Log into my Internet Site

Competitive Strategy is the process whereby competitive advantage may be achieved. Michael Porter in his text "Competitive Strategy" (1980) discusses in detail this strategic business area, saying that it is important across the business field; "Competitive analysis is important not only in the formulation of business strategy...but also in many other areas" (preface). The underlying definition of this area (linked also to Corporate Strategy thinking as well as to Marketing Managers) is summed-up coherently by Messers Johnson and Scholes "Competitive strategy, the basis on which an SBU [Strategic Business Unit] might achieve competitive advantage in its market" (1999, pg.269) ([details added] emphasis added). The notion of Competitive Strategy/Analysis and that of Competitive Advantage encompass the whole essence of marketing in gaining the competitive 'edge' over business rivals. This approach is a clearly defined and "distinctive approach" (Ansoff, 1987, pg.111) which when applied efficiently leads to competitive advantage. (For Ansoff's diagram on "Competitive Strategy Factors", refer to appendix 1)

Definitions for the term "Competitive Strategy" can be found easily but the other key term in the O'Shauhnessy statement evokes much more ambiguity and not so easily defined. "Pioneers" in the general sense are seen as early settlers, originators and brave. Which in essence explains the term but looking at it on marketing levels the response lacks body and definition. Personally 'pioneers' in the marketing sense refer to organisations which enter a completely new market arena, with a completely new product. Their major aim is to stimulate demand for this product, however it holds a high risk factor (due to the relative unknown). However if the organisation holds a competent competitive strategy the adverse (risk) factors could be lessened. Porter (1980) believes that the crucial stage for pioneers is "When to Enter" (pg.232) and using his own Five Forces Model (see appendix 2) regards entry barriers as low. Porter also examines that risk is high but adds that pioneers potentially have a considerable return to gain. According to the work of Porter pioneers initiate demand and the learning experience for a product. Therefore demand for a product and consumer perceptions to a product are begun by the pioneering organisation, but will lead to 'new entrants' (who may have changed the rules) to the market.

Showing the age of his "Competitive Strategy" text, Porter argues that "benefits will accrue to the firm that sells to the customer first" (1980, pg.232). This mirrors what O'Shauhnessy feels in 1995, but this is simply not the case in today's marketing environment. Short-term the success is possible (if not no point in entering the market!), but on the strategic/long-term level today's competitors will not stand still and take note. They will create a market challenger strategy to share the success (as Microsoft did with Netscape over the Internet browser software) and potentially take over the leadership. The benefits will be less, as the new entrants (to use Porter's Five Forces phraseology) bid for the same customer, the same market share and naturally the same customer relationship.

Another element of Porter's discussion on 'pioneers' is that he sees that competition will be attracted to any success (as in the Internet Browser example), but still Porter argues the market pioneer should consolidate its own position (pg.234). This in itself is an outdated notion, as standing-still strategies or as in the Porter case lack of realistic expansion is distrusted by 1990's consumers/customers. Markets are now growing around organisations and therefore firms must expand on their core competencies whilst consolidating their position, thus conduct a strategy based on their 'Core Competencies' (a vision supported by Hamel and Prahalad), others believe you use your 'Core Competencies' and 'Strategic-Fit' your strategy. "Retailers can therefore no longer assume that the market will grow around them; increased trade must usually be won from a competitor and/or by the intelligent targeting of specific market segments" (McGoldrick, 1998, pg.29).

Therefore pioneers do initially have the advantage of being the 'Sole entrant', but others will soon become aware of the success and counteract, often with updated and better technology, creating a lower cost curve and thus cheaper prices (for example the Daewoo group) and often adding value the customer wants.

The statement given by O'Shauhnessy (1995) is limited of any real substance (short-sighted). He identifies various elements of the process known as "Competitive Strategy" (Market share, sustainable advantage, positioning within the market). He also identifies the role played by "Competitive Strategy" and that of the Marketing manager in the statement; analysis (market share), development (sustainable advantage), implementation (positioning), feedback (success) and control (throughout the statement), but it lacks any body or analysis. The elements identified are a part of the strategy, but its validity is limited as O'Shauhnessy suggests through his use of 'or', these elements are to be treated and dealt with as separate issues. It also suggests that the process/strategy is rigid and that competitive advantage is achievable only through one of these channels with real advantage credited to the pioneer anyway. Other commentators such as Igor Ansoff, Michael E. Porter and the Boston Consultancy Group (BCG) disagree profoundly with this view and see this approach as a flexible and integrated approach.

