategies that provide distinctive industry positioning and
competitive advantage in the marketplace involve choosing between (1) a
market target that is either broad or narrow, and (2) whether the company
should pursue a competitive advantage linked to low costs or product differentiation. Figure 3.1 presents four proven competitive strategies keyed to
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 35
LO1
Gain an
understanding of
competitive strategies
frequently used to
provide distinctive
industry positioning
and competitive
advantage in the
marketplace.
2/23/08 10:14:03 AM
Confirming Pages
36
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
FIGURE 3.1
The Four Generic Competitive Strategies
Value Creation
Keyed to
Differentiating
Features
Presence in a Broad
Range of Market
Segments
Market Coverage
Value Creation
Keyed to Lower
Cost
Overall
Low-Cost
Provider Strategy
Broad
Differentiation
Strategy
Presence in a Limited
Number of Market
Segments
Type of Competitive Advantage Pursued
Focused
Low-Cost
Strategy
Focused
Differentiation
Strategy
Source: This is an author-expanded version of a 3-strategy classification discussed in Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy (New York: Free
Press, 1980), pp. 35–40.
industry positioning.1 The general approach to competing and operating the
business is notably different for each of the four competitive strategies. The
four generic strategies are:
1. A low-cost provider strategy—striving to achieve lower overall costs than
rivals and appealing to a broad spectrum of customers, usually by underpricing rivals.
2. A broad differentiation strategy—seeking to differentiate the company’s
product or service from rivals’ in ways that will appeal to a broad spectrum of buyers.
3. A focused low-cost strategy—concentrating on a narrow buyer segment (or
market niche) and outcompeting rivals by having lower costs than rivals
and thus being able to serve niche members at a lower price.
4. A focused differentiation strategy—concentrating on a narrow buyer segment (or market niche) and outcompeting rivals by offering niche members customized attributes that meet their tastes and requirements better
than rivals’ products.
Each of these four generic competitive approaches stakes out a different market position. The following sections explore the ins and outs of the four generic
competitive strategies and how they differ.
1
This classification scheme is an adaptation of a narrower three-strategy classification presented in Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors (New York: Free Press, 1980), Chapter 2, especially pp. 35–40 and 44–46. For a discussion of the different ways that companies can position themselves in the marketplace, see
Michael E. Porter, “What Is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review 74, no. 6 (November–December
1996), pp. 65–67.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 36
2/23/08 10:14:04 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
37
Low-Cost Provider Strategies
Striving to be the industry’s overall low-cost provider is a powerful competitive
approach in markets with many price-sensitive buyers. A company achieves
low-cost leadership when it becomes the industry’s lowest-cost provider rather
than just being one of perhaps several competitors with low costs. Successful
low-cost providers boast meaningfully lower costs than rivals—but not necessarily the absolutely lowest possible cost. In striving for a cost advantage over
rivals, managers must take care to include features and services that buyers consider essential—a product offering that is too frills-free can be viewed by consumers as
offering little value even if it is priced lower than competing products.
A company has two options for translating a low-cost advantage over
rivals into attractive profit performance. Option 1 is to use the lower-cost
edge to underprice competitors and attract price-sensitive buyers in great
enough numbers to increase total profits. Option 2 is to maintain the present
price, be content with the present market share, and use the lower-cost edge
to earn a higher profit margin on each unit sold, thereby raising the firm’s
total profits and overall return on investment. For maximum effectiveness,
companies employing a low-cost provider strategy need to achieve their cost
advantage in ways difficult for rivals to copy or match. If rivals find it relatively easy or inexpensive to imitate the leader’s low-cost methods, then
the leader’s advantage will be too short-lived to yield a valuable edge in the
marketplace.
Achieving Low-Cost Leadership
To succeed with a low-cost provider strategy, company
Success in achieving a low-cost edge over rivals
managers have to scrutinize each cost-creating activcomes from outmanaging rivals in performing
ity and determine what factors cause costs to be high
essential activities and eliminating or curbing
or low. Then they have to use this knowledge to keep
“nonessential” activities.
the unit costs of each activity low. They have to be
proactive in eliminating nonessential work steps and
low-value activities. Normally, low-cost producers work diligently to create
cost-conscious corporate cultures that feature broad employee participation
in continuous cost improvement efforts and limited perks and frills for executives. They strive to operate with exceptionally small corporate staffs to keep
administrative costs to a minimum. Many successful low-cost leaders also use
benchmarking to keep close tabs on how their costs compare with rivals and
firms performing comparable activities in other industries.
But while low-cost providers are champions of frugality, they usually don’t
scrimp on investing in resources that promise to drive costs out of the business. Wal-Mart, one of the foremost practitioners of low-cost leadership, has
invested in state-of-the-art technology throughout its operations—its distribution facilities are an automated showcase, it uses online systems to order
goods from suppliers and manage inventories, it equips its stores with cuttingedge sales-tracking and checkout systems, and it sends daily point-of-sale
data to 4,000 vendors. Wal-Mart’s information and communications systems
and capabilities are more sophisticated than those of virtually any other retail
chain in the world.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 37
2/23/08 10:14:05 AM
Confirming Pages
38
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
Market Conditions Favoring a Low-Cost Provider Strategy
LO2
Recognize industry
conditions that favor
a market target that
is either broad or
narrow and that
indicate whether
the company should
pursue a competitive
advantage linked to
low costs or product
differentiation.
A competitive strategy predicated on low-cost leadership is particularly powerful when:
1. Price competition among rival sellers is especially vigorous—Low-cost providers are in the best position to compete offensively on the basis of price
and to survive price wars.
2. The products of rival sellers are essentially identical and are readily available
from several sellers—Commodity-like products and/or ample supplies set
the stage for lively price competition; in such markets, it is the less efficient, higher-cost companies that are most vulnerable.
3. There are few ways to achieve product differentiation that have value to buyers—
When the product or service differences between brands do not matter
much to buyers, buyers nearly always shop the market for the best price.
4. Buyers incur low costs in switching their purchases from one seller to another—
Low switching costs give buyers the flexibility to shift purchases to lowerpriced sellers having equally good products. A low-cost leader is well
positioned to use low price to induce its customers not to switch to rival
brands.
5. The majority of industry sales are made to a few, large volume buyers—Low-cost
providers are in the best position among sellers in bargaining with highvolume buyers because they are able to beat rivals’ pricing to land a high
volume sale while maintaining an acceptable profit margin.
6. Industry newcomers use introductory low prices to attract buyers and build a
customer base—The low-cost leader can use price cuts of its own to make it
harder for a new rival to win customers.
As a rule, the more price-sensitive buyers are, the more appealing a low-cost
strategy becomes. A low-cost company’s ability to set the industry’s price floor
and still earn a profit erects protective barriers around its market position.
