1
1
2
Writing Assignment #4
Research-Based Report to a Decision-maker
Summary of assignment
· Task: You write a report that does the following:
· defines a problem persuasively and accurately
· proposes a solution or solutions to the problem or issue
· presents that solution to a decision-maker or group of decision-makers who can implement the recommendation
· Topic: You will choose the same topic on which you wrote the memo for writing assignment #3.
· Length: 2000-3000 words
· Format: Your sources will be cited and listed in APA format.
· Writing Process: You will submit a first draft of the report to the assignment folder. The first draft will be given comments by the instructor. After receiving comments from the instructor, you will submit a revised draft. The final draft will be graded.
If you do not submit a second draft, the first draft will be graded.
· Components of the report:
· letter to the decision maker (this can be a business letter OR a memo)
· executive summary
· title page
· table of contents
· introduction
· body of the report to include headings and subheadings
· conclusion stated as a recommendation for implementation of the solution
· References page, with references listed in APA format
· Any appendix (or appendices if there are multiples)
Instructions on how to list an interview in APA format can be seen at the following url: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/quoting-participants
Primary and Secondary Sources
DUE TO THE DANGERS RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, PRIMARY RESEARCH IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE RESEARCH REPORT ASSIGNMENT. IF POSSIBLE, STUDENTS CAN CONDUCT INTERVIEWS OR SURVEYS REMOTELY (BY USING A SYSTEM SUCH AS ZOOM) OR VIA EMAIL RELYING ON WRITTEN RESPONSES. HOWEVER, STUDENTS MAY CHOOSE TO USE ALL SECONDARY SOURCES FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT. IF A STUDENT CHOOSES TO MAKE THIS CHOICE, SHE/HE SHOULD FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS BELOW FOR COMPLETING THE ASSIGNMENT.
The report must incorporate the results of your own primary research. When integrating primary research, you must explain the method(s) you used to gather that research and insert a copy in your report’s appendices of any collection instrument you used. For example, if you interviewed some people for the report, you would put the list of interview questions you asked in the appendix. If you arranged for a group of people to take a survey, you would put the survey in the appendix.
The complete report should also cite at least seven secondary sources. At least three of these secondary sources should come from peer-reviewed, scholarly journals .
Students who cannot conduct primary research for safety or other valid reasons are required to provide TEN secondary sources. Of these FOUR should be from peer-reviewed, scholarly journals.
As noted above, your primary and secondary sources will be integrated into the paper to explain the problem, to provide evidence of the problem, and to support the solution.
Please note that, if you interview people for your research, you must cite the interviews in your paper. In the paper, you cannot simply write that you “spoke with employees.” A URL that shows how to cite an interview in APA citation style is provided in the list of components for the report.
You might have taken WRTG 393 at UMGC. In WRTG 393, the final paper is a white paper. This assignment is different from the white paper in WRTG 393. In this paper for WRTG 394, you are writing to a specific decision-maker about a specific problem in your workplace or community. The audience is much more focused than that for the white paper in WRTG 393.
Graphics
Your report might benefit from graphics. As mentioned above, pictures of your workplace or community situation might help illustrate the problem you are trying to address. Graphs, tables, or charts might help show trends that will persuade your decision-maker that the problem exists.
Please do not incorporate a graphic for the sake of incorporating a graphic. Include a graphic only if it helps communicate a message in your report.
Due Date
Your instructor will notify you of the due date. You will write a first draft, your instructor will comment on the first draft, and you will submit a second draft using the comments as your guide.
Guides to Help You in Writing this Assignment:
· Victoria University of Wellington
Topic Selection:
For this report, you will write on the same topic on which you wrote the memo for writing assignment #3. In addition, it should be related to the topic on which you wrote writing assignment #2. The secondary research you conducted for writing assignment #2 should be usable in some form for this report.
You must contact your instructor for approval before changing your topic from writing assignment #3. In addition, if you do so, you must re-submit a memo for writing assignment #3.
Submitting the assignment:
You will submit a first draft of the essay to the assignment folder. The first draft will not be graded. The instructor will provide comments on it.
After receiving comments from the instructor, you will submit a revised draft. The final draft will be graded.
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 237 12/05/16 04:12 PM
After analysis of population demographics and profitability estimates, Casesa’s team had decided to create a Dynamic Shuttle pilot in India. The large urban population, including a subset of aspirational workers that Casesa believed would be ideal Dynamic Shuttle customers, as well as the overcrowded met- ropolitan transport systems and growing smartphone adoption, made India an ideal environment to test the pilot. If successful, it could serve as a model for cre- ating Dynamic Shuttle programs in other countries. Ford, however, could not develop the program alone. It would need a partner that had the right business model and similar aspirations for growth potential and scalability, along with the willingness to expand into the Indian market. The team had found five potential candidates to partner with but had yet to determine the most appropriate one.
Casesa reviewed the agenda for his team’s meet- ing that afternoon. What criteria were most impor- tant in determining who Ford should partner with, and did any of the identified prospects best fit Ford’s needs? What characteristics would ensure a success- ful launch of Dynamic Shuttle in India?
FORD MOTOR COMPANY Founded in 1903 by Henry Ford and a group of 11 investors, the Ford Motor Company had modest origins, launching in a converted factory on Mack Avenue in Detroit that produced only a few cars per day. Ford quickly differentiated itself, however,
INTRODUCTION
John Casesa, group vice president of Ford Motor Company’s Global Strategy team, gazed out from his office window at Ford’s corporate headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, on a cold Janu- ary day in 2016. The warm and tropical climate of Mumbai seemed worlds away from snowy Dearborn but Casesa’s attention had been on India for some time now. Hired the year previously after nearly 25 years as an investment banker in the automotive industry, Casesa had been charged with the implementation of new initiatives under the One Ford Plan. Originally designed to help Ford return to global profitability in its core automotive business after the Great Reces- sion, the One Ford Plan had been further refined to help Ford aggressively pursue emerging opportuni- ties that were an extension of the Ford brand.
A key facet of this plan was the introduction of Smart Mobility, which reflected Ford’s intent to branch out from its core automotive market. Smart Mobility sought to position Ford as a company that embraced technological innovation and a leader in connectivity and mobility, while leveraging its existing strength as a global automotive powerhouse. Casesa’s team had devised an idea called Dynamic Shuttle, a taxi-like service at prices similar to mass transit and enabled by smartphone access. While other application-based ride-service companies typically moved 1 or 2 people per ride, Dynamic Shuttle had the aspirations of uti- lizing shuttles to transport up to 12 people per ride, and was thought to be an ideal solution for emerging economies with large urban populations who cannot afford personal transportation.
Nicole Daniel Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth
Thomas Lawton Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth
Ford Motor Company: New Strategies for International Growth
CASE 18
© 2016 Trustees of Dartmouth College. All rights reserved.
Final PDF to printer
C-238 PART 2 Cases in Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 238 12/05/16 04:12 PM
automotive division in 1999, and Britain’s Land Rover brand of sport-utility vehicles in 2000. All four brands were placed in the newly created Premier Automotive Group. Ford also made a significant investment in the more economically priced Japanese automobile pro- ducer Mazda, rounding out its profile of global brands and automobiles that appealed across the spectrum to all types of drivers.
Despite these investments in global growth, Ford struggled as it entered the 21st century, and sought to shrink its portfolio. By 2007, the company had divested the majority of Aston Martin to a con- sortium of investors and car enthusiasts for nearly $850 million, and the following year sold Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata Motors Ltd., an Indian conglom- erate. When the Great Recession crippled markets in 2008–2009, the American automobile industry cen- tered in Detroit was hit especially hard. Through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), the U.S. government made over $13 billion in government loans available to struggling automobile makers. Although Ford had secured a $23.6 billion lending facility a year earlier and thus did not require govern- ment relief, it was not completely exempt from need- ing to downsize through the recession. The company closed 13 plants and laid off more than 50,000 of its nearly 200,000 employees to decrease capacity. In 2010 the automaker announced an agreement to sell Volvo to the Chinese automotive conglomerate Zhejiang Geely Holding, and later announced it would discontinue its Mercury line, a brand first conceptu- alized in the 1930s to bridge the price gap between the Ford and Lincoln brands. By the end of fiscal year 2015, Ford’s total revenues were $149.6 billion. The 6.7million cars sold globally in that year com- promised nearly 94 percent of that revenue.2
Ford Motor Company’s income statements for 2013 through the second quarter of 2016 are pre- sented in Exhibit 1. The company’s balance sheets for 2013 through 2015 are presented in Exhibit 2.
The Modern Automobile Industry The modern automotive industry was one of the larg- est in the world; in 2015, industry experts anticipated that nearly 90 million vehicles were sold globally.3 The U.S. auto market was approximately 10 percent of that worldwide total, with 7.7 million passenger cars sold in 2014, and the industry in the United States comprised the largest single manufacturing
through a variety of unique production and employ- ment practices that transformed the automobile industry and positioned Ford at the forefront of tech- nological innovation. The 1908 launch of the Model T, later voted as the Car of the Century by a panel of industry experts, revolutionized manufacturing production globally.1 Produced on the world’s first assembly-line production model, the Model T was assembled by individual workers who remained in one place on the line and performed the same task every shift as vehicle parts passed before them on a conveyor belt. The implementation of the assembly line and conveyor belt, and the scale opportunities it afforded, allowed Ford to quickly surpass its com- petitors. Then in 1914, Ford began offering a stan- dardized wage of $5/day to its factory employees, vaulting many of its low-skilled workers into the middle class and enabling them to afford the prod- ucts they helped produce for the first time.
In the 1920s Ford purchased the Lincoln Motor Company, a competitor, and moved most of the com- bined company’s production operations to the Ford Rouge Complex in nearby Dearborn, Michigan. By the end of the decade the company was producing 1.5 million cars annually, a huge ramp-up in pro- duction from the Mack Avenue facility’s original output. Ford also played a vital role in assisting the Allied forces during the Second World War. Sus- pending automobile production for the duration of the war, the company converted its assembly lines to churn out B-24 Liberators at the rate of 1 per hour, or nearly 600 every month, utilizing the same mass- production techniques first piloted by the Model T 30 years earlier.
The 1950s and 1960s witnessed the introduction of some of Ford’s most iconic vehicles and family lines, including the Mustang and the Thunderbird, which quickly became international symbols of American consumerism in the postwar era. Through- out the next several decades, Ford continued its global expansion. By the 1990s, the company refocused its attention on automotive concerns and financial ser- vices. Organic growth, in the form of newly opened Asian operations and the establishment of the Ford Motor Credit Company, the firm’s financial arm, was complemented by a series of high-profile acquisi- tions. In 1989–1990, Ford purchased Jaguar, a British manufacturer of luxury cars, and in 1993 added Aston Martin. Later acquisitions in the 1990s included rental car company Hertz Corporation in 1994, Volvo’s
Final PDF to printer
CASE 18 Ford Motor Company: New Strategies for International Growth C-239
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 239 12/05/16 04:12 PM
EXHIBIT 1 Ford Motor Company Quarterly and Annual Income Statements, 2013 - Second Quarter 2016 (in millions except per share amounts)
2nd Quarter 1st Quarter 2015 2014 2013
06/30/2016 03/31/2016
Automotive revenues $ 36,932 $ 35,257 $ 140,566 $ 135,782 $ 139,369
Financial services revenues 2,553 2,461 8,992 8,295 7,548
Total revenues 39,485 37,718 149,558 144,077 146,917
Automotive cost of sales - 30,281 124,041 123,516 125,234
Selling, administrative & other expenses 2,661 3,823 14,999 14,117 13,176
Financial services interest expense - 658 2,454 2,699 2,860
Financial services provision for credit & insurance losses - 141 417 305 208
Total costs & expenses 37,267 34,903 141,911 140,637 141,478
Automotive interest expense 212 200 773 797 829
Automotive interest income & other income (loss), net 389 404 1,188 76 974
Financial services other income (expense), net 82 91 372 348 (348)
Equity in net income (loss) of affiliated companies 398 541 1,818 1,275 1,069
Income (loss) before income taxes 2,875 3,651 10,252 4,342 7,001
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes 903 1,196 666 559 577
Net income (loss) 1,972 2,455 7,371 3,186 7,148
Less: loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interests (2) (3) 200 154 -
Net income (loss) attributable to Ford Motor Company $ 1,970 $ 2,452 $ 7,373 $ 3,187 $ 7,155
Weighted average shares outstanding - basic 3,973 3,970 3,969 3,912 3,935
Weighted average shares outstanding - diluted 3,997 3,996 4,002 4,045 4,087
Year end shares outstanding 3,902 3,973 3,970 3,956 3,944
Net income (loss) per share - basic $0.50 $0.62 $1.86 $0.81 $1.82
Net income (loss) per share - diluted $0.49 $0.61 $1.84 $0.80 $1.76
Cash dividends declared $0.15 $0.40 $0.60 $0.50 $0.40
Source: Ford Motor Company 10-K and 10-Q reports, various years.
enterprise in terms of total product value, value added by manufacturer, and the total of wage earners employed throughout the industry.4,5 For other indus- trialized nations with strong automobile industries, including countries in the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, the dominance of the automobile
industry on gross domestic product (GDP), and espe- cially on exports, had grown exponentially over the latter half of the 20th century.
Ford Motor Company was one of the leading car manufacturers on both a profitability and pro- duction basis, but other major competitors included
Final PDF to printer
C-240 PART 2 Cases in Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 240 12/05/16 04:12 PM
in Japan had pioneered a “just-in-time” inventory method whereby noncritical component parts were outsourced to independent suppliers producing close to assembly plants and then sent back to the production facility at the time needed. Toyota had also pioneered a production method known as kaizen, now adopted by many industries ex-automobiles globally, that empha- sized continuous process improvement throughout the organization.
Ford was not alone in adopting an international acquisition strategy at the end of the 20th century. Major domestic competitors like Chrysler infa- mously merged in 1998 with Daimler-Benz, the pro- ducer of luxury brand Mercedes, and then later took controlling interest in Japanese manufacturer Mit- subishi in 2000. GM, which had purchased control- ling interests in Saab (Sweden) and Subaru (Japan), began to look toward overseas consolidation as a method for keeping production costs lower and diversifying into new markets outside the United States. While traditionally the most profitable mar- kets have been developed countries with significant middle-class purchasing power, developing nations, with larger populations overall and growing percent- age of middle-class workers, have become greater consumers. In 2015, Chinese consumers purchased more vehicles than in the United States (21.1 million passenger cars), although at lower margins.6
General Motors (also U.S. based, in Detroit), Toy- ota (a Japanese automaker, whose portfolio also included the Lexus luxury car brand), and Volkswa- gen (a German manufacturer that also owned Audi). While Ford primarily operated in the mid- to lower- priced end of the pricing spectrum, it had also owned stakes in more luxury brands such as Land Rover and Jaguar, as noted. Major competitors of these brands included producers like BMW and Daimler-Benz (also German manufacturers), Acura (the luxury arm of Honda in Japan), and at an even higher price point, boutique manufacturers like Porsche, Ferrari, and Maserati.
Consolidation and decentralization were two of the major trends of the industry. Part of this was due to the overall capital intensity of the industry; heavy investments in equipment and large production facili- ties have traditionally been required in order to achieve economies of scale. As attitudes on environmental impact have evolved, so too have more stringent regu- lations been placed on the industry that require greater costs on the part of the manufacturer. Ford, as noted, was a pioneer in the industry in the United States due to its innovative production facilities and creation of the assembly-line process, aimed at lowering overall production costs. These savings, however, were being offset by higher transportation costs as the industry glo- balized. Asian automakers such as Honda and Toyota
Source: Ford Motor Company 2015 10-K.
EXHIBIT 2 Ford Motor Company Balance Sheet Data, 2013–2016 ($ in millions)
12/31/2015 12/31/2014 12/31/2013
Cash & cash equivalents $ 14,272 $ 10,757 $ 14,468
Marketable securities 20,904 20,393 22,100
Receivables, net 101,975 101,975 101,975
Inventories 8,319 7,866 7,708
Other current assets 59,480 48,496 37,477
Fixed assets, net 19,975 19,040 18,298
Total assets $ 224,925 $ 208,527 $ 202,026
Total current liabilities $ 188,591 $ 195,645 $ 179,373
Total long-term liabilities 7,677 (11,950) (3,763)
Total equity (deficit) 28,657 24,832 26,416
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 224,925 $ 208,527 $ 202,026
Final PDF to printer
CASE 18 Ford Motor Company: New Strategies for International Growth C-241
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 241 12/05/16 04:12 PM
competitive automobile landscape. In 2015, Fields hired John Casesa, a long-time automobile indus- try analyst and former investment banker, to lead the newly created Global Strategy team. Casesa had been tasked with accelerating the implementation of the One Ford Plan, and revamping the Global Strat- egy team’s mandate.
In early 2016, CEO Fields championed updating the One Ford Plan to better reflect Ford’s business needs. These refined initiatives included:
∙ Strengthening and investing in Ford’s core busi- ness, including design, development, manufactur- ing, and marketing of great cars, trucks, SUVs, and electrified vehicles
∙ Aggressively pursuing emerging opportunities through Ford Smart Mobility, Ford’s plan to be a leader in connectivity, mobility, autonomous vehicles, the customer experience, and data and analytics
∙ Transforming the customer experience to com- bine Ford’s great products with great experiences customers want and value9
Fields’s vision for Ford as it entered the third decade of the 21st century was to transform Ford into both a strong automotive and mobility company. The company had rededicated itself to “delivering smart mobility solutions at the right place and the right time, and transforming the way that people move, as Henry Ford did when he started the company back in 1903.”
The Smart Mobility Platform and Dynamic Shuttle Concept A key component of Ford’s Smart Mobility plat- form was assessing the strategic markets and loca- tions where the program could be implemented. Ford began to pilot a concept known as the Dynamic Shuttle program in Dearborn and one other city in the United States, with the aim of expanding the program on a global scale.
The concept of the Dynamic Shuttle was an on- demand shuttle that could be accessed via a user’s mobile phone, and be dispatched either directly to the requesting customer (usually in developed mar- kets), or to a pickup location within a short walk that aggregated multiple customers for pickup (poten- tially in more rural areas or areas with poor infra- structure). The pricing of the shuttle was usually at
FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S STRATEGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY Following the Great Recession, Ford’s global strat- egy had largely been focused on returning the com- pany to profitability in each of the markets it operates in. Under then-CEO Alan Mulally, the company developed the One Ford Plan, as noted earlier. The four elements of the One Ford Plan included:
∙ Aggressively restructure Ford to operate profitably at the current demand and changing model mix
∙ Accelerate development of new products Ford’s customers want and value
∙ Finance out the plan and improve Ford’s balance sheet
∙ Work together effectively as one team
Under the One Ford Plan, Ford shifted from having many regional platforms to a focus on fewer, more global production platforms to better capi- talize on economies of scale. The company began to launch more products off fewer platforms, and revamped older vehicle families with technologi- cal improvements designed to win over new buyers. The Fiesta, originally a supermini car first sold in Europe and Latin America in the 1970s, launched in the United States in 2010, followed by the launch of the Brazil-based mini-utility vehicle the EcoSport in India and Europe. Ford transformed its global best- seller, the F-series, a line of pickup trucks produced since the postwar era and the bestselling vehicle in the United States for 34 years running (1981–2015), switching from steel to aluminum, a feat unprece- dented in manufacturing at such high volume.7,8
Much of Ford’s strategy shifts had been in response to the rapidly evolving external environ- ment for automotive companies in the 2010s. The emergence of ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft in the United States, Didi in China, and Ola in India, and participation by technological giants such as Google and Apple in the development of auton- omous (otherwise known as driverless) cars had caused automakers to reconsider how to compete in what had developed into a completely different world from the Detroit of Henry Ford. Mark Fields, Mulally’s successor to the CEO position in 2014, recognized the need to adapt in an increasingly
Final PDF to printer
C-242 PART 2 Cases in Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 242 12/05/16 04:12 PM
obvious choice was China, but for many reasons, including the need for unique joint venture agree- ments mandated by the Chinese government, Cas- esa’s Global Strategy Team decided to investigate the feasibility of a Dynamic Shuttle launch in India. Should Dynamic Shuttle launch successfully there, Casesa’s team was confident it could act as a test case for other densely populated countries coping with mobility issues that had a need for a program like Dynamic Shuttle.
India was anticipated to have a population of nearly 1.5 billion residents by 2020.11 As one of the most populous and densest countries in the world, India faced the challenge of needing to facilitate trans- port for millions of people daily. The Indian transport system consisted of multiple modes, including walk- ing, bicycling, various forms of rickshaws, bus and metro systems, and regional railways.
In densely populated urban areas of India, demand for public transport often exceeded capacity. Trains in Mumbai, the most populous city in India, carried over 7.5 million riders per day, a sixfold increase over the last 40 years, while daily capacity on its trains had only doubled.12 Yet for a city as densely populated as Mumbai, with its 20 million residents, continuing to build new infrastructure and extending the woefully inadequate means of public transporta- tion was often limited, if not impossible. Besides the overcrowded public transportation, India’s tropi- cal climate could lead to uncomfortable traveling experiences. Research in cities like Mumbai found that some customers would pay at least a 25 percent premium to ride in air-conditioned cabs versus ones without air-conditioning.13
RIDE-HAILING APPLICATIONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY One of the most prevalent competitors to tradi tional taxi cabs in the ride-hailing industry was Uber. Founded in California in 2009, Uber primarily func- tioned as a car-hailing mobile application, via which users could request car services from their smart- phones. Revenue was generated by charging users a fare for accessing and using the service, and then split between Uber and the driver, who was often viewed by the company as an independent contractor. Fares were calculated through a proprietary algorithm that takes into account time (both for the driver to arrive
a premium to mass transit in the market but a cost save compared to a taxi service or a ride-hailing service (such as Uber, Lyft, and Ola). Additionally, unlike a traditional bus service, dynamic shuttling’s algorithms and “learning capability” offered much greater flexibility in pickup and departure times and locations.
The program had multiple goals. It aimed to exist as a new transport ride-sharing platform in the space between scheduled (mass-transit) and private transport, enabled by smartphone development and penetration. Less expensive than a taxi, it expected to offer a more comfortable and convenient experience than mass transit. Typically, the shuttle anticipated serving between 4 and 6 people in developed coun- tries and up to 12 passengers in developing countries per ride. In developing countries, Dynamic Shuttle could also be used to connect riders from their home communities to mass-transit routes, if passengers lived long distances from a major transit line.
Some startups had started dynamic shuttles in cities like New York, Chicago, and Helsinki. Com- petitors like Uber and Lyft, through their analogous UberPOOL and Lyft Line services, had also begun to experiment with their own conceptualization of shared, or pooled, rides, and by mid-2015 over 50 percent of Uber’s fares and 60 percent of Lyft’s in the San Francisco market were based on carpooling ser- vices.10 Yet for the most part, no ride-hailing smart- phone-based app service was at the carrying capacity of a full shuttle, as Ford intended, and most pilots in developed countries were too small in size and scale compared to the possibilities already offered in many developing nations. Ford’s hope was to experiment with the shuttle to learn as much as possible from both a technological and operational perspective, but eventually the company hoped to quickly scale and enter into markets where mobility and movement of people are true problems.
THE INDIAN MASS-TRANSIT MARKET Emerging economies, with large populations, densely populated urban areas, overcrowded streets, and clogged transport and infrastructure systems, pre- sented a unique challenge for a shuttle concept. In considering which developing economy to launch Dynamic Shuttle, Ford considered two options. One
Final PDF to printer
CASE 18 Ford Motor Company: New Strategies for International Growth C-243
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 243 12/05/16 04:12 PM
ultimately selected India as the pilot country for the launch of its Dynamic Shuttle pilot program.
FORD’S INDIAN MARKET ASSESSMENT The Ford team assessed a number of key variables, including population statistics, income levels, and daily mileage traveled to calculate a potential market share for Dynamic Shuttle. Total available mileage, rather than number of potential customers or conver- sion rates, was used as a baseline for calculations, as basic profitability for most ride-hailing and ride- sharing programs are calculated on a mileage basis (i.e., not per customer). It was essential, however, to determine an appropriate customer base for the pilot. Casesa’s team first analyzed total population statis- tics of Indians living in urban areas (nearly 500 mil- lion), and then specifically drilled down by income segmentation into those who made between approxi- mately INR 90,000–200,000 per annum (roughly defined as “seekers”), and those who made between INR 200,000–500,000, (roughly defined as “aspira- tional workers”). Seekers and aspirational workers could not afford personal transportation and were in most instances still likely to use mass transit for their professional commutes, yet had the disposable income available to potentially pay a premium for an easier ride. This population yielded approximately 280 million potential shuttle riders.
The team then considered the different modes of transportation available to riders in major cities. Approximately 70 percent of the miles traveled by Indian commuters in cities on a daily basis were through mass transit, an obvious target, but the team also considered the miles traveled by commuters on motorcycles as a possible customer segment that could be converted to Dynamic Shuttle. On the high end of estimates, approximately 73 percent of the miles traveled by Indian commuters on a daily basis were thought to be within Dynamic Shuttle’s target market. The team next deliberated the transport alter- natives already available to commuters, including two-wheelers, trains, buses, and shared modes like rickshaws and taxis, and broke out the percentage usage rate by a variety of income levels. With these factors in mind, and the assumption of an 8 percent conversion or take rate, the estimates for annual mile- age traveled by seekers and aspirational workers in a
and the total estimated ride), distance, and demand. Uber’s pricing structure could either be less expen- sive or at a premium to the local taxi market. The company had experienced explosive growth in its first six years, raising over $10 billion in capital, completing 1 billion rides, and spreading to nearly 70 countries and 360 cities.14,15 Major competitors with similar business models included Lyft in the United States, BlablaCar in France (a ride-sharing app), Didi Kuaidi in China, and Ola in India. Statis- tics related to smartphone and ride-hailing services usage in India are presented in Exhibits 5-7.
As mentioned, despite its dominance over com- petitors in major metropolitan cities throughout the world, Uber was not the only ride-hailing app in India, nor did it even occupy the dominant position in the Indian domestic market. In mid-2015, the company injected over $1 billion in investments in its Indian operations, with the goal of handling over 1 million rides on a daily basis, similar to its current capacity in both China and the United States.16 Yet while Uber could be found in over 22 Indian metropolitan areas by the end of 2015, its ridership statistics were much less impressive, with the company citing on average only 250,000 rides per day.17 Instead, the dominant ride-hailing app-based company in India, Ola, was speculated to actually achieve Uber’s goal of over 1 million rides on a daily basis spread across the 350,000 vehicles in its platform, and could be found in over 102 Indian cities. Through aggressive tactics more suited to the Indian market, including accep- tance of cash instead of credit-card smartphone-based payments, better utilization of rickshaws and cheaper modes of transportation, and diffusion of the business to second- and third-tier Indian cities, Ola was able to outpace Uber in the Indian ride-hailing market. As of December 2015, Ola, Lyft, Didi Kuaidi, and GrabTaxi (a Southeast Asian app) had also pledged to allow customers of each company to use their local apps in different markets, in an attempt to continue to block Uber’s growth.18
Smartphone usage in India, projected to grow to nearly 317.1 million users by 2019, combined with the population statistics and competitive envi- ronment described above, indicated India would be a ripe market for a smartphone-based ride applica- tions.19,20 As noted, however, neither Uber nor Ola had successfully piloted the concept of a mass- scale ride-hailing shuttle in their Indian business model. For this reason, Ford’s Global Strategy Team
Final PDF to printer
C-244 PART 2 Cases in Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 244 12/05/16 04:12 PM
team identified five potential partners. A matrix is provided in Exhibit 4 with details on how each partner aligned with the goals and competencies needed to successfully execute on the project. Key considerations for the team included:
∙ Business Model: Would the shuttle have defined stops (B2C) or offer on-demand services? Are rides shared (usually with 1 other person) or a true shuttle (up to 12 passengers)?
∙ Customer Strategy: Who is the primary com- petitor, and where does demand come from?
∙ Scalability of Algorithms: What is the number of cities the partner currently operates in?
∙ City Relationship: Has the partner cultivated relationships with cities to operate the business?
∙ Physical Products: Who actually owns the vehi- cles in operation?
∙ Operating Franchise Model: Can the partner quickly develop a franchise model?
∙ Willingness to Accept Investment: To what degree could Ford be a controlling stakeholder?
∙ User Experience: Is customer feedback and/ or research on the partner’s ability to deliver on promised experience positive?
∙ Growth Potential: What are the partner’s plans for growth?
∙ Applicability and Flexibility of Algorithm: Can the partner’s technology (mapping and algorithms) adapt to different needs and new locations? How easily is it replicated?
Partner Selection Casesa and his team had answered the basics: identified the market for Dynamic Shuttle’s first international pilot (India); defined the business model necessary to execute on the pilot; deliberated on specific strategic initiatives and imperatives needed for a hypothetical partner. Their focus now shifted to evaluating the five poten- tial partners Ford could align with to bring Dynamic Shuttle to India. As he sat down to review the agenda for his next meeting with the Global Strategy Team, the key discussion item remained:
Which partner would be the best match for Ford in terms of business model, growth, technology, and operational efficiency to successfully launch a Dynamic Shuttle pilot in India?
given year using Dynamic Shuttle was thought to be in the range of 65–90 billion miles. With an aver- age rider cost of $0.30 per mile, Ford calculated a potential annual revenue of $19–26 billion. (See Exhibit 3 for further details on the team’s analysis.)
Dynamic Shuttle Business Model and Partner Selection
Business Model Once the market potential for Dynamic Shuttle in India was estimated, Casesa’s team deliberated on the best path for market entry. Ford had established plants in India in the late 1920s, and Ford India had operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company since 1995, with manufacturing facilities in Chennai and Gujarat.21
The team assessed three different options for the Dynamic Shuttle rollout. In the first model, Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Credit Corpora- tion (Ford’s financial and lending arm) would pro- vide the vehicles, financing, and parts and servicing. This solution was more complete and enabled more in-house control, but operating its own fleet on the ground would incur heavy capital requirements, as Ford would have to own the overall assets (the vehi- cles themselves), a strain on the company’s overall capital. The second option identified was to organi- cally develop the technology in-house and sell it to companies already in operation to help them create this business. This option was ultimately rejected due to the slower speed of development, especially in light of the necessity of starting operations and scaling the business model quickly. The model ultimately selected was for Ford Smart Mobility to choose a partner that would establish operations on the ground in India. With this partner, Ford would establish a franchise model, which would facilitate the platform, payment system, and create a joint business model.
Strategic Imperatives for Partner Selection Ford’s vision for Dynamic Shuttle was to choose a partner whose current business model most closely aligned with their view of the offering. The team considered key questions and solutions that each partner would need to satisfy, provided below. After thinking through these key imperatives, the
Final PDF to printer
245
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 245 12/13/16 03:36 PM
EXHIBIT 3 Market Sizing Analysis and Revenue Projections for Dynamic Shuttle in India
Step 1: Indian Population Segmentation
Total Indian Population 1,311,051 Number living in urban araas 419,939
Income Segmentation % INR Income
Rich 3% > INR 1,000,000
Strivers 6% INR 500,000 to 1,000,000 Seekers 25% INR 200,000 to 500,000
Aspirational Workers 40% INR 90,000 to 200,000
Deprived 26% < INR 90,000
Total # Seekers and Aspirational 272,960
Step 2 - Travel Methodology Mode of Transit
What kind of travel would Dynamic Shuttle replace? Total Miles/Yr %
Personal Vehicle 593 25.79%
Taxi/Uber 17 0.74% Motorcycle 123 5.35% Mass Transit 1,565 68.07% Total 2,299 100.00 % of total miles for customer segment 73.42% (High End Estimate)
Alternative - Mumbai-Metro Area Specific Income
Vehicle Type 90,000,000 180,000 300,000 420,000 540,000 660,000 Car 1.00% 2.00% 6.00% 13.00% 21.00% 24.00% Two-Wheeler 5.00% 8.00% 9.00% 9.00% 10.00% 12.00% Train 22.00% 28.00% 30.00% 29.00% 21.00% 23.00% Bus 12.00% 13.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% Shared Mode (Rickshaw, Taxi) 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 8.00% 9.00% Walk/Bike 56.00% 45.00% 35.00% 28.00% 28.00% 17.00% Total Highlighted Modes of Travel 43.00% 53.00% 59.00% 59.00% % of total miles for customer segment 53.50% (Low End Estimate)
Step 3 - Mileage & Revenue Calculations
Total Transit Miles/Year in Urban Areas 2,299 billion Miles/Urban Dweller 0.0055 billion # Seekers & Aspirational 272,960 billion
Total mileage Seekers & Aspirational 1,494 billion
% total miles of customer segment
Low end estimate (53.5%) 799 billion
High end estimate (73.42%) 1,097 billion
8% Uptake rate assumption Low end estimate 64 billion High end estimate 88 billion
Assumed cost/mile $ 0.30
Revenue calculation High end estimate $ 19.19 billion USD Low end estimate $ 26.33 billion USD
Final PDF to printer
C-246 PART 2 Cases in Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 246 12/10/16 09:08 PM
EXHIBIT 4 Competency Matrix for Dynamic Shuttle Prospective Partners
Partner Business Model
Partner Customer Strategy
Increase/augment access to mass transit.