Ansoff (1987) sees that as customers have changed so has the essence of corporate thinking. Ansoff views that there are many components (i.e. market share) but must be seen as "several mutually supporting components" (1987, pg.169). He believes that pioneers hold the initial success but should never stand still or remain static (either organisationally or in the perception of the customer) or someone else will take control of the industry. As with O'Shauhnessy, Ansoff identifies three principle components, growth trust ('sustainable advantage'), market differentiation ('positioning') and product differentiation ('market share'). But Ansoff expands on his 'list' saying that the identified components are integrated.

Ansoff also reveals there is no one best way to follow and that the 'primary components' O'Shauhnessy identifies are all important and suggests that regarding them as separate strategies is wrong, whilst relating always to his notion of "mutually supporting components". An example of Ansoff's philosophy (see appendix 1) is the 'Rolls-Royce' strategy/model (applied via the single line), shows that elements of competitive strategy are interdependent/integrated. John O'Shauhnessy suggests just three different variables in the statement, but as the Ansoff diagram (appendix 1) shows there are many others and to have a successful strategy "sub components must be consistent with and supportive of one another" (Ansoff, 1987, pg.170). The single-lined 'Rolls-Royce' strategy helps to identify this point. The maturity of the industry effects which components are to be selected again disproving the 'either-or' approach of O'Shauhnessy.

Therefore Ansoff sees competitive strategy as a set of interdependent factors, with three principle factors. To be successful, Ansoff as stated earlier, believes those selected must be consistent with each other. Care also must be applied when using Ansoff, he too was writing about a different firm than the 'modern firm' of today.

Wilson and Gilligan (1997) use the BCG (Boston Consultancy Group) Annual Report of 1982 to display their thoughts on the topic. It states that each business 'player' is unique in some way, therefore disproving O'Shauhnessy as BCG suggest that through 'positioning' or 'unique sales proposition' competitive advantage may be obtained. Again BCG view the approach as integrated and not like O'Shauhnessy's independent/isolated approach. BCG sum up the nature of competitive strategy as "ambiguous terms when such a complex spectrum of individuals differences is woven into a web or relationship" (as found in Wilson and Gilligan, 1997, pg.52)

Kotler et al. (1996) conform to the same thinking of Ansoff, Porter and BCG, suggesting that "even within a company, different business need different strategies" (Pg.477) and that there is no one best single strategy. A business internally, requires a 'combination' of factors including those identified by O'Shauhnessy. Kotler et al. identify strategies, which are certainly not as limited has O'Shauhnessy appears to believe in. Kotler and his co-authors subscribe to the essence that one factor (i.e. market share) can help attain another (i.e. sustainable advantage). I agree, surely through achieving one 'variable' another can be achieved, but relying on O'Shauhnessy, it would appear not to be the case. For example, achieving a sustainable advantage (i.e. through a reduced price) means they are differently perceived by the customers/target market (positioning) and will naturally have a share of the market.

Competitive Strategy can be summed up as, the means of developing a strategy to achieve an advantage over your competitors, BCG see the competitor as your environment "as a consequence the whole competitive network is constantly evolving" (as found in Wilson and Gilligan, 1997, Pg.53). There are a number of factors, which must be treated as interrelated, and dependant on the others. Some may be regarded as principle factors others supporting factors. The strategy must be flexible and adaptable to different situations and the type of industry and maturity will determine which factors are to be used. Agreeing with Ansoff (1987), it gives the firm the 'how' to attack each SBU after been suppied the 'where' from the 'Portfolio Strategies'. It helps to sharpen a firm's evaluation of opportunities and ultimately creating competitive advantage over its perceived competitors. Peter Mundie (1997) said "the basis for securing a competitive advantage are many and varied such as positioning themselves against others" (pg.43/44). Mundie offers an example of competitive strategy using a restaurant seeing the most attractive position "is one where a greater level of benefits are provided" (1997, pg.44). Using this example, through an improved market position, market share would also be improved and so creating a sustainable advantage. Thus such factors are interrelated, again disproving the statement of O'Shauhnessy.

The second part of the statement concerns the success of 'pioneers'. In the context of the question it seems that O'Shauhnessy is suggesting that 'pioneers' hold the competitive advantage, irrespective of whatever competitive strategy is applied.

Pioneers (see earlier definition, line 18, pg.1) in the natural context hold the advantage being the 'Sole entrant' in the market. Ansoff reveals why pioneers should be wary of this initial success: "others will pick up on success and use better/enhanced technology to better you" (1987, pg.169), with pioneer experience difficult to imitate (Porter, 1980, pg.232)

However, pioneers must not stand still/remain static or they face being 'over-taken' or even 'under-taken' by the competition. Asda the retail, grocery chain is a prime example of this. Asda are regarded as the early pioneers of the supermarket design. But due to their laid back approach and static display, others such as Tesco and Sainsbury's witnessed the early success of Asda and formulated their own strategies to 'over-take' Asda, whilst Asda sat back and watched. This now appears to be moving full circle with Asda forging the initiative.