The Hazards of a Low-Cost Provider Strategy
Perhaps the biggest pitfall of a low-cost provider strategy is getting carried
away with overly aggressive price cutting and ending up with lower, rather than
higher, profitability. A low-cost/low-price advantage results in superior profitability only if (1) prices are cut by less than the size of the cost advantage or
(2) the added volume is large enough to bring in a bigger total profit despite
lower margins per unit sold. Thus, a company with a 5 percent cost advantage
cannot cut prices 20 percent, end up with a volume gain of only 10 percent,
and still expect to earn higher profits!
A second big pitfall is relying on an approach to reduce costs that can be easily copied by rivals. The value of a cost advantage depends on its sustainability. Sustainability, in turn, hinges on whether the company achieves its cost
advantage in ways difficult for rivals to replicate or match. A third pitfall is
becoming too fixated on cost reduction. Low costs cannot be pursued so zealously that a firm’s offering ends up being too features-poor to gain the interests of buyers. Furthermore, a company driving hard to push its costs down
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 38
2/23/08 10:14:05 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
39
has to guard against misreading or ignoring increased buyer preferences for
added features or declining buyer price sensitivity. Even if these mistakes are
avoided, a low-cost competitive approach still carries risk. Cost-saving technological breakthroughs or process improvements can nullify a low-cost leader’s hard-won position.
Broad Differentiation Strategies
Differentiation strategies are attractive whenever buyers’ needs and preferences are too diverse to be fully satisfied by a standardized product or service.
A company attempting to succeed through differentiation must study buyers’
needs and behavior carefully to learn what buyers think has value and what
they are willing to pay for. Then the company must include these desirable
features to clearly set itself apart from rivals lacking such product or service
attributes.
Successful differentiation allows a firm to:
•
•
•
Command a premium price, and/or
Increase unit sales (because additional buyers are won over by the differentiating features), and/or
Gain buyer loyalty to its brand (because some buyers are strongly
attracted to the differentiating features and bond with the company and
its products).
Differentiation enhances profitability whenever the extra price the product commands outweighs the added costs of achieving the differentiation.
Company differentiation strategies fail when buyers don’t value the brand’s
uniqueness and/or when a company’s approach to differentiation is easily
copied or matched by its rivals.
Approaches to Differentiation
Companies can pursue differentiation from many
angles: a unique taste (Dr Pepper, Listerine); multiple
Easy-to-copy differentiating features cannot
produce sustainable competitive advantage;
features (Microsoft Vista, Microsoft Office); wide selecdifferentiation based on hard-to-copy competention and one-stop shopping (Home Depot, Amazon.
cies and capabilities tends to be more
com); superior service (FedEx); spare parts availability
sustainable.
(Caterpillar guarantees 48-hour spare parts delivery to
any customer anywhere in the world or else the part
is furnished free); engineering design and performance (Mercedes, BMW);
prestige and distinctiveness (Rolex); product reliability (Whirlpool and GE in
large home appliances); quality manufacturing (Michelin in tires, Toyota and
Honda in automobiles); technological leadership (3M Corporation in bonding
and coating products); a full range of services (Charles Schwab in stock brokerage); a complete line of products (Campbell’s soups); and top-of-the-line
image and reputation (Ralph Lauren and Starbucks).
The most appealing approaches to differentiation are those that are hard
or expensive for rivals to duplicate. Indeed, resourceful competitors can, in
time, clone almost any product or feature or attribute. If Coca-Cola introduces
a vanilla-flavored soft drink, so can Pepsi; if Nokia introduces mobile phones
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 39
2/23/08 10:14:06 AM
Confirming Pages
40
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
with cameras and Internet capability, so can Motorola and Samsung. As a rule,
differentiation yields a longer-lasting and more profitable competitive edge
when it is based on product innovation, technical superiority, product quality and reliability, comprehensive customer service, and unique competitive
capabilities. Such differentiating attributes tend to be tough for rivals to copy
or offset profitably and buyers widely perceive them as having value.
Creating Value for Customers through Differentiation
While it is easy enough to grasp that a successful differentiation strategy must
offer value in ways unmatched by rivals, a big issue in crafting a differentiation strategy is deciding what is valuable to customers. Typically, value can be
delivered to customers in three basic ways.
1. Include product attributes and user features that lower the buyer’s costs. Commercial buyers value products that can reduce their cost of doing business. For example, making a company’s product more economical for a
buyer to use can be done by reducing the buyer’s raw materials waste
(providing cut-to-size components), reducing a buyer’s inventory requirements (providing just-in-time deliveries), increasing product reliability to
lower a buyer’s repair and maintenance costs, and providing free technical support. Similarly, consumers find value in differentiating features
that will reduce their expenses. The recent increase in gasoline prices in
the United States has spurred the sales of hybrid-powered automobiles
that have higher sales prices than similar gasoline models, but offer better
fuel economy.
2. Incorporate features that improve product performance.2 Commercial buyers
and consumers alike value higher levels of performance in many types of
products. Product reliability, output, durability, convenience, or ease of
use are aspects of product performance that differentiate products offered
to buyers. Mobile phone manufacturers are currently in a race to improve
the performance of their products through the introduction of nextgeneration phones with a more appealing, trend-setting set of user features and options.
3. Incorporate features that enhance buyer satisfaction in noneconomic or intangible
ways. Goodyear’s Aquatred tire design appeals to safety conscious motorists wary of slick roads. Bentley, Ralph Lauren, Louis Vuitton, Tiffany,
Cartier, and Rolex have differentiation-based competitive advantages
linked to buyer desires for status, image, prestige, upscale fashion,
superior craftsmanship, and the finer things in life. L. L. Bean makes
its mail-order customers feel secure in their purchases by providing an
unconditional guarantee with no time limit.
Where to Look for Opportunities to Differentiate
Differentiation is not something hatched in marketing and advertising departments, nor is it limited to quality and service. Differentiation opportunities
2
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 40
Ibid., pp. 135–38.
2/23/08 10:14:06 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
41
can exist in activities that affect the value of a product or service; possibilities
include the following:
•
Supply chain activities that ultimately spill over to affect the performance
or quality of the company’s end product. Starbucks gets high ratings on
its coffees partly because it has very strict specifications on the coffee
beans purchased from suppliers.
•
Product R&D activities that aim at improved product designs and performance, more frequent first-to-market victories, added user safety, or
enhanced environmental protection.
•
Production R&D and technology related activities that permit the manufacture of customized products at an efficient cost; make production methods safer for the environment; or improve product quality, reliability, and
appearance. Dell Computer’s build-to-order production process continues
to be a strong differentiating feature for the company that appeals to
many corporate and individual PC buyers.
•
Manufacturing activities that reduce product defects, extend product life,
allow better warranty coverages, or enhance product appearance. The
quality edge enjoyed by Japanese automakers stems partly from their
distinctive competence in performing assembly line activities.
•
Distribution and shipping activities that allow for fewer warehouse and
on-the-shelf stockouts, quicker delivery to customers, more accurate order
filling, and/or lower shipping costs.
