Marketing: the essence of strategy is to win

Core tip: there are different opinions on the interpretation of the essence and characteristics of strategy Some emphasize goal orientation and long-term, some focus on innovation of methods and means It not only pays attention to the competition interaction, but also pays attention to the resource commitment But one thing is certain, in business management, the essence of strategy is to win Strategic management: the highest level of the balance strategy of uniqueness and legitimacy is reflected in the lasting competitive advantage and long-term outstanding business performance of the enterprise To win or win usually means to stand out and stand out To win in the long run, you need to be outstanding and different It's not just a Shenyang steel structure fireproof coating construction expert punde Building Fire Engineering Co., Ltd Recommended introduction: since its establishment, Shenyang punde Construction Fire Engineering Co., Ltd has cultivated a group of professional construction teams with excellent equipment, rich experience and serious responsibility with advanced and scientific management methods and strict engineering quality assurance and after-sales service system It has undertaken a number of fire system installation projects, which has been praised by customers Every idea and special requirement of you will be fully considered by us and fully realized in the construction technology, which will become the cornerstone of our successful long-term development We are looking forward to your invitation, to provide you with quality services and high-quality technical support! All construction coatings have passed ISO9001 Home of coatings news: there are different opinions on the interpretation of strategic essence and characteristics Some emphasize goal orientation and long-term, some focus on innovation of methods and means It not only pays attention to the competition interaction, but also pays attention to the resource commitment But one thing is certain, in business management, the essence of strategy is to win Strategic management: the highest level of the balance strategy of uniqueness and legitimacy is reflected in the lasting competitive advantage and long-term outstanding business performance of the enterprise To win or win usually means to stand out and stand out To win in the long run, you need to be outstanding and different This is not only a common sense and belief, but also a lot of convincing practical evidence and profound theoretical support In 1934, a scientist at Moscow University, G.F Gause, made a series of comparative experiments: put two very small animals (Protozoa) in a bottle and give them a proper amount of food If they are different kinds of animals, they can live together; if they are from the same kind, they can not live together Gauss then came up with the "competitive exclusion principle": it is impossible for two species with the same way of living to coexist permanently Heinz introduced this principle into business competition and pointed out that the basis of strategy is an organization's or enterprise's unique attribute, or uniqueness This kind of uniqueness, lasting uniqueness, defines the distinctive characteristics of an enterprise, from self-awareness to external image, highlights the essence of an enterprise's Transcendence: its competitiveness, the resource endowment and ability combination that its strategy relies on, which is difficult to be imitated by rivals, or other organizational mechanisms and behavior paradigms It is because of this unique existence and difficult to imitate that the enterprise strategy based on it is difficult to be imitated by its rivals, and it is possible to win for a long time No matter Porter's outline of "differentiation" strategy or the expression of "segmentation market" or "niche" in marketing literature, they all reflect the favor of enterprise's uniqueness, and emphasize such a basic idea: the formulation of strategy is inseparable from the creative application of enterprise's own conditions This kind of strategic perspective is different from the common teachings in management books, not to say, but also fundamentally different in concept level and application level All in all, the best practices and management know-how advocated and sold in management textbooks are, from a statistical point of view, general laws and central trends, which are the average phenomenon that everyone returns to If we strive to achieve this goal, we will at best keep up with the trend and achieve strategic balance with our competitors, and we will not be able to obtain competitive advantages and excellent performance; if we fail to achieve this level, we are likely to encounter competitive disadvantages and low performance Therefore, the general management theory, from "benchmarking" to "example", is to teach people how to keep up with the times, but it can not show how to stand out And strategy, at least in terms of its high-level realm, focuses on excellence Of course, after some strategies are learned, imitated and replaced, they become the central trend and no longer have strategic significance However, in any case, there will always be a unique strategic existence beyond the central trend, that is, the so-called "outlier" in statistics They do not return to the central trend, but expand the frontier Of course, these unique wild spots, isolated, are either surprisingly excellent or extremely tragic The similarities between genius and fool are different, and the relationship between them can be the difference between the sky and the same illness The key lies in the time, the chance of fortune and the success of God There is no doubt that what strategy cares about and prays for is the genius and excellence It can find and make use of its uniqueness to the maximum extent, and become a shining wild spot that everyone admires and is unattainable It's better to embrace customers than to abandon competitors to gain or maintain competitive advantage What an enterprise can do is to improve itself