Competing with existing mass transit - replace, value prop = more upscale
Taxi-like business; replace taxi hailling
Taxi-like business; replace taxi hailling
Taxi- like business;
replace taxi hailling
Shuttle (Defined Stops)
2 Cities currently3 Cities currently
City Relationships ( # cities type of relationship, ride sharing v. dynamic shuttle)
Physical Products (Who Own the Vehicles)
Operating Franchise Model
Expressed interest to franchise
Expressed interest to franchise
Expressed interest to franchise
Very mature, expansion plans may not include franchise model
Faling Business
None since seed funding 54 mil
Series B closed $ 37 million total
Wholly owned by transportation company
$ 50 millionOver $ 1 Billion
Strong app, people interested in the purpose- built vehicles. Benchmark experience showed service not consistent
Strong UX, strong focus on customer acquisition and customer data
Very customercentric in data presentation. 30 employees, 50/50 in operation and tech. 1 million riders per year, 250 drivers, up to 1200 mid 2016
On-demand Can flex in real-time. Operate 6:30 to 9. Closest to Ford model of dynamic shuttle
Similar to on-demand model by Ryderz, but with a less 1 fleible algorithm
Dynamic but only from one rider to another
Has true dynamic capability as demonstrated by package pick up/drop o�
Higher maintenance, high growth potential 50% month over month growth
Mature, ability to impact the business is di�cult. Low maintenance
Take over failing business Resource intensive to get involved with.
App is not as polished, unclear the goals of service
Mature and strong app - drivers incentivized to provide good user experience
App design is good, but business model is failing service TBD
25 employees, aim for 100 by end of 2015, Adapting to di�erent cities. 5% wk/wk growth. Constrained by ability to grow
Complex algorithm aggregates people to go to set destinations. Operates during rush hour. Limited dynamic functioning. Usually within 5 min walk On-demand and pre-book
OTHER COMPETENCIES
Fleet Management
Customer Support / Help Desk / CRM
Customer Scale & Insights (incl. Analytics)
Y R
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
R R
G G
GY
Willingness to Accept Investment
User Experience (App and Service)
Growth Potential (# employess, growth curve, #customers)
Applicability of Algorithm/Flexibility
City and small fleets Purpose built vehicles (Vans)
Drivers or Small fleets Indvidual Drivers. Large SUVs.
Indvidual Drivers. Large SUVs.
Indvidual Drivers. Large SUVs.
3 US major cities Understand regulations but also developed relationship with the city
2 US major cities Understand regulations but also developed relationship with the city
1 US major city due to number of cities, more ridesharing, haven’t had to develop relationships with cities
50+ Cities. ride-sharing. haven’t had to develop relationships with cities.
8 Cities. Ride-sharing haven’t had to develop relationships with cities
1 City Very scalable Very scalableHow Scalable Are Partner Algorithms
On Demand Shuttle On Demand Shuttle Shared Ride Services Shared Ride Services
Vrigg Ryderz Car-Go
DYNAMIC SHUTTLE Competency Matrix
Shuttlex Qquark
Final PDF to printer
CASE 18 Ford Motor Company: New Strategies for International Growth C-247
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 247 12/05/16 04:12 PM
EXHIBIT 5 Smartphone Usage in India (millions) from 2013 to 2019
2013
76
123.3
167.9
204.8
243.8
279.2
317.1
S m
a rt
p h
o n
e u
e rs
in m
ill io
n s
2014 2015 2016 (Pro-
jected)
2017 (Pro-
jected)
2018 (Pro-
jected)
2019 (Pro-
jected)
EXHIBIT 6 Daily Completed Rides by Uber and Ola in India as of December 2015
0
Ola (includes auto rickshaws)
Uber
200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000
Source: Uber, Ola, atlas.qz.com/charts/NJ3EKY2R.
EXHIBIT 7 Uber’s Reach versus the Competition as of September 2015
400
350
300
250
200
150
North America India Southeast Asia China
100
50
0
Uber Others
Source: atlas.qz.com/charts/NJdXd64C.
Final PDF to printer
C-248 PART 2 Cases in Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_case18_C237-C248.indd 248 12/05/16 04:12 PM
ENDNOTES 8 Eve P., “Ford F-Series Trucks Number One for 35 Years Running,” social.ford.com/content/ fordsocial/en/articles/quality/fo/22086-ford- f-series-trucks-number-one-for-35-years- running.html (accessed March 18, 2016). 9 “One Ford Card,” www.at.ford.com/news/cn/ Pages/One%20Ford%20Card.aspx (accessed March 18, 2016). 10 Ellen Huet, “The Case for Carpooling: Inside Lyft and Uber’s Quest to Squeeze More People in The Backseat,” Forbes, August 18, 2015, www .forbes.com/sites/ ellenhuet/2015/08/18/inside- lyfts-and-ubers-carpooling-quest-uberpool-lyft- line/#4b1b7d5c11a5. 11 United Nations, Population Division, “World Population Prospects 2015,” esa.un.org/unpd/ wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/ (accessed March 18, 2016). 12 Julien Bouissou, “Mumbai’s Rail Commuters Pay a High Human Price for Public Transport,” The Guardian,October 29, 2013, www .theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/ india-mumbai-population-rail-accidents. 13 Deven Jadav, “Various AC and NON Air- conditioned Taxi Fares in Mumbai—Fare Rate Chart,” Mumbai 77.com, last modified Novem- ber 1, 2011, www.mumbai77.com/city/1918/ travel/taxi-fare-rates/. 14 Uber Technologies Inc., PrivCo. (accessed March 18, 2016).
1 James G. Cobb, “This Just In: Model T Gets Award,” The New York Times, December 24, 1999, www.nytimes.com/1999/12/24/automo- biles/this-just-in-model-t-gets-award.html. 2 “Ford 4Q and Full Year Earnings Review and 2016 Outlook,” Ford Motor Co., last modi- fied January 28, 2016 (preliminary results),” corporate.ford.com/content/dam/corporate/ en/investors/investor-events/ Quarterly%20 Earnings/2015/2015-4Q-earnings- slides-20160127.pdf. 3 OICA, “Worldwide Vehicle Sales from 2005 to 2015 (in Units),” www.statista/ statistics/265859/vehicle-sales-worldwide/. 4 kfz-betrieb, “Revenue of the Leading Automo- tive Manufacturers Worldwide in 2014 (in Billion Euros),” www.statista.com/statistics/232958/ revenue-of-the-leading-car-manufacturers- worldwide/. 5 Encyclopædia Britannica, s.v. “automotive industry,“ www.britannica.com/topic/automo- tive-industry/The-modern-industry (accessed March 11, 2016). 6 CAAM, “Automobile Sales in China from Janu- ary 2015 to January 2016 (in 1,000 Units).” 7 Kelly Pleskot, “The 15 Best-Selling Vehicles of 2015: Ford F-Series Keeps Its Crown,” Motor Trend, January 5, 2016, www.motortrend. com/news/the-15-best-selling-vehicles-of- 2015-ford-f-series-keeps-its-crown/.
15 Sriram Sharma, “Uber vs. Ola in India: How Do They Stack Up?,” Gadgets 360, last modi- fied February 5, 2016, gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/ features/uber-vs-ola-in-india-how-do-they- stack-up-798608. 16 Jon Russell, “Uber Is Investing $1B to Grow Its Business in India to 1M Rides Per Day,” Tech Crunch,July 31, 2015, techcrunch. com/2015/07/31/one-billllllllllllion/#. fb5p9ub:mWyk. 17 Jon Russell, “Ola, the Company Beating Uber in India, Raises $500M at a $5B Valuation,” Tech Crunch,November 17, 2015, techcrunch. com/2015/11/17/ola-the-company-beating- uber-in-india-lands-500m-in-fresh- investment/. 18 Ibid. 19 Ingrid Lunden, “Lift, Didi, Ola and GrabTaxi Partner in Global Tech, Service Alliance to Rival Uber,” Tech Crunch, December 3, 2015, techcrunch.com/2015/12/03/lyft-didi- ola-and-grabtaxi-partner-in-global-tech- service-alliance-to-rival-uber/. 20 Cindy Liu, “Worldwide Internet and Mobile Users,” eMarketer, August 17, 2015. 21 “Ford India—Corporate Profile,” Ford Motor Co. website, www.india.ford.com/ about (accessed March 18, 2016).
Final PDF to printer
Need 2.5-3 pages answer for Learning Objectives Ch.5-8 *keep questions on the answer sheet and need answer the question one by one, don’t put all together.
Need total 1-1.5 page answer for two Discussion Questions (ch5-6; ch7-8)
Total 4 page answer
ALL answers should from your own words or the textbook (No Internet resource allowed)
You answers must related to the textbook lessons. answers are easy to find under each chapter (pdf), just use some of your word and explanations from textbook. Also you must write the page number (where is this topic come from) after your answer.
Learning Objectives Chapters 5-8
CH.5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies (please use pdf page1-28 for answers)
LO 1 What distinguishes each of the five generic strategies and why some of these strategies work better in certain kinds of competitive conditions than in others.
LO 2 The major avenues for achieving a competitive advantage based on lower costs.
LO 3 The major avenues to a competitive advantage based on differentiating a company’s product or service offering from the offerings of rivals.
LO 4 The attributes of a best-cost provider strategy—a hybrid of low-cost provider and differentiation strategies.
CH. 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position- Strategic Moves, Timing, and Scope of Operations (please use pdf page29-55 for answers)
LO 1 Whether and when to pursue offensive or defensive strategic moves to improve a company’s market position.
LO 2 When being a first mover or a fast follower or a late mover is most advantageous.
LO 3 The strategic benefits and risks of expanding a company’s horizontal scope through mergers and acquisitions.
LO 4 The advantages and disadvantages of extending the company’s scope of operations via vertical integration.
LO 5 The conditions that favor farming out certain value chain activities to outside parties.
LO 6 When and how strategic alliances can substitute for horizontal mergers and acquisitions or vertical integration and how they can facilitate outsourcing.
CH.7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets. (Please use pdf page 59-88 for answers)
LO 1 The primary reasons companies choose to compete in international markets.
LO 2 How and why differing market conditions across countries influence a company’s strategy choices in international markets.
LO 3 The five major strategic options for entering foreign markets.
LO 4 The three main strategic approaches for competing internationally.
LO 5 How companies are able to use international operations to improve overall competitiveness.
LO 6 The unique characteristics of competing in developing-country markets.
CH. 8 Corporate Strategy Diversification and the Multibusiness Company (Please use pdf page 95-132 for answers)
LO 1 When and how business diversification can enhance shareholder value.
LO 2 How related diversification strategies can produce cross-business strategic fit capable of delivering competitive advantage.
LO 3 The merits and risks of unrelated diversification strategies.
LO 4 The analytic tools for evaluating a company’s diversification strategy.
LO 5 What four main corporate strategy options a diversified company can employ for solidifying its strategy and improving company performance.
Discussion Question (CH 5-6) (need 0.5-0.75page answer)
Think about the vertical integration strategies. Make an argument for either "integrating backward" or "integrating forward" to gain competitive advantage. Name a company or industry whereby your argument would apply.
Discussion Question (CH 7-8) (need 0.5-0.75-page answer)
After you read about the strategies to enter a foreign market, choose between a Foreign Subsidiary Strategy and a Joint Venture Strategy, and argue the advantages of the one you have chosen over the strategy you did not choose. Name a company or industry whereby your argument would apply.
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 120 10/11/16 07:55 PM
CHAPTER 5
The Five Generic Competitive Strategies
Learning Objectives
THIS CHAPTER WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND:
LO 1 What distinguishes each of the five generic strategies and why some of these strategies work better in certain kinds of competitive conditions than in others.
LO 2 The major avenues for achieving a competitive advantage based on lower costs.
LO 3 The major avenues to a competitive advantage based on differentiating a company’s product or service offering from the offerings of rivals.
LO 4 The attributes of a best-cost provider strategy—a hybrid of low-cost provider and differentiation strategies.
© Roy Scott/Ikon Images/SuperStock
Final PDF to printer
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 121 10/11/16 07:55 PM
Strategy 101 is about choices: You can’t be all things to all people.
Michael E. Porter—Professor, author, and cofounder of
Monitor Consulting
Strategy is all about combining choices of what to do and what not to do into a system that creates the
requisite fit between what the environment needs and what the company does.
Costas Markides—Professor and consultant
I learnt the hard way about positioning in business, about catering to the right segments.
Shaffi Mather—Social entrepreneur
A company’s competitive strategy deals exclusively with the specifics of manage- ment’s game plan for competing successfully—its specific efforts to position itself in the marketplace, please customers, ward off competitive threats, and achieve a partic- ular kind of competitive advantage. The chances are remote that any two companies— even companies in the same industry—will employ competitive strategies that are exactly alike in every detail. However, when one strips away the details to get at the real substance, the two biggest factors that distinguish one competitive strategy from another boil down to (1) whether a company’s market target is broad or narrow and (2) whether the company is pursuing a competitive advantage linked to lower costs or differentiation. These two factors give rise to five competitive strategy options, as shown in Figure 5.1 and listed next.1
1. A low-cost provider strategy—striving to achieve lower overall costs than rivals on comparable products that attract a broad spectrum of buyers, usually by under- pricing rivals.
A company can employ any of several basic approaches to competing successfully and gain- ing a competitive advantage over rivals, but they all involve delivering more value to customers than rivals or delivering value more efficiently than rivals (or both). More value for customers can mean a good product at a lower price, a superior prod- uct worth paying more for, or a best-value offering that represents an attractive combination of price, features, service, and other appealing attributes. Greater efficiency means delivering a given level of
value to customers at a lower cost to the company. But whatever approach to delivering value the company takes, it nearly always requires perform- ing value chain activities differently than rivals and building competitively valuable resources and capa- bilities that rivals cannot readily match or trump.
This chapter describes the five generic competi- tive strategy options. Which of the five to employ is a company’s first and foremost choice in craft- ing an overall strategy and beginning its quest for competitive advantage.
TYPES OF GENERIC COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES
LO 1
What distinguishes each of the five generic strategies and why some of these strategies work better in certain kinds of competitive conditions than in others.
Final PDF to printer
122 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 122 10/11/16 07:55 PM
2. A broad differentiation strategy—seeking to differentiate the company’s product offering from rivals’ with attributes that will appeal to a broad spectrum of buyers.
3. A focused low-cost strategy—concentrating on the needs and requirements of a narrow buyer segment (or market niche) and striving to meet these needs at lower costs than rivals (thereby 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.
5. A best-cost provider strategy—striving to incorporate upscale product attributes at a lower cost than rivals. Being the “best-cost” producer of an upscale, multifea- tured product allows a company to give customers more value for their money by underpricing rivals whose products have similar upscale, multifeatured attributes. This competitive approach is a hybrid strategy that blends elements of the previous four options in a unique and often effective way.
The remainder of this chapter explores the ins and outs of these five generic com- petitive strategies and how they differ.
FIGURE 5.1 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies
Lower Cost
Type of Competitive Advantage Being Pursued
M a
rk e
t Ta
rg e
t Di�erentiation
Broad Di�erentiation
Strategy
Overall Low-Cost Provider Strategy
Best-Cost Provider Strategy
Focused Low-Cost Strategy
Focused Di�erentiation
Strategy
A Broad Cross-Section of Buyers
A Narrow Buyer Segment (or Market Niche)
Source: This is an expanded version of a three-strategy classification discussed in Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy (New York: Free Press, 1980).
LOW-COST PROVIDER STRATEGIES Striving to achieve lower overall costs than rivals is an especially potent 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 comparatively low costs. A low-cost pro- vider’s foremost strategic objective is meaningfully lower costs than rivals—but not
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies 123
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 123 10/11/16 07:55 PM
necessarily the absolutely lowest possible cost. In striving for a cost advantage over rivals, company managers must incorporate features and services that buyers consider essential. A product offering that is too frills-free can be viewed by consumers as offering little value regardless of its pricing.
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.
While many companies are inclined to exploit a low-cost advantage by using option 1 (attacking rivals with lower prices), this strategy can backfire if rivals respond with retaliatory price cuts (in order to protect their customer base and defend against a loss of sales). A rush to cut prices can often trigger a price war that lowers the profits of all price discounters. The bigger the risk that rivals will respond with matching price cuts, the more appealing it becomes to employ the second option for using a low-cost advantage to achieve higher profitability.
The Two Major Avenues for Achieving a Cost Advantage To achieve a low-cost edge over rivals, a firm’s cumulative costs across its overall value chain must be lower than competitors’ cumulative costs. There are two major avenues for accomplishing this:2
1. Perform value chain activities more cost-effectively than rivals. 2. Revamp the firm’s overall value chain to eliminate or bypass some cost-
producing activities.
Cost-Efficient Management of Value Chain Activities For a company to do a more cost-efficient job of managing its value chain than rivals, managers must diligently search out cost-saving opportunities in every part of the value chain. No activity can escape cost-saving scrutiny, and all company personnel must be expected to use their talents and ingenuity to come up with innovative and effective ways to keep down costs. Particular attention must be paid to a set of factors known as cost drivers that have a strong effect on a company’s costs and can be used as levers to lower costs. Figure 5.2 shows the most important cost drivers. Cost-cutting approaches that demonstrate an effective use of the cost drivers include:
1. Capturing all available economies of scale. Economies of scale stem from an ability to lower unit costs by increasing the scale of operation. Economies of scale may be available at different points along the value chain. Often a large plant is more economical to operate than a small one, particularly if it can be operated round the clock robotically. Economies of scale may be available due to a large warehouse operation on the input side or a large distribution center on the output side. In global industries, selling a mostly standard product world- wide tends to lower unit costs as opposed to making separate products for each country market, an approach in which costs are typically higher due to an inabil- ity to reach the most economic scale of production for each country. There are economies of scale in advertising as well. For example, Anheuser-Busch could
CORE CONCEPT
A low-cost provider’s basis for competitive advantage is lower overall costs than competitors. Successful low-cost leaders, who have the lowest industry costs, are exceptionally good at finding ways to drive costs out of their businesses and still provide a product or service that buyers find acceptable.
CORE CONCEPT
A cost driver is a factor that has a strong influence on a company’s costs.
A low-cost advantage over rivals can translate into better profitability than rivals attain.
LO 2
The major avenues for achieving a competitive advantage based on lower costs.
Final PDF to printer
124 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 124 10/11/16 07:55 PM
afford to pay the $5 million cost of a 30-second Super Bowl ad in 2016 because the cost could be spread out over the hundreds of millions of units of Budweiser that the company sells.
2. Taking full advantage of experience and learning-curve effects. The cost of performing an activity can decline over time as the learning and experience of company personnel build. Learning and experience economies can stem from debugging and mastering newly introduced technologies, using the experiences and suggestions of workers to install more efficient plant layouts and assembly procedures, and the added speed and effectiveness that accrues from repeatedly picking sites for and building new plants, distribution centers, or retail outlets.
3. Operating facilities at full capacity. Whether a company is able to operate at or near full capacity has a big impact on unit costs when its value chain contains activities associated with substantial fixed costs. Higher rates of capacity utili- zation allow depreciation and other fixed costs to be spread over a larger unit volume, thereby lowering fixed costs per unit. The more capital-intensive the business and the higher the fixed costs as a percentage of total costs, the greater the unit-cost penalty for operating at less than full capacity.
4. Improving supply chain efficiency. Partnering with suppliers to streamline the ordering and purchasing process, to reduce inventory carrying costs via just-in- time inventory practices, to economize on shipping and materials handling, and to
FIGURE 5.2 Cost Drivers: The Keys to Driving Down Company Costs
Learning and experience
Capacity utilization
Supply chain e�ciencies
Bargaining power
Outsourcing or vertical
integration
Incentive systems and
culture
Economies of scale
Input costs
Communication systems and information technology
Production technology and design
COST DRIVERS
Source: Adapted from Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York: Free Press, 1985).
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies 125
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 125 10/11/16 07:55 PM
ferret out other cost-saving opportunities is a much-used approach to cost reduc- tion. A company with a distinctive competence in cost-efficient supply chain man- agement, such as BASF (the world’s leading chemical company), can sometimes achieve a sizable cost advantage over less adept rivals.
5. Substituting lower-cost inputs wherever there is little or no sacrifice in product quality or performance. If the costs of certain raw materials and parts are “too high,” a company can switch to using lower-cost items or maybe even design the high-cost components out of the product altogether.
6. Using the company’s bargaining power vis-à-vis suppliers or others in the value chain system to gain concessions. Home Depot, for example, has sufficient bar- gaining clout with suppliers to win price discounts on large-volume purchases.
7. Using online systems and sophisticated software to achieve operating efficien- cies. For example, sharing data and production schedules with suppliers, coupled with the use of enterprise resource planning (ERP) and manufacturing execution system (MES) software, can reduce parts inventories, trim production times, and lower labor requirements.
8. Improving process design and employing advanced production technology. Often production costs can be cut by (1) using design for manufacture (DFM) proce- dures and computer-assisted design (CAD) techniques that enable more integrated and efficient production methods, (2) investing in highly automated robotic pro- duction technology, and (3) shifting to a mass-customization production process. Dell’s highly automated PC assembly plant in Austin, Texas, is a prime exam- ple of the use of advanced product and process technologies. Many companies are ardent users of total quality management (TQM) systems, business process reengineering, Six Sigma methodology, and other business process management techniques that aim at boosting efficiency and reducing costs.
9. Being alert to the cost advantages of outsourcing or vertical integration. Out- sourcing the performance of certain value chain activities can be more economical than performing them in-house if outside specialists, by virtue of their expertise and volume, can perform the activities at lower cost. On the other hand, there can be times when integrating into the activities of either suppliers or distribution- channel allies can lower costs through greater production efficiencies, reduced transaction costs, or a better bargaining position.
10. Motivating employees through incentives and company culture. A company’s incentive system can encourage not only greater worker productivity but also cost-saving innovations that come from worker suggestions. The culture of a com- pany can also spur worker pride in productivity and continuous improvement. Companies that are well known for their cost-reducing incentive systems and culture include Nucor Steel, which characterizes itself as a company of “20,000 teammates,” Southwest Airlines, and Walmart.
Revamping of the Value Chain System to Lower Costs Dramatic cost advantages can often emerge from redesigning the company’s value chain system in ways that eliminate costly work steps and entirely bypass certain cost-producing value chain activities. Such value chain revamping can include:
∙ Selling direct to consumers and bypassing the activities and costs of distribu- tors and dealers. To circumvent the need for distributors and dealers, a company can (1) create its own direct sales force (which adds the costs of maintaining and
Final PDF to printer
126 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 126 10/11/16 07:55 PM
supporting a sales force but which may well be cheaper than using independent distributors and dealers to access buyers) and/or (2) conduct sales operations at the company’s website (incurring costs for website operations and shipping may be a substantially cheaper way to make sales than going through distributor–dealer channels). Costs in the wholesale and retail portions of the value chain frequently represent 35 to 50 percent of the final price consumers pay, so establishing a direct sales force or selling online may offer big cost savings.
∙ Streamlining operations by eliminating low-value-added or unnecessary work steps and activities. At Walmart, some items supplied by manufacturers are deliv- ered directly to retail stores rather than being routed through Walmart’s distribu- tion centers and delivered by Walmart trucks. In other instances, Walmart unloads incoming shipments from manufacturers’ trucks arriving at its distribution cen- ters and loads them directly onto outgoing Walmart trucks headed to particular stores without ever moving the goods into the distribution center. Many super- market chains have greatly reduced in-store meat butchering and cutting activities by shifting to meats that are cut and packaged at the meatpacking plant and then delivered to their stores in ready-to-sell form.
∙ Reducing materials handling and shipping costs by having suppliers locate their plants or warehouses close to the company’s own facilities. Having suppliers locate their plants or warehouses close to a company’s own plant facilitates just- in-time deliveries of parts and components to the exact workstation where they will be used in assembling the company’s product. This not only lowers incoming shipping costs but also curbs or eliminates the company’s need to build and oper- ate storerooms for incoming parts and components and to have plant personnel move the inventories to the workstations as needed for assembly.
Illustration Capsule 5.1 describes the path that Amazon.com, Inc. has followed on the way to becoming not only the largest online retailer (as measured by revenues) but also the lowest-cost provider in the industry.
Examples of Companies That Revamped Their Value Chains to Reduce Costs Nucor Corporation, the most profitable steel producer in the United States and one of the largest steel producers worldwide, drastically revamped the value chain process for manufacturing steel products by using relatively inexpen- sive electric arc furnaces and continuous casting processes. Using electric arc furnaces to melt recycled scrap steel eliminated many of the steps used by traditional steel mills that made their steel products from iron ore, coke, limestone, and other ingredients using costly coke ovens, basic oxygen blast furnaces, ingot casters, and multiple types of finishing facilities—plus Nucor’s value chain system required far fewer employees. As a consequence, Nucor produces steel with a far lower capital investment, a far smaller workforce, and far lower operating costs than traditional steel mills. Nucor’s strategy to replace the traditional steelmaking value chain with its simpler, quicker value chain approach has made it one of the world’s lowest-cost producers of steel, allowing it to take a huge amount of market share away from traditional steel com- panies and earn attractive profits. (Nucor reported a profit in 188 out of 192 quarters during 1966–2014—a remarkable feat in a mature and cyclical industry notorious for roller-coaster bottom-line performance.)
Southwest Airlines has achieved considerable cost savings by reconfiguring the traditional value chain of commercial airlines, thereby permitting it to offer travelers dramatically lower fares. Its mastery of fast turnarounds at the gates (about 25 minutes
Final PDF to printer
127
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 127 10/11/16 07:55 PM
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 5.1
In 1996, shortly after founding Amazon.com, CEO Jeff Bezos told his employees, “When you are small, some- one else that is bigger can always come along and take away what you have.” Since then, the company has relentlessly pursued growth, aiming to become the global cost leader in “customer-centric E-commerce” across nearly all consumer merchandise lines. Amazon. com now offers over 230 million items for sale in America— approximately 30 times more than Walmart— and its annual sales are greater than the next five larg- est e-retailers combined.
In scaling up, Amazon has achieved lower costs not only through economies of scale, but also by increasing its bargaining power over its supplies and distribution partners. With thousands of suppliers, Amazon.com is not reliant on any one relationship. Suppliers, however, have few other alternative e-retailers that can match Amazon’s reach and popularity. This gives Amazon bar- gaining power when negotiating revenue sharing and payment schedules. Amazon has even been able to negotiate for space inside suppliers’ warehouses, reduc- ing their own inventory costs.
On the distribution side, Amazon has been develop- ing its own capabilities to reduce reliance on third-party delivery services. Unlike most mega retailers, Amazon’s distribution operation was designed to send small orders to residential customers. Amazon.com attained proxim- ity to its customers by building a substantial network of warehousing facilities and processing capability—249 fulfillment and delivery stations globally. This wide foot- print decreases the marginal cost of quick delivery, as well as Amazon’s reliance on cross-country delivery services. In addition, Amazon has adopted innovative delivery services to further lower costs and extend its reach. In India and the UK, for example, through Easy
Ship Amazon’s crew picks up orders directly from sell- ers, eliminating the time and cost of sending goods to a warehouse and the need for more space.
Amazon’s size has also enabled it to spread the fixed costs of its massive up-front investment in auto- mation across many units. Amazon.com was a pioneer of algorithms generating customized recommenda- tions for customers. While developing these algo- rithms was resource-intensive, the costs of employing them are low. The more Amazon uses its automated sales tools to drive revenue, the more the up-front development cost is spread thin across total revenue. As a result, the company has lower capital inten- sity for each dollar of sales than other large retailers (like Walmart and Target). Other proprietary tools that increase the volume and speed of sales—without increasing variable costs—include Amazon.com’s pat- ented One Click Buy feature. All in all, these moves have been helping secure Amazon’s position as the low-cost provider in this industry.
Amazon’s Path to Becoming the Low-Cost Provider in E-commerce
© Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Note: Developed with Danielle G. Garver.
Sources: Company websites; seekingalpha.com/article/2247493-amazons-competitive-advantage-quantified; Brad Stone, The Everything Store (New York: Back Bay Books, 2013); w w w.reuters.com/article/us-amazon- com-india-logistics-idUSKCN0T12 PL20151112 (accessed February 16, 2016).
versus 45 minutes for rivals) allows its planes to fly more hours per day. This translates into being able to schedule more flights per day with fewer aircraft, allowing Southwest to generate more revenue per plane on average than rivals. Southwest does not offer assigned seating, baggage transfer to connecting air- lines, or first-class seating and service, thereby eliminating all the cost-producing activities associated with these features. The company’s fast and user-friendly online reservation system facilitates e-ticketing and reduces staffing requirements
Success in achieving a low- cost edge over rivals comes from out-managing rivals in finding ways to perform value chain activities faster, more accurately, and more cost-effectively.
Final PDF to printer
128 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 128 10/11/16 07:55 PM
at telephone reservation centers and airport counters. Its use of automated check-in equipment reduces staffing requirements for terminal check-in. The company’s care- fully designed point-to-point route system minimizes connections, delays, and total trip time for passengers, allowing about 75 percent of Southwest passengers to fly nonstop to their destinations and at the same time reducing Southwest’s costs for flight operations.
The Keys to Being a Successful Low-Cost Provider While low-cost providers are champions of frugality, they seldom hesitate to spend aggressively on resources and capabilities that promise to drive costs out of the busi- ness. Indeed, having competitive assets of this type and ensuring that they remain competitively superior is essential for achieving competitive advantage as a low-cost provider. Walmart, for example, has been an early adopter of state-of-the-art technol- ogy throughout its operations; however, the company carefully estimates the cost sav- ings of new technologies before it rushes to invest in them. By continuously investing in complex, cost-saving technologies that are hard for rivals to match, Walmart has sustained its low-cost advantage for over 30 years.
Other companies noted for their successful use of low-cost provider strategies include Vizio in big-screen TVs, EasyJet and Ryanair in airlines, Huawei in network- ing and telecommunications equipment, Bic in ballpoint pens, Stride Rite in footwear, and Poulan in chain saws.
When a Low-Cost Provider Strategy Works Best A low-cost provider strategy becomes increasingly appealing and competitively powerful when:
1. Price competition among rival sellers is vigorous. Low-cost providers are in the best position to compete offensively on the basis of price, to gain market share at the expense of rivals, to win the business of price-sensitive buyers, to remain profitable despite strong price competition, and to survive price wars.
2. The products of rival sellers are essentially identical and readily available from many eager sellers. Look-alike products and/or overabundant product supply set the stage for lively price competition; in such markets, it is the less efficient, higher-cost companies whose profits get squeezed the most.
3. It is difficult to achieve product differentiation in ways that have value to buyers. When the differences between product attributes or brands do not matter much to buyers, buyers are nearly always sensitive to price differences, and industry- leading companies tend to be those with the lowest-priced brands.
4. Most buyers use the product in the same ways. With common user requirements, a standardized product can satisfy the needs of buyers, in which case low price, not features or quality, becomes the dominant factor in causing buyers to choose one seller’s product over another’s.
5. Buyers incur low costs in switching their purchases from one seller to another. Low switching costs give buyers the flexibility to shift purchases to lower-priced sellers having equally good products or to attractively priced substitute products. A low-cost leader is well positioned to use low price to induce potential customers to switch to its brand.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies 129
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 129 10/11/16 07:55 PM
Pitfalls to Avoid in Pursuing a Low-Cost Provider Strategy Perhaps the biggest mistake a low-cost provider can make is getting carried away with overly aggressive price cutting. Higher unit sales and market shares do not automati- cally translate into higher profits. Reducing price results in earning a lower profit margin on each unit sold. Thus reducing price improves profitability only if the lower price increases unit sales enough to offset the loss in revenues due to the lower per unit profit margin. A simple numerical example tells the story: Suppose a firm selling 1,000 units at a price of $10, a cost of $9, and a profit margin of $1 opts to cut price 5 percent to $9.50—which reduces the firm’s profit margin to $0.50 per unit sold. If unit costs remain at $9, then it takes a 100 percent sales increase to 2,000 units just to offset the narrower profit margin and get back to total profits of $1,000. Hence, whether a price cut will result in higher or lower profitability depends on how big the resulting sales gains will be and how much, if any, unit costs will fall as sales volumes increase.
A second pitfall is relying on cost reduction approaches that can be easily cop- ied by rivals. 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.
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 feature-poor to gen- erate buyer appeal. Furthermore, a company driving hard to push down its costs has to guard against ignoring declining buyer sensitivity to price, increased buyer interest in added features or service, or new developments that alter how buyers use the product. Otherwise, it risks losing market ground if buyers start opting for more upscale or feature-rich products.
Even if these mistakes are avoided, a low-cost provider strategy still entails risk. An innovative rival may discover an even lower-cost value chain approach. Important cost-saving technological breakthroughs may suddenly emerge. And if a low-cost provider has heavy investments in its present means of operating, then it can prove costly to quickly shift to the new value chain approach or a new technology.
A low-cost provider is in the best position to win the business of price-sensitive buyers, set the floor on market price, and still earn a profit.