•
Marketing, sales, and customer service activities that result in superior technical assistance to buyers, faster maintenance and repair services, better
credit terms, or greater customer convenience.
Perceived Value and the Importance of Signaling Value
The price premium commanded by a differentiation strategy reflects the value
actually delivered to the buyer and the value perceived by the buyer. The value of
certain differentiating features is rather easy for buyers to detect, but in some
instances buyers may have trouble assessing what their experience with the
product will be.3 Successful differentiators go to great lengths to make buyers knowledgeable about a product’s value and incorporate signals of value
such as attractive packaging, extensive ad campaigns (i.e., how well-known
the product is), the quality of brochures and sales presentations, the seller’s
list of customers, the length of time the firm has been in business, and the
professionalism, appearance, and personality of the seller’s employees. Such
signals of value may be as important as actual value (1) when the nature of
differentiation is subjective or hard to quantify, (2) when buyers are making
a first-time purchase, (3) when repurchase is infrequent, and (4) when buyers
are unsophisticated.
3
The relevance of perceived value and signaling is discussed in more detail in Porter, Competitive
Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996),
pp. 138–142.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 41
2/23/08 10:14:07 AM
Confirming Pages
42
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
Market Conditions Favoring a Differentiation Strategy
LO2
Recognize industry
conditions that favor
a market target that
is either broad or
narrow and that
indicate whether
the company should
pursue a competitive
advantage linked to
low costs or product
differentiation.
Differentiation strategies tend to work best in market circumstances where:
1. Buyer needs and uses of the product are diverse—Diverse buyer preferences
allow industry rivals to set themselves apart with product attributes that
appeal to particular buyers. For instance, the diversity of consumer preferences for menu selection, ambience, pricing, and customer service gives
restaurants exceptionally wide latitude in creating differentiated concepts.
Other industries offering opportunities for differentiation based upon
diverse buyer needs and uses include magazine publishing, automobile
manufacturing, footwear, and computers.
2. There are many ways to differentiate the product or service that have value to
buyers—Industries that allow competitors to add features to product attributes are well suited to differentiation strategies. For example, hotel chains
can differentiate on such features as location, size of room, range of guest
services, in-hotel dining, and the quality and luxuriousness of bedding and
furnishings. Similarly, cosmetics producers are able to differentiate based
upon prestige and image, formulations that fight the signs of aging, UV
light protection, exclusivity of retail locations, the inclusion of antioxidants
and natural ingredients, or prohibitions against animal testing.
3. Few rival firms are following a similar differentiation approach—The best differentiation approaches involve trying to appeal to buyers on the basis of
attributes that rivals are not emphasizing. A differentiator encounters less
head-to-head rivalry when it goes its own separate way to create uniqueness and does not try to outdifferentiate rivals on the very same attributes. When many rivals are all claiming “ours tastes better than theirs”
or “ours gets your clothes cleaner than theirs,” competitors tend to end
up chasing the same buyers with very similar product offerings.
4. Technological change is fast-paced and competition revolves around rapidly
evolving product features—Rapid product innovation and frequent introductions of next-version products heighten buyer interest and provide
space for companies to pursue distinct differentiating paths. In video
game hardware and video games, golf equipment, PCs, mobile phones,
and MP3 players, competitors are locked into an ongoing battle to set
themselves apart by introducing the best next-generation products—
companies that fail to come up with new and improved products and
distinctive performance features quickly lose out in the marketplace.
The Hazards of a Differentiation Strategy
Differentiation strategies can fail for any of several reasons. A differentiation
strategy keyed to product or service attributes that are easily and quickly copied is
always suspect. Rapid imitation means that no rival achieves meaningful differentiation, because whatever new feature one firm introduces that strikes
the fancy of buyers is almost immediately added by rivals. This is why a firm
must search out sources of uniqueness that are time-consuming or burdensome for rivals to match if it hopes to use differentiation to win a sustainable
competitive edge over rivals.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 42
2/23/08 10:14:07 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
43
Differentiation strategies can also fail when buyers see little value in the unique
attributes of a company’s product. Thus even if a company sets the attributes of
its brand apart from its rivals’ brands, its strategy can fail because of trying to
differentiate on the basis of something that does not deliver adequate value
to buyers. For example, consumers may have a “so what” attitude about the
Adidas 1 running shoe that utilizes a 20 MHz microprocessor to make adjustments to pavement and ground surfaces. Adidas may find buyers will decide
the computer-controlled running shoes are not worth the $250 retail price and
sales will be disappointingly low.
Overspending on efforts to differentiate is a strategy flaw that can end up eroding profitability. Company efforts to achieve differentiation nearly always raise
costs. The trick to profitable differentiation is either to keep the costs of achieving differentiation below the price premium the differentiating attributes can
command in the marketplace or to offset thinner profit margins by selling
enough additional units to increase total profits. If a company goes overboard
in pursuing costly differentiation, it could be saddled with unacceptably thin
profit margins or even losses. The need to contain differentiation costs is why
many companies add little touches of differentiation that add to buyer satisfaction but are inexpensive to institute.
Other common pitfalls and mistakes in crafting a differentiation strategy
include:4
•
Overdifferentiating so that product quality or service levels exceed buyers’ needs.
Even if buyers “like” the differentiating extras, they may not find them
sufficiently valuable to pay extra for them.
•
Trying to charge too high a price premium. Even if buyers view certain extras
or deluxe features as “nice to have,” they may still conclude that the
added cost is excessive relative to the value they deliver.
•
Being timid and not striving to open up meaningful gaps in quality or service or
performance features vis-à-vis the products of rivals—tiny differences between
rivals’ product offerings may not be visible or important to buyers.
A low-cost provider strategy can always defeat a differentiation strategy when
buyers are satisfied with a basic product and don’t think “extra” attributes are
worth a higher price.
Focused (or Market Niche) Strategies
What sets focused strategies apart from low-cost leadership or broad differentiation strategies is a concentration on a narrow piece of the total market. The
targeted segment, or niche, can be defined by geographic uniqueness or by
special product attributes that appeal only to niche members. The advantages
of focusing a company’s entire competitive effort on a single market niche are
considerable, especially for smaller and medium-sized companies that may
lack the breadth and depth of resources to tackle going after a national customer base with a “something for everyone” lineup of models, styles, and product selection. Community Coffee, the largest family-owned specialty coffee
4
Porter, Competitive Advantage, pp. 160–162.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 43
LO2
Recognize industry
conditions that favor
a market target that
is either broad or
narrow and that
indicate whether
the company should
pursue a competitive
advantage linked to
low costs or product
differentiation.
2/23/08 10:14:08 AM
Confirming Pages
44
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
retailer in the United States, has a geographic focus on the state of Louisiana
and communities across the Gulf of Mexico. Community holds only a 1.1 percent share of the national coffee market, but has recorded sales in excess of $100
million and has won a 50 percent share of the coffee business in the 11-state
region where it is distributed. Examples of firms that concentrate on a welldefined market niche keyed to a particular product or buyer segment include
Animal Planet and the History Channel (in cable TV); Google (in Internet
search engines); Porsche (in sports cars); and Bandag (a specialist in truck tire
recapping that promotes its recaps aggressively at over 1,000 truck stops).