In the competitive market place/environment (the modern marketing environment), one may argue few markets are available for 'Sole entrants' or pioneering and there are few markets to launch an 'expedition'. Some commentators suggest -due to market saturation -that there are few 'real' markets available for pioneering. Another reason why this is the case is due to the expansion in technology and the speed of development. This is why the later part of the O'Shauhnessy statement is limited, as it is often now that, the innovator find itself leading the way (for example Microsoft). Consumers like things to be progressing constantly (just look at the computer technology industry) and distrust simple consolidation (even IBM are not the market leaders in the 'IBM-compatible' computer industry!). Also big company backing is a key factor in organisational success. Commercialism is now often the route used by the 'modern firm' to bring success and thus defy the initial strength of the pioneer. The 'big-boys' (such as Sony and JVC) backed the VHS videotape code at the expense of the pioneering Betamax code. Pioneering organisations may 'gain' the advantage, but the real effort is 'sustaining' it, therefore constant reviewing of the market is required, if the lead is to be maintained. The pioneer may find their position weakened if they fail to develop a strategy competent of sustaining their market position and related to their core competencies. Porter offers his thoughts on the effects of technological advancements "...will result in early investment becoming obsolete" (1980, pg.233) (as in the Betamax example). But the industy is not standing still with DVD (Digital Versatile Disc) ready and waiting to topple VHS from its standing as industry standard.

Other factors determining organisational success in the market are customer perception, brand loyalty, Unique Sales Proposition, economies of scale, superior product features and using information better/better data handling. Therefore due to the role of the market challengers few pioneers can remain static and few pioneers 'easily' retain the market leadership position.

For example, the Ford Motor company 'Model T' was the pioneering car, but failure to see changes in the market (i.e. due to the role of challengers) led to Henry Ford's market position subsiding (as found in Ansoff, 1987, pg.170). Positive customer perception is vitally important, perhaps more than being the pioneer (for the 'modern firm') and being the pioneer certainly does not gain, or retain it when there is an increase in competition on grounds such as product innovation or pricing strategies.

Factors of Porter's Five Forces Model (see appendix 2) can help determine whether or not the pioneer is in a strong position (i.e. large barriers to entry) or a weak position (i.e. low barriers of entry and thus open to challenges).

Pioneering success has become limited at British Telecommunications (BT) and British Airways (BA). Both show that due to customer perception, market conditions, the role of the Government and pricing policies have helped to bring in other entrants. These include for BT the pricing policy of the many cable companies and the same applies for BA, where companies such as EasyJet and Virgin have effected the market position of British Airways.

However, fast-food giant McDonalds have shown that through innovation, customer perception, being market led rather than product led, positive brand loyalty/perception combined with effective marketing (and giving the customer what it wants) has helped to keep the pioneer in the market leadership, despite stern competition from the likes of Burger King. The Coca-Cola Company has also shown this, despite stern competition it has remained the soft-drink leader and thus defying the product lifecycle theory of marketing (see appendix 3). As these two pioneers show to all companies, you need to continue to innovate and be dynamic, as Bill Gates (1993) said: "Prosperity through innovation" or Proverb 28:19 can be applied to this thinking "Where there is no vision the people will perish". Other companies who are now not regarded as market leaders but perhaps market pioneers (they have the industry named after them) include 'Sellotape', 'Hoover' (vacuum cleaners) and 'Walkman' (personal stereo brainchild of Sony). Porter sees the role of competition to pioneers in another way arguing that "pioneers are dependant on competition for development of the industry" (1980, pg.233), perhaps in the case of BT until competition came they failed to really develop the UK telecommunications industry. In the photocopying industry Cannon was the market pioneer but due to a combination of things, Rank Xerox became the market leader.

In summary, there are many more factors relating to competitive strategy than those identified by O'Shauhnessy. His statement can be used, but developed into a more sustainable argument: variables are interdependent and relate to the idea of gaining an advantage over the competition. The objective of this strategy is not as simple as picking one, two or three (as O'Shauhnessy displays), but is a combination of factors not just one of three independent factors, which can be seen when, using appendix 1. Success initially is credited to the 'Sole entrant'/pioneer of the market but this can just (especially today) be eroded quite easily by the competition.

The statement given by O'Shauhnessy is fine, but limited in its approach. Yes pioneers have initial success but this is not 'typical' and certainly not the expected nor the norm anymore. Also yes, competitive strategy does include the three named factors but they are not unrelated as suggested and there are many more available for analysis.