Reducing price does not lead to higher total profits unless the added gains in unit sales are large enough to offset the loss in revenues due to lower margins per unit sold.
BROAD DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGIES Differentiation strategies are attractive whenever buyers’ needs and preferences are too diverse to be fully satisfied by a standardized product offering. Successful product differentiation requires careful study to determine what attributes buyers will find appealing, valuable, and worth paying for.3 Then the company must incorporate a combination of these desirable features into its product or service that will be different enough to stand apart from the product or service offerings of rivals. A broad dif- ferentiation strategy achieves its aim when a wide range of buyers find the company’s offering more appealing than that of rivals and worth a somewhat higher price.
Successful differentiation allows a firm to do one or more of the following:
∙ Command a premium price for its product. ∙ Increase unit sales (because additional buyers are won over by the differentiating
features).
A low-cost provider’s product offering must always contain enough attributes to be attractive to prospective buyers—low price, by itself, is not always appealing to buyers.
LO 3
The major avenues to a competitive advantage based on differentiating a company’s product or service offering from the offerings of rivals.
Final PDF to printer
130 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 130 10/11/16 07:55 PM
∙ Gain buyer loyalty to its brand (because buyers are strongly attracted to the differentiating features and bond with the company and its products).
Differentiation enhances profitability whenever a company’s product can com- mand a sufficiently higher price or generate sufficiently bigger unit sales to more than cover the added costs of achieving the differentiation. Company differentia- tion strategies fail when buyers don’t place much value on the brand’s uniqueness and/or when a company’s differentiating features are easily matched by its rivals.
Companies can pursue differentiation from many angles: a unique taste (Red Bull, Listerine); multiple features (Microsoft Office, Apple Watch); wide selection
and one-stop shopping (Home Depot, Alibaba.com); superior service (Ritz-Carlton, Nordstrom); spare parts availability (John Deere; Morgan Motors); engineering design and performance (Mercedes, BMW); high fashion design (Prada, Gucci); product reliability (Whirlpool and Bosch in large home appliances); quality manufacture (Michelin); technological leadership (3M Corporation in bonding and coating prod- ucts); a full range of services (Charles Schwab in stock brokerage); and wide product selection (Campbell’s soups).
Managing the Value Chain to Create the Differentiating Attributes Differentiation is not something hatched in marketing and advertising departments, nor is it limited to the catchalls of quality and service. Differentiation opportuni- ties can exist in activities all along an industry’s value chain. The most systematic approach that managers can take, however, involves focusing on the value drivers, a set of factors—analogous to cost drivers—that are particularly effective in creating differentiation. Figure 5.3 contains a list of important value drivers. Ways that manag- ers can enhance differentiation based on value drivers include the following:
1. Create product features and performance attributes that appeal to a wide range of buyers. The physical and functional features of a product have a big influence on differentiation, including features such as added user safety or enhanced envi- ronmental protection. Styling and appearance are big differentiating factors in the apparel and motor vehicle industries. Size and weight matter in binoculars and mobile devices. Most companies employing broad differentiation strategies make a point of incorporating innovative and novel features in their product or service offering, especially those that improve performance and functionality.
2. Improve customer service or add extra services. Better customer services, in areas such as delivery, returns, and repair, can be as important in creating differentiation as superior product features. Examples include superior technical assistance to buyers, higher-quality maintenance services, more and better product information provided to customers, more and better training materials for end users, better credit terms, quicker order processing, and greater customer convenience.
3. Invest in production-related R&D activities. Engaging in production R&D may permit custom-order manufacture at an efficient cost, provide wider product variety and selection through product “versioning,” or improve product qual- ity. Many manufacturers have developed flexible manufacturing systems that allow different models and product versions to be made on the same assembly line. Being able to provide buyers with made-to-order products can be a potent differentiating capability.
CORE CONCEPT
The essence of a broad differentiation strategy is to offer unique product attributes that a wide range of buyers find appealing and worth paying more for.
CORE CONCEPT
A value driver is a factor that can have a strong differentiating effect.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies 131
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 131 10/11/16 07:55 PM
4. Strive for innovation and technological advances. Successful innovation is the route to more frequent first-on-the-market victories and is a powerful differ- entiator. If the innovation proves hard to replicate, through patent protection or other means, it can provide a company with a first-mover advantage that is sustainable.
5. Pursue continuous quality improvement. Quality control processes reduce product defects, prevent premature product failure, extend product life, make it economi- cal to offer longer warranty coverage, improve economy of use, result in more end-user convenience, or enhance product appearance. Companies whose qual- ity management systems meet certification standards, such as the ISO 9001 stan- dards, can enhance their reputation for quality with customers.
6. Increase marketing and brand-building activities. Marketing and advertising can have a tremendous effect on the value perceived by buyers and therefore their will- ingness to pay more for the company’s offerings. They can create differentiation even when little tangible differentiation exists otherwise. For example, blind taste tests show that even the most loyal Pepsi or Coke drinkers have trouble telling one cola drink from another.4 Brands create customer loyalty, which increases the perceived “cost” of switching to another product.
7. Seek out high-quality inputs. Input quality can ultimately spill over to affect the performance or quality of the company’s end product. Starbucks, for example, gets high ratings on its coffees partly because it has very strict specifications on the coffee beans purchased from suppliers.
FIGURE 5. 3 Value Drivers: The Keys to Creating a Differentiation Advantage
Customer services
Production R&D
Sales and marketing
Quality control
processes
Product features and performance
Technology and
innovation
Employee skill, training,
experience Input quality
VALUE DRIVERS
Source: Adapted from Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York: Free Press, 1985).
Final PDF to printer
132 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 132 10/11/16 07:55 PM
8. Emphasize human resource management activities that improve the skills, exper- tise, and knowledge of company personnel. A company with high-caliber intel- lectual capital often has the capacity to generate the kinds of ideas that drive product innovation, technological advances, better product design and product performance, improved production techniques, and higher product quality. Well- designed incentive compensation systems can often unleash the efforts of talented personnel to develop and implement new and effective differentiating attributes.
Revamping the Value Chain System to Increase Differentiation Just as pursuing a cost advantage can involve the entire value chain system, the same is true for a differentiation advantage. Activities performed upstream by suppliers or downstream by distributors and retailers can have a meaningful effect on customers’ perceptions of a company’s offerings and its value proposition. Approaches to enhanc- ing differentiation through changes in the value chain system include:
∙ Coordinating with channel allies to enhance customer value. Coordinating with downstream partners such as distributors, dealers, brokers, and retailers can con- tribute to differentiation in a variety of ways. Methods that companies use to influ- ence the value chain activities of their channel allies include setting standards for downstream partners to follow, providing them with templates to standardize the selling environment or practices, training channel personnel, or cosponsoring pro- motions and advertising campaigns. Coordinating with retailers is important for enhancing the buying experience and building a company’s image. Coordinating with distributors or shippers can mean quicker delivery to customers, more accu- rate order filling, and/or lower shipping costs. The Coca-Cola Company considers coordination with its bottler-distributors so important that it has at times taken over a troubled bottler to improve its management and upgrade its plant and equip- ment before releasing it again.5
∙ Coordinating with suppliers to better address customer needs. Collaborating with suppliers can also be a powerful route to a more effective differentiation strategy. Coordinating and collaborating with suppliers can improve many dimensions affect- ing product features and quality. This is particularly true for companies that engage only in assembly operations, such as Dell in PCs and Ducati in motorcycles. Close coordination with suppliers can also enhance differentiation by speeding up new product development cycles or speeding delivery to end customers. Strong relation- ships with suppliers can also mean that the company’s supply requirements are pri- oritized when industry supply is insufficient to meet overall demand.
Delivering Superior Value via a Broad Differentiation Strategy Differentiation strategies depend on meeting customer needs in unique ways or creat- ing new needs through activities such as innovation or persuasive advertising. The objective is to offer customers something that rivals can’t—at least in terms of the level of satisfaction. There are four basic routes to achieving this aim.
The first route is to incorporate product attributes and user features that lower the buyer’s overall costs of using the company’s product. This is the least obvious and most overlooked route to a differentiation advantage. It is a differentiating factor since it can help business buyers be more competitive in their markets and more profitable. Producers of materials and components often win orders for their products by reducing
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies 133
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 133 10/11/16 07:55 PM
a buyer’s raw-material waste (providing cut-to-size components), reducing a buyer’s inventory requirements (providing just-in-time deliveries), using online systems to reduce a buyer’s procurement and order processing costs, and providing free techni- cal support. This route to differentiation can also appeal to individual consumers who are looking to economize on their overall costs of consumption. Making a company’s product more economical for a buyer to use can be done by incorporating energy- efficient features (energy-saving appliances and lightbulbs help cut buyers’ utility bills; fuel-efficient vehicles cut buyer costs for gasoline) and/or by increasing maintenance intervals and product reliability to lower buyer costs for maintenance and repairs.
A second route is to incorporate tangible features that increase customer satisfac- tion with the product, such as product specifications, functions, and styling. This can be accomplished by including attributes that add functionality; enhance the design; save time for the user; are more reliable; or make the product cleaner, safer, quieter, simpler to use, more portable, more convenient, or longer-lasting than rival brands. Smartphone manufacturers are in a race to introduce next-generation devices capable of being used for more purposes and having simpler menu functionality.
A third route to a differentiation-based competitive advantage is to incorporate intangible features that enhance buyer satisfaction in noneconomic ways. Toyota’s Prius appeals to environmentally conscious motorists not only because these driv- ers want to help reduce global carbon dioxide emissions but also because they identify with the image conveyed. Bentley, Ralph Lauren, Louis Vuitton, Burberry, Cartier, and Coach have differentiation-based competitive advantages linked to buyer desires for status, image, prestige, upscale fashion, superior craftsmanship, and the finer things in life. Intangibles that contribute to differentiation can extend beyond product attributes to the reputation of the company and to customer relations or trust.
The fourth route is to signal the value of the company’s product offering to buyers. Typical signals of value include a high price (in instances where high price implies high quality and performance), more appealing or fancier packaging than competing products, ad content that emphasizes a product’s standout attributes, the quality of brochures and sales presentations, and the luxuriousness and ambience of a seller’s facilities (important for high-end retailers and for offices or other facilities frequented by customers). They make potential buyers aware of the professionalism, appearance, and personalities of the seller’s employees and/or make potential buyers realize that a company has prestigious customers. Signaling value is particularly important (1) when the nature of differentiation is based on intangible features and is therefore subjective or hard to quantify, (2) when buyers are making a first-time purchase and are unsure what their experience with the product will be, (3) when repurchase is infrequent, and (4) when buyers are unsophisticated.
Regardless of the approach taken, achieving a successful differentiation strategy requires, first, that the company have capabilities in areas such as customer service, marketing, brand management, and technology that can create and support differen- tiation. That is, the resources, competencies, and value chain activities of the com- pany must be well matched to the requirements of the strategy. For the strategy to result in competitive advantage, the company’s competencies must also be sufficiently unique in delivering value to buyers that they help set its product offering apart from those of rivals. They must be competitively superior. There are numerous examples of companies that have differentiated themselves on the basis of distinctive capabilities. Health care facilities like M.D. Anderson, Mayo Clinic, and Cleveland Clinic have specialized expertise and equipment for treating certain diseases that most hospitals and health care providers cannot afford to emulate. When a major news event occurs,
Differentiation can be based on tangible or intangible attributes.
Final PDF to printer
134 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 134 10/11/16 07:55 PM
many people turn to Fox News and CNN because they have the capabilities to get reporters on the scene quickly, break away from their regular programming (without suffering a loss of advertising revenues associated with regular programming), and
devote extensive air time to newsworthy stories. The most successful approaches to differentiation are those that are difficult for
rivals to duplicate. Indeed, this is the route to a sustainable differentiation advan- tage. While resourceful competitors can, in time, clone almost any tangible product attribute, socially complex intangible attributes such as company reputation, long-standing relationships with buyers, and image are much harder to imitate. Differentiation that creates switching costs that lock in buyers also provides a route
to sustainable advantage. For example, if a buyer makes a substantial investment in learning to use one type of system, that buyer is less likely to switch to a competi- tor’s system. (This has kept many users from switching away from Microsoft Office products, despite the fact that there are other applications with superior features.) As a rule, differentiation yields a longer-lasting and more profitable competitive edge when it is based on a well-established brand image, patent-protected product innovation, complex technical superiority, a reputation for superior product quality and reliability, relationship-based customer service, and unique competitive capabilities.
When a Differentiation Strategy Works Best Differentiation strategies tend to work best in market circumstances where:
∙ 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 par- ticular buyers. For instance, the diversity of consumer preferences for menu selec- tion, ambience, pricing, and customer service gives restaurants exceptionally wide latitude in creating a differentiated product offering. Other industries with diverse buyer needs include magazine publishing, automobile manufacturing, footwear, and kitchen appliances.
∙ There are many ways to differentiate the product or service that have value to buy- ers. Industries in which competitors have opportunities to add features to products and services are well suited to differentiation strategies. For example, hotel chains can differentiate on such features as location, size of room, range of guest ser- vices, in-hotel dining, and the quality and luxuriousness of bedding and furnish- ings. Similarly, cosmetics producers are able to differentiate based on 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 pro- hibitions against animal testing. Basic commodities, such as chemicals, mineral deposits, and agricultural products, provide few opportunities for differentiation.
∙ Few rival firms are following a similar differentiation approach. The best differ- entiation 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 in creating value and does not try to out-differentiate rivals on the very same attributes. When many rivals base their differentiation efforts on the same attributes, the most likely result is weak brand differentiation and “strategy overcrowding”—competitors end up chasing much the same buyers with much the same product offerings.
∙ 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
Easy-to-copy differentiating features cannot produce sustainable competitive advantage.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies 135
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 135 10/11/16 07:55 PM
to pursue distinct differentiating paths. In smartphones and wearable Internet devices, drones for hobbyists and commercial use, automobile lane detection sensors, and battery-powered cars, rivals 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.
Pitfalls to Avoid in Pursuing a Differentiation Strategy Differentiation strategies can fail for any of several reasons. A differentiation strat- egy keyed to product or service attributes that are easily and quickly copied is always suspect. Rapid imitation means that no rival achieves differentiation, since whenever one firm introduces some value-creating aspect that strikes the fancy of buyers, fast-following copycats quickly reestablish parity. This is why a firm must seek out sources of value creation that are time-consuming or burdensome for rivals to match if it hopes to use differentiation to win a sustainable competitive edge.
Differentiation strategies can also falter when buyers see little value in the unique attributes of a company’s product. Thus, even if a company succeeds in setting its product apart from those of rivals, its strategy can result in disappointing sales and profits if the product does not deliver adequate value to buyers. Anytime many poten- tial buyers look at a company’s differentiated product offering with indifference, the company’s differentiation strategy is in deep trouble.
The third big pitfall is overspending on efforts to differentiate the company’s prod- uct offering, thus eroding profitability. Company efforts to achieve differentiation nearly always raise costs—often substantially, since marketing and R&D are expen- sive undertakings. The key to profitable differentiation is either to keep the unit cost of achieving differentiation below the price premium that the differentiating attributes can command (thus increasing the profit margin per unit sold) or to offset thinner profit margins per unit by selling enough additional units to increase total profits. If a company goes overboard in pursuing costly differentiation, it could be saddled with unacceptably low profits or even losses.
Other common mistakes in crafting a differentiation strategy include:
∙ Offering only trivial improvements in quality, service, or performance features vis-à-vis rivals’ products. Trivial differences between rivals’ product offerings may not be visible or important to buyers. If a company wants to generate the fiercely loyal customer following needed to earn superior profits and open up a differentiation-based competitive advantage over rivals, then its strategy must result in strong rather than weak product differentiation. In markets where dif- ferentiators do no better than achieve weak product differentiation, customer loyalty is weak, the costs of brand switching are low, and no one company has enough of a differentiation edge to command a price premium over rival brands.
∙ Over-differentiating so that product quality, features, or service levels exceed the needs of most buyers. A dazzling array of features and options not only drives up product price but also runs the risk that many buyers will conclude that a less deluxe and lower-priced brand is a better value since they have little occasion to use the deluxe attributes.
∙ Charging too high a price premium. While buyers may be intrigued by a product’s deluxe features, they may nonetheless see it as being overpriced relative to the value delivered by the differentiating attributes. A company must guard against
Any differentiating feature that works well is a magnet for imitators.
Over-differentiating and overcharging are fatal differentiation strategy mistakes. A low-cost provider strategy can defeat a differentiation strategy when buyers are satisfied with a basic product and don’t think “extra” attributes are worth a higher price.
Final PDF to printer
136 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 136 10/11/16 07:55 PM
turning off would-be buyers with what is perceived as “price gouging.” Normally, the bigger the price premium for the differentiating extras, the harder it is to keep buyers from switching to the lower-priced offerings of competitors.
FOCUSED (OR MARKET NICHE) STRATEGIES What sets focused strategies apart from low-cost provider and broad differentia- tion strategies is concentrated attention on a narrow piece of the total market. The target segment, or niche, can be in the form of a geographic segment (such as New England), or a customer segment (such as urban hipsters), or a product segment (such as a class of models or some version of the overall product type). Community Coffee, the largest family-owned specialty coffee retailer in the United States, has a geo- graphic focus on the state of Louisiana and communities across the Gulf of Mexico. Community holds only a small share of the national coffee market but has recorded sales in excess of $100 million and has won a strong following in the 20-state region where its coffee is distributed. Examples of firms that concentrate on a well-defined market niche keyed to a particular product or buyer segment include Zipcar (car rental in urban areas), Airbnb and VRBO (by-owner lodging rental), Comedy Cen- tral (cable TV), Blue Nile (online jewelry), Tesla Motors (electric cars), and CGA, Inc. (a specialist in providing insurance to cover the cost of lucrative hole-in-one prizes at golf tournaments). Microbreweries, local bakeries, bed-and-breakfast inns, and retail boutiques have also scaled their operations to serve narrow or local cus- tomer segments.
A Focused Low-Cost Strategy A focused low-cost strategy aims at securing a competitive advantage by serving buyers in the target market niche at a lower cost and lower price than those of rival competitors. This strategy has considerable attraction when a firm can lower costs sig- nificantly by limiting its customer base to a well-defined buyer segment. The avenues to achieving a cost advantage over rivals also serving the target market niche are the same as those for low-cost leadership—use the cost drivers to perform value chain activities more efficiently than rivals and search for innovative ways to bypass non- essential value chain 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—the former involves a product offering that appeals broadly to almost all buyer groups and market segments, whereas the latter aims at just meeting the needs of buyers in a narrow market segment.
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 imitative of name-brand mer- chandise 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 2014 sales of over $4 billion, by focusing on producing private-label brands for retailers such as Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid, and Safeway. Budget motel chains, like Motel 6, Sleep Inn, and Super 8, cater to price-conscious travelers who just want to pay for a clean, no-frills place to spend the night. Illustration Capsule 5.2 describes how Clinícas del Azúcar’s focus on lowering the costs of diabetes care is allowing it to address a major health issue in Mexico.
Final PDF to printer
137
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 137 10/11/16 07:55 PM
A Focused Differentiation Strategy Focused differentiation strategies involve offering superior products or services tai- lored to the unique preferences and needs of a narrow, well-defined group of buyers. Successful use of a focused differentiation strategy depends on (1) the existence of a buyer segment that is looking for special product attributes or seller capabilities and (2) a firm’s ability to create a product or service offering that stands apart from that of rivals competing in the same target market niche.
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 5.2
Though diabetes is a manageable condition, it is the leading cause of death in Mexico. Over 14 million adults (14 percent of all adults) suffer from diabetes, 3.5 million cases remain undiagnosed, and more than 80,000 die due to related complications each year. The key driver behind this public health crisis is limited access to afford- able, high-quality care. Approximately 90 percent of the population cannot access diabetes care due to finan- cial and time constraints; private care can cost upwards of $1,000 USD per year (approximately 45 percent of Mexico’s population has an annual income less than $2,000 USD) while average wait times alone at public clinics surpass five hours. Clinícas del Azúcar (CDA), however, is quickly scaling a solution that uses a focused low-cost strategy to provide affordable and convenient care to low-income patients.
By relentlessly focusing only on the needs of its target population, CDA has reduced the cost of dia- betes care by more than 70 percent and clinic visit times by over 80 percent. The key has been the use of proprietary technology and a streamlined care system. First, CDA leverages evidence-based algo- rithms to diagnose patients for a fraction of the costs of traditional diagnostic tests. Similarly, its mobile outreach significantly reduces the costs of support- ing patients in managing their diabetes after leaving CDA facilities. Second, CDA has redesigned the care process to implement a streamlined “patient process flow” that eliminates the need for multiple referrals to other care providers and brings together the nec- essary professionals and equipment into one facility. Consequently, CDA has become a one-stop shop for diabetes care, providing every aspect of diabetes treatment under one roof.
The bottom line: CDA’s cost structure allows it to keep its prices for diabetes treatment very low, saving patients both time and money. Patients choose from three different care packages, ranging from preventive to comprehensive care, paying an annual fee that runs between approximately $70 and $200 USD. Given this increase in affordability and convenience, CDA esti- mates that it has saved its patients over $2 million USD in medical costs and will soon increase access to afford- able, high-quality care for 10 to 80 percent of the popu- lation. These results have attracted investment from major funders including Endeavor, Echoing Green, and the Clinton Global Initiative. As a result, CDA and oth- ers expect CDA to grow from 5 clinics serving approxi- mately 5,000 patients to more than 50 clinics serving over 100,000 patients throughout Mexico by 2020.
Clinícas del Azúcar’s Focused Low-Cost Strategy
© Ariel Skelley/Blend Images/Getty Images
Note: Developed with David B. Washer.
Sources: w w w.clinicasdelazucar.com; “Funding Social Enterprises Report,” Echoing Green, June 2014; Jude Webber, “Mexico Sees Poverty Climb Despite Rise in Incomes,” Financial Times online, July 2015, w w w.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/98460bbc-31e1 -11e5 - 8873 -775ba7c2ea3d.html#axzz3zz8grtec; “Javier Lozano,” Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship online, 2016, w w w.schwabfound.org/content/javier-lozano.
Final PDF to printer
138 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 138 10/11/16 07:55 PM
Companies like L.A. Burdick (gourmet chocolates), Rolls-Royce, and Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company employ successful differentiation-based focused strategies targeted at upscale buyers wanting products and services with world-class attributes. Indeed, most markets contain a buyer segment willing to pay a big price premium for the very fin- est items available, thus opening the strategic window for some competitors to pursue differentiation-based focused strategies aimed at the very top of the market pyramid. Whole Foods Market, which bills itself as “America’s Healthiest Grocery Store,” has become the largest organic and natural foods supermarket chain in the United States (2014 sales of $14.2 billion) by catering to health-conscious consumers who prefer organic, natural, minimally processed, and locally grown foods. Whole Foods prides itself on stocking the highest-quality organic and natural foods it can find; the com- pany defines quality by evaluating the ingredients, freshness, taste, nutritive value, appearance, and safety of the products it carries. Illustration Capsule 5.3 describes how Canada Goose has been gaining attention with a focused differentiation strategy.
When a Focused Low-Cost or Focused Differentiation Strategy Is Attractive A focused strategy aimed at securing a competitive edge based on either low costs or dif- ferentiation 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 focus- ers 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 their mainstream customers.
∙ The industry has many different niches and segments, thereby allowing a focuser to pick the niche best suited to its resources and capabilities. Also, with more niches there is room for focusers to concentrate on different market segments and avoid competing in the same niche for the same customers.
∙ Few if any rivals are attempting to specialize in the same target segment—a condi- tion that reduces the risk of segment overcrowding.
The advantages of focusing a company’s entire competitive effort on a single mar- ket niche are considerable, especially for smaller and medium-sized companies that may lack the breadth and depth of resources to tackle going after a broader customer base with a more complex set of needs. YouTube has become a household name by concentrating on short video clips posted online. Papa John’s and Domino’s Pizza have created impressive businesses by focusing on the home delivery segment.
The Risks of a Focused Low-Cost or Focused Differentiation Strategy Focusing carries several risks. One is the chance that competitors outside the niche will find effective ways to match the focused firm’s capabilities in serving the tar- get niche—perhaps by coming up with products or brands specifically designed to
Final PDF to printer
139
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 139 10/11/16 07:55 PM
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 5.3
Open up a winter edition of People and you will prob- ably see photos of a celebrity sporting a Canada Goose parka. Recognizable by a distinctive red, white, and blue arm patch, the brand’s parkas have been spotted on movie stars like Emma Stone and Bradley Cooper, on New York City streets, and on the cover of Sports Illus- trated. Lately, Canada Goose has become extremely successful thanks to a focused differentiation strategy that enables it to thrive within its niche in the $1.2 trillion fashion industry. By targeting upscale buyers and pro- viding a uniquely functional and stylish jacket, Canada Goose can charge nearly $1,000 per jacket and never need to put its products on sale.
While Canada Goose was founded in 1957, its recent transition to a focused differentiation strategy allowed it to rise to the top of the luxury parka market. In 2001, CEO Dani Reiss took control of the company and made two key decisions. First, he cut private-label and non- outerwear production in order to focus on the branded outerwear portion of Canada Goose’s business. Sec- ond, Reiss decided to remain in Canada despite many North American competitors moving production to Asia to increase profit margins. Fortunately for him, these two strategy decisions have led directly to the com- pany’s current success. While other luxury brands, like Moncler, are priced similarly, no competitor’s products fulfill the promise of handling harsh winter weather quite like a Canada Goose “Made in Canada” parka. The Canadian heritage, use of down sourced from rural Canada, real coyote fur (humanely trapped), and prom- ise to provide warmth in sub-25°F temperatures have
let Canada Goose break away from the pack when it comes to selling parkas. The company’s distinctly Cana- dian product has made it a hit among buyers, which is reflected in the willingness to pay a steep premium for extremely high-quality and warm winter outerwear.
Since Canada Goose’s shift to a focused differentia- tion strategy, the company has seen a boom in revenue and appeal across the globe. Prior to Reiss’s strategic decisions in 2001, Canada Goose had annual revenue of about $3 million. Within a decade, the company had experienced over 4,000 percent growth in annual rev- enue; by the end of 2015, sales were expected to exceed $300 million in more than 50 countries. At this pace, it looks like Canada Goose will remain a hot commodity as long as winter temperatures remain cold.
Canada Goose’s Focused Differentiation Strategy
© Richard Lautens/Toronto Star via Getty Images
Note: Developed with Arthur J. Santry.
Sources: Drake Bennett, “How Canada Goose Parkas Migrated South,” Bloomberg Businessweek, March 13, 2015, w w w.bloomberg.com; Hollie Shaw, “Canada Goose’s Made-in-Canada Marketing Strategy Translates into Success,” Financial Post, May 18, 2012, w w w.financialpost.com; “The Economic Impact of the Fashion Industry,” The Economist, June 13, 2015, w w w.maloney.house.gov; and company website (accessed February 21, 2016).
appeal to buyers in the target niche or by developing expertise and capabilities that offset the focuser’s strengths. 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 JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels with deluxe accommodations for business travelers and resort vacationers. Its Courtyard by Marriott and SpringHill Suites brands cater to busi- ness travelers looking for moderately priced lodging, whereas Marriott Residence Inns and TownePlace Suites are designed as a “home away from home” for trav- elers staying five or more nights. Its Fairfield Inn & Suites is intended to appeal to travelers looking for quality lodging at an “affordable” price. Marriott has also
Final PDF to printer
140 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 140 10/11/16 07:55 PM
added Edition, AC Hotels by Marriott, and Autograph Collection hotels that offer stylish, distinctive decors and personalized services that appeal to young profession- als seeking distinctive lodging alternatives. Multibrand strategies are attractive to large companies like Marriott, Procter & Gamble, and Nestlé precisely because they enable entry into smaller market segments and siphon away business from compa- nies that employ a focused strategy.
A second risk of employing a focused strategy is the potential for the preferences and needs of niche members to shift over time toward the product attributes desired by buyers in the mainstream portion of the market. 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 that it is soon inundated with competitors, intensifying rivalry and splintering segment profits. And there is always the risk for segment growth to slow to such a small rate that a focuser’s prospects for future sales and profit gains become unacceptably dim.
CORE CONCEPT
Best-cost provider strategies are a hybrid of low-cost provider and differentiation strategies that aim at providing more desirable attributes (quality, features, performance, service) while beating rivals on price.
BEST-COST PROVIDER STRATEGIES As Figure 5.1 indicates, best-cost provider strategies stake out a middle ground between pursuing a low-cost advantage and a differentiation advantage and between appealing to the broad market as a whole and a narrow market niche. This permits companies to aim squarely at the sometimes great mass of value-conscious buyers looking for a better product or service at an economical price. Value-conscious buy- ers frequently shy away from both cheap low-end products and expensive high-end products, but they are quite willing to pay a “fair” price for extra features and func- tionality they find appealing and useful. The essence of a best-cost provider strategy is giving customers more value for the money by satisfying buyer desires for appeal- ing features and charging a lower price for these attributes compared to rivals with similar-caliber product offerings.6 From a competitive-positioning standpoint, best- cost strategies are thus a hybrid, balancing a strategic emphasis on low cost against
a strategic emphasis on differentiation (desirable features delivered at a relatively low price).
To profitably employ a best-cost provider strategy, a company must have the capability to incorporate upscale attributes into its product offering at a lower cost than rivals. When a company can incorporate more appealing features, good to excellent product performance or quality, or more satisfying customer service into its product offering at a lower cost than rivals, then it enjoys “best-cost” status—it is the low-cost provider of a product or service with upscale attributes. A best-cost provider can use its low-cost advantage to underprice rivals whose products or services have similarly upscale attributes and it still earns attractive profits.
Being a best-cost provider is different from being a low-cost provider because the additional attractive attributes entail additional costs (which a low-cost pro- vider can avoid by offering buyers a basic product with few frills). Moreover, the
two strategies aim at a distinguishably different market target. The target market for a best-cost provider is value-conscious buyers—buyers who are looking for appeal- ing extras and functionality at a comparatively low price. Value-hunting buyers
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies 141
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 141 10/11/16 07:55 PM
(as distinct from price-conscious buyers looking for a basic product at a bargain- basement price) often constitute a very sizable part of the overall market for a product or service.
Toyota has employed a classic best-cost provider strategy for its Lexus line of motor vehicles. It has designed an array of high-performance characteristics and upscale fea- tures into its Lexus models to make them comparable in performance and luxury to Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, Cadillac, and Lincoln models. To further draw buyer attention, Toyota established a network of Lexus dealers, separate from Toyota deal- ers, dedicated to providing exceptional customer service. Most important, though, Toyota has drawn on its considerable know-how in making high-quality vehicles at low cost to produce its high-tech upscale-quality Lexus models at substantially lower costs than other luxury vehicle makers have been able to achieve in producing their models. To capitalize on its lower manufacturing costs, Toyota prices its Lexus mod- els below those of comparable Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and Jaguar models to induce value-conscious luxury car buyers to purchase a Lexus instead. The price differential has typically been quite significant. For example, in 2015 the Lexus RX 350, a mid- sized SUV, had a sticker price of $43,395 for the all-wheel-drive model with stan- dard equipment, whereas the base price of a comparable Mercedes M-class SUV was $51,725 and the base price of a comparable BMW X5 SUV was $57,150.
When a Best-Cost Provider Strategy Works Best A best-cost provider strategy works best in markets where product differentiation is the norm and an attractively large number of value-conscious buyers can be induced to purchase midrange products rather than cheap, basic products or expensive, top- of-the-line products. A best-cost provider needs to position itself near the middle of the market with either a medium-quality product at a below-average price or a high- quality product at an average or slightly higher price. Best-cost provider strategies also work well in recessionary times, when masses of buyers become value-conscious and are attracted to economically priced products and services with more appealing attributes. But unless a company has the resources, know-how, and capabilities to incorporate upscale product or service attributes at a lower cost than rivals, adopting a best-cost strategy is ill-advised. Illustration Capsule 5.4 describes how American Giant has applied the principles of the best-cost provider strategy in producing and marketing its hoodie sweatshirts.
The Risk of a Best-Cost Provider Strategy A company’s biggest vulnerability in employing a best-cost provider strategy is getting squeezed between the strategies of firms using low-cost and high-end differentiation strategies. Low-cost providers may be able to siphon customers away with the appeal of a lower price (despite less appealing product attributes). High-end differentiators may be able to steal customers away with the appeal of better product attributes (even though their products carry a higher price tag). Thus, to be successful, a best-cost provider must achieve significantly lower costs in providing upscale features so that it can outcompete high-end differentiators on the basis of a significantly lower price. Likewise, it must offer buyers significantly better product attributes to justify a price above what low-cost leaders are charging. In other words, it must offer buyers a more attractive customer value proposition.
LO 4
The attributes of a best-cost provider strategy—a hybrid of low-cost provider and differentiation strategies.