A Focused Low-Cost Strategy
A focused strategy based on low cost aims at securing a competitive advantage by serving buyers in the target market niche at a lower cost and a lower
price than rival competitors. This strategy has considerable attraction when
a firm can lower costs significantly by limiting its customer base to a welldefined buyer segment. The avenues to achieving a cost advantage over rivals
also serving the target market niche are the same as for low-cost leadership—
outmanage rivals in keeping the costs to a bare minimum and searching for
innovative ways to bypass or reduce nonessential activities. The only real difference between a low-cost provider strategy and a focused low-cost strategy
is the size of the buyer group to which a company is appealing.
Focused low-cost strategies are fairly common. Producers of private-label
goods are able to achieve low costs in product development, marketing, distribution, and advertising by concentrating on making generic items similar
to name-brand merchandise and selling directly to retail chains wanting a
low-priced store brand. The Perrigo Company has become a leading manufacturer of over-the-counter health care products with 2006 sales of more
than $1.4 billion by focusing on producing private-label brands for retailers
such as Wal-Mart, CVS, Walgreen, Rite-Aid, and Safeway. Even though Perrigo doesn’t make branded products, a focused low-cost strategy is appropriate for the makers of branded products as well. Concepts & Connections 3.1
describes how Motel 6 has kept its costs low in catering to budget-conscious
travelers.
A Focused Differentiation Strategy
Focused differentiation strategies are keyed to offering carefully designed
products or services to appeal to the unique preferences and needs of a narrow, well-defined group of buyers (as opposed to a broad differentiation strategy aimed at many buyer groups and market segments). Companies like Four
Seasons Hotels and Resorts, Chanel, Gucci, and Ferrari employ successful
differentiation-based focused strategies targeted at affluent buyers wanting
products and services with world-class attributes. Glaceau Vitamin Water and
Under Armour have found success by offering performance-oriented products
for athletes and fitness buffs. Orvis has become a leading seller of high-quality
sporting goods equipment by focusing on sportsmen dedicated to fly fishing and bird hunting. Indeed, most markets contain a buyer segment willing
to pay a price premium for the very finest items available, thus opening the
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 44
2/23/08 10:14:08 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
Concepts & Connections
45
3.1
MOTEL 6’s FOCUSED LOW-COST STRATEGY
Motel 6 caters to price-conscious travelers who want a
clean, no-frills place to spend the night. To be a low-cost
provider of overnight lodging, Motel 6 (1) selects relatively
inexpensive sites on which to construct its units (usually near interstate exits and high traffic locations but far
enough away to avoid paying prime site prices); (2) builds
only basic facilities (no restaurant or bar and only rarely
a swimming pool); (3) relies on standard architectural
designs that incorporate inexpensive materials and lowcost construction techniques; and (4) provides simple room
furnishings and decorations. These approaches lower both
investment and operating costs. Without restaurants, bars,
and all kinds of guest services, a Motel 6 unit can operate
with just front-desk personnel, room cleanup crews, and
skeleton building-and-grounds maintenance.
To promote the Motel 6 concept with travelers who have
simple overnight requirements, the chain uses unique, recognizable radio ads done by nationally syndicated radio
personality Tom Bodett; the ads describe Motel 6’s clean
rooms, no-frills facilities, friendly atmosphere, and dependably low rates (usually under $40 a night).
Motel 6’s basis for competitive advantage is lower costs
than competitors in providing basic, economical overnight
accommodations to price-constrained travelers.
strategic window for some competitors to pursue differentiation-based focused strategies aimed at the very top of the market pyramid.
Conditions Making a Focused Low-Cost or Focused
Differentiation Strategy Viable
A focused strategy aimed at securing a competitive edge based either on low
cost or differentiation becomes increasingly attractive as more of the following
conditions are met:
•
The target market niche is big enough to be profitable and offers good
growth potential.
•
Industry leaders have chosen not to compete in the niche—in which case
focusers can avoid battling head-to-head against the industry’s biggest
and strongest competitors.
•
It is costly or difficult for multisegment competitors to meet the specialized needs of niche buyers and at the same time satisfy the expectations
of mainstream customers.
•
The industry has many different niches and segments, thereby allowing a
focuser to pick a niche suited to its resource strengths and capabilities.
•
Few, if any, other rivals are attempting to specialize in the same target
segment.
The Hazards of a Focused Low-Cost or Focused
Differentiation Strategy
Focusing carries several risks. The first major risk is the chance that competitors will find effective ways to match the focused firm’s capabilities in serving
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 45
2/23/08 10:14:09 AM
Confirming Pages
46
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
the target niche. In the lodging business, large chains like Marriott and Hilton
have launched multibrand strategies that allow them to compete effectively in
several lodging segments simultaneously. Marriott has flagship hotels with a
full complement of services and amenities that allow it to attract travelers and
vacationers going to major resorts; it has J.W. Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels
that provide deluxe comfort and service to business and leisure travelers; it
has Courtyard by Marriott and SpringHill Suites brands for business travelers looking for moderately priced lodging; it has Marriott Residence Inns
and TownePlace Suites designed as a “home away from home” for travelers
staying five or more nights; and it has 520 Fairfield Inn locations that cater
to travelers looking for quality lodging at an “affordable” price. Similarly,
Hilton has a lineup of brands (Conrad Hotels, Doubletree Hotels, Embassy
Suites Hotels, Hampton Inns, Hilton Hotels, Hilton Garden Inns, and Homewood Suites) that enable it to compete in multiple segments and compete
head-to-head against lodging chains that operate only in a single segment.
Multibrand strategies are attractive to large companies like Marriott and
Hilton precisely because they enable a company to enter a market niche and
siphon business away from companies that employ a focus strategy.
A second risk of employing a focus strategy is the potential for the preferences
and needs of niche members to shift over time toward the product attributes
desired by the majority of buyers. An erosion of the differences across buyer segments lowers entry barriers into a focuser’s market niche and provides an open
invitation for rivals in adjacent segments to begin competing for the focuser’s customers. A third risk is that the segment may become so attractive it is soon inundated with competitors, intensifying rivalry and splintering segment profits.
The Peril of Adopting a “Stuck in the Middle”
Strategy
Each of the four generic competitive strategies positions the company differently
in its market and competitive environment. Each establishes a central theme
for how the company will endeavor to outcompete rivals. Each creates some
boundaries or guidelines for maneuvering as market circumstances unfold and
as ideas for improving the strategy are debated. Thus, settling on which generic
strategy to employ is perhaps the most important strategic commitment a company makes—it tends to drive the rest of a company’s strategic actions.