and attack others The former focuses on innovation and the latter on containment Of course, both can be developed at the same time Innovation can be achieved in the competition of the existing market or by opening up new markets In the same way, the fight against competitors can be carried out in the existing market or through market innovation It is worth mentioning that this kind of market innovation, although it has the effect of attacking rivals (and often unintentionally or indirectly), its starting point is actually to better improve their ability to serve customers In a specific market, an enterprise can eliminate its rivals, take over its rivals, or hold a long-term stalemate with them However, the so-called "throw off the opponent" that everyone cares about in reality seems puzzling If an opponent has been dumped, can it still be considered an opponent? In the same market, how can we get rid of our rivals? Business war is different from sports competition In a sports competition, you'll stand out and win once But the commercial war has the continuity, usually does not have the fixed end point Therefore, as long as the opponent does not die, it does not matter what "throw off", but the opponent in a round of competition did not catch up Microsoft can eliminate or recruit its competitors, and enjoy monopoly profits In the market state of duopoly, oligarchy and more enterprises coexisting, deadlock is more common Coca Cola and Pepsi have been fighting in the soft drink industry for more than 100 years Who has left behind? Guy Kawasaki, a former senior manager of apple computer, once put forward the idea of "jumping to the next growth curve rather than competing on the existing curve" in his book "the rules of Revolutionaries: the Manifesto of capitalism", which should be the essence of "breaking away from competitors" The essence of getting rid of competitors is product innovation and market innovation This is undoubtedly to be affirmed and praised However, I would like to further emphasize that the key to the problem is not whether there are competitors or directly facing them, but whether it is more accurate and effective to meet customer needs through innovation So it's better to embrace customers than to lose competitors In fact, the essence of innovation is to better serve customers and provide excellent value In the end, enterprises should focus on customers rather than competitors In the 1980s, strategy expert Kenichi Daqian wrote in Harvard Business Review, urging everyone to "return" to the essence of strategy: do everything possible to provide customers with the most needed services In the 1980s, Japanese electrical appliances became popular in the American market, which made the host of American talk show tonight show laugh at himself: "most of the best toasters in the American market are made in Japan, and it is distressing that the Japanese do not eat toast at all." At least, the Japanese know how Americans eat The Japanese really like to think about it For example, grow watermelon into square (easy to transport), weave socks with toe holes (pay attention to taste), and design a cup with a notch on the mouth for Americans with a big nose (take care of it carefully) Some "innovations" are ridiculous or even boring, but their intention is always for the sake of customers More competition: see the overall situation clearly "People who live in glass houses don't throw stones at each other." This is a phrase often quoted by game theorists Yes, generally speaking, people with normal brains will, out of their own interests and long-term survival, have to work with those who share resources and space to build and maintain a basic platform, understanding and order conducive to mutual exchanges This tolerance is especially common in the case of multi-point competition What is more competition? In short, multipoint competition refers to the competition of a group of enterprises (two or more) in multiple (two or more) markets at the same time, no matter in multiple product markets, regional markets or transnational markets, such as the competition of P & G and Johnson & Johnson in multiple commodity markets in China and the United States at the same time, and the competition of Kodak and Fuji in film markets in multiple countries One of the biggest differences between multi-point competition and single point competition is that it is usually difficult for an enterprise to grow at all points (if an enterprise leads in all multi-point markets, its essence is no different from single point competition) In this way, each enterprise may have its own sphere of influence at a certain point (a specific product, region or national market) This means that a multi-point competitor, no matter how strong the overall strength, may "capsize in the ditch" at a certain point Another major feature of multi-point competitors is that enterprises can borrow resources from each other, act in a unified way and fight against the enemy together A confrontation at one point may lead to a reaction at multiple points or an overall fight This means that the actions of multi-point competitors at each point may need to be considered from the perspective of overall situation and multi-point, and their actions must be cautious, which may be the main reason for seeking perfection and forbearance Nevertheless, we know that an enterprise, if it is successful at a certain point, can rely on it and radiate other markets Therefore, enterprises always hope to make a breakthrough at a certain point, so as to accumulate resources and influence, so as to drive the overall situation This may be the main motive for harassing opponents The trouble here is that "multi-point" constraints and "mutual" attacks For the convenience of explanation, we can assume that Zhujiang Beer intends to attack Beijing market and reduce the price by 30% in the general beer market In the face of challenges, there are at least several possible options for Yanjing Beer list in terms of price strategy: indifference, on-site counterattack, circuitous cover up