Final PDF to printer
142
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 142 10/11/16 07:55 PM
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 5.4
Bayard Winthrop, founder and owner of American Giant, set out to make a hoodie like the soft, ultra-thick Navy sweatshirts his dad used to wear in the 1950s. But he also had two other aims: He wanted it to have a more updated look with a tailored fit, and he wanted it pro- duced cost-effectively so that it could be sold at a great price. To accomplish these aims, he designed the sweat- shirt with the help of a former industrial engineer from Apple and an internationally renowned pattern maker, rethinking every aspect of sweatshirt design and produc- tion along the way. The result was a hoodie differentiated from others on the basis of extreme attention to fabric, fit, construction, and durability. The hoodie is made from heavy-duty cotton that is run through a machine that carefully picks loops of thread out of the fabric to create a thick, combed, ring-spun fleece fabric that feels three times thicker than most sweatshirts. A small amount of spandex paneling along the shoulders and sides creates the fitted look and maintains the shape, keeping the sweatshirt from looking slouchy or sloppy. It has double stitching with strong thread on critical seams to avoid deterioration and boost durability. The zippers and draw cord are customized to match the sweatshirt’s color—an uncommon practice in the business.
American Giant sources yarn from Parkdale, South Carolina, and turns it into cloth at the nearby Carolina Cotton Works. This reduces transport costs, creates a more dependable, durable product that American Giant can easily quality-check, and shortens product turnaround to about a month, lowering inventory costs. This process also enables the company to use a genuine “Made in the U.S.A.” label, a perceived quality driver.
American Giant disrupts the traditional, expensive distribution models by having no stores or resellers.
Instead, it sells directly to customers from its website, with free two-day shipping and returns. Much of the company’s growth comes from word of mouth and a strong public relations effort that promotes the brand in magazines, newspapers, and key business-oriented television programs. American Giant has a robust refer-a-friend program that offers a discount to friends of, and a credit to, current owners. Articles in popu- lar media proclaiming its product “the greatest hoodie ever made” have made demand for its sweatshirts skyrocket.
At $89 for the original men’s hoodie, American Giant is not cheap but offers customers value in terms of both price and quality. The price is higher than what one would pay at The Gap or American Apparel and com- parable to Levi’s, J.Crew, or Banana Republic. But its quality is more on par with high-priced designer brands, while its price is far more affordable.
American Giant’s Best-Cost Provider Strategy
© David Paul Morris/Getty Images
Note: Developed with Sarah Boole.
Sources: w w w.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/us-textile-factories-return.html?emc=eta1& _ r= 0 ; w w w.american- giant.com; w w w.slate.com/ articles/technology/technology/2012/12/american _giant _ hoodie_this _ is _the_greatest _ sweatshirt _ known _to_ man.html; w w w.businessinsider.com/ this-hoodie-is-so -insanely-popular-you-have-to -wait-months-to - get-it-2013 -12 .
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 5 The Five Generic Competitive Strategies 143
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 143 10/11/16 07:55 PM
Deciding which generic competitive strategy should serve as the framework on which to hang the rest of the company’s strategy is not a trivial matter. Each of the five generic competitive strategies positions the company differently in its market and competitive environment. Each establishes a central theme for how the com- pany will endeavor to outcompete rivals. Each creates some boundaries or guide- lines for maneuvering as market circumstances unfold and as ideas for improving the strategy are debated. Each entails differences in terms of product line, pro- duction emphasis, marketing emphasis, and means of maintaining the strategy, as shown in Table 5.1
Thus a choice of which generic strategy to employ spills over to affect many aspects of how the business will be operated and the manner in which value chain activities must be managed. 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.
Successful Competitive Strategies Are Resource-Based For a company’s competitive strategy to succeed in delivering good performance and gain a competitive edge over rivals, it has to be well matched to a company’s internal situation and underpinned by an appropriate set of resources, know-how, and com- petitive capabilities. To succeed in employing a low-cost provider strategy, a company must have the resources and capabilities to keep its costs below those of its competi- tors. This means having the expertise to cost-effectively manage value chain activi- ties better than rivals by leveraging the cost drivers more effectively, and/or having the innovative capability to bypass certain value chain activities being performed by rivals. To succeed in a differentiation strategy, a company must have the resources and capabilities to leverage value drivers more effectively than rivals and incorporate attri- butes into its product offering that a broad range of buyers will find appealing. Suc- cessful focus strategies (both low cost and differentiation) require the capability to do an outstanding job of satisfying the needs and expectations of niche buyers. Success in employing a best-cost strategy requires the resources and capabilities to incorporate upscale product or service attributes at a lower cost than rivals. For all types of generic strategies, success in sustaining the competitive edge depends on having resources and capabilities that rivals have trouble duplicating and for which there are no good substitutes.
THE CONTRASTING FEATURES OF THE FIVE GENERIC COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES: A SUMMARY
A company’s competitive strategy should be well matched to its internal situation and predicated on leveraging its collection of competitively valuable resources and capabilities.
Final PDF to printer
144
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 144 10/11/16 07:55 PM
Lo w
-C o
st P
ro vi
d e
r B
ro a
d D
if fe
re n
ti a
ti o
n F
o cu
se d
L o
w -C
o st
P
ro vi
d e
r F
o cu
se d
D if
fe re
n ti
a ti
o n
B e
st -C
o st
P ro
vi d
e r
S tr
a te
g ic
ta
rg e
t •
A b
ro a
d c
ro ss
-s e
ct io
n
o f
th e
m a
rk e
t. •
A b
ro a
d c
ro ss
-s e
ct io
n o
f th
e m
a rk
e t.
• A
n a
rr o
w m
a rk
e t
n ic
h e
w
h e
re b
u ye
r n
e e
d s
a n
d p
re fe
re n
ce s
a re
d
is tin
ct iv
e ly
d iff
e re
n t.
• A
n a
rr o
w m
a rk
e t
n ic
h e
w
h e
re b
u ye
r n
e e
d s
a n
d p
re fe
re n
ce s
a re
d
is tin
ct iv
e ly
d iff
e re
n t.
• V
a lu
e -c
o n
sc io
u s
b u
ye rs
.
• A
m id
d le
-m a
rk e
t ra
n g
e .
B a
si s
o f
co m
p e
ti ti
ve
st ra
te g
y
• Lo
w e
r o
ve ra
ll co
st s
th a
n
co m
p e
tit o
rs .
• A
b ili
ty t
o o
ff e
r b
u ye
rs
so m
e th
in g
a tt
ra ct
iv e
ly
d iff
e re
n t
fr o
m c
o m
p e
tit o
rs ’
o ff
e ri
n g
s.
• Lo
w e
r o
ve ra
ll co
st t
h a
n
ri va
ls in
s e
rv in
g n
ic h
e
m e
m b
e rs
.
• A
tt ri
b u
te s
th a
t a
p p
e a
l sp
e ci
fic a
lly t
o n
ic h
e
m e
m b
e rs
.
• A
b ili
ty t
o o
ff e
r b
e tt
e r
g o
o d
s a
t a
tt ra
ct iv
e
p ri
ce s.
P ro
d u
ct li
n e
• A
g o
o d
b a
si c
p ro
d u
ct w
ith f
e w
f ri
lls
(a cc
e p
ta b
le q
u a
lit y
a n
d
lim ite
d s
e le
ct io
n ).
• M
a n
y p
ro d
u ct
v a
ri a
tio n
s,
w id
e s
e le
ct io
n ; e
m p
h a
si s
o n
d iff
e re
n tia
tin g
f e
a tu
re s.
• F
e a
tu re
s a
n d
a tt
ri b
u te
s ta
ilo re
d t
o t
h e
t a
st e
s a
n d
re
q u
ir e
m e
n ts
o f
n ic
h e
m
e m
b e
rs .
• F
e a
tu re
s a
n d
a tt
ri b
u te
s ta
ilo re
d t
o t
h e
t a
st e
s a
n d
re
q u
ir e
m e
n ts
o f
n ic
h e
m
e m
b e
rs .
• It
e m
s w
ith a
p p
e a
lin g
a
tt ri
b u
te s
a n
d a
ss o
rt e
d
fe a
tu re
s; b
e tt
e r
q u
a lit
y,
n o
t b
e st
.
P ro
d u
ct io
n
e m
p h
a si
s •
A c
o n
tin u
o u
s se
a rc
h f
o r
co st
r e
d u
ct io
n w
ith o
u t
sa cr
ifi ci
n g
a cc
e p
ta b
le
q u
a lit
y a
n d
e ss
e n
tia l
fe a
tu re
s.
• B
u ild
in w
h a
te ve
r d
iff e
re n
tia tin
g f
e a
tu re
s b
u ye
rs a
re w
ill in
g t
o p
a y
fo r;
s tr
iv e
f o
r p
ro d
u ct
su
p e
ri o
ri ty
.
• A
c o
n tin
u o
u s
se a
rc h
f o
r co
st r
e d
u ct
io n
f o
r p
ro d
u ct
s th
a t
m e
e t
b a
si c
n e
e d
s o
f n
ic h
e m
e m
b e
rs .
• S
m a
ll- sc
a le
p ro
d u
ct io
n o
r cu
st o
m -m
a d
e p
ro d
u ct
s th
a t
m a
tc h
t h
e t
a st
e s
a n
d
re q
u ir
e m
e n
ts o
f n
ic h
e
m e
m b
e rs
.
• B
u ild
in a
p p
e a
lin g
fe
a tu
re s
a n
d b
e tt
e r
q u
a lit
y a
t lo
w e
r co
st
th a
n r
iv a
ls .
M a
rk e
ti n
g
e m
p h
a si
s •
Lo w
p ri
ce s,
g o
o d
v a
lu e
.
• Tr
y to
m a
ke a
v ir
tu e
o u
t o
f p
ro d
u ct
f e
a tu
re s
th a
t le
a d
t o
lo w
c o
st .
• To
u t d
iff e
re n
tia tin
g fe
at u
re s.
• C
h a
rg e
a p
re m
iu m
p ri
ce
to c
o ve
r th
e e
xt ra
c o
st s
o f
d iff
e re
n tia
tin g
f e
a tu
re s.
• C
o m
m u
n ic
a te
a tt
ra ct
iv e
fe
a tu
re s
o f
a b
u d
g e
t- p
ri ce
d
p ro
d u
ct o
ff e
ri n
g t
h a
t fit
s n
ic h
e b
u ye
rs ’ e
xp e
ct a
tio n
s.
• C
o m
m u
n ic
a te
h o
w
p ro
d u
ct o
ff e
ri n
g d
o e
s th
e
b e
st jo
b o
f m
e e
tin g
n ic
h e
b
u ye
rs ’ e
xp e
ct a
tio n
s.
• E
m p
h a
si ze
d e
liv e
ry
o f
b e
st v
a lu
e f
o r
th e
m
o n
e y.
K e
ys t
o
m a
in ta
in in
g
th e
s tr
a te
g y
• E
co n
o m
ic a
l p ri
ce s,
g
o o
d v
a lu
e .
• S
tr iv
e t
o m
a n
a g
e c
o st
s d
o w
n , y
e a
r a
ft e
r ye
a r,
in e
ve ry
a re
a o
f th
e
b u
si n
e ss
.
• S
tr e
ss c
o n
st a
n t
in n
o va
tio n
to
s ta
y a
h e
a d
o f
im ita
tiv e
co
m p
e tit
o rs
.
• C
o n
ce n
tr a
te o
n a
f e
w k
e y
d iff
e re
n tia
tin g
f e
a tu
re s.
• S
ta y
co m
m itt
e d
t o
s e
rv in
g
th e
n ic
h e
a t
th e
lo w
e st
o
ve ra
ll co
st ; d
o n
’t b
lu r
th e
fir
m ’s
im a
g e
b y
e n
te ri
n g
o
th e
r m
a rk
e t
se g
m e
n ts
o r
a d
d in
g o
th e
r p
ro d
u ct
s to
w
id e
n m
a rk
e t
a p
p e
a l.
• S
ta y
co m
m itt
e d
t o
se
rv in
g t
h e
n ic
h e
b e
tt e
r th
a n
r iv
a ls
; d o
n ’t
b lu
r th
e
fir m
’s im
a g
e b
y e
n te
ri n
g
o th
e r
m a
rk e
t se
g m
e n
ts
o r
a d
d in
g o
th e
r p
ro d
u ct
s to
w id
e n
m a
rk e
t a
p p
e a
l.
• U
n iq
u e
e xp
e rt
is e
in
s im
u lta
n e
o u
sl y
m a
n a
g in
g c
o st
s d
o w
n
w h
ile in
co rp
o ra
tin g
u
p sc
a le
f e
a tu
re s
a n
d
a tt
ri b
u te
s.
R e
so u
rc e
s a
n d
ca
p a
b ili
ti e
s re
q u
ir e
d
• C
a p
a b
ili tie
s fo
r d
ri vi
n g
co
st s
o u
t o
f th
e v
a lu
e
ch a
in s
ys te
m .
• E
xa m
p le
s: la
rg e
-s ca
le
a u
to m
a te
d p
la n
ts , a
n
e ffi
ci e
n cy
-o ri
e n
te d
cu
ltu re
, b a
rg a
in in
g
p o
w e
r.
• C
a p
a b
ili tie
s co
n ce
rn in
g
q u
a lit
y, d
e si
g n
, in
ta n
g ib
le s,
a n
d
in n
o va
tio n
.
• E
xa m
p le
s: m
a rk
e tin
g
ca p
a b
ili tie
s, R
& D
t e
a m
s,
te ch
n o
lo g
y.
• C
a p
a b
ili tie
s to
lo w
e r
co st
s o
n n
ic h
e g
o o
d s.
• E
xa m
p le
s: lo
w e
r in
p u
t co
st s
fo r
th e
s p
e ci
fic
p ro
d u
ct d
e si
re d
b y
th e
n
ic h
e , b
a tc
h p
ro d
u ct
io n
ca
p a
b ili
tie s.
• C
a p
a b
ili tie
s to
m e
e t
th e
h
ig h
ly s
p e
ci fic
n e
e d
s o
f n
ic h
e m
e m
b e
rs .
• E
xa m
p le
s: c
u st
o m
p
ro d
u ct
io n
, c lo
se
cu st
o m
e r
re la
tio n
s.
• C
a p
a b
ili tie
s to
si
m u
lta n
e o
u sl
y d
e liv
e r
lo w
e r
co st
a n
d h
ig h
e r-
q u
a lit
y/ d
iff e
re n
tia te
d
fe a
tu re
s.
• E
xa m
p le
s: T
Q M
p
ra ct
ic e
s, m
a ss
cu
st o
m iz
a tio
n .
TA B
L E
5 .1
D
is ti
ng ui
sh in
g Fe
at ur
es o
f th
e Fi
ve G
en er
ic C
om pe
ti ti
ve S
tr at
eg ie
s
Final PDF to printer
145
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 145 10/11/16 07:55 PM
KEY POINTS
1. Deciding which of the five generic competitive strategies to employ—overall low cost, broad differentiation, focused low cost, focused differentiation, or best cost—is perhaps the most important strategic commitment a company makes. It tends to drive the remaining strategic actions a company undertakes and sets the whole tone for pursuing a competitive advantage over rivals.
2. In employing a low-cost provider strategy and trying to achieve a low-cost advan- tage over rivals, a company must do a better job than rivals of cost-effectively managing value chain activities and/or it must find innovative ways to eliminate cost-producing activities. An effective use of cost drivers is key. Low-cost pro- vider strategies work particularly well when price competition is strong and the products of rival sellers are virtually identical, when there are not many ways to differentiate, when buyers are price-sensitive or have the power to bargain down prices, 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 incorporat- ing attributes that set a company’s product or service offering apart from rivals in ways that buyers consider valuable and worth paying for. This depends on the appropriate use of value drivers. Successful differentiation allows a firm to (1) command a premium price for its product, (2) increase unit sales (if additional buyers are won over by the differentiating features), and/or (3) gain buyer loy- alty 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 when buyers have diverse product preferences, when few other rivals are pursuing a similar differentiation approach, and when technological change is fast-paced and competition centers on rapidly evolving product features. A dif- ferentiation strategy is doomed when competitors are able to quickly copy the appealing product attributes, when a company’s differentiation efforts fail to inter- est many buyers, and when a company overspends on efforts to differentiate its product offering or tries to overcharge for its differentiating extras.
4. A focused strategy delivers competitive advantage either by achieving lower costs than rivals in serving buyers constituting the target market niche or by developing a specialized ability to offer niche buyers an appealingly differentiated offering that meets their needs better than rival brands do. A focused strategy based on either low cost or differentiation becomes increasingly attractive when the tar- get market niche is big enough to be profitable and offers good growth potential, when it is costly or difficult for multisegment competitors 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 for a focuser’s resources and capabilities, and when few other rivals are attempting to specialize in the same target segment.
5. Best-cost strategies create competitive advantage by giving buyers more value for the money—delivering superior quality, features, performance, and/or service attributes while also beating customer expectations on price. To profitably employ a best-cost provider strategy, a company must have the capability to incorporate
Final PDF to printer
146
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 146 10/11/16 07:55 PM
attractive or upscale attributes at a lower cost than rivals. A best-cost provider strategy works best in markets with large numbers of value-conscious buyers desirous of purchasing better products and services for less money.
6. In all cases, competitive advantage depends on having competitively superior resources and capabilities that are a good fit for the chosen generic strategy. A sustainable advantage depends on maintaining that competitive superiority with resources, capabilities, and value chain activities that rivals have trouble matching and for which there are no good substitutes.
ASSURANCE OF LEARNING EXERCISES
1. Best Buy is the largest consumer electronics retailer in the United States, with 2015 sales of over $50 billion. The company competes aggressively on price with such rivals as Costco, Sam’s Club, Walmart, and Target, but it is also known by consumers for its first-rate customer service. Best Buy customers have commented that the retailer’s sales staff is exceptionally knowledgeable about the company’s products and can direct them to the exact location of difficult-to-find items. Best Buy customers also appreciate that demonstration models of PC monitors, digi- tal media players, and other electronics are fully powered and ready for in-store use. Best Buy’s Geek Squad tech support and installation services are additional customer service features that are valued by many customers.
How would you characterize Best Buy’s competitive strategy? Should it be classified as a low-cost provider strategy? A differentiation strategy? A best-cost strategy? Explain your answer.
2. Illustration Capsule 5.1 discusses Amazon’s low-cost position in the electronic commerce industry. Based on information provided in the capsule, explain how Amazon has built its low-cost advantage in the industry and why a low-cost pro- vider strategy is well suited to the industry.
3. USAA is a Fortune 500 insurance and financial services company with 2014 annual sales exceeding $24 billion. The company was founded in 1922 by 25 Army officers who decided to insure each other’s vehicles and continues to limit its membership to active-duty and retired military members, officer candidates, and adult children and spouses of military-affiliated USAA members. The com- pany has received countless awards, including being listed among Fortune’s World’s Most Admired Companies in 2014 and 2015 and 100 Best Companies to Work For in 2010 through 2015. USAA was also ranked as the number-one Bank, Credit Card, and Insurance Company by Forrester Research from 2013 to 2015. You can read more about the company’s history and strategy at www.usaa.com.
How would you characterize USAA’s competitive strategy? Should it be clas- sified as a low-cost provider strategy? A differentiation strategy? A best-cost strategy? Also, has the company chosen to focus on a narrow piece of the market, or does it appear to pursue a broad market approach? Explain your answer.
LO 1, LO 2, LO 3, LO 4
LO 2
LO 1, LO 2, LO 3, LO 4
Final PDF to printer
147
tho32789_ch05_120-147.indd 147 10/11/16 07:55 PM
4. Explore lululemon athletica’s website at info.lululemon.com and see if you can identify at least three ways in which the company seeks to differentiate itself from rival athletic apparel firms. Is there reason to believe that lululemon’s differentia- tion strategy has been successful in producing a competitive advantage? Why or why not?
LO 3
EXERCISE FOR SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS
1. Which one of the five generic competitive strategies best characterizes your company’s strategic approach to competing successfully?
2. Which rival companies appear to be employing a low-cost provider strategy? 3. Which rival companies appear to be employing a broad differentiation strategy? 4. Which rival companies appear to be employing a best-cost provider strategy? 5. Which rival companies appear to be employing some type of focused strategy? 6. What is your company’s action plan to achieve a sustainable competitive advan-
tage over rival companies? List at least three (preferably more than three) specific kinds of decision entries on specific decision screens that your company has made or intends to make to win this kind of competitive edge over rivals.
LO 1, LO 2, LO 3, LO 4
ENDNOTES 3 Richard L. Priem, “A Consumer Perspective on Value Creation,” Academy of Management Review 32, no. 1 (2007), pp. 219–235. 4 jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/nsfall01/ FinalArticles/Final-IsitWorthitBrandsan.html. 5 D. Yoffie, “Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2006,” Harvard Business School case 9-706-447.
1 Michael E. Porter, Competitive Strategy: Tech- niques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (New York: Free Press, 1980), chap. 2; Michael E. Porter, “What Is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review 74, no. 6 (November–December 1996). 2 Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York: Free Press, 1985).
6 Peter J. Williamson and Ming Zeng, “Value- for-Money Strategies for Recessionary Times,” Harvard Business Review 87, no. 3 (March 2009), pp. 66–74.
Final PDF to printer
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 148 10/11/16 07:58 PM
Learning Objectives
THIS CHAPTER WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND:
LO 1 Whether and when to pursue offensive or defensive strategic moves to improve a company’s market position.
LO 2 When being a first mover or a fast follower or a late mover is most advantageous.
LO 3 The strategic benefits and risks of expanding a company’s horizontal scope through mergers and acquisitions.
LO 4 The advantages and disadvantages of extending the company’s scope of operations via vertical integration.
LO 5 The conditions that favor farming out certain value chain activities to outside parties.
LO 6 When and how strategic alliances can substitute for horizontal mergers and acquisitions or vertical integration and how they can facilitate outsourcing.
Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position Strategic Moves, Timing, and Scope of Operations
CHAPTER 6
© Fanatic Studio/Getty Images
Final PDF to printer
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 149 10/11/16 07:58 PM
Alliances and partnerships produce stability when they reflect realities and interests.
Stephen Kinzer—Author, journalist, and academic
Whenever you look at any potential merger or acquisi- tion, you look at the potential to create value for your shareholders.
Dilip Shanghvi—Founder and managing director of Sun
Pharmaceuticals
In the virtual economy, collaboration is a new com- petitive imperative.
Michael Dell—Founder and CEO of Dell Inc.
Once a company has settled on which of the five generic competitive strategies to employ, attention turns to what other strategic actions it can take to complement its competitive approach and maxi- mize the power of its overall strategy. The first set of decisions concerns whether to undertake offensive or defensive competitive moves, and the timing of such moves. The second set concerns the breadth of a company’s activities (or its scope of operations along an industry’s entire value chain). All in all, the following measures to strengthen a company’s competitive position must be considered:
• Whether to go on the offensive and initiate aggressive strategic moves to improve the com- pany’s market position.
• Whether to employ defensive strategies to pro- tect the company’s market position.
• When to undertake strategic moves—whether advantage or disadvantage lies in being a first mover, a fast follower, or a late mover.
• Whether to bolster the company’s market posi- tion by merging with or acquiring another com- pany in the same industry.
• Whether to integrate backward or forward into more stages of the industry value chain system.
• Which value chain activities, if any, should be outsourced.
• Whether to enter into strategic alliances or part- nership arrangements with other enterprises.
This chapter presents the pros and cons of each of these strategy-enhancing measures.
LAUNCHING STRATEGIC OFFENSIVES TO IMPROVE A COMPANY’S MARKET POSITION No matter which of the five generic competitive strategies a firm employs, there are times when a company should go on the offensive to improve its market position and performance. Strategic offensives are called for when a company spots opportunities to gain profitable market share at its rivals’ expense or when a company has no choice
Final PDF to printer
150 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 150 10/11/16 07:58 PM
but to try to whittle away at a strong rival’s competitive advantage. Companies like AutoNation, Amazon, Apple, and Google play hardball, aggressively pursuing com- petitive advantage and trying to reap the benefits a competitive edge offers—a leading market share, excellent profit margins, and rapid growth.1 The best offensives tend to incorporate several principles: (1) focusing relentlessly on building competitive advan- tage and then striving to convert it into a sustainable advantage, (2) applying resources where rivals are least able to defend themselves, (3) employing the element of surprise
as opposed to doing what rivals expect and are prepared for, and (4) displaying a capacity for swift and decisive actions to overwhelm rivals.2
Choosing the Basis for Competitive Attack As a rule, challenging rivals on competitive grounds where they are strong is an uphill struggle.3 Offensive initiatives that exploit competitor weaknesses stand a better chance of succeeding than do those that challenge competitor strengths, especially if the weaknesses represent important vulnerabilities and weak rivals can be caught by surprise with no ready defense.
Strategic offensives should exploit the power of a company’s strongest com- petitive assets—its most valuable resources and capabilities such as a better-known brand name, a more efficient production or distribution system, greater technologi- cal capability, or a superior reputation for quality. But a consideration of the com- pany’s strengths should not be made without also considering the rival’s strengths and weaknesses. A strategic offensive should be based on those areas of strength where the company has its greatest competitive advantage over the targeted rivals. If a company has especially good customer service capabilities, it can make special sales pitches to the customers of those rivals that provide subpar customer service. Likewise, it may be beneficial to pay special attention to buyer segments that a
rival is neglecting or is weakly equipped to serve. The best offensives use a company’s most powerful resources and capabilities to attack rivals in the areas where they are weakest.
Ignoring the need to tie a strategic offensive to a company’s competitive strengths and what it does best is like going to war with a popgun—the prospects for success are dim. For instance, it is foolish for a company with relatively high costs to employ a price-cutting offensive. Likewise, it is ill-advised to pursue a product innovation offen- sive without having proven expertise in R&D and new product development.
The principal offensive strategy options include the following:
1. Offering an equally good or better product at a lower price. Lower prices can produce market share gains if competitors don’t respond with price cuts of their own and if the challenger convinces buyers that its product is just as good or bet- ter. However, such a strategy increases total profits only if the gains in additional unit sales are enough to offset the impact of thinner margins per unit sold. Price- cutting offensives should be initiated only by companies that have first achieved a cost advantage.4 British airline EasyJet used this strategy successfully against rivals such as British Air, Alitalia, and Air France by first cutting costs to the bone and then targeting leisure passengers who care more about low price than in-flight amenities and service.5
2. Leapfrogging competitors by being first to market with next-generation products. In technology-based industries, the opportune time to overtake an entrenched com- petitor is when there is a shift to the next generation of the technology. Microsoft
Sometimes a company’s best strategic option is to seize the initiative, go on the attack, and launch a strategic offensive to improve its market position.
The best offensives use a company’s most powerful resources and capabilities to attack rivals in the areas where they are competitively weakest.
LO 1
Whether and when to pursue offensive or defensive strategic moves to improve a company’s market position.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 151
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 151 10/11/16 07:58 PM
got its next-generation Xbox 360 to market a full 12 months ahead of Sony’s Play- Station 3 and Nintendo’s Wii, helping it build a sizable market share on the basis of cutting-edge innovation in the video game industry. Sony was careful to avoid a repeat, releasing its PlayStation 4 in November 2013 just as Microsoft released its Xbox One. With better graphical performance than Xbox One, along with some other advantages, the PS4 was able to boost Sony back into the lead position.
3. Pursuing continuous product innovation to draw sales and market share away from less innovative rivals. Ongoing introductions of new and improved products can put rivals under tremendous competitive pressure, especially when rivals’ new product development capabilities are weak. But such offensives can be sustained only if a company can keep its pipeline full with new product offerings that spark buyer enthusiasm.
4. Pursuing disruptive product innovations to create new markets. While this strat- egy can be riskier and more costly than a strategy of continuous innovation, it can be a game changer if successful. Disruptive innovation involves perfecting a new product with a few trial users and then quickly rolling it out to the whole market in an attempt to get many buyers to embrace an altogether new and better value proposition quickly. Examples include online universities, Bumble (dating site), Venmo (digital wallet), Apple Music, CampusBookRentals, and Amazon’s Kindle.
5. Adopting and improving on the good ideas of other companies (rivals or oth- erwise). The idea of warehouse-type home improvement centers did not origi- nate with Home Depot cofounders Arthur Blank and Bernie Marcus; they got the “big-box” concept from their former employer, Handy Dan Home Improvement. But they were quick to improve on Handy Dan’s business model and take Home Depot to the next plateau in terms of product-line breadth and customer service. Offensive-minded companies are often quick to adopt any good idea (not nailed down by a patent or other legal protection) and build on it to create competitive advantage for themselves.
6. Using hit-and-run or guerrilla warfare tactics to grab market share from compla- cent or distracted rivals. Options for “guerrilla offensives” include occasionally lowballing on price (to win a big order or steal a key account from a rival), sur- prising rivals with sporadic but intense bursts of promotional activity (offering a discounted trial offer to draw customers away from rival brands), or undertaking special campaigns to attract the customers of rivals plagued with a strike or prob- lems in meeting buyer demand.6 Guerrilla offensives are particularly well suited to small challengers that have neither the resources nor the market visibility to mount a full-fledged attack on industry leaders.
7. Launching a preemptive strike to secure an industry’s limited resources or capture a rare opportunity.7 What makes a move preemptive is its one-of-a-kind nature— whoever strikes first stands to acquire competitive assets that rivals can’t readily match. Examples of preemptive moves include (1) securing the best distributors in a particular geographic region or country; (2) obtaining the most favorable site at a new interchange or intersection, in a new shopping mall, and so on; (3) tying up the most reliable, high-quality suppliers via exclusive partnerships, long-term contracts, or acquisition; and (4) moving swiftly to acquire the assets of distressed rivals at bargain prices. To be successful, a preemptive move doesn’t have to totally block rivals from following; it merely needs to give a firm a prime position that is not easily circumvented.
Final PDF to printer
152 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 152 10/11/16 07:58 PM
How long it takes for an offensive to yield good results varies with the competitive circumstances.8 It can be short if buyers respond immediately (as can occur with a dra- matic cost-based price cut, an imaginative ad campaign, or a disruptive innovation). Securing a competitive edge can take much longer if winning consumer acceptance of the company’s product will take some time or if the firm may need several years to debug a new technology or put a new production capacity in place. But how long it takes for an offensive move to improve a company’s market standing—and whether the move will prove successful—depends in part on whether market rivals recog- nize the threat and begin a counterresponse. Whether rivals will respond depends on whether they are capable of making an effective response and if they believe that a counterattack is worth the expense and the distraction.9
Choosing Which Rivals to Attack Offensive-minded firms need to analyze which of their rivals to challenge as well as how to mount the challenge. The following are the best targets for offensive attacks:10
∙ Market leaders that are vulnerable. Offensive attacks make good sense when a company that leads in terms of market share is not a true leader in terms of serving the market well. Signs of leader vulnerability include unhappy buyers, an inferior product line, aging technology or outdated plants and equipment, a preoccupation with diversification into other industries, and financial problems. Caution is well advised in challenging strong market leaders—there’s a significant risk of squan- dering valuable resources in a futile effort or precipitating a fierce and profitless industrywide battle for market share.
∙ Runner-up firms with weaknesses in areas where the challenger is strong. Runner- up firms are an especially attractive target when a challenger’s resources and capa- bilities are well suited to exploiting their weaknesses.
∙ Struggling enterprises that are on the verge of going under. Challenging a hard- pressed rival in ways that further sap its financial strength and competitive posi- tion can weaken its resolve and hasten its exit from the market. In this type of situation, it makes sense to attack the rival in the market segments where it makes the most profits, since this will threaten its survival the most.
∙ Small local and regional firms with limited capabilities. Because small firms typi- cally have limited expertise and resources, a challenger with broader and/or deeper capabilities is well positioned to raid their biggest and best customers—particu- larly those that are growing rapidly, have increasingly sophisticated requirements, and may already be thinking about switching to a supplier with a more full-service capability.
Blue-Ocean Strategy—a Special Kind of Offensive A blue-ocean strategy seeks to gain a dramatic and durable competitive advan- tage by abandoning efforts to beat out competitors in existing markets and, instead, inventing a new market segment that renders existing competitors irrelevant and allows a company to create and capture altogether new demand.11 This strategy views the business universe as consisting of two distinct types of market space. One is where industry boundaries are well defined, the competitive rules of the game are understood, and companies try to outperform rivals by capturing a bigger share of existing demand. In such markets, intense competition constrains a company’s
CORE CONCEPT
A blue-ocean strategy offers growth in revenues and profits by discovering or inventing new industry segments that create altogether new demand.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 153
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 153 10/11/16 07:58 PM
prospects for rapid growth and superior profitability since rivals move quickly to either imitate or counter the successes of competitors. The second type of market space is a “blue ocean,” where the industry does not really exist yet, is untainted by competition, and offers wide-open opportunity for profitable and rapid growth if a company can create new demand with a new type of product offering.