One of the big dangers in crafting a competitive strategy is that managers, torn between the pros and cons of the various generic strategies, will
opt for “stuck in the middle” strategies that represent compromises between
lower costs and greater differentiation and between broad and narrow market
appeal. Compromise or middle-ground strategies rarely produce sustainable
competitive advantage or a distinctive competitive position. Usually, companies with compromise strategies end up with a middle-of-the-pack industry
ranking—they have average costs, some but not a lot of product differentiation relative to rivals, an average image and reputation, and little prospect of
industry leadership.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 46
2/23/08 10:14:10 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
47
Resource- and Competence-Based Strategic
Approaches to Competitive Advantage
Companies are able to supplement strategies keyed to unique industry posiLO3
tioning with strategies that rely on valuable and rare resources possessed by
the firm. Resource-based strategies attempt to exploit company resources in Understand the
a manner that offers value to customers in ways rivals are unable to match. role of resourcebased strategies
For example, a company pursuing a broad low-cost strategy might build its in supplementing
strategy around unique resources that allow it to produce or distribute prod- generic strategies and
ucts at a lower cost than rivals. Dell Computer has amassed a variety of valu- achieving competitive
able resource strengths that have yielded a considerable cost advantage in advantage.
the PC industry. Dell Computer’s supplier relationships and build-to-order
manufacturing capabilities allowed it to operate with no more than two hours
of PC components inventory in 2006. Also at that time, its direct selling business model and Internet sales capabilities allowed it
to average just 3 to 4 days worth of finished goods
A resource-based strategy utilizes a compainventory, while its rivals typically held as much as
ny’s resources and competitive capabilities to
30 days of finished goods inventory. The inability of
achieve a cost-based advantage or differentiation. The most successful resource-based
Dell’s rivals to match its supplier-, manufacturing-,
strategies offer value to customers in ways that
and sales-related resource strengths made it difficult
are unmatched by rivals.
for them to match Dell’s pricing and earn comparable
profit margins.
Resource strengths and competitive capabilities can also facilitate differentiation in the marketplace. Because Fox News and CNN have the capability to
devote more air time to breaking news stories and get reporters on the scene
very quickly compared to the major networks, many viewers turn to the cable
networks when a major news event occurs. Microsoft has stronger capabilities
to design, create, distribute, and advertise an array of software products for
PC applications than any of its rivals. Avon and Mary Kay Cosmetics have
differentiated themselves from other cosmetics and personal care companies
by assembling a salesforce numbering in the hundreds of thousands that gives
them direct sales capability—their sales associates can demonstrate products
to interested buyers, take their orders on the spot, and deliver the items to
buyers’ homes.5
A Company’s Resources, Capabilities, and Competencies as
the Basis for Competitive Advantage
One of the most important aspects of identifying resource strengths and
competitive capabilities that can become the basis for competitive advantage
has to do with a company’s competence level in performing key pieces of
its business—such as supply chain management, R&D, production, distribution, sales and marketing, and customer service. A company’s proficiency
5
For a more detailed discussion, see George Stalk, Jr., Philip Evans, and Lawrence E. Schulman,
“Competing on Capabilities: The New Rules of Corporate Strategy,” Harvard Business Review 70,
no. 2 (March–April 1992), pp. 57–69.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 47
2/23/08 10:14:11 AM
Confirming Pages
48
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
in conducting different facets of its operations can range from merely a
competence in performing an activity to a core competence to a distinctive
competence:
1. A competence is an internal activity an organization is good at doing.
Some competencies relate to fairly specific skills and expertise (like
just-in-time inventory control or picking locations for new stores) and
may be performed in a single department or organizational unit. Other competencies, however, are inherA competence is an activity that a company
ently multidisciplinary and cross-functional. A
performs well.
competence in continuous product innovation, for
example, comes from teaming the efforts of people and groups with
expertise in market research, new product R&D, design and engineering,
cost-effective manufacturing, and market testing.
2. A core competence is a proficiently performed internal activity that is central to a company’s strategy and competitiveness. A core competence is a
highly valuable resource strength because of the contribution it makes to
the company’s success in the marketplace. A company may have more
than one core competence in its resource portfolio, but
rare is the company that can legitimately claim more
A core competence is a competitively
than two or three core competencies. Most often, a core
important activity that a company performs
competence is knowledge-based, residing in people and in a
better than other internal activities.
company’s intellectual capital and not in its assets on the
balance sheet. Moreover, a core competence is more likely to be grounded
in cross-department combinations of knowledge and expertise rather than
being the product of a single department or work group. 3M Corporation
has a core competence in product innovation—its record of introducing
new products goes back several decades and new product introduction is
central to 3M’s strategy for growing its business.
3. A distinctive competence is a competitively valuable activity that a company performs better than its rivals. Because a distinctive competence represents a uniquely strong capability relative to rival
companies, it qualifies as a competitively superior
A distinctive competence is a competitively
resource strength with competitive advantage potential.
important activity that a company performs
This is particularly true when the distinctive compebetter than its rivals—therefore offering the
potential for competitive advantage.
tence enables a company to deliver standout value to
customers (in the form of lower prices or better product performance or superior service). Toyota has worked diligently over
several decades to establish a distinctive competence in low-cost, highquality manufacturing of motor vehicles; its “lean production” system is
far superior to that of any other automaker’s and the company is pushing
the boundaries of its production advantage with a new Global Body
assembly line. Toyota’s new assembly line costs 50 percent less to install
and can be changed to accommodate a new model for 70 percent less than
its previous production system.6
6
George Stalk, Jr. and Rob Lachenauer, “Hard Ball: Five Killer Strategies for Trouncing the
Competition,” Harvard Business Review 82, no. 4 (April 2004), p. 65.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 48
2/23/08 10:14:11 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
49
The conceptual differences between a competence, a core competence, and
a distinctive competence draw attention to the fact that a company’s resource
strengths and competitive capabilities are not all equal.7 Some competencies
and competitive capabilities merely enable market survival because most
rivals have them. Core competencies are competitively more important resource
strengths than competencies because they add power to the company’s strategy and have a bigger positive impact on its market position and profitability.
Distinctive competencies are even more competitively important. A distinctive competence is a competitively potent resource strength for three reasons:
(1) it gives a company competitively valuable capability that is unmatched by
rivals, (2) it has potential for being the cornerstone of the company’s strategy,
and (3) it can produce a competitive edge in the marketplace.
Determining the Competitive Power of a Resource Strength
What is most telling about a company’s resource strengths is how powerful
they are in the marketplace. The competitive power of a resource strength is
measured by how many of the following four tests it can pass:8
1. Is the resource really competitively valuable? All companies possess a collection of resources and competencies—some have the potential to contribute to a competitive advantage while others may not. Apple’s operating
system for its MacIntosh PCs is by most accounts a world beater (compared to Windows XP) but Apple has failed miserably in converting its
resource strength in operating system design into competitive success in
the global PC market—it’s an industry laggard with a two percent worldwide market share.