A terrific example of such blue-ocean market space is the online auction indus- try that eBay created and now dominates. Other companies that have created blue- ocean market spaces include NetJets in fractional jet ownership, Drybar in hair blowouts, Tune Hotels in limited service “backpacker” hotels, and Cirque du Soleil in live entertainment. Cirque du Soleil “reinvented the circus” by pulling in a whole new group of customers—adults and corporate clients—who not only were non- customers of traditional circuses (like Ringling Brothers) but also were willing to pay several times more than the price of a conventional circus ticket to have a “sophisticated entertainment experience” featuring stunning visuals and star-quality acrobatic acts. Zipcar Inc. has been using a blue-ocean strategy to compete against entrenched rivals in the rental-car industry. It rents cars by the hour or day (rather than by the week) to members who pay a yearly fee for access to cars parked in designated spaces located conveniently throughout large cities. By allowing drivers under 25 years of age to rent cars and by targeting city dwellers who need to supple- ment their use of public transportation with short-term car rentals, Zipcar entered uncharted waters in the rental-car industry, growing rapidly in the process. Illustra- tion Capsule 6.1 provides another example of a company that has thrived by seeking uncharted blue waters.
Blue-ocean strategies provide a company with a great opportunity in the short run. But they don’t guarantee a company’s long-term success, which depends more on whether a company can protect the market position it opened up and sustain its early advantage. Gilt Groupe serves as an example of a company that opened up new com- petitive space in online luxury retailing only to see its blue-ocean waters ultimately turn red. Its competitive success early on prompted an influx of fast followers into the luxury flash-sale industry, including HauteLook, RueLaLa, Lot18, and MyHabit.com. The new rivals not only competed for online customers, who could switch costlessly from site to site (since memberships were free), but also competed for unsold designer inventory. In recent years, Gilt Groupe has been forced to downsize and still has yet to go public, contrary to early expectations.
DEFENSIVE STRATEGIES—PROTECTING MARKET POSITION AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE In a competitive market, all firms are subject to offensive challenges from rivals. The purposes of defensive strategies are to lower the risk of being attacked, weaken the impact of any attack that occurs, and induce challengers to aim their efforts at other rivals. While defensive strategies usually don’t enhance a firm’s competitive advantage, they can definitely help fortify the firm’s competitive position, protect its most valuable resources and capabilities from imitation, and defend whatever competitive advantage it might have. Defensive strategies can take either of two forms: actions to block challengers or actions to signal the likelihood of strong retaliation.
Final PDF to printer
154
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 154 10/11/16 07:58 PM
Blocking the Avenues Open to Challengers The most frequently employed approach to defending a company’s present position involves actions that restrict a challenger’s options for initiating a competitive attack. There are any number of obstacles that can be put in the path of would-be challeng- ers. A defender can introduce new features, add new models, or broaden its product line to close off gaps and vacant niches to opportunity-seeking challengers. It can thwart rivals’ efforts to attack with a lower price by maintaining its own lineup of economy-priced options. It can discourage buyers from trying competitors’ brands by lengthening warranties, making early announcements about impending new products
or price changes, offering free training and support services, or providing coupons and sample giveaways to buyers most prone to experiment. It can induce potential buyers to
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 6.1
It was not too long ago that young, athletic men strug- gled to find clothing that adequately fit their athletic frames. It was this issue that led two male Stanford MBA students, in 2007, to create Bonobos, a men’s clothing brand that initially focused on selling well-fitting men’s pants via the Internet. At the time, this concept occupied relatively blue waters as most other clothing brands and retailers in reasonable price ranges had largely focused on innovating in women’s clothing, as opposed to men’s. In the years since, Bonobos has expanded its product portfolio to include a full line of men’s clothing, while growing its revenue from $4 million in 2009 to over $100 million in 2016.
This success has not gone unnoticed by both estab- lished players as well as other entrepreneurs. Numer- ous startups have jumped on the custom men’s clothing bandwagon ranging from the low-cost Combatant Gen- tlemen, to the many bespoke suit tailors that exist in major cities around the United States. In addition, more mainstream clothing retailers have also identified this new type of male customer, with the CEO of Men’s Wearhouse, Doug Ewert, stating that he views custom clothing as a “big growth opportunity.” That company recently acquired Joseph Abboud to focus more on millennial customers, and plans to begin offering more types of customized clothing in the future.
In response, Bonobos has focused on a new area of development to move to bluer waters in the brick-and- mortar space. The company’s innovation is the Guide- shop—a store where you can’t actually buy anything to take home. Instead, the Guideshop allows men to have
a personalized shopping experience, where they can try on clothing in any size or color, and then have it deliv- ered the next day to their home or office. This model was based on the insight that most men want an efficient shopping experience, with someone to help them iden- tify the right product and proper fit, so that they could order with ease in the future. As Bonobos CEO Andy Dunn stated more simply, the idea was to provide a differ- ent experience from existing retail, which had become “a job about keeping clothes folded [rather] than delivering service.” Since opening its first Guideshop in 2011, the company has now expanded to 20 Guideshops nation- wide and plans to continue this growth moving forward. This strategy has been fueling the company’s success, but how long Bonobos has before retail clothing copy- cats turn these blue waters red remains to be seen.
Bonobos’s Blue-Ocean Strategy in the U.S. Men’s Fashion Retail Industry
© Patti McConville/Alamy Stock Photo
Note: Developed with Jacob M. Crandall.
Sources: Richard Feloni, “After 8 Years and $128 Million Raised, the Clock Is Ticking for Men’s Retailer Bonobos,” BusinessInsider.com, October 6, 2015; Vikram Alexei Kansara, “Andy Dunn of Bonobos on Building the Armani of the E-commerce Era,” Businessoffashion.com, July 19, 2013; Hadley Malcolm, “Men’s Wearhouse Wants to Suit Up Millennials,” USA Today, June 8, 2015.
Good defensive strategies can help protect a competitive advantage but rarely are the basis for creating one.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 155
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 155 10/11/16 07:58 PM
reconsider switching. It can challenge the quality or safety of rivals’ products. Finally, a defender can grant volume discounts or better financing terms to dealers and distributors to discourage them from experimenting with other suppliers, or it can convince them to handle its product line exclusively and force competitors to use other distribution outlets.
Signaling Challengers That Retaliation Is Likely The goal of signaling challengers that strong retaliation is likely in the event of an attack is either to dissuade challengers from attacking at all or to divert them to less threatening options. Either goal can be achieved by letting challengers know the bat- tle will cost more than it is worth. Signals to would-be challengers can be given by:
∙ Publicly announcing management’s commitment to maintaining the firm’s present market share.
∙ Publicly committing the company to a policy of matching competitors’ terms or prices. ∙ Maintaining a war chest of cash and marketable securities. ∙ Making an occasional strong counterresponse to the moves of weak competitors
to enhance the firm’s image as a tough defender.
To be an effective defensive strategy, however, signaling needs to be accompanied by a credible commitment to follow through.
There are many ways to throw obstacles in the path of would-be challengers.
TIMING A COMPANY’S STRATEGIC MOVES When to make a strategic move is often as crucial as what move to make. Timing is especially important when first-mover advantages and disadvantages exist. Under certain conditions, being first to initiate a strategic move can have a high pay- off in the form of a competitive advantage that later movers can’t dislodge. Moving first is no guarantee of success, however, since first movers also face some signifi- cant disadvantages. Indeed, there are circumstances in which it is more advanta- geous to be a fast follower or even a late mover. Because the timing of strategic moves can be consequential, it is important for company strategists to be aware of the nature of first-mover advantages and disadvantages and the conditions favoring each type of move.12
The Potential for First-Mover Advantages Market pioneers and other types of first movers typically bear greater risks and greater development costs than firms that move later. If the market responds well to its initial move, the pioneer will benefit from a monopoly position (by virtue of being first to market) that enables it to recover its investment costs and make an attractive profit. If the firm’s pioneering move gives it a competitive advantage that can be sustained even after other firms enter the market space, its first-mover advantage will be greater still. The extent of this type of advantage, however, will depend on whether and how fast follower firms can piggyback on the pioneer’s success and either imitate or improve on its move.
There are five such conditions in which first-mover advantages are most likely to arise: 1. When pioneering helps build a firm’s reputation and creates strong brand loyalty.
Customer loyalty to an early mover’s brand can create a tie that binds, limiting the
LO 2
When being a first mover or a fast follower or a late mover is most advantageous.
CORE CONCEPT
Because of first-mover advantages and disadvantages, competitive advantage can spring from when a move is made as well as from what move is made.
Final PDF to printer
156 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 156 10/11/16 07:58 PM
success of later entrants’ attempts to poach from the early mover’s customer base and steal market share.
2. When a first mover’s customers will thereafter face significant switching costs. Switching costs can protect first movers when consumers make large investments in learning how to use a specific company’s product or in purchasing comple- mentary products that are also brand-specific. Switching costs can also arise from loyalty programs or long-term contracts that give customers incentives to remain with an initial provider.
3. When property rights protections thwart rapid imitation of the initial move. In certain types of industries, property rights protections in the form of pat- ents, copyrights, and trademarks prevent the ready imitation of an early mov- er’s initial moves. First-mover advantages in pharmaceuticals, for example, are heavily dependent on patent protections, and patent races in this industry are common. In other industries, however, patents provide limited protection and can frequently be circumvented. Property rights protections also vary among nations, since they are dependent on a country’s legal institutions and enforce- ment mechanisms.
4. When an early lead enables the first mover to move down the learning curve ahead of rivals. When there is a steep learning curve and when learning can be kept pro- prietary, a first mover can benefit from volume-based cost advantages that grow ever larger as its experience accumulates and its scale of operations increases. This type of first-mover advantage is self-reinforcing and, as such, can preserve a first mover’s competitive advantage over long periods of time. Honda’s advantage in small multiuse motorcycles has been attributed to such an effect.
5. When a first mover can set the technical standard for the industry. In many technology-based industries, the market will converge around a single technical standard. By establishing the industry standard, a first mover can gain a powerful advantage that, like experience-based advantages, builds over time. The lure of such an advantage, however, can result in standard wars among early movers, as each strives to set the industry standard. The key to winning such wars is to enter early on the basis of strong fast-cycle product development capabilities, gain the support of key customers and suppliers, employ penetration pricing, and make allies of the producers of complementary products.
Illustration Capsule 6.2 describes how Uber achieved a first-mover advantage in ride-hailing services.
The Potential for Late-Mover Advantages or First-Mover Disadvantages In some instances there are advantages to being an adept follower rather than a first mover. Late-mover advantages (or first-mover disadvantages) arise in four instances:
∙ When the costs of pioneering are high relative to the benefits accrued and imita- tive followers can achieve similar benefits with far lower costs. This is often the case when second movers can learn from a pioneer’s experience and avoid making the same costly mistakes as the pioneer.
∙ When an innovator’s products are somewhat primitive and do not live up to buyer expectations, thus allowing a follower with better-performing products to win dis- enchanted buyers away from the leader.
Final PDF to printer
157
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 157 10/11/16 07:58 PM
∙ When rapid market evolution (due to fast-paced changes in either technology or buyer needs) gives second movers the opening to leapfrog a first mover’s products with more attractive next-version products.
∙ When market uncertainties make it difficult to ascertain what will eventually suc- ceed, allowing late movers to wait until these needs are clarified.
∙ When customer loyalty to the pioneer is low and a first mover’s skills, know-how, and actions are easily copied or even surpassed
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 6.2
In February 2008, Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp stood on a Paris street struggling to hail a cab when an idea hit them: get a ride by using an app on your smartphone. The result of this brainstorm was the ride-sharing company Uber. The company’s mobile app pairs individuals looking for a car with the near- est available driver. Within minutes of summoning a car with Uber, a rider can be on her way. The Uber app takes care of everything: giving the driver directions, charging the ride to the customer’s credit card, and tipping the driver. There is no need to carry cash or scan streets for an open cab. Uber has been extremely successful with customers looking for an on-demand cab and individuals looking to make money driving. After its founding in March 2009, Uber became one of the fastest-growing companies in history, faster than Facebook or Twitter, and dominated the on-demand transportation market, leaving competitors like Lyft, Taxify, and Sidecar in the dust.
Uber’s rapid rise had much to do with the advan- tages of being the first mover in the on-demand trans- portation market. Upon introducing its car service to new cities, Uber aggressively established itself, offering monetary bonuses for drivers who signed up and pro- viding free first rides to encourage new customers to download the Uber app. When competitors entered a city after Uber, they found that the market was largely saturated; many potential customers and drivers were already using Uber. Once the app was downloaded, Uber customers had little reason to try a new ride- sharing service. With more drivers working for them, Uber could provide customers with shorter wait times, on average. Similarly, with more customers using Uber’s
app, drivers had little incentive to work a competitor since Uber could provide steadier work.
In 2015, Uber served over 300 cities worldwide, dwarfing Lyft’s availability in just 65 cities. The company expanded its product offering, with low-cost UberX and UberPool, to capture new customer segments before competitors could; both times, Lyft launched similar services later but had already missed out on most of the market. With rapid growth and a large customer base, Uber earned a $50 billion valuation and expected revenue of $2 billion in 2015. However, future success depends on whether Uber continues to stay a step ahead of its competition. In China, where Uber lacks the recognition and reputational advantage that it has in the United States, a similar service called Didi Kuaidi has been beating Uber at its own game, by being the first to enter many Chinese cities.
Uber’s First-Mover Advantage in Mobile Ride-Hailing Services
© Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images
Note: Developed with Arthur J. Santry.
Sources: D. MacMillan and T. Demos, “Uber Valued at More Than $50 Billion,” Wall Street Journal Online, July 15, 2015, www.wsj.com; Edmund Ingham, “Start-ups Take Note,” Forbes, December 5, 2014, www.forbes.com; Heather Kelly, “Lyft Battles Uber for Drivers with New Perks,” CNN, October 8, 2015, www.cnn.com; “Uber: Driving Hard,” The Economist, June 13, 2015, www.economist.com; company website (accessed November 30, 2015).
Final PDF to printer
158 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 158 10/11/16 07:58 PM
To Be a First Mover or Not In weighing the pros and cons of being a first mover versus a fast follower versus a late mover, it matters whether the race to market leadership in a particular industry is a 10-year marathon or a 2-year sprint. In marathons, a slow mover is not unduly penal- ized—first-mover advantages can be fleeting, and there’s ample time for fast followers and sometimes even late movers to catch up.13 Thus the speed at which the pioneering innovation is likely to catch on matters considerably as companies struggle with whether to pursue an emerging market opportunity aggressively (as a first mover) or cautiously (as a late mover). For instance, it took 5.5 years for worldwide mobile phone use to grow from 10 million to 100 million, and it took close to 10 years for the number of at-home broadband subscribers to grow to 100 million worldwide. The lesson here is that there is a market penetration curve for every emerging opportunity. Typically, the curve has an inflection point at which all the pieces of the business model fall into place, buyer demand explodes, and the market takes off. The inflection point can come early on a fast-rising curve (like the use of e-mail and watching movies streamed over the Internet) or farther up on a slow-rising curve (as with battery-powered motor vehicles, solar and wind power, and digital textbooks for college students). Any company that seeks com- petitive advantage by being a first mover thus needs to ask some hard questions:
∙ Does market takeoff depend on the development of complementary products or services that currently are not available?
∙ Is new infrastructure required before buyer demand can surge? ∙ Will buyers need to learn new skills or adopt new behaviors? ∙ Will buyers encounter high switching costs in moving to the newly introduced
product or service? ∙ Are there influential competitors in a position to delay or derail the efforts of a
first mover?
When the answers to any of these questions are yes, then a company must be careful not to pour too many resources into getting ahead of the market opportunity—the race is likely going to be closer to a 10-year marathon than a 2-year sprint.14 On the other hand, if the market is a winner-take-all type of market, where powerful first-mover advantages insulate early entrants from competition and prevent later movers from making any headway, then it may be best to move quickly despite the risks.
STRENGTHENING A COMPANY’S MARKET POSITION VIA ITS SCOPE OF OPERATIONS
Apart from considerations of competitive moves and their timing, there is another set of managerial decisions that can affect the strength of a company’s mar- ket position. These decisions concern the scope of a company’s operations—the breadth of its activities and the extent of its market reach. Decisions regarding the scope of the firm focus on which activities a firm will perform internally and which it will not.
Consider, for example, Ralph Lauren Corporation. In contrast to Rare Essentials, a boutique clothing store that sells apparel at a single retail store, Ralph Lauren designs, markets, and distributes fashionable apparel and other merchandise to approximately
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 159
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 159 10/11/16 07:58 PM
13,000 major department stores and specialty retailers throughout the world. In addition, it operates over 400 Ralph Lauren retail stores, more than 250 factory stores, and 10 e-commerce sites. Scope decisions also concern which segments of the market to serve—decisions that can include geographic market segments as well as product and service segments. Almost 40 percent of Ralph Lauren’s sales are made outside the United States, and its product line includes apparel, fragrances, home furnishings, eyewear, watches and jewelry, and handbags and other leather goods. The company has also expanded its brand lineup through the acquisitions of Chaps menswear and casual retailer Club Monaco.
Decisions such as these, in essence, determine where the boundaries of a firm lie and the degree to which the operations within those boundaries cohere. They also have much to do with the direction and extent of a business’s growth. In this chapter, we introduce the topic of company scope and discuss different types of scope decisions in relation to a company’s business-level strategy. In the next two chapters, we develop two additional dimensions of a firm’s scope. Chapter 7 focuses on international expansion—a matter of extending the company’s geographic scope into foreign markets. Chapter 8 takes up the topic of corporate strategy, which con- cerns diversifying into a mix of different businesses. Scope issues are at the very heart of corporate-level strategy.
Several dimensions of firm scope have relevance for business-level strategy in terms of their capacity to strengthen a company’s position in a given market. These include the firm’s horizontal scope, which is the range of product and service segments that the firm serves within its product or service market. Mergers and acquisitions involving other market participants provide a means for a company to expand its horizontal scope. Expanding the firm’s vertical scope by means of vertical integration can also affect the success of its market strategy. Vertical scope is the extent to which the firm engages in the various activities that make up the industry’s entire value chain system, from initial activities such as raw-material pro- duction all the way to retailing and after-sale service activities. Outsourcing deci- sions concern another dimension of scope since they involve narrowing the firm’s boundaries with respect to its participation in value chain activities. We discuss the pros and cons of each of these options in the sections that follow. Because strategic alliances and partnerships provide an alternative to vertical integration and acqui- sition strategies and are sometimes used to facilitate outsourcing, we conclude this chapter with a discussion of the benefits and challenges associated with cooperative arrangements of this nature.
CORE CONCEPT
The scope of the firm refers to the range of activities that the firm performs internally, the breadth of its product and service offerings, the extent of its geographic market presence, and its mix of businesses.
Mergers and acquisitions are much-used strategic options to strengthen a company’s market position. A merger is the combining of two or more companies into a sin- gle corporate entity, with the newly created company often taking on a new name. An acquisition is a combination in which one company, the acquirer, purchases and absorbs the operations of another, the acquired. The difference between a merger and an acquisition relates more to the details of ownership, management control, and financial arrangements than to strategy and competitive advantage. The resources and
CORE CONCEPT
Horizontal scope is the range of product and service segments that a firm serves within its focal market.
CORE CONCEPT
Vertical scope is the extent to which a firm’s internal activities encompass the range of activities that make up an industry’s entire value chain system, from raw- material production to final sales and service activities.
LO 3
The strategic benefits and risks of expanding a company’s horizontal scope through mergers and acquisitions.
HORIZONTAL MERGER AND ACQUISITION STRATEGIES
Final PDF to printer
160 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 160 10/11/16 07:58 PM
competitive capabilities of the newly created enterprise end up much the same whether the combination is the result of an acquisition or a merger.
Horizontal mergers and acquisitions, which involve combining the operations of firms within the same product or service market, provide an effective means for firms to rapidly increase the scale and horizontal scope of their core business. For example, the merger of AMR Corporation (parent of American Airlines) with US Airways has increased the airlines’ scale of operations and extended their reach geographically to create the world’s largest airline.
Merger and acquisition strategies typically set sights on achieving any of five objectives:15
1. Creating a more cost-efficient operation out of the combined companies. When a company acquires another company in the same industry, there’s usually enough overlap in operations that less efficient plants can be closed or distribution and sales activities partly combined and downsized. Likewise, it is usually feasible to squeeze out cost savings in administrative activities, again by combining and downsizing such administrative activities as finance and accounting, information technology, human resources, and so on. The combined companies may also be able to reduce supply chain costs because of greater bargaining power over com- mon suppliers and closer collaboration with supply chain partners. By helping consolidate the industry and remove excess capacity, such combinations can also reduce industry rivalry and improve industry profitability.
2. Expanding a company’s geographic coverage. One of the best and quickest ways to expand a company’s geographic coverage is to acquire rivals with operations in the desired locations. Since a company’s size increases with its geographic scope, another benefit is increased bargaining power with the company’s suppliers or buyers. Greater geographic coverage can also contribute to product differen- tiation by enhancing a company’s name recognition and brand awareness. Banks like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America have used acquisition strategies to establish a market presence and gain name recognition in an ever- growing number of states and localities. Food products companies like Nestlé, Kraft, Unilever, and Procter & Gamble have made acquisitions an integral part of their strategies to expand internationally.
3. Extending the company’s business into new product categories. Many times a company has gaps in its product line that need to be filled in order to offer cus- tomers a more effective product bundle or the benefits of one-stop shopping. For example, customers might prefer to acquire a suite of software applications from a single vendor that can offer more integrated solutions to the company’s problems. Acquisition can be a quicker and more potent way to broaden a company’s product line than going through the exercise of introducing a company’s own new product to fill the gap. Coca-Cola has increased the effectiveness of the product bundle it provides to retailers by acquiring beverage makers Minute Maid, Odwalla, Hi-C, and Glacéau Vitaminwater.
4. Gaining quick access to new technologies or other resources and capabilities. Making acquisitions to bolster a company’s technological know-how or to expand its skills and capabilities allows a company to bypass a time-consuming and expensive internal effort to build desirable new resources and capabilities. From 2000 through December 2015, Cisco Systems purchased 128 companies to give it
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 161
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 161 10/11/16 07:58 PM
more technological reach and product breadth, thereby enhancing its standing as the world’s largest provider of hardware, software, and services for creating and operating Internet networks.
5. Leading the convergence of industries whose boundaries are being blurred by changing technologies and new market opportunities. In fast-cycle industries or industries whose boundaries are changing, companies can use acquisition strate- gies to hedge their bets about the direction that an industry will take, to increase their capacity to meet changing demands, and to respond flexibly to changing buyer needs and technological demands. News Corporation has prepared for the convergence of media services with the purchase of satellite TV companies to complement its media holdings in TV broadcasting (the Fox network and TV sta- tions in various countries), cable TV (Fox News, Fox Sports, and FX), filmed entertainment (Twentieth Century Fox and Fox studios), newspapers, magazines, and book publishing.
Horizontal mergers and acquisitions can strengthen a firm’s competitiveness in five ways: (1) by improving the efficiency of its operations, (2) by heightening its prod- uct differentiation, (3) by reducing market rivalry, (4) by increasing the company’s bargaining power over suppliers and buyers, and (5) by enhancing its flexibility and dynamic capabilities.
Illustration Capsule 6.3 describes how Bristol-Myers Squibb developed its “string- of-pearls” horizontal acquisition strategy to fill in its pharmaceutical product develop- ment gaps.
Why Mergers and Acquisitions Sometimes Fail to Produce Anticipated Results Despite many successes, mergers and acquisitions do not always produce the hoped- for outcomes.16 Cost savings may prove smaller than expected. Gains in competitive capabilities may take substantially longer to realize or, worse, may never materialize at all. Efforts to mesh the corporate cultures can stall due to formidable resistance from organization members. Key employees at the acquired company can quickly become disenchanted and leave; the morale of company personnel who remain can drop to disturbingly low levels because they disagree with newly instituted changes. Differences in management styles and operating procedures can prove hard to resolve. In addition, the managers appointed to oversee the integration of a newly acquired company can make mistakes in deciding which activities to leave alone and which activities to meld into their own operations and systems.
A number of mergers and acquisitions have been notably unsuccessful. Google’s $12.5 billion acquisition of struggling smartphone manufacturer Motorola Mobility in 2012 turned out to be minimally beneficial in helping to “supercharge Google’s Android ecosystem” (Google’s stated reason for making the acquisition). When Google’s attempts to rejuvenate Motorola’s smartphone business by spending over $1.3 billion on new product R&D and revamping Motorola’s product line resulted in disappointing sales and huge operating losses, Google sold Motorola Mobility to China-based PC maker Lenovo for $2.9 billion in 2014 (however, Google retained ownership of Motorola’s extensive patent portfolio). The jury is still out on whether Lenovo’s acquisition of Motorola will prove to be a moneymaker.
Final PDF to printer
162
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 162 10/11/16 07:58 PM
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 6.3
Back in 2007, the pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb had a problem: Its top-selling drugs, Plavix and Abilify, would go off patent by 2012 and its drug pipe- line was nearly empty. Together these drugs (the first for heart attacks, the second for depression) accounted for nearly half of the company’s sales. Not surprisingly, the company’s stock price had stagnated and was underper- forming that of its peers.
Developing new drugs is difficult: New drugs must be identified, tested in increasingly sophisticated trials, and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. On average, this process takes 13 years and costs $2 billion. The success rate is low: Only one drug in eight manages to pass through clinical testing. In 2007, Bristol-Myers Squibb had only six new drugs at the clinical testing stage.
At the time, many drug companies were diversifying into new markets like over-the-counter drugs to better manage drug development risk. Bristol-Myers Squibb’s management pursued a different strategy: product diversification through horizontal acquisitions. Bristol- Myers Squibb targeted small companies in new treat- ment areas, with the objective of reducing new product development risk by betting on pre-identified drugs. The small companies it targeted, with one or two drugs in development, needed cash; Bristol-Myers Squibb needed new drugs. The firm’s management called this its “string-of-pearls” strategy.
To implement its approach and obtain the cash it needed, Bristol-Myers Squibb sold its stake in Mead Johnson, a nutritional supplement manufacturer. Then it went on a shopping spree. Starting in 2007, the com- pany spent over $8 billion on 18 transactions, including
12 horizontal acquisitions. In the process, the company acquired many promising new drug candidates for com- mon diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and hepatitis C.
By early 2012, the company’s string-of-pearls acquisi- tions were estimated to have added over $4 billion of new revenue to the company’s coffers. Despite management changes over the subsequent year leading to the loss of two of the visionaries of the string-of-pearls concept, the new R&D chief remained committed to continuing the strategy. Analysts reported that Bristol-Myers Squibb had one of the best pipelines among drug makers. Investors agreed: The company’s stock price has climbed consis- tently since 2007, outperforming its competitors and experiencing annual growth of over 20 percent.
Bristol-Myers Squibb’s “String-of-Pearls” Horizontal Acquisition Strategy
© John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images
Note: Developed with Dennis L. Huggins.
Sources: D. Armstrong and M. Tirrell, “Bristol’s Buy of Inhibitex for Hepatitis Drug Won’t Be Last,” Bloomberg Businessweek, January 2012, www.bloomberg.com (accessed January 30, 2012); S. M. Paul et al., “How to Improve R&D Productivity: The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Grand Challenge,” Nature Reviews, March 2010, pp. 203–214; Bristol-Myers Squibb 2007 and 2011 annual reports; D. Armstrong, “Bristol- Myers New R&D Chief Plans to Keep Focus on Cancer,” Bloomberg Online, April 8, 2013.
Expanding the firm’s vertical scope by means of a vertical integration strategy pro- vides another possible way to strengthen the company’s position in its core market. A vertically integrated firm is one that participates in multiple stages of an industry’s value chain system. Thus, if a manufacturer invests in facilities to produce component
VERTICAL INTEGRATION STRATEGIES
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 163
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 163 10/11/16 07:58 PM
parts that it had formerly purchased from suppliers, or if it opens its own chain of retail stores to bypass its former distributors, it is engaging in vertical integration. A good example of a vertically integrated firm is Maple Leaf Foods, a major Canadian producer of fresh and processed meats whose best-selling brands include Maple Leaf and Schneiders. Maple Leaf Foods participates in hog and poultry production, with company-owned hog and poultry farms; it has its own meat-processing and rendering facilities; it packages its products and distributes them from company-owned distribu- tion centers; and it conducts marketing, sales, and customer service activities for its wholesale and retail buyers but does not otherwise participate in the final stage of the meat-processing vertical chain—the retailing stage.
A vertical integration strategy can expand the firm’s range of activities back- ward into sources of supply and/or forward toward end users. When Tiffany & Co., a manufacturer and retailer of fine jewelry, began sourcing, cutting, and polishing its own diamonds, it integrated backward along the diamond supply chain. Mining giant De Beers Group and Canadian miner Aber Diamond integrated forward when they entered the diamond retailing business.
A firm can pursue vertical integration by starting its own operations in other stages of the vertical activity chain or by acquiring a company already perform- ing the activities it wants to bring in-house. Vertical integration strategies can aim at full integration (participating in all stages of the vertical chain) or partial integration (building positions in selected stages of the vertical chain). Firms can also engage in tapered integration strategies, which involve a mix of in-house and outsourced activ- ity in any given stage of the vertical chain. Oil companies, for instance, supply their refineries with oil from their own wells as well as with oil that they purchase from other producers—they engage in tapered backward integration. Coach, Inc., the maker of Coach handbags and accessories, engages in tapered forward integration since it operates full-price and factory outlet stores but also sells its products through third- party department store outlets.
The Advantages of a Vertical Integration Strategy Under the right conditions, a vertical integration strategy can add materially to a com- pany’s technological capabilities, strengthen the firm’s competitive position, and boost its profitability.17 But it is important to keep in mind that vertical integration has no real payoff strategy-wise or profit-wise unless the extra investment can be justified by compensating improvements in company costs, differentiation, or competitive strength.
Integrating Backward to Achieve Greater Competitiveness It is harder than one might think to generate cost savings or improve profitability by integrating backward into activities such as the manufacture of parts and com- ponents (which could otherwise be purchased from suppliers with specialized expertise in making the parts and components). For backward integration to be a cost-saving and profitable strategy, a company must be able to (1) achieve the same scale economies as outside suppliers and (2) match or beat suppliers’ production efficiency with no drop-off in quality. Neither outcome is easily achieved. To begin with, a company’s in-house requirements are often too small to reach the optimum size for low-cost operation. For instance, if it takes a minimum production volume of 1 million units to achieve scale economies and a company’s in-house require- ments are just 250,000 units, then it falls far short of being able to match the costs
LO 4
The advantages and disadvantages of extending the company’s scope of operations via vertical integration.
CORE CONCEPT
A vertically integrated firm is one that performs value chain activities along more than one stage of an industry’s value chain system.
CORE CONCEPT
Backward integration involves entry into activities previously performed by suppliers or other enterprises positioned along earlier stages of the industry value chain system; forward integration involves entry into value chain system activities closer to the end user.
Final PDF to printer
164 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 164 10/11/16 07:58 PM
of outside suppliers (which may readily find buyers for 1 million or more units). Fur- thermore, matching the production efficiency of suppliers is fraught with problems when suppliers have considerable production experience, when the technology they employ has elements that are hard to master, and/or when substantial R&D expertise is required to develop next-version components or keep pace with advancing technology in components production.
That said, occasions still arise when a company can improve its cost position and competitiveness by performing a broader range of industry value chain activities inter- nally rather than having such activities performed by outside suppliers. When there are few suppliers and when the item being supplied is a major component, vertical integration can lower costs by limiting supplier power. Vertical integration can also lower costs by facilitating the coordination of production flows and avoiding bottle- necks and delays that disrupt production schedules. Furthermore, when a company has proprietary know-how that it wants to keep from rivals, then in-house performance of value-adding activities related to this know-how is beneficial even if such activities could otherwise be performed by outsiders.
Apple decided to integrate backward into producing its own chips for iPhones, chiefly because chips are a major cost component, suppliers have bargaining power, and in-house production would help coordinate design tasks and protect Apple’s pro- prietary iPhone technology. International Paper Company backward integrates into pulp mills that it sets up near its paper mills and reaps the benefits of coordinated production flows, energy savings, and transportation economies. It does this, in part, because outside suppliers are generally unwilling to make a site-specific investment for a buyer.
Backward vertical integration can produce a differentiation-based competitive advantage when performing activities internally contributes to a better-quality product or service offering, improves the caliber of customer service, or in other ways enhances the performance of the final product. On occasion, integrating into more stages along the industry value chain system can add to a company’s differentiation capabilities by allowing it to strengthen its core competencies, better master key skills or strategy- critical technologies, or add features that deliver greater customer value. Spanish cloth- ing maker Inditex has backward integrated into fabric making, as well as garment design and manufacture, for its successful Zara brand. By tightly controlling the pro- cess and postponing dyeing until later stages, Zara can respond quickly to changes in fashion trends and supply its customers with the hottest items. News Corp backward integrated into film studios (Twentieth Century Fox) and TV program production to ensure access to high-quality content for its TV stations (and to limit supplier power).
Integrating Forward to Enhance Competitiveness Like back- ward integration, forward integration can lower costs by increasing efficiency and bargaining power. In addition, it can allow manufacturers to gain better access to end users, improve market visibility, and enhance brand name awareness. For example, Harley’s company-owned retail stores are essentially little museums, filled with ico- nography, that provide an environment conducive to selling not only motorcycles and gear but also memorabilia, clothing, and other items featuring the brand. Insurance companies and brokerages like Allstate and Edward Jones have the ability to make consumers’ interactions with local agents and office personnel a differentiating feature by focusing on building relationships.
In many industries, independent sales agents, wholesalers, and retailers handle competing brands of the same product and have no allegiance to any one company’s
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 165
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 165 10/11/16 07:58 PM
brand—they tend to push whatever offers the biggest profits. To avoid dependence on distributors and dealers with divided loyalties, Goodyear has integrated forward into company-owned and franchised retail tire stores. Consumer-goods companies like Coach, Under Armour, Pepperidge Farm, Bath & Body Works, Nike, Tommy Hilfiger, and Ann Taylor have integrated forward into retailing and operate their own branded stores in factory outlet malls, enabling them to move overstocked items, slow-selling items, and seconds.
Some producers have opted to integrate forward by selling directly to customers at the company’s website. Bypassing regular wholesale and retail channels in favor of direct sales and Internet retailing can have appeal if it reinforces the brand and enhances consumer satisfaction or if it lowers distribution costs, produces a relative cost advantage over certain rivals, and results in lower selling prices to end users. In addition, sellers are compelled to include the Internet as a retail channel when a suf- ficiently large number of buyers in an industry prefer to make purchases online. How- ever, a company that is vigorously pursuing online sales to consumers at the same time that it is also heavily promoting sales to consumers through its network of wholesalers and retailers is competing directly against its distribution allies. Such actions consti- tute channel conflict and create a tricky route to negotiate. A company that is actively trying to expand online sales to consumers is signaling a weak strategic commitment to its dealers and a willingness to cannibalize dealers’ sales and growth potential. The likely result is angry dealers and loss of dealer goodwill. Quite possibly, a com- pany may stand to lose more sales by offending its dealers than it gains from its own online sales effort. Consequently, in industries where the strong support and goodwill of dealer networks is essential, companies may conclude that it is important to avoid channel conflict and that their websites should be designed to partner with dealers rather than compete against them.
The Disadvantages of a Vertical Integration Strategy Vertical integration has some substantial drawbacks beyond the potential for channel conflict.18 The most serious drawbacks to vertical integration include the following concerns: ∙ Vertical integration raises a firm’s capital investment in the industry, thereby
increasing business risk (what if industry growth and profitability unexpectedly go sour?).
∙ Vertically integrated companies are often slow to adopt technological advances or more efficient production methods when they are saddled with older technology or facilities. A company that obtains parts and components from outside suppliers can always shop the market for the newest, best, and cheapest parts, whereas a ver- tically integrated firm with older plants and technology may choose to continue making suboptimal parts rather than face the high costs of writing off undepreci- ated assets.
∙ Vertical integration can result in less flexibility in accommodating shifting buyer preferences. It is one thing to eliminate use of a component made by a supplier and another to stop using a component being made in-house (which can mean laying off employees and writing off the associated investment in equipment and facilities). Integrating forward or backward locks a firm into relying on its own in-house activities and sources of supply. Most of the world’s automakers,
Final PDF to printer
166 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 166 10/11/16 07:58 PM
despite their manufacturing expertise, have concluded that purchasing a major- ity of their parts and components from best-in-class suppliers results in greater design flexibility, higher quality, and lower costs than producing parts or com- ponents in-house.
∙ Vertical integration may not enable a company to realize economies of scale if its production levels are below the minimum efficient scale. Small companies in particular are likely to suffer a cost disadvantage by producing in-house.
∙ Vertical integration poses all kinds of capacity-matching problems. In motor vehi- cle manufacturing, for example, the most efficient scale of operation for making axles is different from the most economic volume for radiators, and different yet again for both engines and transmissions. Building the capacity to produce just the right number of axles, radiators, engines, and transmissions in-house—and doing so at the lowest unit costs for each—poses significant challenges and operating complications.
∙ Integration forward or backward typically calls for developing new types of resources and capabilities. Parts and components manufacturing, assembly operations, wholesale distribution and retailing, and direct sales via the Internet represent different kinds of businesses, operating in different types of indus- tries, with different key success factors. Many manufacturers learn the hard way that company-owned wholesale and retail networks require skills that they lack, fit poorly with what they do best, and detract from their overall profit perfor- mance. Similarly, a company that tries to produce many components in-house is likely to find itself very hard-pressed to keep up with technological advances and cutting-edge production practices for each component used in making its product.
In today’s world of close working relationships with suppliers and efficient supply chain management systems, relatively few companies can make a strong economic case for integrating backward into the business of suppliers. The best materials and components suppliers stay abreast of advancing technology and best practices and are adept in making good quality items, delivering them on time, and keeping their costs and prices as low as possible.
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Vertical Integration All in all, therefore, a strategy of vertical integration can have both strengths and weaknesses. The tip of the scales depends on (1) whether vertical integration can enhance the performance of strategy-critical activities in ways that lower cost, build expertise, protect proprietary know-how, or increase differentiation; (2) what impact vertical integration will have on investment costs, flexibility, and response times; (3) what administrative costs will be incurred by coordinating operations across more vertical chain activities; and (4) how difficult it will be for the company to acquire the set of skills and capabilities needed to operate in another stage of the vertical chain. Vertical integration strategies have merit according to which capabilities and value- adding activities truly need to be performed in-house and which can be performed better or cheaper by outsiders. Absent solid benefits, integrating forward or backward is not likely to be an attractive strategy option.
Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed care organization in the United States, has made vertical integration a central part of its strategy, as described in Illustration Capsule 6.4.
Final PDF to printer
167
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 167 10/11/16 07:58 PM
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 6.4
Kaiser Permanente’s unique business model features a vertical integration strategy that enables it to deliver higher-quality care to patients at a lower cost. Kaiser Permanente is the largest vertically integrated health care delivery system in the United States, with $56.4 billion in revenues and $3.1 billion in net income in 2014. It functions as a health insurance company with over 10 million members and a provider of health care services with 28 hospitals, 619 medical offices, and nearly 18,000 physicians. As a result of its vertical integration, Kaiser Permanente is better able to efficiently match demand for services by health plan members to capacity of its delivery infrastructure, including physicians and hospitals. Moreover, its prepaid financial model helps incentivize the appropriate delivery of health care services.
Unlike Kaiser Permanente, the majority of physicians and hospitals in the United States provide care on a fee- for-service revenue model or per-procedure basis. Con- sequently, most physicians and hospitals earn higher revenues by providing more services, which limits invest- ments in preventive care. In contrast, Kaiser Permanente providers are incentivized to focus on health promotion, disease prevention, and chronic disease management. Kaiser Permanente pays primary care physicians more than local averages to attract top talent, and surgeons are salaried rather than paid by procedure to encour- age the optimal level of care. Physicians from multiple specialties work collaboratively to coordinate care and treat the overall health of patients rather than individual health issues.
One result of this strategy is enhanced efficiency, enabling Kaiser Permanente to provide health insurance that is, on average, 10 percent cheaper than that of its competitors. Further, the care provided is of higher qual- ity based on national standards of care. For the seventh year in a row, Kaiser Permanente health plans received the highest overall quality-of-care rating of any health plan in California, which accounts for almost 8 million of its 10 million members. Kaiser Permanente is also consis- tently praised for member satisfaction. Four of Kaiser’s health plan regions, accounting for 90 percent of its membership, were ranked highest in member satisfac- tion by J.D. Power and Associates. The success of Kaiser Permanente’s vertical integration strategy is the primary reason why many health care organizations are seeking to replicate its model as they transition from a fee-for- service revenue model to an accountable care model.
Kaiser Permanente’s Vertical Integration Strategy
© Bryan Chan/Los Angeles Times via Getty
Note: Developed with Christopher C. Sukenik.
Sources: “Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan Report Fiscal Year 2013 and Fourth Quarter Financial Results,” PR Newswire, February 14, 2014, www.prnewswire.com; Kaiser Permanente website and 2012 annual report; J. O’Donnell, “Kaiser Permanente CEO on Saving Lives, Money,” USA Today, October 23, 2012.
OUTSOURCING STRATEGIES: NARROWING THE SCOPE OF OPERATIONS In contrast to vertical integration strategies, outsourcing strategies narrow the scope of a business’s operations, in terms of what activities are performed internally. Outsourcing involves contracting out certain value chain activities that are normally performed in-house to outside vendors.19 Many PC makers, for example, have shifted from assembling units in-house to outsourcing the entire assembly process to manu- facturing specialists, which can operate more efficiently due to their greater scale, experience, and bargaining power over components makers. Nearly all name-brand
LO 5
The conditions that favor farming out certain value chain activities to outside parties.
Final PDF to printer
168 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 168 10/11/16 07:58 PM
apparel firms have in-house capability to design, market, and distribute their products but they outsource all fabric manufacture and garment-making activities. Starbucks finds purchasing coffee beans from independent growers far more advantageous than
having its own coffee-growing operation, with locations scattered across most of the world’s coffee-growing regions.
Outsourcing certain value chain activities makes strategic sense whenever:CORE CONCEPT
Outsourcing involves contracting out certain value chain activities that are normally performed in-house to outside vendors.
∙ An activity can be performed better or more cheaply by outside specialists. A company should generally not perform any value chain activity internally that can be performed more efficiently or effectively by outsiders—the chief exception occurs when a particular activity is strategically crucial and internal control over that activity is deemed essential. Dolce & Gabbana, for example, outsources the manufacture of its brand of sunglasses to Luxottica—a company considered to be the world’s best sunglass manufacturing company, known for its Oakley, Oliver Peoples, and Ray-Ban brands.
∙ The activity is not crucial to the firm’s ability to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Outsourcing of support activities such as maintenance services, data processing, data storage, fringe-benefit management, and website operations has become commonplace. Colgate-Palmolive, for instance, has reduced its informa- tion technology operational costs by more than 10 percent annually through an outsourcing agreement with IBM.
∙ The outsourcing improves organizational flexibility and speeds time to market. Outsourcing gives a company the flexibility to switch suppliers in the event that its present supplier falls behind competing suppliers. Moreover, seeking out new suppliers with the needed capabilities already in place is frequently quicker, eas- ier, less risky, and cheaper than hurriedly retooling internal operations to replace obsolete capabilities or trying to install and master new technologies.
∙ It reduces the company’s risk exposure to changing technology and buyer pref- erences. When a company outsources certain parts, components, and services, its suppliers must bear the burden of incorporating state-of-the-art technologies and/or undertaking redesigns and upgrades to accommodate a company’s plans to introduce next-generation products. If what a supplier provides falls out of favor with buyers, or is rendered unnecessary by technological change, it is the sup- plier’s business that suffers rather than the company’s.
∙ It allows a company to concentrate on its core business, leverage its key resources, and do even better what it already does best. A company is better able to enhance its own capabilities when it concentrates its full resources and energies on per- forming only those activities. United Colors of Benetton and Sisley, for example, outsource the production of handbags and other leather goods while devoting their energies to the clothing lines for which they are known. Apple outsources production of its iPod, iPhone, and iPad models to Chinese contract manufac- turer Foxconn and concentrates in-house on design, marketing, and innovation. Hewlett-Packard and IBM have sold some of their manufacturing plants to outsid- ers and contracted to repurchase the output instead from the new owners.
The Risk of Outsourcing Value Chain Activities The biggest danger of outsourcing is that a company will farm out the wrong types of activities and thereby hollow out its own capabilities.20 For example, in recent years companies eager to reduce operating costs have opted to outsource such strategically
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 169
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 169 10/11/16 07:58 PM
important activities as product development, engineering design, and sophisticated manufacturing tasks—the very capabilities that underpin a company’s ability to lead sustained product innovation. While these companies have apparently been able to lower their operating costs by outsourcing these functions to outsiders, their ability to lead the development of innovative new products is weakened because so many of the cutting-edge ideas and technologies for next-generation products come from outsiders.
Another risk of outsourcing comes from the lack of direct control. It may be difficult to monitor, control, and coordinate the activities of outside parties via con- tracts and arm’s-length transactions alone. Unanticipated problems may arise that cause delays or cost overruns and become hard to resolve amicably. Moreover, contract-based outsourcing can be problematic because outside parties lack incentives to make invest- ments specific to the needs of the outsourcing company’s internal value chain.
Companies like Cisco Systems are alert to these dangers. Cisco guards against loss of control and protects its manufacturing expertise by designing the production methods that its contract manufacturers must use. Cisco keeps the source code for its designs proprietary, thereby controlling the initiation of all improvements and safeguarding its innovations from imitation. Further, Cisco has developed online systems to monitor the factory operations of contract manufacturers around the clock so that it knows immediately when problems arise and can decide whether to get involved.
A company must guard against outsourcing activities that hollow out the resources and capabilities that it needs to be a master of its own destiny.
STRATEGIC ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS Strategic alliances and cooperative partnerships provide one way to gain some of the benefits offered by vertical integration, outsourcing, and horizontal mergers and acquisitions while minimizing the associated problems. Companies frequently engage in cooperative strategies as an alternative to vertical integration or horizontal merg- ers and acquisitions. Increasingly, companies are also employing strategic alliances and partnerships to extend their scope of operations via international expansion and diversification strategies, as we describe in Chapters 7 and 8. Strategic alliances and cooperative arrangements are now a common means of narrowing a company’s scope of operations as well, serving as a useful way to manage outsourcing (in lieu of tradi- tional, purely price-oriented contracts).
For example, oil and gas companies engage in considerable vertical integration— but Shell Oil Company and Pemex (Mexico’s state-owned petroleum company) have found that joint ownership of their Deer Park Refinery in Texas lowers their invest- ment costs and risks in comparison to going it alone. The colossal failure of the Daimler–Chrysler merger formed an expensive lesson for Daimler AG about what can go wrong with horizontal mergers and acquisitions; its 2010 strategic alliance with Renault–Nissan is allowing the two companies to achieve jointly the global scale required for cost-competitiveness in cars and trucks while avoiding the type of problems that so plagued DaimlerChrysler. Ford Motor Company joined Daim- ler AG and Renault–Nissan more recently in an effort to develop affordable, mass- market hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2017.
Many companies employ strategic alliances to manage the problems that might otherwise occur with outsourcing—Cisco’s system of alliances guards against loss of control, protects its proprietary manufacturing expertise, and enables the company to monitor closely the assembly operations of its partners while devoting its energy to
LO 6
When and how strategic alliances can substitute for horizontal mergers and acquisitions or vertical integration and how they can facilitate outsourcing.
Final PDF to printer
170 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 170 10/11/16 07:58 PM
designing new generations of the switches, routers, and other Internet-related equip- ment for which it is known.
A strategic alliance is a formal agreement between two or more separate companies in which they agree to work collaboratively toward some strategically relevant objective. Typically, they involve shared financial responsibility, joint contribution of resources and capabilities, shared risk, shared control, and mutual dependence. They may be characterized by cooperative marketing, sales, or dis- tribution; joint production; design collaboration; or projects to jointly develop new technologies or products. They can vary in terms of their duration and the extent of the collaboration; some are intended as long-term arrangements, involving an extensive set of cooperative activities, while others are designed to accomplish more limited, short-term objectives.
Collaborative arrangements may entail a contractual agreement, but they com- monly stop short of formal ownership ties between the partners (although some- times an alliance member will secure minority ownership of another member).
A special type of strategic alliance involving ownership ties is the joint venture. A joint venture entails forming a new corporate entity that is jointly owned by two or more companies that agree to share in the revenues, expenses, and control of the newly formed entity. Since joint ventures involve setting up a mutually owned business, they tend to be more durable but also riskier than other arrangements. In other types of strategic alliances, the collaboration between the partners involves a much less rigid structure in which the partners retain their independence from one another. If a strategic alliance is not working out, a part- ner can choose to simply walk away or reduce its commitment to collaborating at any time. An alliance becomes “strategic,” as opposed to just a convenient business arrange-
ment, when it serves any of the following purposes:21
1. It facilitates achievement of an important business objective (like lowering costs or delivering more value to customers in the form of better quality, added features, and greater durability).
2. It helps build, strengthen, or sustain a core competence or competitive advantage. 3. It helps remedy an important resource deficiency or competitive weakness. 4. It helps defend against a competitive threat, or mitigates a significant risk to a
company’s business. 5. It increases bargaining power over suppliers or buyers. 6. It helps open up important new market opportunities. 7. It speeds the development of new technologies and/or product innovations.
Strategic cooperation is a much-favored approach in industries where new techno- logical developments are occurring at a furious pace along many different paths and where advances in one technology spill over to affect others (often blurring indus- try boundaries). Whenever industries are experiencing high-velocity technological advances in many areas simultaneously, firms find it virtually essential to have coop- erative relationships with other enterprises to stay on the leading edge of technology, even in their own area of specialization. In industries like these, alliances are all about fast cycles of learning, gaining quick access to the latest round of technological know- how, and developing dynamic capabilities. In bringing together firms with different skills and knowledge bases, alliances open up learning opportunities that help partner firms better leverage their own resources and capabilities.22
CORE CONCEPT
A strategic alliance is a formal agreement between two or more separate companies in which they agree to work cooperatively toward some common objective.
CORE CONCEPT
A joint venture is a partnership involving the establishment of an independent corporate entity that the partners own and control jointly, sharing in its revenues and expenses.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 171
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 171 10/11/16 07:58 PM
It took a $3.2 billion joint venture involving the likes of Sprint-Nextel, Clearwire, Intel, Time Warner Cable, Google, Comcast, and Bright House Networks to roll out next-generation 4G wireless services based on Sprint’s and Clearwire’s WiMax mobile networks. WiMax was an advanced Wi-Fi technology that allowed people to browse the Internet at speeds as great as 10 times faster than other cellular Wi-Fi technologies. The venture was a necessity for Sprint-Nextel and Clearwire since they lacked the financial resources to handle the rollout on their own. The appeal of the partnership for Time Warner, Comcast, and Bright House was the ability to bundle the sale of wireless services to their cable customers, while Intel had the chip sets for WiMax and hoped that WiMax would become the dominant wireless Internet format. Google’s interest in the alliance was its desire to strengthen its lead in desktop searches on wireless devices.
iHeartMedia (formerly Clear Channel Communications) entered into a series of early partnerships to provide a multiplatform launchpad for artists like Taylor Swift, Phoenix, and Sara Bareilles. More recently, they formed a partnership with Microsoft involving Windows 10. iHeartMedia benefits because people who buy Windows 10 automatically have access to its content, and Microsoft benefits because there are iHeartMedia features that are exclusive to Windows 10, thus potentially drawing in customers.
Because of the varied benefits of strategic alliances, many large corporations have become involved in 30 to 50 alliances, and a number have formed hundreds of alliances. Genentech, a leader in biotechnology and human genetics, has formed R&D alliances with over 30 companies to boost its prospects for developing new cures for various diseases and ailments. Companies that have formed a host of alli- ances need to manage their alliances like a portfolio—terminating those that no longer serve a useful purpose or that have produced meager results, forming prom- ising new alliances, and restructuring existing alliances to correct performance problems and/or redirect the collaborative effort.
Capturing the Benefits of Strategic Alliances The extent to which companies benefit from entering into alliances and partnerships seems to be a function of six factors:23
1. Picking a good partner. A good partner must bring complementary strengths to the relationship. To the extent that alliance members have nonoverlapping strengths, there is greater potential for synergy and less potential for coordina- tion problems and conflict. In addition, a good partner needs to share the com- pany’s vision about the overall purpose of the alliance and to have specific goals that either match or complement those of the company. Strong partnerships also depend on good chemistry among key personnel and compatible views about how the alliance should be structured and managed.
2. Being sensitive to cultural differences. Cultural differences among companies can make it difficult for their personnel to work together effectively. Cultural differ- ences can be problematic among companies from the same country, but when the partners have different national origins, the problems are often magnified. Unless there is respect among all the parties for cultural differences, including those stemming from different local cultures and local business practices, productive working relationships are unlikely to emerge.
3. Recognizing that the alliance must benefit both sides. Information must be shared as well as gained, and the relationship must remain forthright and trustful. If either
Companies that have formed a host of alliances need to manage their alliances like a portfolio.
The best alliances are highly selective, focusing on particular value chain activities and on obtaining a specific competitive benefit. They enable a firm to build on its strengths and to learn.
Final PDF to printer
172 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 172 10/11/16 07:58 PM
partner plays games with information or tries to take advantage of the other, the resulting friction can quickly erode the value of further collaboration. Open, trust- worthy behavior on both sides is essential for fruitful collaboration.
4. Ensuring that both parties live up to their commitments. Both parties have to deliver on their commitments for the alliance to produce the intended benefits. The division of work has to be perceived as fairly apportioned, and the caliber of the benefits received on both sides has to be perceived as adequate.
5. Structuring the decision-making process so that actions can be taken swiftly when needed. In many instances, the fast pace of technological and competitive changes dictates an equally fast decision-making process. If the parties get bogged down in discussions or in gaining internal approval from higher-ups, the alliance can turn into an anchor of delay and inaction.
6. Managing the learning process and then adjusting the alliance agreement over time to fit new circumstances. One of the keys to long-lasting success is adapting the nature and structure of the alliance to be responsive to shifting market condi- tions, emerging technologies, and changing customer requirements. Wise allies are quick to recognize the merit of an evolving collaborative arrangement, where adjustments are made to accommodate changing conditions and to overcome whatever problems arise in establishing an effective working relationship.
Most alliances that aim at sharing technology or providing market access turn out to be temporary, lasting only a few years. This is not necessarily an indicator of failure, however. Strategic alliances can be terminated after a few years simply because they have fulfilled their purpose; indeed, many alliances are intended to be of limited duration, set up to accomplish specific short-term objectives. Longer- lasting collaborative arrangements, however, may provide even greater strategic benefits. Alliances are more likely to be long-lasting when (1) they involve collabo- ration with partners that do not compete directly, such as suppliers or distribution allies; (2) a trusting relationship has been established; and (3) both parties conclude that continued collaboration is in their mutual interest, perhaps because new oppor- tunities for learning are emerging.
The Drawbacks of Strategic Alliances and Partnerships While strategic alliances provide a way of obtaining the benefits of vertical integra- tion, mergers and acquisitions, and outsourcing, they also suffer from some of the same drawbacks. Anticipated gains may fail to materialize due to an overly optimistic view of the synergies or a poor fit in terms of the combination of resources and capa- bilities. When outsourcing is conducted via alliances, there is no less risk of becoming dependent on other companies for essential expertise and capabilities—indeed, this may be the Achilles’ heel of such alliances. Moreover, there are additional pitfalls to collaborative arrangements. The greatest danger is that a partner will gain access to a company’s proprietary knowledge base, technologies, or trade secrets, enabling the partner to match the company’s core strengths and costing the company its hard-won competitive advantage. This risk is greatest when the alliance is among industry rivals or when the alliance is for the purpose of collaborative R&D, since this type of part- nership requires an extensive exchange of closely held information.
The question for managers is when to engage in a strategic alliance and when to choose an alternative means of meeting their objectives. The answer to this question
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 6 Strengthening a Company’s Competitive Position 173
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 173 10/11/16 07:58 PM
depends on the relative advantages of each method and the circumstances under which each type of organizational arrangement is favored.
The principal advantages of strategic alliances over vertical integration or horizon- tal mergers and acquisitions are threefold:
1. They lower investment costs and risks for each partner by facilitating resource pooling and risk sharing. This can be particularly important when investment needs and uncertainty are high, such as when a dominant technology standard has not yet emerged.
2. They are more flexible organizational forms and allow for a more adaptive response to changing conditions. Flexibility is essential when environmental conditions or technologies are changing rapidly. Moreover, strategic alliances under such circumstances may enable the development of each partner’s dynamic capabilities.
3. They are more rapidly deployed—a critical factor when speed is of the essence. Speed is of the essence when there is a winner-take-all type of competitive situa- tion, such as the race for a dominant technological design or a race down a steep experience curve, where there is a large first-mover advantage.
The key advantages of using strategic alliances rather than arm’s-length transac- tions to manage outsourcing are (1) the increased ability to exercise control over the partners’ activities and (2) a greater willingness for the partners to make relationship- specific investments. Arm’s-length transactions discourage such investments since they imply less commitment and do not build trust.
On the other hand, there are circumstances when other organizational mechanisms are preferable to alliances and partnering. Mergers and acquisitions are especially suited for situations in which strategic alliances or partnerships do not go far enough in providing a company with access to needed resources and capabilities. Ownership ties are more permanent than partnership ties, allowing the operations of the merger or acquisition participants to be tightly integrated and creating more in-house control and autonomy. Other organizational mechanisms are also preferable to alliances when there is limited property rights protection for valuable know-how and when companies fear being taken advantage of by opportunistic partners.
While it is important for managers to understand when strategic alliances and partnerships are most likely (and least likely) to prove useful, it is also important to know how to manage them.
How to Make Strategic Alliances Work A surprisingly large number of alliances never live up to expectations. Even though the number of strategic alliances increases by about 25 percent annually, about 60 to 70 percent of alliances continue to fail each year.24 The success of an alliance depends on how well the partners work together, their capacity to respond and adapt to chang- ing internal and external conditions, and their willingness to renegotiate the bargain if circumstances so warrant. A successful alliance requires real in-the-trenches col- laboration, not merely an arm’s-length exchange of ideas. Unless partners place a high value on the contribution each brings to the alliance and the cooperative arrangement results in valuable win–win outcomes, it is doomed to fail.
While the track record for strategic alliances is poor on average, many companies have learned how to manage strategic alliances successfully and routinely defy this aver- age. Samsung Group, which includes Samsung Electronics, successfully manages an
Final PDF to printer
174 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 174 10/11/16 07:58 PM
ecosystem of over 1,300 partnerships that enable productive activities from global pro- curement to local marketing to collaborative R&D. Companies that have greater success in managing their strategic alliances and partnerships often credit the following factors:
∙ They create a system for managing their alliances. Companies need to manage their alliances in a systematic fashion, just as they manage other functions. This means setting up a process for managing the different aspects of alliance manage- ment from partner selection to alliance termination procedures. To ensure that the system is followed on a routine basis by all company managers, many companies create a set of explicit procedures, process templates, manuals, or the like.
∙ They build relationships with their partners and establish trust. Establishing strong interpersonal relationships is a critical factor in making strategic alliances work since such relationships facilitate opening up channels of communication, coordinating activity, aligning interests, and building trust.
∙ They protect themselves from the threat of opportunism by setting up safeguards. There are a number of means for preventing a company from being taken advantage of by an untrustworthy partner or unwittingly losing control over key assets. Contrac- tual safeguards, including noncompete clauses, can provide other forms of protection.
∙ They make commitments to their partners and see that their partners do the same. When partners make credible commitments to a joint enterprise, they have stron- ger incentives for making it work and are less likely to “free-ride” on the efforts of other partners. Because of this, equity-based alliances tend to be more successful than nonequity alliances.25
∙ They make learning a routine part of the management process. There are always opportunities for learning from a partner, but organizational learning does not take place automatically. Whatever learning occurs cannot add to a company’s knowl- edge base unless the learning is incorporated systematically into the company’s routines and practices.
Finally, managers should realize that alliance management is an organizational capability, much like any other. It develops over time, out of effort, experience, and learning. For this reason, it is wise to begin slowly, with simple alliances designed to meet limited, short-term objectives. Short-term partnerships that are successful often become the basis for much more extensive collaborative arrangements. Even when strategic alliances are set up with the hope that they will become long-term engagements, they have a better chance of succeeding if they are phased in so that the partners can learn how they can work together most fruitfully.
KEY POINTS
1. Once a company has settled on which of the five generic competitive strategies to employ, attention turns to how strategic choices regarding (1) competitive actions, (2) timing of those actions, and (3) scope of operations can complement its com- petitive approach and maximize the power of its overall strategy.
2. Strategic offensives should, as a general rule, be grounded in a company’s stra- tegic assets and employ a company’s strengths to attack rivals in the competitive areas where they are weakest.
Final PDF to printer
175
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 175 10/11/16 07:58 PM
3. Companies have a number of offensive strategy options for improving their mar- ket positions: using a cost-based advantage to attack competitors on the basis of price or value, leapfrogging competitors with next-generation technologies, pur- suing continuous product innovation, adopting and improving the best ideas of others, using hit-and-run tactics to steal sales away from unsuspecting rivals, and launching preemptive strikes. A blue-ocean type of offensive strategy seeks to gain a dramatic new competitive advantage by inventing a new industry or distinc- tive market segment that renders existing competitors largely irrelevant and allows a company to create and capture altogether new demand.
4. The purposes of defensive strategies are to lower the risk of being attacked, weaken the impact of any attack that occurs, and influence challengers to aim their efforts at other rivals. Defensive strategies to protect a company’s position usually take one of two forms: (1) actions to block challengers or (2) actions to signal the likelihood of strong retaliation.
5. The timing of strategic moves also has relevance in the quest for competitive advantage. Company managers are obligated to carefully consider the advantages or disadvantages that attach to being a first mover versus a fast follower versus a late mover.
6. Decisions concerning the scope of a company’s operations—which activities a firm will perform internally and which it will not—can also affect the strength of a company’s market position. The scope of the firm refers to the range of its activi- ties, the breadth of its product and service offerings, the extent of its geographic market presence, and its mix of businesses. Companies can expand their scope horizontally (more broadly within their focal market) or vertically (up or down the industry value chain system that starts with raw-material production and ends with sales and service to the end consumer). Horizontal mergers and acquisitions (combinations of market rivals) provide a means for a company to expand its hori- zontal scope. Vertical integration expands a firm’s vertical scope.
7. Horizontal mergers and acquisitions typically have any of five objectives: lower- ing costs, expanding geographic coverage, adding product categories, gaining new technologies or other resources and capabilities, and preparing for the conver- gence of industries. They can strengthen a firm’s competitiveness in five ways: (1) by improving the efficiency of its operations, (2) by heightening its product differentiation, (3) by reducing market rivalry, (4) by increasing the company’s bargaining power over suppliers and buyers, and (5) by enhancing its flexibility and dynamic capabilities.
8. Vertical integration, forward or backward, makes most strategic sense if it strengthens a company’s position via either cost reduction or creation of a differentiation-based advantage. Otherwise, the drawbacks of vertical integration (increased investment, greater business risk, increased vulnerability to technologi- cal changes, less flexibility in making product changes, and the potential for chan- nel conflict) are likely to outweigh any advantages.
9. Outsourcing involves contracting out pieces of the value chain formerly performed in-house to outside vendors, thereby narrowing the scope of the firm. Outsourc- ing can enhance a company’s competitiveness whenever (1) an activity can be performed better or more cheaply by outside specialists; (2) the activity is not crucial to the firm’s ability to achieve sustainable competitive advantage; (3) the
Final PDF to printer
176
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 176 10/11/16 07:58 PM
outsourcing improves organizational flexibility, speeds decision making, and cuts cycle time; (4) it reduces the company’s risk exposure; and (5) it permits a com- pany to concentrate on its core business and focus on what it does best.
10. Strategic alliances and cooperative partnerships provide one way to gain some of the benefits offered by vertical integration, outsourcing, and horizontal merg- ers and acquisitions while minimizing the associated problems. They serve as an alternative to vertical integration and mergers and acquisitions, and as a supple- ment to outsourcing, allowing more control relative to outsourcing via arm’s- length transactions.
11. Companies that manage their alliances well generally (1) create a system for man- aging their alliances, (2) build relationships with their partners and establish trust, (3) protect themselves from the threat of opportunism by setting up safeguards, (4) make commitments to their partners and see that their partners do the same, and (5) make learning a routine part of the management process.
ASSURANCE OF LEARNING EXERCISES
1. Live Nation operates music venues, provides management services to music art- ists, and promotes more than 22,000 live music events annually. The company merged with Ticketmaster and acquired concert and festival promoters in the United States, Australia, and Great Britain. How has the company used horizontal mergers and acquisitions to strengthen its competitive position? Are these moves primarily offensive or defensive? Has either Live Nation or Ticketmaster achieved any type of advantage based on the timing of its strategic moves?
2. Kaiser Permanente, a standout among managed health care systems, has become a model of how to deliver good health care cost-effectively. Illustration Capsule 6.4 describes how Kaiser Permanente has made vertical integration a central part of its strategy. What value chain segments has Kaiser Permanente chosen to enter and perform internally? How has vertical integration aided the organization in building competitive advantage? Has vertical integration strengthened its market position? Explain why or why not.
3. Perform an Internet search to identify at least two companies in different indus- tries that have entered into outsourcing agreements with firms with specialized services. In addition, describe what value chain activities the companies have cho- sen to outsource. Do any of these outsourcing agreements seem likely to threaten any of the companies’ competitive capabilities?
4. Perform a thought experiment whereby two popular specialty food stores, Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, join forces in a strategic alliance in the near future. Con- duct some research on the market niches that these food stores operate in to deter- mine whether there might be an opportunity for some kind of fruitful partnership. Explain the nature of the proposed partnership, along with its potential advantages and disadvantages and what hurdles the two companies might need to overcome in order to benefit from the strategic alliance.
LO 1, LO 2, LO 3
LO 4
LO 5
LO 6
Final PDF to printer
177
tho32789_ch06_148-177.indd 177 10/11/16 07:58 PM
EXERCISE FOR SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS
1. Has your company relied more on offensive or defensive strategies to achieve your rank in the industry? What options for being a first mover does your company have? Do any of these first-mover options hold competitive advantage potential?