2. Is the resource strength rare—is it something rivals lack? Companies have to
guard against pridefully believing that their core competences are distinctive competences or that their brand name is more powerful than those of
their rivals. Who can really say whether Coca-Cola’s consumer marketing
prowess is better than Pepsi-Cola’s or whether the Mercedes-Benz brand
name is more powerful than that of BMW or Lexus? Although many
retailers claim to be quite proficient in product selection and in-store
merchandising, a number run into trouble in the marketplace because
7
For a more extensive discussion of how to identify and evaluate the competitive power of a
company’s capabilities, see David W. Birchall and George Tovstiga, “The Strategic Potential of a
Firm’s Knowledge Portfolio,” Journal of General Management 25, no. 1 (Autumn 1999), pp. 1–16
and David Teece, “Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for KnowHow, and Intangible Assets,” California Management Review 40, no. 3 (Spring 1998), pp. 55–79.
8
See Jay B. Barney, “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management 17, no. 1 (1991), pp. 105–109; and Jay B. Barney and Delwyn N. Clark, Resource-Based Theory:
Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Also
see M. A. Peteraf, “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View,” Strategic Management Journal 14 (1993), pp. 179–191; and David J. Collis and Cynthia A. Montgomery,
“Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990s,” Harvard Business Review 73, no. 4 (July–August
1995), pp. 120–23.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 49
2/23/08 10:14:12 AM
Confirming Pages
50
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
they encounter rivals whose competencies in product selection and instore merchandising are equal to or better than theirs.
3. Is the resource strength hard to copy? The more difficult and more expensive
it is to imitate a company’s resource strength, the greater its potential
competitive value. Resources tend to be difficult to copy when they are
unique (a fantastic real estate location, patent protection), when they must
be built over time (a brand name, a strategy supportive organizational
culture), and when they carry big capital requirements (a cost-effective
plant to manufacture cutting-edge microprocessors). Wal-Mart’s competitors have failed miserably in their attempts over the past two decades to
match its state-of-the-art distribution capabilities.
4. Can the resource strength be trumped by substitute resource strengths and competitive capabilities? Resources that are competitively valuable, rare, and
costly to imitate lose their ability to offer competitive advantage if rivals
possess equivalent substitute resources. For example, manufacturers relying on automation to gain a cost-based advantage in production activities
may find their technology based advantage nullified by rivals’ use of lowwage offshore manufacturing. Resources can contribute to a competitive
advantage only when resource substitutes don’t exist.
Understanding the nature of competitively important resources allows
managers to identify resources or capabilities that should be further developed to play an important role in the company’s future
strategies. In addition, management may determine
Companies may lack stand-alone resource
that it doesn’t possess a resource that independently
strengths capable of contributing to competitive
passes all four tests listed here with high marks, but
advantage, but may develop a distinctive
does have a bundle of resources that can be leveraged
competence through bundled resource
strengths.
to develop a core competence. Although Callaway
Golf Company’s engineering and market research
capabilities are matched relatively well by rivals Cobra Golf and Ping Golf, its
cross-functional development skills allow it to consistently outperform both
rivals in the marketplace. Callaway Golf’s technological capabilities, understanding of consumer preferences, and collaborative organizational culture
have allowed it to remain the largest seller of golf equipment for more than a
decade. The company’s bundling of resources used in its product development process qualifies as a distinctive competence and is the basis of the company’s competitive advantage.
Resource-based strategies can also be directed at undermining a rival’s
competitively valuable resources by identifying substitute resources to
accomplish the same objective. Amazon.com lacks
the broad network of retail stores operated by rival
Substitute resources may be developed to
Barnes & Noble, but it is able to make its products
allow companies to offset resource weaknesses
readily available to anyone with Internet access.
or deficiencies in performing competitively
Amazon.com’s free shipping on orders over $25 and
critical activities.
searchable index of books and other merchandise is
much more appealing than visiting a big-box bookstore for many busy
consumers.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 50
2/23/08 10:14:12 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
51
Supplementing Resources and Competencies
through Strategic Alliances and Collaborative
Partnerships
Companies in all types of industries have elected to form strategic alliances and
partnerships to add to their collections of resources and competencies. This is
an about-face from times past, when the vast majority of companies were confident they could independently develop whatever resources were needed to be
successful in their industries. But globalization of the world economy, revolutionary advances in technology, and rapid growth in emerging markets in Asia,
Latin America, and Eastern Europe have made strategic partnerships commonplace in most industries.9 Even the largest and most financially sound companies have concluded that simultaneously running the races for global market
leadership and for a stake in the industries of the future requires more diverse
skills, resources, technological expertise, and competitive capabilities than they
can assemble alone. Such companies, along with others that are missing the
resources and competitive capabilities needed to pursue promising opportunities, have determined that the fastest way to fill the gap is often to form alliances
with enterprises having the desired strengths. Consequently, these companies
form strategic alliances or collaborative partnerships in which two or more companies jointly work to achieve mutually beneficial strategic outcomes. Thus, a
strategic alliance is a formal agreement between two or more separate companies in which
there is strategically relevant collaboration of some sort, joint contribution of resources,
shared risk, shared control, and mutual dependence. Often, alliances involve joint
marketing, joint sales or distribution, joint production, design collaboration, joint
research, or projects to jointly develop new technologies or products. The relationship between the partners may be contractual or merely collaborative; the
arrangement commonly stops short of formal ownership ties between the partners (although there are a few strategic alliances where one or more allies have
minority ownership in certain of the other alliance members). Five factors make
an alliance “strategic,” as opposed to just a convenient business arrangement:10
LO4
Learn how strategic
alliances and
partnerships can
be used to add to
a firm’s collection
of resources and
competencies.
1. It is critical to the company’s achievement of an important objective.
2. It helps build, sustain, or enhance a core competence or competitive
advantage.
3. It helps block a competitive threat.
4. It helps open up important new market opportunities.
5. It mitigates a significant risk to a company’s business.
Companies in many different industries all across the world have made
strategic alliances a core part of their overall strategy; U.S. companies alone
announced nearly 68,000 alliances from 1996 through 2003.11 In the personal
9
Yves L. Doz and Gary Hamel, Alliance Advantage: The Art of Creating Value through Partnering
(Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998), pp. xiii, xiv.
10
Jason Wakeam, “The Five Factors of a Strategic Alliance,” Ivey Business Journal 68, no. 3
(May–June 2003), pp. 1–4.
11
Jeffrey H. Dyer, Prashant Kale, and Harbir Singh, “When to Ally and When to Acquire,” Harvard
Business Review 82, no. 7/8 (July–August 2004), p. 109.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 51
2/23/08 10:14:13 AM
Confirming Pages
52
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
computer (PC) industry, alliances are pervasive because PC components and
software are supplied by so many different companies—one set of companies provides the microprocessors, another group makes the circuit boards,
another the monitors, another the disk drives, another the memory chips, and
so on. Moreover, their facilities are scattered across the United States, Japan,
Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and parts of Europe. Strategic alliances among
companies in the various parts of the PC industry facilitate the close crosscompany collaboration required on next-generation product development,
logistics, production, and the timing of new product releases.