2. Does your company have the option to merge with or acquire other companies? If so, which rival companies would you like to acquire or merge with?
3. Is your company vertically integrated? Explain. 4. Is your company able to engage in outsourcing? If so, what do you see as the pros
and cons of outsourcing? Are strategic alliances involved? Explain.
LO 1, LO 2
LO 3
LO 4
LO 5, LO 6
ENDNOTES 7 Ian MacMillan, “Preemptive Strategies,” Journal of Business Strategy 14, no. 2 (Fall 1983), pp. 16–26. 8 Ian C. MacMillan, “How Long Can You Sustain a Competitive Advantage?” in Liam Fahey (ed.), The Strategic Planning Management Reader (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989), pp. 23–24. 9 Kevin P. Coyne and John Horn, “Predicting Your Competitor’s Reactions,” Harvard Busi- ness Review 87, no. 4 (April 2009), pp. 90–97. 10 Philip Kotler, Marketing Management, 5th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984). 11 W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, “Blue Ocean Strategy,” Harvard Business Review 82, no. 10 (October 2004), pp. 76–84. 12 Jeffrey G. Covin, Dennis P. Slevin, and Michael B. Heeley, “Pioneers and Followers: Competitive Tactics, Environment, and Growth,” Journal of Business Venturing 15, no. 2 (March 1999), pp. 175–210; Christopher A. Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal, “Going Global: Lessons from Late-Movers,” Harvard Business Review 78, no. 2 (March-April 2000), pp. 132–145. 13 Costas Markides and Paul A. Geroski, “Rac- ing to Be 2nd: Conquering the Industries of the Future,” Business Strategy Review 15, no. 4 (Winter 2004), pp. 25–31. 14 Fernando Suarez and Gianvito Lanzolla, “The Half-Truth of First-Mover Advantage,” Harvard Business Review 83, no. 4 (April 2005), pp. 121–127. 15 Joseph L. Bower, “Not All M&As Are Alike– and That Matters,” Harvard Business Review 79, no. 3 (March 2001); O. Chatain and P. Zemsky, “The Horizontal Scope of the Firm: Organizational Tradeoffs vs. Buyer-Supplier Relationships,” Management Science 53, no.4 (April 2007), pp. 550–565. 16 Jeffrey H. Dyer, Prashant Kale, and Harbir Singh, “When to Ally and When to Acquire,” Harvard Business Review 82, no. 4 (July– August 2004), pp. 109–110.
1 George Stalk, Jr., and Rob Lachenauer, “Hard- ball: Five Killer Strategies for Trouncing the Competition,” Harvard Business Review 82, no. 4 (April 2004); Richard D’Aveni, “The Empire Strikes Back: Counterrevolutionary Strate- gies for Industry Leaders,” Harvard Business Review 80, no. 11 (November 2002); David J. Bryce and Jeffrey H. Dyer, “Strategies to Crack Well-Guarded Markets,” Harvard Business Review 85, no. 5 (May 2007). 2 George Stalk, “Playing Hardball: Why Strategy Still Matters,” Ivey Business Journal 69, no.2 (November–December 2004), pp. 1–2; W. J. Ferrier, K. G. Smith, and C. M. Grimm, “The Role of Competitive Action in Market Share Erosion and Industry Dethronement: A Study of Industry Leaders and Challengers,” Academy of Management Journal 42, no. 4 (August 1999), pp. 372–388. 3 David B. Yoffie and Mary Kwak, “Mastering Balance: How to Meet and Beat a Stronger Opponent,” California Management Review 44, no. 2 (Winter 2002), pp. 8–24. 4 Ian C. MacMillan, Alexander B. van Putten, and Rita Gunther McGrath, “Global Gamesmanship,” Harvard Business Review 81, no. 5 (May 2003); Ashkay R. Rao, Mark E. Bergen, and Scott Davis, “How to Fight a Price War,” Harvard Business Review 78, no. 2 ( March–April 2000). 5 D. B. Yoffie and M. A. Cusumano, “Judo Strategy–the Competitive Dynamics of Inter- net Time,” Harvard Business Review 77, no. 1 (January–February 1999), pp. 70–81. 6 Ming-Jer Chen and Donald C. Hambrick, “Speed, Stealth, and Selective Attack: How Small Firms Differ from Large Firms in Competi- tive Behavior,” Academy of Management Jour- nal 38, no. 2 (April 1995), pp. 453–482; William E. Rothschild, “Surprise and the Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Business Strategy 4, no. 3 (Winter 1984), pp. 10–18.
17 John Stuckey and David White, “When and When Not to Vertically Integrate,” Sloan Man- agement Review (Spring 1993), pp. 71–83. 18 Thomas Osegowitsch and Anoop Madhok, “Vertical Integration Is Dead, or Is It?” Business Horizons 46, no. 2 (March–April 2003), pp. 25–35. 19 Ronan McIvor, “What Is the Right Outsourc- ing Strategy for Your Process?” European Man- agement Journal 26, no. 1 (February 2008), pp. 24–34. 20 Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih, “Restoring American Competitiveness,” Harvard Busi- ness Review 87, no. 7-8 (July–August 2009), pp. 114–125; Jérôme Barthélemy, “The Seven Deadly Sins of Outsourcing,” Academy of Management Executive 17, no. 2 (May 2003), pp. 87–100. 21 Jason Wakeam, “The Five Factors of a Strategic Alliance,” Ivey Business Journal 68, no. 3 (May–June 2003), pp. 1–4. 22 A. Inkpen, “Learning, Knowledge Acquisition, and Strategic Alliances,” European Manage- ment Journal 16, no. 2 (April 1998), pp. 223–229. 23 Advertising Age, May 24, 2010, p. 14. 24 Patricia Anslinger and Justin Jenk, “Creat- ing Successful Alliances,” Journal of Business Strategy 25, no. 2 (2004), pp. 18–23; Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Collaborative Advantage: The Art of the Alliance,” Harvard Business Review 72, no. 4 (July–August 1994), pp. 96-108; Gary Hamel, Yves L. Doz, and C. K. Prahalad, “ Collaborate with Your Competitors–and Win,” Harvard Business Review 67, no. 1 (January– February 1989), pp. 133–139. 25 Y. G. Pan and D. K. Tse, “The Hierarchical Model of Market Entry Modes,” Journal of International Business Studies 31, no. 4 (2000), pp. 535–554.
Final PDF to printer
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 178 10/11/16 08:00 PM
CHAPTER 7
Strategies for Competing in International Markets
Learning Objectives
THIS CHAPTER WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND:
LO 1 The primary reasons companies choose to compete in international markets.
LO 2 How and why differing market conditions across countries influence a company’s strategy choices in international markets.
LO 3 The five major strategic options for entering foreign markets.
LO 4 The three main strategic approaches for competing internationally.
LO 5 How companies are able to use international operations to improve overall competitiveness.
LO 6 The unique characteristics of competing in developing-country markets.
© Kenneth Batelman/Ikon Images/SuperStock
Final PDF to printer
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 179 10/11/16 08:00 PM
Our key words now are globalization, new products and businesses, and speed.
Tsutomu Kanai—Former chair and president of Hitachi
You have no choice but to operate in a world shaped by globalization and the information revolution. There are two options: Adapt or die.
Andy Grove—Former chair and CEO of Intel
A sharing of control with local partners will lead to a greater contribution from them, which can assist in coping with circumstances that are unfamiliar to the foreign partner.
Yanni Yan—Business author and academic
LO 1
The primary reasons companies choose to compete in international markets.
A company may opt to expand outside its domestic market for any of five major reasons:
1. To gain access to new customers. Expanding into foreign markets offers potential for increased revenues, profits, and long-term growth; it becomes an especially attractive option when a company encounters dwindling growth opportunities in its home market. Companies often expand internationally to extend the life cycle
Any company that aspires to industry leadership in the 21st century must think in terms of global, not domestic, market leadership. The world economy is globalizing at an accelerating pace as ambitious, growth-minded companies race to build stronger competitive positions in the markets of more and more countries, as countries previously closed to foreign companies open up their markets, and as information technology shrinks the importance of geographic distance. The forces of globaliza- tion are changing the competitive landscape in many industries, offering companies attractive new opportunities and at the same time introducing new competitive threats. Companies in industries where these forces are greatest are therefore under con- siderable pressure to come up with a strategy for competing successfully in international markets.
This chapter focuses on strategy options for expanding beyond domestic boundaries and com- peting in the markets of either a few or a great many countries. In the process of exploring these options, we introduce such concepts as multi- domestic, transnational, and global strategies; the Porter diamond of national competitive advantage; and profit sanctuaries. The chapter also includes sections on cross-country differences in cultural, demographic, and market conditions; strategy options for entering foreign markets; the impor- tance of locating value chain operations in the most advantageous countries; and the special cir- cumstances of competing in developing markets such as those in China, India, Brazil, Russia, and eastern Europe.
WHY COMPANIES DECIDE TO ENTER FOREIGN MARKETS
Final PDF to printer
180 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 180 10/11/16 08:00 PM
of their products, as Honda has done with its classic 50-cc motorcycle, the Honda Cub (which is still selling well in developing markets, more than 50 years after it was first introduced in Japan). A larger target market also offers companies the opportunity to earn a return on large investments more rapidly. This can be par- ticularly important in R&D-intensive industries, where development is fast-paced or competitors imitate innovations rapidly.
2. To achieve lower costs through economies of scale, experience, and increased purchasing power. Many companies are driven to sell in more than one country because domestic sales volume alone is not large enough to capture fully econo- mies of scale in product development, manufacturing, or marketing. Similarly, firms expand internationally to increase the rate at which they accumulate experi- ence and move down the learning curve. International expansion can also lower a company’s input costs through greater pooled purchasing power. The relatively small size of country markets in Europe and limited domestic volume explains why companies like Michelin, BMW, and Nestlé long ago began selling their products all across Europe and then moved into markets in North America and Latin America.
3. To gain access to low-cost inputs of production. Companies in industries based on natural resources (e.g., oil and gas, minerals, rubber, and lumber) often find it necessary to operate in the international arena since raw-material supplies are located in different parts of the world and can be accessed more cost-effectively at the source. Other companies enter foreign markets to access low-cost human resources; this is particularly true of industries in which labor costs make up a high proportion of total production costs.
4. To further exploit its core competencies. A company may be able to extend a market-leading position in its domestic market into a position of regional or global market leadership by leveraging its core competencies further. H&M is capitalizing on its considerable expertise in online retailing to expand its reach internationally. By bringing its easy-to-use and mobile-friendly online shopping to 23 different countries, the company hopes to pave the way for set- ting up physical stores in these countries. Companies can often leverage their resources internationally by replicating a successful business model, using it as a basic blueprint for international operations, as Starbucks and McDonald’s have done.1
5. To gain access to resources and capabilities located in foreign markets. An increasingly important motive for entering foreign markets is to acquire resources and capabilities that may be unavailable in a company’s home market. Companies often make acquisitions abroad or enter into cross-border alliances to gain access to capabilities that complement their own or to learn from their partners.2 In other cases, companies choose to establish operations in other countries to utilize local distribution networks, gain local managerial or marketing expertise, or acquire technical knowledge.
In addition, companies that are the suppliers of other companies often expand interna- tionally when their major customers do so, to meet their customers’ needs abroad and retain their position as a key supply chain partner. For example, when motor vehicle companies have opened new plants in foreign locations, big automotive parts suppliers have frequently opened new facilities nearby to permit timely delivery of their parts and components to the plant. Similarly, Newell-Rubbermaid, one of Walmart’s biggest suppliers of household products, has followed Walmart into foreign markets.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 181
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 181 10/11/16 08:00 PM
LO 2
How and why differing market conditions across countries influence a company’s strategy choices in international markets.
WHY COMPETING ACROSS NATIONAL BORDERS MAKES STRATEGY MAKING MORE COMPLEX Crafting a strategy to compete in one or more countries of the world is inherently more complex for five reasons. First, different countries have different home-country advantages in different industries; competing effectively requires an understanding of these differences. Second, there are location-based advantages to conducting par- ticular value chain activities in different parts of the world. Third, different political and economic conditions make the general business climate more favorable in some countries than in others. Fourth, companies face risk due to adverse shifts in currency exchange rates when operating in foreign markets. And fifth, differences in buyer tastes and preferences present a challenge for companies concerning customizing ver- sus standardizing their products and services.
Home-Country Industry Advantages and the Diamond Model Certain countries are known for their strengths in particular industries. For example, Chile has competitive strengths in industries such as copper, fruit, fish products, paper and pulp, chemicals, and wine. Japan is known for competitive strength in con- sumer electronics, automobiles, semiconductors, steel products, and specialty steel. Where industries are more likely to develop competitive strength depends on a set of factors that describe the nature of each country’s business environment and vary from country to country. Because strong industries are made up of strong firms, the strategies of firms that expand internationally are usually grounded in one or more of these factors. The four major factors are summarized in a framework developed by Michael Porter and known as the Diamond of National Competitive Advantage (see Figure 7.1).3
Demand Conditions The demand conditions in an industry’s home market include the relative size of the market, its growth potential, and the nature of domestic buyers’ needs and wants. Differing population sizes, income levels, and other demo- graphic factors give rise to considerable differences in market size and growth rates from country to country. Industry sectors that are larger and more important in their home market tend to attract more resources and grow faster than others. For exam- ple, owing to widely differing population demographics and income levels, there is a far bigger market for luxury automobiles in the United States and Germany than in Argentina, India, Mexico, and China. At the same time, in developing markets like India, China, Brazil, and Malaysia, market growth potential is far higher than it is in the more mature economies of Britain, Denmark, Canada, and Japan. The potential for market growth in automobiles is explosive in China, where 2015 sales of new vehicles amounted to 26.4 million, surpassing U.S. sales of 17.2 million and making China the world’s largest market for the sixth year in a row.4 Demanding domestic buyers for an industry’s products spur greater innovativeness and improvements in quality. Such conditions foster the development of stronger industries, with firms that are capable of translating a home-market advantage into a competitive advantage in the international arena.
Final PDF to printer
182 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 182 10/11/16 08:00 PM
Factor Conditions Factor conditions describe the availability, quality, and cost of raw materials and other inputs (called factors of production) that firms in an industry require for producing their products and services. The relevant factors of production vary from industry to industry but can include different types of labor, technical or manage- rial knowledge, land, financial capital, and natural resources. Elements of a country’s infrastructure may be included as well, such as its transportation, communication, and banking systems. For instance, in India there are efficient, well-developed national chan- nels for distributing groceries, personal care items, and other packaged products to the country’s 3 million retailers, whereas in China distribution is primarily local and there is a limited national network for distributing most products. Competitively strong indus- tries and firms develop where relevant factor conditions are favorable.
FIGURE 7.1 The Diamond of National Competitive Advantage
Firm Strategy, Structure, and Rivalry:
Di�erent styles of management and organization; degree of local rivalry
Factor Conditions:
Availability and relative prices of inputs (e.g., labor, materials)
Related and Supporting Industries:
Proximity of suppliers, end users, and complementary industries
HOME-COUNTRY ADVANTAGE
Home-market size and growth rate; buyers’ tastes
Demand Conditions:
Source: Adapted from Michael E. Porter, “The Competitive Advantage of Nations,” Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990, pp. 73–93.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 183
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 183 10/11/16 08:00 PM
Related and Supporting Industries Robust industries often develop in locales where there is a cluster of related industries, including others within the same value chain system (e.g., suppliers of components and equipment, distributors) and the makers of complementary products or those that are technologically related. The sports car makers Ferrari and Maserati, for example, are located in an area of Italy known as the “engine technological district,” which includes other firms involved in racing, such as Ducati Motorcycles, along with hundreds of small suppliers. The advantage to firms that develop as part of a related-industry cluster comes from the close collaboration with key suppliers and the greater knowledge sharing throughout the cluster, resulting in greater efficiency and innovativeness.
Firm Strategy, Structure, and Rivalry Different country environ- ments foster the development of different styles of management, organization, and strategy. For example, strategic alliances are a more common strategy for firms from Asian or Latin American countries, which emphasize trust and cooperation in their organizations, than for firms from North America, where individualism is more influ- ential. In addition, countries vary in terms of the competitive rivalry of their industries. Fierce rivalry in home markets tends to hone domestic firms’ competitive capabilities and ready them for competing internationally.
For an industry in a particular country to become competitively strong, all four factors must be favorable for that industry. When they are, the industry is likely to con- tain firms that are capable of competing successfully in the international arena. Thus the diamond framework can be used to reveal the answers to several questions that are important for competing on an international basis. First, it can help predict where for- eign entrants into an industry are most likely to come from. This can help managers prepare to cope with new foreign competitors, since the framework also reveals some- thing about the basis of the new rivals’ strengths. Second, it can reveal the countries in which foreign rivals are likely to be weakest and thus can help managers decide which foreign markets to enter first. And third, because it focuses on the attributes of a country’s business environment that allow firms to flourish, it reveals something about the advantages of conducting particular business activities in that country. Thus the diamond framework is an aid to deciding where to locate different value chain activities most beneficially—a topic that we address next.
Opportunities for Location-Based Advantages Increasingly, companies are locating different value chain activities in different parts of the world to exploit location-based advantages that vary from country to country. This is particularly evident with respect to the location of manufacturing activities. Differences in wage rates, worker productivity, energy costs, and the like create siz- able variations in manufacturing costs from country to country. By locating its plants in certain countries, firms in some industries can reap major manufacturing cost advantages because of lower input costs (especially labor), relaxed government regu- lations, the proximity of suppliers and technologically related industries, or unique natural resources. In such cases, the low-cost countries become principal production sites, with most of the output being exported to markets in other parts of the world. Companies that build production facilities in low-cost countries (or that source their products from contract manufacturers in these countries) gain a competitive advan- tage over rivals with plants in countries where costs are higher. The competitive role of low manufacturing costs is most evident in low-wage countries like China, India,
Final PDF to printer
184 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 184 10/11/16 08:00 PM
Pakistan, Cambodia, Vietnam, Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, the Philippines, and sev- eral countries in Africa and eastern Europe that have become production havens for manufactured goods with high labor content (especially textiles and apparel). Hourly compensation for manufacturing workers in 2013 averaged about $1.46 in India, $2.12 in the Philippines, $3.07 in China, $6.82 in Mexico, $9.37 in Taiwan, $9.44 in Hungary, $10.69 in Brazil, $12.90 in Portugal, $21.96 in South Korea, $25.85 in New Zealand, $29.13 in Japan, $36.33 in Canada, $36.34 in the United States, $48.98 in Germany, and $65.86 in Norway.5 China emerged as the manufacturing capital of the world in large part because of its low wages—virtually all of the world’s major manufactur- ing companies now have facilities in China. This in turn has driven up their wages to nearly double the average wage offered in 2012.
For other types of value chain activities, input quality or availability are more important considerations. Tiffany & Co. entered the mining industry in Canada to access diamonds that could be certified as “conflict free” and not associated with either the funding of African wars or unethical mining conditions. Many U.S. com- panies locate call centers in countries such as India and Ireland, where English is spoken and the workforce is well educated. Other companies locate R&D activities in countries where there are prestigious research institutions and well-trained scientists and engineers. Likewise, concerns about short delivery times and low shipping costs make some countries better locations than others for establishing distribution centers.
The Impact of Government Policies and Economic Conditions in Host Countries Cross-country variations in government policies and economic conditions affect both the opportunities available to a foreign entrant and the risks of operating within the host country. The governments of some countries are eager to attract foreign invest- ments, and thus they go all out to create a business climate that outsiders will view as favorable. Governments eager to spur economic growth, create more jobs, and raise living standards for their citizens usually enact policies aimed at stimulating busi- ness innovation and capital investment; Ireland is a good example. They may provide such incentives as reduced taxes, low-cost loans, site location and site development assistance, and government-sponsored training for workers to encourage companies to construct production and distribution facilities. When new business-related issues or developments arise, “pro-business” governments make a practice of seeking advice and counsel from business leaders. When tougher business-related regulations are deemed appropriate, they endeavor to make the transition to more costly and stringent regulations somewhat business-friendly rather than adversarial.
On the other hand, governments sometimes enact policies that, from a business perspective, make locating facilities within a country’s borders less attractive. For example, the nature of a company’s operations may make it particularly costly to achieve compliance with a country’s environmental regulations. Some governments provide subsidies and low-interest loans to domestic companies to enable them to bet- ter compete against foreign companies. To discourage foreign imports, governments may enact deliberately burdensome procedures and requirements regarding customs inspection for foreign goods and may impose tariffs or quotas on imports. Addition- ally, they may specify that a certain percentage of the parts and components used in manufacturing a product be obtained from local suppliers, require prior approval of capital spending projects, limit withdrawal of funds from the country, and require par- tial ownership of foreign company operations by local companies or investors. There
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 185
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 185 10/11/16 08:00 PM
are times when a government may place restrictions on exports to ensure adequate local supplies and regulate the prices of imported and locally produced goods. Such government actions make a country’s business climate less attractive and in some cases may be sufficiently onerous as to discourage a company from locating facilities in that country or even selling its products there.
A country’s business climate is also a function of the political and economic risks associated with operating within its borders. Political risks have to do with the instability of weak governments, growing possibilities that a country’s citizenry will revolt against dictatorial government leaders, the likelihood of new onerous legislation or regulations on foreign-owned businesses, and the potential for future elections to produce corrupt or tyrannical government leaders. In industries that a government deems critical to the national welfare, there is sometimes a risk that the government will nationalize the industry and expropriate the assets of foreign com- panies. In 2012, for example, Argentina nationalized the country’s top oil producer, YPF, which was owned by Spanish oil major Repsol. Other political risks include the loss of investments due to war or political unrest, regulatory changes that create operating uncertainties, security risks due to terrorism, and corruption. Economic risks have to do with instability of a country’s economy and monetary system— whether inflation rates might skyrocket or whether uncontrolled deficit spending on the part of government or risky bank lending practices could lead to a breakdown of the country’s monetary system and prolonged economic distress. In some countries, the threat of piracy and lack of protection for intellectual property are also sources of economic risk. Another is fluctuations in the value of different currencies—a factor that we discuss in more detail next.
The Risks of Adverse Exchange Rate Shifts When companies produce and market their products and services in many different countries, they are subject to the impacts of sometimes favorable and sometimes unfa- vorable changes in currency exchange rates. The rates of exchange between different currencies can vary by as much as 20 to 40 percent annually, with the changes occur- ring sometimes gradually and sometimes swiftly. Sizable shifts in exchange rates pose significant risks for two reasons:
1. They are hard to predict because of the variety of factors involved and the uncer- tainties surrounding when and by how much these factors will change.
2. They create uncertainty regarding which countries represent the low-cost manu- facturing locations and which rivals have the upper hand in the marketplace.
To illustrate the economic and competitive risks associated with fluctuating exchange rates, consider the case of a U.S. company that has located manufactur- ing facilities in Brazil (where the currency is reals—pronounced “ray-alls”) and that exports most of the Brazilian-made goods to markets in the European Union (where the currency is euros). To keep the numbers simple, assume that the exchange rate is 4 Brazilian reals for 1 euro and that the product being made in Brazil has a manufactur- ing cost of 4 Brazilian reals (or 1 euro). Now suppose that the exchange rate shifts from 4 reals per euro to 5 reals per euro (meaning that the real has declined in value and that the euro is stronger). Making the product in Brazil is now more cost-competitive because a Brazilian good costing 4 reals to produce has fallen to only 0.8 euro at the new exchange rate (4 reals divided by 5 reals per euro = 0.8 euro). This clearly puts the producer of the Brazilian-made good in a better position to compete against
CORE CONCEPT
Political risks stem from instability or weakness in national governments and hostility to foreign business. Economic risks stem from instability in a country’s monetary system, economic and regulatory policies, and the lack of property rights protections.
Final PDF to printer
186 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 186 10/11/16 08:00 PM
the European makers of the same good. On the other hand, should the value of the Brazilian real grow stronger in relation to the euro—resulting in an exchange rate of 3 reals to 1 euro—the same Brazilian-made good formerly costing 4 reals (or 1 euro) to produce now has a cost of 1.33 euros (4 reals divided by 3 reals per euro = 1.33 euros), putting the producer of the Brazilian-made good in a weaker competitive position vis- à-vis the European producers. Plainly, the attraction of manufacturing a good in Brazil and selling it in Europe is far greater when the euro is strong (an exchange rate of 1 euro for 5 Brazilian reals) than when the euro is weak and exchanges for only 3 Brazil- ian reals.
But there is one more piece to the story. When the exchange rate changes from 4 reals per euro to 5 reals per euro, not only is the cost-competitiveness of the Brazilian manufacturer stronger relative to European manufacturers of the same item but the Brazilian-made good that formerly cost 1 euro and now costs only 0.8 euro can also be sold to consumers in the European Union for a lower euro price than before. In other words, the combination of a stronger euro and a weaker real acts to lower the price of Brazilian-made goods in all the countries that are members of the European Union, which is likely to spur sales of the Brazilian-made good in Europe and boost Brazilian exports to Europe. Conversely, should the exchange rate shift from 4 reals per euro to 3 reals per euro—which makes the Brazilian manufacturer less cost- competitive with European manufacturers of the same item—the Brazilian-made good that formerly cost 1 euro and now costs 1.33 euros will sell for a higher price in euros than before, thus weakening the demand of European consumers for Brazilian-made goods and acting to reduce Brazilian exports to Europe. Brazilian exporters are likely to experi- ence (1) rising demand for their goods in Europe whenever the Brazilian real grows weaker relative to the euro and (2) falling demand for their goods in Europe whenever the real grows stronger relative to the euro. Consequently, from the standpoint of a company with Brazilian manufacturing plants, a weaker Brazilian real is a favor- able exchange rate shift and a stronger Brazilian real is an unfavorable exchange rate shift.
It follows from the previous discussion that shifting exchange rates have a big impact on the ability of domestic manufacturers to compete with foreign rivals. For example, U.S.-based manufacturers locked in a fierce competitive battle with low-cost foreign imports benefit from a weaker U.S. dollar. There are several reasons why this is so:
∙ Declines in the value of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies raise the U.S. dollar costs of goods manufactured by foreign rivals at plants located in the coun- tries whose currencies have grown stronger relative to the U.S. dollar. A weaker dollar acts to reduce or eliminate whatever cost advantage foreign manufacturers may have had over U.S. manufacturers (and helps protect the manufacturing jobs of U.S. workers).
∙ A weaker dollar makes foreign-made goods more expensive in dollar terms to U.S. consumers—this curtails U.S. buyer demand for foreign-made goods, stimu- lates greater demand on the part of U.S. consumers for U.S.-made goods, and reduces U.S. imports of foreign-made goods.
∙ A weaker U.S. dollar enables the U.S.-made goods to be sold at lower prices to consumers in countries whose currencies have grown stronger relative to the U.S. dollar—such lower prices boost foreign buyer demand for the now relatively cheaper U.S.-made goods, thereby stimulating exports of U.S.-made goods to foreign countries and creating more jobs in U.S.-based manufacturing plants.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 187
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 187 10/11/16 08:00 PM
∙ A weaker dollar has the effect of increasing the dollar value of profits a com- pany earns in foreign-country markets where the local currency is stronger relative to the dollar. For example, if a U.S.-based manufacturer earns a profit of €10 million on its sales in Europe, those €10 million convert to a larger number of dollars when the dollar grows weaker against the euro.
A weaker U.S. dollar is therefore an economically favorable exchange rate shift for manufacturing plants based in the United States. A decline in the value of the U.S. dollar strengthens the cost-competitiveness of U.S.-based manufacturing plants and boosts buyer demand for U.S.-made goods. When the value of the U.S. dollar is expected to remain weak for some time to come, foreign companies have an incentive to build manufacturing facilities in the United States to make goods for U.S. consumers rather than export the same goods to the United States from foreign plants where production costs in dollar terms have been driven up by the decline in the value of the dollar. Conversely, a stronger U.S. dollar is an unfavor- able exchange rate shift for U.S.-based manufacturing plants because it makes such plants less cost-competitive with foreign plants and weakens foreign demand for U.S.-made goods. A strong dollar also weakens the incentive of foreign companies to locate manufacturing facilities in the United States to make goods for U.S. con- sumers. The same reasoning applies to companies that have plants in countries in the European Union where euros are the local currency. A weak euro versus other currencies enhances the cost-competitiveness of companies manufacturing goods in Europe vis-à-vis foreign rivals with plants in countries whose currencies have grown stronger relative to the euro; a strong euro versus other currencies weakens the cost-competitiveness of companies with plants in the European Union.
Cross-Country Differences in Demographic, Cultural, and Market Conditions Buyer tastes for a particular product or service sometimes differ substantially from country to country. In France, consumers prefer top-loading washing machines, whereas in most other European countries consumers prefer front-loading machines. People in Hong Kong prefer compact appliances, but in Taiwan large appliances are more popular. Novelty ice cream flavors like eel, shark fin, and dried shrimp have more appeal to East Asian customers than they have for customers in the United States and in Europe. Sometimes, product designs suitable in one country are inappropriate in another because of differing local standards—for example, in the United States electrical devices run on 110-volt electric systems, but in some European countries the standard is a 240-volt electric system, necessitating the use of different electrical designs and components. Cultural influences can also affect consumer demand for a product. For instance, in South Korea many parents are reluctant to purchase PCs even when they can afford them because of concerns that their children will be dis- tracted from their schoolwork by surfing the Web, playing PC-based video games, and becoming Internet “addicts.”6
Consequently, companies operating in an international marketplace have to wres- tle with whether and how much to customize their offerings in each country mar- ket to match local buyers’ tastes and preferences or whether to pursue a strategy of offering a mostly standardized product worldwide. While making products that are closely matched to local tastes makes them more appealing to local buyers, custom- izing a company’s products country by country may raise production and distribution
Fluctuating exchange rates pose significant economic risks to a company’s competitiveness in foreign markets. Exporters are disadvantaged when the currency of the country where goods are being manufactured grows stronger relative to the currency of the importing country.
Domestic companies facing competitive pressure from lower-cost imports benefit when their government’s currency grows weaker in relation to the currencies of the countries where the lower-cost imports are being made.
Final PDF to printer
188 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 188 10/11/16 08:00 PM
costs due to the greater variety of designs and components, shorter production runs, and the complications of added inventory handling and distribution logistics. Greater standardization of a global company’s product offering, on the other hand, can lead to scale economies and learning-curve effects, thus reducing per-unit production costs and contributing to the achievement of a low-cost advantage. The tension between the market pressures to localize a company’s product offerings country by country and the competitive pressures to lower costs is one of the big strategic issues that partici- pants in foreign markets have to resolve.
LO 3
The five major strategic options for entering foreign markets.
STRATEGIC OPTIONS FOR ENTERING INTERNATIONAL MARKETS
Once a company decides to expand beyond its domestic borders, it must consider the question of how to enter foreign markets. There are five primary strategic options for doing so:
1. Maintain a home-country production base and export goods to foreign markets. 2. License foreign firms to produce and distribute the company’s products abroad. 3. Employ a franchising strategy in foreign markets. 4. Establish a subsidiary in a foreign market via acquisition or internal development. 5. Rely on strategic alliances or joint ventures with foreign companies.
Which option to employ depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the firm’s strategic objectives, the firm’s position in terms of whether it has the full range of resources and capabilities needed to operate abroad, country-specific factors such as trade barriers, and the transaction costs involved (the costs of contracting with a partner and monitoring its compliance with the terms of the contract, for example). The options vary considerably regarding the level of investment required and the asso- ciated risks—but higher levels of investment and risk generally provide the firm with the benefits of greater ownership and control.
Export Strategies Using domestic plants as a production base for exporting goods to foreign markets is an excellent initial strategy for pursuing international sales. It is a conservative way to test the international waters. The amount of capital needed to begin exporting is often minimal; existing production capacity may well be sufficient to make goods for export. With an export-based entry strategy, a manufacturer can limit its involvement in foreign markets by contracting with foreign wholesalers experienced in importing to handle the entire distribution and marketing function in their countries or regions of the world. If it is more advantageous to maintain control over these functions, how- ever, a manufacturer can establish its own distribution and sales organizations in some or all of the target foreign markets. Either way, a home-based production and export strategy helps the firm minimize its direct investments in foreign countries. Such strat- egies are commonly favored by Chinese, Korean, and Italian companies—products are designed and manufactured at home and then distributed through local channels in the importing countries. The primary functions performed abroad relate chiefly to
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 189
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 189 10/11/16 08:00 PM
establishing a network of distributors and perhaps conducting sales promotion and brand-awareness activities.
Whether an export strategy can be pursued successfully over the long run depends on the relative cost-competitiveness of the home-country production base. In some industries, firms gain additional scale economies and learning-curve benefits from centralizing production in plants whose output capability exceeds demand in any one country market; exporting enables a firm to capture such economies. However, an export strategy is vulnerable when (1) manufacturing costs in the home country are substantially higher than in foreign countries where rivals have plants, (2) the costs of shipping the product to distant foreign markets are relatively high, (3) adverse shifts occur in currency exchange rates, and (4) importing countries impose tariffs or erect other trade barriers. Unless an exporter can keep its production and shipping costs competitive with rivals’ costs, secure adequate local distribution and marketing sup- port of its products, and effectively hedge against unfavorable changes in currency exchange rates, its success will be limited.