During the 1998–2004 period, Samsung Electronics, a South Korean corporation with $54 billion in sales, entered into over 50 major strategic alliances
involving such companies as Sony, Yahoo, Hewlett-Packard, Nokia, Motorola,
Intel, Microsoft, Dell, Mitsubishi, Disney, IBM, Maytag, and Rockwell Automation; the alliances involved joint investments, technology transfer arrangements,
joint R&D projects, and agreements to supply parts and components—all of
which facilitated Samsung’s strategic efforts to transform itself into a global
enterprise and establish itself as a leader in the worldwide electronics industry.
Studies indicate that large corporations are commonly involved in 30 to 50
alliances and that a number have hundreds of alliances. One recent study estimated that about 35 percent of corporate revenues in 2003 came from activities involving strategic alliances, up from 15 percent in 1995.12 Another study
reported that the typical large corporation relied on alliances for 15 to 20 percent
of its revenues, assets, or income.13 Companies that have formed a host of alliances have a need to manage their alliances like a portfolio—terminating those
that no longer serve a useful purpose or that have produced meager results,
forming promising new alliances, and restructuring certain existing alliances to
correct performance problems and/or redirect the collaborative effort.14
How Strategic Alliances Build Resource Strengths and Core
Competencies
The most common reasons why companies enter into strategic alliances are
to expedite the development of promising new technologies or products,
to overcome deficits in their own technical and manufacturing expertise, to
bring together the personnel and expertise needed to create new skill sets, to
improve supply chain efficiency, to gain economies of scale in production, and
to acquire or improve market access through joint marketing agreements.15 In
bringing together firms with different skills and knowledge bases, alliances
12
Salvatore Parise and Lisa Sasson, “Leveraging Knowledge Management across Strategic Alliances,”
Ivey Business Journal 66, no. 4 (March–April 2002), p. 42.
13
David Ernst and James Bamford, “Your Alliances Are Too Stable,” Harvard Business Review 83,
no. 6 (June 2005), p. 133.
14
An excellent discussion of the portfolio approach to managing multiple alliances and how to
restructure a faltering alliance is presented in Ernst and Bamford, “Your Alliances Are Too Stable,”
pp. 133–141.
15
Michael E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York: Free Press, 1990), p. 66. For
a discussion of how to realize the advantages of strategic partnerships, see Nancy J. Kaplan and
Jonathan Hurd, “Realizing the Promise of Partnerships,” Journal of Business Strategy 23, no. 3
(May–June 2002), pp. 38–42; Parise and Sasson, “Leveraging Knowledge Management across Strategic Alliances,” pp. 41–47; and Ernst and Bamford, “Your Alliances Are Too Stable,” pp. 133–141.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 52
2/23/08 10:14:13 AM
Confirming Pages
Chapter 3 Competitive Strategy and Advantage in the Marketplace
53
open up learning opportunities that help partner firms better leverage their
own resource strengths.16
Allies can learn much from one another in performing joint research, sharing technological know-how,
The competitive attraction of alliances is in
and collaborating on complementary new technoloallowing companies to bundle competencies and
17
resources that are more valuable in a joint effort
gies and products. Manufacturers frequently pursue
than when kept separate.
alliances with parts and components suppliers to gain
the efficiencies of better supply chain management
and to speed new products to market. By joining forces in components production and/or final assembly, companies may be able to realize cost savings
not achievable with their own small volumes—German automakers Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Porsche AG formed a strategic alliance to spur mutual
development of a gasoline-electric hybrid engine and transmission system
that they could each then incorporate into their motor vehicle models; BMW,
General Motors, and Daimler AG formed a similar partnership. Both alliances
were aimed at closing the gap on Toyota, generally said to be the world leader
in fuel-efficient hybrid engines. Johnson & Johnson and Merck entered into an
alliance to market Pepcid AC; Merck developed the stomach distress remedy
and Johnson & Johnson functioned as marketer—the alliance made Pepcid
products the best-selling remedies for acid indigestion and heartburn.
FAILED STRATEGIC ALLIANCES AND COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
Most alliances that aim at technology sharing or providing market access turn
out to be temporary, fulfilling their purpose after a few years because the benefits of mutual learning have occurred. Although long-term alliances sometimes prove mutually beneficial, most partners don’t hesitate to terminate the
alliance and go it alone when the payoffs run out. Alliances are more likely to
be long-lasting when (1) they involve collaboration with suppliers or distribution allies, or (2) both parties conclude that continued collaboration is in their
mutual interest, perhaps because new opportunities for learning are emerging.
Whether intended for long-term or temporary purposes, a surprising number of alliances fail to benefit either partner. In 2004, McKinsey & Co. estimated that the overall success rate of alliances was around 50 percent, based
on whether the alliance achieved the stated objectives.18 Many alliances are
dissolved after a few years. The high “divorce rate” among strategic allies has
several causes, the most common of which are:19
•
•
•
•
•
Diverging objectives and priorities.
An inability to work well together.
Changing conditions that make the purpose of the alliance obsolete.
The emergence of more attractive technological paths.
Marketplace rivalry between one or more allies.
16
A. Inkpen, “Learning, Knowledge Acquisition, and Strategic Alliances,” European Management
Journal 16, no. 2 (April 1998), pp. 223–229.
17
For a discussion of how to raise the chances that a strategic alliance will produce strategically
important outcomes, see M. Koza and A. Lewin, “Managing Partnerships and Strategic Alliances:
Raising the Odds of Success,” European Management Journal 18, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 146–151.
18
This same 50 percent success rate for alliances was also cited in Ernst and Bamford, “Your
Alliances Are Too Stable,” p. 133; both co-authors of this HBR article were McKinsey personnel.
19
Doz and Hamel, Alliance Advantage, pp. 16–18.
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 53
2/23/08 10:14:14 AM
Confirming Pages
54
Part One Strategy, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Leadership
Experience indicates that alliances stand a reasonable chance of helping a company
reduce competitive disadvantage but very rarely have they proved a strategic option
for gaining a durable competitive edge over rivals.
THE STRATEGIC DANGERS OF RELYING ON ALLIANCES FOR
KEY RESOURCE STRENGTHS The Achilles heel of alliances and cooperative strategies is becoming dependent on other companies for essential
expertise and capabilities. To be a market leader (and perhaps even a serious
market contender), a company must ultimately develop its own capabilities
in areas where internal strategic control is pivotal to protecting its competitiveness and building competitive advantage. Moreover, some alliances hold
only limited potential because the partner guards its most valuable skills and
expertise; in such instances, acquiring or merging with a company possessing
the desired know-how and resources is a better solution.
Key Points
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 54
1.
Early in the process of crafting a strategy, company managers have to decide
which of the four basic competitive strategies to employ—overall low-cost, broad
differentiation, focused low-cost, or focused differentiation.
2.
In employing a low-cost provider strategy, a company must do a better job than
rivals of cost-effectively managing internal activities and/or it must find innovative ways to eliminate or bypass cost-producing activities. Low-cost provider
strategies work particularly well when price competition is strong and the products of rival sellers are very weakly differentiated. Other conditions favoring a
low-cost provider strategy are when supplies are readily available from eager
sellers, when there are not many ways to differentiate that have value to buyers,
when the majority of industry sales are made to a few, large buyers, when buyer
switching costs are low, and when industry newcomers are likely to use a low
introductory price to build market share.
3.
Broad differentiation strategies seek to produce a competitive edge by incorporating attributes and features that set a company’s product/service offering apart
from rivals in ways that buyers consider valuable and worth paying for. Successful differentiation allows a firm to (1) command a premium price for its product,
(2) increase unit sales (because additional buyers are won over by the differentiating features), and/or (3) gain buyer loyalty to its brand (because some buyers
are strongly attracted to the differentiating features and bond with the company
and its products). Differentiation strategies work best in markets with diverse
buyer preferences where there are big windows of opportunity to strongly differentiate a company’s product offering from those of rival brands, in situations
where few other rivals are pursuing a similar differentiation approach, and in
circumstances where technological change is fast-paced and competition centers
on rapidly evolving product features. A differentiation strategy is doomed when
competitors are able to quickly copy most or all of the appealing product attributes a company comes up with, when a company’s differentiation efforts meet
2/23/08 10:14:14 AM
Confirming Pages
with a ho-hum or so what market reception, or when a company erodes profitability by overspending on efforts to differentiate its product offering.
4.
A focus strategy delivers competitive advantage either by achieving lower costs
than rivals in serving buyers comprising the target market niche or by offering
niche buyers an appealingly differentiated product or service that meets their
needs better than rival brands. A focused strategy becomes increasingly attractive when the target market niche is big enough to be profitable and offers good
growth potential, when it is costly or difficult for multisegment competitors to
put capabilities in place to meet the specialized needs of the target market niche
and at the same time satisfy the expectations of their mainstream customers,
when there are one or more niches that present a good match with a focuser’s
resource strengths and capabilities, and when few other rivals are attempting to
specialize in the same target segment.
5.
Deciding which generic strategy to employ is perhaps the most important strategic commitment a company makes—it tends to drive the rest of the strategic
actions a company decides to undertake and it sets the whole tone for the pursuit
of a competitive advantage over rivals.
6.
Companies are able to supplement the four generic strategies with strategies
that rely on valuable and rare resources possessed by the firm. Resource-based
strategies attempt to exploit company resources in a manner that offers value to
customers in ways rivals are unable to match. A company’s resource strengths
and competitive capabilities can contribute to an organizational competence,
core competence, or distinctive competence. A distinctive competence is a competitively potent resource strength for three reasons: (1) it gives a company competitively valuable capability that is unmatched by rivals, (2) it can underpin and
add real punch to a company’s strategy, and (3) it is a basis for sustainable competitive advantage. Companies lacking important standalone resource strengths
capable of contributing to competitive advantage may find advantage through
bundled resource strengths or substitute resources.
7.
Companies lacking key resource strengths or competences may also form alliances
with enterprises having the desired strengths. Consequently, these companies
form strategic alliances or collaborative partnerships in which two or more companies jointly work to achieve mutually beneficial strategic outcomes. Strategic alliances are formal agreements between two or more separate companies in which
there is strategically relevant collaboration of some sort, joint contribution of
resources, shared risk, shared control, and mutual dependence. Alliances are more
likely to be long-lasting when (1) they involve collaboration with suppliers or distribution allies, or (2) both parties conclude that continued collaboration is in their
mutual interest, perhaps because new opportunities for learning are emerging.
LO1 1. Progressive Insurance has fashioned a strategy in auto insurance focused on
people with a record of traffic violations who drive high-performance cars, drivers with accident histories, motorcyclists, teenagers, and other so-called high-risk
categories of drivers that most auto insurance companies steer away from. Progressive discovered that some of these high-risk drivers are affluent and pressed
for time, making them less sensitive to paying premium rates for their car
insurance. Management learned that it could charge such drivers high enough
premiums to cover the added risks. Progressive also is known for its expedited
application process and friendly application policies toward higher-risk drivers.
Assurance
of Learning
Exercises
55
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 55
2/23/08 10:14:15 AM
Confirming Pages
Progressive also pioneered the low-cost direct sales model of allowing customers
to purchase insurance online and over the phone.
Progressive also studied the market segments for insurance carefully enough
to discover that some motorcycle owners were not especially risky (middleaged suburbanites who sometimes commuted to work or used their motorcycles
mainly for recreational trips with their friends). Progressive’s strategy allowed
it to become a leader in the market for luxury car insurance for customers who
appreciated Progressive’s streamlined approach to doing business. The company
also maintains roving claims adjusters who arrive at accident scenes to assess
claims and issue checks for repairs on the spot. Progressive introduced 24-hour
claims reporting, which has become an industry standard.
How would you characterize Progressive Insurance’s competitive strategy?
Does it appear that Progressive is pursuing a cost-based advantage or differentiation? Has it focused on a niche within the insurance industry or is it pursuing a
broad range of customer groups? Please support your assessment with facts from
the information provided above.
Sources: www.progressiveinsurance.com; Ian C. McMillan, Alexander van Putten, and Rita Gunther McGrath,
“Global Gamesmanship,” Harvard Business Review 81, no. 5 (May 2003), p. 68; and Fortune, May 16, 2005,
p. 34.
Exercise for
Business
Simulation
Users
2.
Go to www.bmwgroup.com and then click on the link for www.bmwgroup.com.
The site you find provides an overview of the company’s key functional areas,
including research & development and production activities. Explore each of the
links on the Research & Development page to better understand the company’s
approach to People & Networks, Innovation & Technology, and Mobility &
Traffic. Also review the statements under Production focusing on Vehicle Production and Sustainable Production. How do these activities contribute to BMW’s
differentiation strategy and the unique position in the industry that BMW has
achieved?
LO1
3.
Review the discussion of GE’s innovation capabilities at www.ge.com/research.
Explain how the company has bundled its technology resources to contribute to
competitive advantage in its businesses. Is there evidence the company’s deployment of resources has given it a distinctive competence in the area of innovation?
Explain why or why not.
LO3
The exercise for simulation users presented in Chapter 2 asked that you prepare a
strategy map for your simulation company. Please refer to the strategy map that you
prepared in that exercise and describe key resources that your strategy will rely upon
to create customer value. Specifically, what human capital and organizational capital
resources must your simulation company possess to support internal processes? Also,
which of the four generic strategies best characterize the product attributes and brand
image choices presented in your strategy map?
LO1
LO3
56
gam30301_ch03_034-056.indd 56
2/23/08 10:14:15 AM