Licensing Strategies Licensing as an entry strategy makes sense when a firm with valuable technical know- how, an appealing brand, or a unique patented product has neither the internal organi- zational capability nor the resources to enter foreign markets. Licensing also has the advantage of avoiding the risks of committing resources to country markets that are unfamiliar, politically volatile, economically unstable, or otherwise risky. By licens- ing the technology, trademark, or production rights to foreign-based firms, a company can generate income from royalties while shifting the costs and risks of entering for- eign markets to the licensee. The big disadvantage of licensing is the risk of provid- ing valuable technological know-how to foreign companies and thereby losing some degree of control over its use; monitoring licensees and safeguarding the company’s proprietary know-how can prove quite difficult in some circumstances. But if the royalty potential is considerable and the companies to which the licenses are being granted are trustworthy and reputable, then licensing can be a very attractive option. Many software and pharmaceutical companies use licensing strategies to participate in foreign markets.
Franchising Strategies While licensing works well for manufacturers and owners of proprietary technology, franchising is often better suited to the international expansion efforts of service and retailing enterprises. McDonald’s, Yum! Brands (the parent of Pizza Hut, KFC, Taco Bell, and WingStreet), the UPS Store, Roto-Rooter, 7-Eleven, and Hilton Hotels have all used franchising to build a presence in foreign markets. Franchising has many of the same advantages as licensing. The franchisee bears most of the costs and risks of establishing foreign locations; a franchisor has to expend only the resources to recruit, train, support, and monitor franchisees. The problem a franchisor faces is maintain- ing quality control; foreign franchisees do not always exhibit strong commitment to consistency and standardization, especially when the local culture does not stress the same kinds of quality concerns. A question that can arise is whether to allow foreign franchisees to make modifications in the franchisor’s product offering so as to better satisfy the tastes and expectations of local buyers. Should McDonald’s give franchisees in each nation some leeway in what products they put on their menus?
Final PDF to printer
190 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 190 10/11/16 08:00 PM
Should franchised KFC units in China be permitted to substitute spices that appeal to Chinese consumers? Or should the same menu offerings be rigorously and unvary- ingly required of all franchisees worldwide?
Foreign Subsidiary Strategies Very often companies electing to compete internationally or globally prefer to have direct control over all aspects of operating in a foreign market. Companies that want to direct performance of all essential value chain activities typically establish a wholly owned subsidiary, either by acquiring a local company or by establishing its own new operating organization from the ground up. A subsidiary business that is established internally from scratch is called an internal startup or a greenfield venture.
Acquiring a local business is the quicker of the two options; it may be the least risky and most cost-efficient means of hurdling such entry barriers as gaining
access to local distribution channels, building supplier relationships, and establish- ing working relationships with government officials and other key constituencies. Buying an ongoing operation allows the acquirer to move directly to the task of transferring resources and personnel to the newly acquired business, redirecting and integrating the activities of the acquired business into its own operation, put- ting its own strategy into place, and accelerating efforts to build a strong market position.
One thing an acquisition-minded firm must consider is whether to pay a premium price for a successful local company or to buy a struggling competitor at a bargain price. If the buying firm has little knowledge of the local market but ample capital, it is often better off purchasing a capable, strongly positioned firm. However, when the acquirer sees promising ways to transform a weak firm into a strong one and has the resources and managerial know-how to do so, a struggling company can be the better long-term investment.
Entering a new foreign country via a greenfield venture makes sense when a company already operates in a number of countries, has experience in establishing new subsidiaries and overseeing their operations, and has a sufficiently large pool of resources and capabilities to rapidly equip a new subsidiary with the personnel and competencies it needs to compete successfully and profitably. Four other conditions make a greenfield venture strategy appealing:
∙ When creating an internal startup is cheaper than making an acquisition. ∙ When adding new production capacity will not adversely impact the supply–
demand balance in the local market. ∙ When a startup subsidiary has the ability to gain good distribution access (perhaps
because of the company’s recognized brand name). ∙ When a startup subsidiary will have the size, cost structure, and capabilities to
compete head-to-head against local rivals.
Greenfield ventures in foreign markets can also pose problems, just as other entry strategies do. They represent a costly capital investment, subject to a high level of risk. They require numerous other company resources as well, diverting them from other uses. They do not work well in countries without strong, well-functioning markets and institutions that protect the rights of foreign investors and provide other legal protec- tions. Moreover, an important disadvantage of greenfield ventures relative to other means of international expansion is that they are the slowest entry route—particularly
CORE CONCEPT
A greenfield venture (or internal startup) is a subsidiary business that is established by setting up the entire operation from the ground up.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 191
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 191 10/11/16 08:00 PM
if the objective is to achieve a sizable market share. On the other hand, successful greenfield ventures may offer higher returns to compensate for their high risk and slower path.
Alliance and Joint Venture Strategies Strategic alliances, joint ventures, and other cooperative agreements with foreign companies are a widely used means of entering foreign markets.7 A company can benefit immensely from a foreign partner’s familiarity with local government reg- ulations, its knowledge of the buying habits and product preferences of consumers, its distribution-channel relationships, and so on.8 Both Japanese and American companies are actively forming alliances with European companies to better compete in the 27-nation European Union (and the five countries that are candidates to become EU members). Many U.S. and European companies are allying with Asian companies in their efforts to enter markets in China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, and other Asian countries.
Another reason for cross-border alliances is to capture economies of scale in production and/or marketing. By joining forces in producing components, assem- bling models, and marketing their products, companies can realize cost savings not achievable with their own small volumes. A third reason to employ a collaborative strategy is to share distribution facilities and dealer networks, thus mutually strength- ening each partner’s access to buyers. A fourth benefit of a collaborative strategy is the learning and added expertise that comes from performing joint research, shar- ing technological know-how, studying one another’s manufacturing methods, and understanding how to tailor sales and marketing approaches to fit local cultures and traditions. A fifth benefit is that cross-border allies can direct their competi- tive energies more toward mutual rivals and less toward one another; teaming up may help them close the gap on leading companies. And, finally, alliances can be a particularly useful way for companies across the world to gain agreement on impor- tant technical standards—they have been used to arrive at standards for assorted PC devices, Internet-related technologies, high-definition televisions, and mobile phones.
Cross-border alliances are an attractive means of gaining the aforementioned types of benefits (as compared to merging with or acquiring foreign-based companies) because they allow a company to preserve its independence (which is not the case with a merger) and avoid using scarce financial resources to fund acquisitions. Further- more, an alliance offers the flexibility to readily disengage once its purpose has been served or if the benefits prove elusive, whereas mergers and acquisitions are more permanent arrangements.9
Alliances may also be used to pave the way for an intended merger; they offer a way to test the value and viability of a cooperative arrangement with a foreign partner before making a more permanent commitment. Illustration Capsule 7.1 shows how Walgreens pursued this strategy with Alliance Boots in order to facilitate its expan- sion abroad.
The Risks of Strategic Alliances with Foreign Partners Alli- ances and joint ventures with foreign partners have their pitfalls, however. Sometimes a local partner’s knowledge and expertise turns out to be less valuable than expected (because its knowledge is rendered obsolete by fast-changing market conditions or because its operating practices are archaic). Cross-border allies typically must over- come language and cultural barriers and figure out how to deal with diverse (or con- flicting) operating practices. The transaction costs of working out a mutually agreeable
Collaborative strategies involving alliances or joint ventures with foreign partners are a popular way for companies to edge their way into the markets of foreign countries.
Cross-border alliances enable a growth-minded company to widen its geographic coverage and strengthen its competitiveness in foreign markets; at the same time, they offer flexibility and allow a company to retain some degree of autonomy and operating control.
Final PDF to printer
192
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 192 12/10/16 09:13 PM
arrangement and monitoring partner compliance with the terms of the arrangement can be high. The communication, trust building, and coordination costs are not trivial in terms of management time.10 Often, partners soon discover they have conflicting objectives and strategies, deep differences of opinion about how to proceed, or impor- tant differences in corporate values and ethical standards. Tensions build, working
Walgreens pharmacy began in 1901 as a single store on the South Side of Chicago, and grew to become the larg- est chain of pharmacy retailers in America. Walgreens was an early pioneer of the “self-service” pharmacy and found success by moving quickly to build a vast domes- tic network of stores after the Second World War. This growth-focused strategy served Walgreens well up until the beginning of the 21st century, by which time it had nearly saturated the U.S. market. By 2014, 75 percent of Americans lived within five miles of a Walgreens. The company was also facing threats to its core busi- ness model. Walgreens relies heavily on pharmacy sales, which generally are paid for by someone other than the patient, usually the government or an insurance com- pany. As the government and insurers started to make a more sustained effort to cut costs, Walgreens’s core profit center was at risk. To mitigate these threats, Wal- greens looked to enter foreign markets.
Walgreens found an ideal international partner in Alliance Boots. Based in the UK, Alliance Boots had a global footprint with 3,300 stores across 10 countries. A partnership with Alliance Boots had several strategic advantages, allowing Walgreens to gain swift entry into foreign markets as well as complementary assets and expertise. First, it gave Walgreens access to new mar- kets beyond the saturated United States for its retail pharmacies. Second, it provided Walgreens with a new revenue stream in wholesale drugs. Alliance Boots held a vast European distribution network for wholesale drug sales; Walgreens could leverage that network and expertise to build a similar model in the United States. Finally, a merger with Alliance Boots would strengthen Walgreens’s existing business by increasing the com- pany’s market position and therefore bargaining power
with drug companies. In light of these advantages, Walgreens moved quickly to partner with and later acquire Alliance Boots and merged both companies in 2014 to become Walgreens Boots Alliance. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is now one of the world’s largest drug purchasers, able to negotiate from a strong posi- tion with drug companies and other suppliers to realize economies of scale in its current businesses.
The market has thus far responded favorably to the merger. Walgreens Boots Alliance’s stock has more than doubled in value since the first news of the part- nership in 2012. However, the company is still struggling to integrate and faces new risks such as currency fluc- tuation in its new combined position. Yet as the pharma- ceutical industry continues to consolidate, Walgreens is in an undoubtedly stronger position to continue to grow in the future thanks to its strategic international acquisition.
© Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Note: Developed with Katherine Coster.
Sources: Company 10-K Form, 2015, investor.walgreensbootsalliance.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1140361-15-38791&CIK=1618921; L. Capron and W. Mitchell, “When to Change a Winning Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, July 25, 2012, hbr.org/2012/07/when-to-change-a- winning-strat; T. Martin and R. Dezember, “Walgreen Spends $6.7 Billion on Alliance Boots Stake,” The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2012.
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 7.1
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.: Entering Foreign Markets via Alliance Followed by Merger
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 193
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 193 10/11/16 08:00 PM
relationships cool, and the hoped-for benefits never materialize.11 It is not unusual for there to be little personal chemistry among some of the key people on whom the suc- cess or failure of the alliance depends—the rapport such personnel need to work well together may never emerge. And even if allies are able to develop productive personal relationships, they can still have trouble reaching mutually agreeable ways to deal with key issues or launching new initiatives fast enough to stay abreast of rapid advances in technology or shifting market conditions.
One worrisome problem with alliances or joint ventures is that a firm may risk los- ing some of its competitive advantage if an alliance partner is given full access to its proprietary technological expertise or other competitively valuable capabilities. There is a natural tendency for allies to struggle to collaborate effectively in competitively sensitive areas, thus spawning suspicions on both sides about forthright exchanges of information and expertise. It requires many meetings of many people working in good faith over a period of time to iron out what is to be shared, what is to remain propri- etary, and how the cooperative arrangements will work.
Even if the alliance proves to be a win–win proposition for both parties, there is the danger of becoming overly dependent on foreign partners for essential expertise and competitive capabilities. Companies aiming for global market leadership need to develop their own resource capabilities in order to be masters of their destiny. Fre- quently, experienced international companies operating in 50 or more countries across the world find less need for entering into cross-border alliances than do companies in the early stages of globalizing their operations.12 Companies with global opera- tions make it a point to develop senior managers who understand how “the system” works in different countries, plus they can avail themselves of local managerial talent and know-how by simply hiring experienced local managers and thereby detouring the hazards of collaborative alliances with local companies. One of the lessons about cross-border partnerships is that they are more effective in helping a company estab- lish a beachhead of new opportunity in world markets than they are in enabling a company to achieve and sustain global market leadership.
LO 4
The three main strategic approaches for competing internationally.
CORE CONCEPT
An international strategy is a strategy for competing in two or more countries simultaneously.
INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY: THE THREE MAIN APPROACHES Broadly speaking, a firm’s international strategy is simply its strategy for competing in two or more countries simultaneously. Typically, a company will start to compete internationally by entering one or perhaps a select few foreign markets—selling its products or services in countries where there is a ready market for them. But as it expands further internationally, it will have to confront head-on two conflicting pres- sures: the demand for responsiveness to local needs versus the prospect of efficiency gains from offering a standardized product globally. Deciding on the degree to vary its competitive approach to fit the specific market conditions and buyer preferences in each host country is perhaps the foremost strategic issue that must be addressed when a company is operating in two or more foreign markets.13 Figure 7.2 shows a company’s three options for resolving this issue: choosing a multidomestic, global, or transnational strategy.
Final PDF to printer
194 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 194 10/11/16 08:00 PM
Multidomestic Strategies—a “Think-Local, Act-Local” Approach
A multidomestic strategy is one in which a company varies its product offering and competitive approach from country to country in an effort to meet differing buyer needs and to address divergent local-market conditions. It involves having plants produce dif- ferent product versions for different local markets and adapting marketing and distri- bution to fit local customs, cultures, regulations, and market requirements. Castrol, a specialist in oil lubricants, produces over 3,000 different formulas of lubricants to meet the requirements of different climates, vehicle types and uses, and equipment applica- tions that characterize different country markets. In the food products industry, it is common for companies to vary the ingredients in their products and sell the localized versions under local brand names to cater to country-specific tastes and eating prefer- ences. Government requirements for gasoline additives that help reduce carbon monox- ide, smog, and other emissions are almost never the same from country to country. BP utilizes localized strategies in its gasoline and service station business segment because of these cross-country formulation differences and because of customer familiarity with local brand names. For example, the company markets gasoline in the United States under its BP and Arco brands, but markets gasoline in Germany, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic under the Aral brand.
CORE CONCEPT
A multidomestic strategy is one in which a company varies its product offering and competitive approach from country to country in an effort to be responsive to differing buyer preferences and market conditions. It is a think-local, act-local type of international strategy, facilitated by decision making decentralized to the local level.
FIGURE 7.2 Three Approaches for Competing Internationally
Think Global—Act Local
TRANSNATIONAL STRATEGY
Think Local—Act Local
MULTIDOMESTIC STRATEGY
Low
Need for Local Responsiveness
B e n e fit s fr o m G lo b a l I n te g ra tio
n a n d S ta n d a rd iz a tio
n
High
Low
High
GLOBAL STRATEGY
Think Global—Act Global
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 195
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 195 10/11/16 08:00 PM
In essence, a multidomestic strategy represents a think-local, act-local approach to international strategy. A think-local, act-local approach to strategy making is most appropriate when the need for local responsiveness is high due to significant cross- country differences in demographic, cultural, and market conditions and when the potential for efficiency gains from standardization is limited, as depicted in Figure 7.2. A think-local, act-local approach is possible only when decision making is decentral- ized, giving local managers considerable latitude for crafting and executing strategies for the country markets they are responsible for. Giving local managers decision- making authority allows them to address specific market needs and respond swiftly to local changes in demand. It also enables them to focus their competitive efforts, stake out attractive market positions vis-à-vis local competitors, react to rivals’ moves in a timely fashion, and target new opportunities as they emerge.14
Despite their obvious benefits, think-local, act-local strategies have three big drawbacks:
1. They hinder transfer of a company’s capabilities, knowledge, and other resources across country boundaries, since the company’s efforts are not integrated or coordi- nated across country boundaries. This can make the company less innovative overall.
2. They raise production and distribution costs due to the greater variety of designs and components, shorter production runs for each product version, and complica- tions of added inventory handling and distribution logistics.
3. They are not conducive to building a single, worldwide competitive advantage. When a company’s competitive approach and product offering vary from country to country, the nature and size of any resulting competitive edge also tends to vary. At the most, multidomestic strategies are capable of producing a group of local competitive advantages of varying types and degrees of strength.
Global Strategies—a “Think-Global, Act-Global” Approach A global strategy contrasts sharply with a multidomestic strategy in that it takes a standardized, globally integrated approach to producing, packaging, selling, and delivering the company’s products and services worldwide. Companies employing a global strategy sell the same products under the same brand names everywhere, uti- lize much the same distribution channels in all countries, and compete on the basis of the same capabilities and marketing approaches worldwide. Although the com- pany’s strategy or product offering may be adapted in minor ways to accommodate specific situations in a few host countries, the company’s fundamental competitive approach (low cost, differentiation, best cost, or focused) remains very much intact worldwide and local managers stick close to the global strategy.
A think-global, act-global approach prompts company managers to integrate and coordinate the company’s strategic moves worldwide and to expand into most, if not all, nations where there is significant buyer demand. It puts considerable strategic emphasis on building a global brand name and aggressively pursuing opportunities to transfer ideas, new products, and capabilities from one country to another. Global strategies are characterized by relatively centralized value chain activities, such as production and distribution. While there may be more than one manufacturing plant and distribution center to minimize transportation costs, for example, they tend to be few in number. Achieving the efficiency potential of a global strategy requires that resources and best practices be shared, value chain
CORE CONCEPT
A global strategy is one in which a company employs the same basic competitive approach in all countries where it operates, sells standardized products globally, strives to build global brands, and coordinates its actions worldwide with strong headquarters control. It represents a think-global, act-global approach.
Final PDF to printer
196 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 196 10/11/16 08:00 PM
activities be integrated, and capabilities be transferred from one location to another as they are developed. These objectives are best facilitated through centralized decision making and strong headquarters control.
Because a global strategy cannot accommodate varying local needs, it is an appro- priate strategic choice when there are pronounced efficiency benefits from standard- ization and when buyer needs are relatively homogeneous across countries and regions. A globally standardized and integrated approach is especially beneficial when high volumes significantly lower costs due to economies of scale or added experience (mov- ing the company further down a learning curve). It can also be advantageous if it allows the firm to replicate a successful business model on a global basis efficiently or engage in higher levels of R&D by spreading the fixed costs and risks over a higher-volume output. It is a fitting response to industry conditions marked by global competition.
Ford’s global design strategy is a move toward a think-global, act-global strat- egy, involving the development and production of standardized models with country- specific modifications limited to what is required to meet local country emission and safety standards. The 2010 Ford Fiesta and 2011 Ford Focus were the company’s first global design models to be marketed in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia. Whenever country-to-country differences are small enough to be accommodated within the framework of a global strategy, a global strategy is preferable because a com- pany can more readily unify its operations and focus on establishing a brand image and reputation that are uniform from country to country. Moreover, with a global strategy a company is better able to focus its full resources on securing a sustainable low-cost or differentiation-based competitive advantage over both domestic rivals and global rivals.
There are, however, several drawbacks to global strategies: (1) They do not enable firms to address local needs as precisely as locally based rivals can; (2) they are less responsive to changes in local market conditions, in the form of either new opportuni- ties or competitive threats; (3) they raise transportation costs and may involve higher tariffs; and (4) they involve higher coordination costs due to the more complex task of managing a globally integrated enterprise.
Transnational Strategies—a “Think-Global, Act-Local” Approach
A transnational strategy (sometimes called glocalization) incorporates elements of both a globalized and a localized approach to strategy making. This type of middle-ground strategy is called for when there are relatively high needs for local responsiveness as well as appreciable benefits to be realized from standardiza- tion, as Figure 7.2 suggests. A transnational strategy encourages a company to use a think-global, act-local approach to balance these competing objectives.
Often, companies implement a transnational strategy with mass- customization techniques that enable them to address local preferences in an efficient, semi- standardized manner. McDonald’s, KFC, and Starbucks have discovered ways to customize their menu offerings in various countries without compromising costs,
product quality, and operating effectiveness. Unilever is responsive to local market needs regarding its consumer products, while realizing global economies of scale in certain functions. Otis Elevator found that a transnational strategy delivers better results than a global strategy when it is competing in countries like China, where local needs are highly differentiated. By switching from its customary single-brand approach to a multi- brand strategy aimed at serving different segments of the market, Otis was able to dou- ble its market share in China and increased its revenues sixfold over a nine-year period.15
CORE CONCEPT
A transnational strategy is a think-global, act-local approach that incorporates elements of both multidomestic and global strategies.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 197
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 197 10/11/16 08:00 PM
As a rule, most companies that operate internationally endeavor to employ as global a strategy as customer needs and market conditions permit. Electronic Arts (EA) has two major design studios—one in Vancouver, British Columbia, and one in Los Angeles—and smaller design studios in locations including San Francisco, Orlando, London, and Tokyo. This dispersion of design studios helps EA design games that are specific to different cultures—for example, the London studio took the lead in designing the popular FIFA Soccer game to suit European tastes and to replicate the stadiums, signage, and team rosters; the U.S. studio took the lead in designing games involving NFL football, NBA basketball, and NASCAR racing.
A transnational strategy is far more conducive than other strategies to transferring and leveraging subsidiary skills and capabilities. But, like other approaches to compet- ing internationally, transnational strategies also have significant drawbacks: 1. They are the most difficult of all international strategies to implement due to the
added complexity of varying the elements of the strategy to situational conditions. 2. They place large demands on the organization due to the need to pursue conflict-
ing objectives simultaneously. 3. Implementing the strategy is likely to be a costly and time-consuming enterprise,
with an uncertain outcome. Illustration Capsule 7.2 explains how Four Seasons Hotels has been able to com-
pete successfully on the basis of a transnational strategy. Table 7.1 provides a summary of the pluses and minuses of the three approaches to
competing internationally.
Advantages Disadvantages
Multidomestic (think local, act local)
• Can meet the specific needs of each market more precisely
• Can respond more swiftly to localized changes in demand
• Can target reactions to the moves of local rivals
• Can respond more quickly to local opportunities and threats
• Hinders resource and capability sharing or cross-market transfers
• Has higher production and distribution costs
• Is not conducive to a worldwide competitive advantage
Global (think global, act global)
• Has lower costs due to scale and scope economies
• Can lead to greater efficiencies due to the ability to transfer best practices across markets
• Increases innovation from knowledge sharing and capability transfer
• Offers the benefit of a global brand and reputation
• Cannot address local needs precisely
• Is less responsive to changes in local market conditions
• Involves higher transportation costs and tariffs
• Has higher coordination and integration costs
Transnational (think global, act local)
• Offers the benefits of both local responsiveness and global integration
• Enables the transfer and sharing of resources and capabilities across borders
• Provides the benefits of flexible coordination
• Is more complex and harder to implement
• Entails conflicting goals, which may be difficult to reconcile and require trade-offs
• Involves more costly and time-consuming implementation
TABLE 7.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Multidomestic, Global, and Transnational Strategies
Final PDF to printer
198
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 198 12/10/16 09:14 PM
Note: Developed with Brian R. McKenzie.
Sources: Four Seasons annual report and corporate website; interview with Scott Woroch, executive vice president of development, Four Seasons Hotels, February 22, 2014.
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 7.2
Four Seasons Hotels: Local Character, Global Service
Four Seasons Hotels is a Toronto, Canada–based man- ager of luxury hotel properties. With 98 properties located in many of the world’s most popular tourist des- tinations and business centers, Four Seasons commands a following of many of the world’s most discerning trav- elers. In contrast to its key competitor, Ritz-Carlton, which strives to create one uniform experience globally, Four Seasons Hotels has gained market share by deftly combining local architectural and cultural experiences with globally consistent luxury service.
When moving into a new market, Four Seasons always seeks out a local capital partner. The under- standing of local custom and business relationships this financier brings is critical to the process of developing a new Four Seasons hotel. Four Seasons also insists on hiring a local architect and design consultant for each property, as opposed to using architects or designers
it’s worked with in other locations. While this can be a challenge, particularly in emerging markets, Four Sea- sons has found it is worth it in the long run to have a truly local team.
The specific layout and programming of each hotel is also unique. For instance, when Four Seasons opened its hotel in Mumbai, India, it prioritized space for large banquet halls to target the Indian wedding market. In India, weddings often draw guests number- ing in the thousands. When moving into the Middle East, Four Seasons designed its hotels with separate prayer rooms for men and women. In Bali, where des- tination weddings are common, the hotel employs a “weather shaman” who, for some guests, provides reas- surance that the weather will cooperate for their spe- cial day. In all cases, the objective is to provide a truly local experience.
When staffing its hotels, Four Seasons seeks to strike a fine balance between employing locals who have an innate understanding of the local culture alongside expatriate staff or “culture carriers” who understand the DNA of Four Seasons. It also uses global systems to track customer preferences and employs globally consistent service standards. Four Seasons claims that its guests experience the same high level of service globally but that no two experi- ences are the same.
While it is much more expensive and time- consuming to design unique architectural and programming expe- riences, doing so is a strategic trade-off Four Seasons has made to achieve the local experience demanded by its high-level clientele. Likewise, it has recognized that maintaining globally consistent operation processes and service standards is important too. Four Seasons has struck the right balance between thinking globally and acting locally—the marker of a truly transnational strategy. As a result, the company has been rewarded with an international reputation for superior service and a leading market share in the luxury hospitality segment.
© Stephen Hilger/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 199
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 199 10/11/16 08:00 PM
There are three important ways in which a firm can gain competitive advantage (or offset domestic disadvantages) by expanding outside its domestic market. First, it can use location to lower costs or achieve greater product differentiation. Second, it can transfer competi- tively valuable resources and capabilities from one country to another or share them across international borders to extend its competitive advantages. And third, it can benefit from cross-border coordination opportunities that are not open to domestic-only competitors.
Using Location to Build Competitive Advantage To use location to build competitive advantage, a company must consider two issues: (1) whether to concentrate each activity it performs in a few select countries or to disperse performance of the activity to many nations, and (2) in which coun- tries to locate particular activities.
When to Concentrate Activities in a Few Locations It is advanta- geous for a company to concentrate its activities in a limited number of locations when:
∙ The costs of manufacturing or other activities are significantly lower in some geographic locations than in others. For example, much of the world’s athletic footwear is manufactured in Asia (China and Korea) because of low labor costs; much of the production of circuit boards for PCs is located in Taiwan because of both low costs and the high-caliber technical skills of the Taiwanese labor force.
∙ Significant scale economies exist in production or distribution. The presence of sig- nificant economies of scale in components production or final assembly means that a company can gain major cost savings from operating a few super-efficient plants as opposed to a host of small plants scattered across the world. Makers of digital cam- eras and LED TVs located in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have used their scale economies to establish a low-cost advantage in this way. Achieving low-cost provider status often requires a company to have the largest worldwide manufacturing share (as distinct from brand share or market share), with production centralized in one or a few giant plants. Some companies even use such plants to manufacture units sold under the brand names of rivals to further boost production-related scale economies. Likewise, a company may be able to reduce its distribution costs by establishing large-scale dis- tribution centers to serve major geographic regions of the world market (e.g., North America, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region).
∙ Sizable learning and experience benefits are associated with performing an activ- ity. In some industries, learning-curve effects can allow a manufacturer to lower unit costs, boost quality, or master a new technology more quickly by concentrat- ing production in a few locations. The key to riding down the learning curve is to concentrate production in a few locations to increase the cumulative volume at a plant (and thus the experience of the plant’s workforce) as rapidly as possible.
∙ Certain locations have superior resources, allow better coordination of related activities, or offer other valuable advantages. Companies often locate a research unit or a sophisticated production facility in a particular country to take advantage of its pool of technically trained personnel. Samsung became a leader in mem- ory chip technology by establishing a major R&D facility in Silicon Valley and
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND THE QUEST FOR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
LO 5
How companies are able to use international operations to improve overall competitiveness.
Companies that compete internationally can pursue competitive advantage in world markets by locating their value chain activities in whatever nations prove most advantageous.
Final PDF to printer
200 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 200 10/11/16 08:00 PM
transferring the know-how it gained back to its operations in South Korea. Where just-in-time inventory practices yield big cost savings and/or where an assembly firm has long-term partnering arrangements with its key suppliers, parts manu- facturing plants may be clustered around final-assembly plants. A customer ser- vice center or sales office may be opened in a particular country to help cultivate strong relationships with pivotal customers located nearby.
When to Disperse Activities across Many Locations In some instances, dispersing activities across locations is more advantageous than concentrating them. Buyer-related activities—such as distribution, marketing, and after-sale service— usually must take place close to buyers. This makes it necessary to physically locate the capability to perform such activities in every country or region where a firm has major customers. For example, firms that make mining and oil-drilling equipment maintain operations in many locations around the world to support customers’ needs for speedy equipment repair and technical assistance. Large public accounting firms have offices in numerous countries to serve the foreign operations of their international corporate cli- ents. Dispersing activities to many locations is also competitively important when high transportation costs, diseconomies of large size, and trade barriers make it too expensive to operate from a central location. Many companies distribute their products from mul- tiple locations to shorten delivery times to customers. In addition, dispersing activities helps hedge against the risks of fluctuating exchange rates, supply interruptions (due to strikes, natural disasters, or transportation delays), and adverse political developments. Such risks are usually greater when activities are concentrated in a single location.
Even though global firms have strong reason to disperse buyer-related activities to many international locations, such activities as materials procurement, parts manufac- ture, finished-goods assembly, technology research, and new product development can frequently be decoupled from buyer locations and performed wherever advantage lies. Components can be made in Mexico; technology research done in Frankfurt; new products developed and tested in Phoenix; and assembly plants located in Spain, Brazil, Taiwan, or South Carolina, for example. Capital can be raised wherever it is available on the best terms.
Sharing and Transferring Resources and Capabilities across Borders to Build Competitive Advantage When a company has competitively valuable resources and capabilities, it may be able to leverage them further by expanding internationally. If its resources retain their value in foreign contexts, then entering new foreign markets can extend the com- pany’s resource-based competitive advantage over a broader domain. For example, companies like Hermes, Prada, and Gucci have utilized their powerful brand names to extend their differentiation-based competitive advantages into markets far beyond their home-country origins. In each of these cases, the luxury brand name represents a valuable competitive asset that can readily be shared by all of the company’s inter- national stores, enabling them to attract buyers and gain a higher degree of market penetration over a wider geographic area than would otherwise be possible.
Another way for a company to extend its competitive advantage internationally is to transfer technological know-how or other important resources and capabilities from its operations in one country to its operations in other countries. For instance, if a company discovers ways to assemble a product faster and more cost-effectively at one plant, then that know-how can be transferred to its assembly plants in other countries. Whirlpool, the leading global manufacturer of home appliances, with 70 manufacturing
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 201
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 201 10/11/16 08:00 PM
and technology research centers around the world, uses an online global information technology platform to quickly and effectively transfer key product innovations and improved production techniques both across national borders and across various appli- ance brands. Walmart is expanding its international operations with a strategy that involves transferring its considerable resource capabilities in distribution and discount retailing to its retail units in 28 foreign countries.
Cross-border sharing or transferring resources and capabilities provides a cost-effective way for a company to leverage its core competencies more fully and extend its competitive advantages into a wider array of geographic markets. The cost of sharing or transferring already developed resources and capabilities across country borders is low in comparison to the time and considerable expense it takes to create them. Moreover, deploying them abroad spreads the fixed development costs over a greater volume of unit sales, thus con- tributing to low unit costs and a potential cost-based competitive advantage in recently entered geographic markets. Even if the shared or transferred resources or capabilities have to be adapted to local-market conditions, this can usually be done at low additional cost.
Consider the case of Walt Disney’s theme parks as an example. The success of the theme parks in the United States derives in part from core resources such as the Disney brand name and characters like Mickey Mouse that have universal appeal and world- wide recognition. These resources can be freely shared with new theme parks as Disney expands internationally. Disney can also replicate its theme parks in new countries cost-effectively since it has already borne the costs of developing its core resources, park attractions, basic park design, and operating capabilities. The cost of replicating its theme parks abroad should be relatively low, even if the parks need to be adapted to a variety of local country conditions. By expanding internationally, Disney is able to enhance its competitive advantage over local theme park rivals. It does so by leverag- ing the differentiation advantage conferred by resources such as the Disney name and the park attractions. And by moving into new foreign markets, it augments its com- petitive advantage worldwide through the efficiency gains that come from cross-border resource sharing and low-cost capability transfer and business model replication.
Sharing and transferring resources and capabilities across country borders may also contribute to the development of broader or deeper competencies and capabilities— helping a company achieve dominating depth in some competitively valuable area. For example, the reputation for quality that Honda established worldwide began in motorcycles but enabled the company to command a position in both automobiles and outdoor power equipment in multiple-country markets. A one-country customer base is often too small to support the resource buildup needed to achieve such depth; this is particularly true in a developing or protected market, where competitively power- ful resources are not required. By deploying capabilities across a larger international domain, a company can gain the experience needed to upgrade them to a higher per- formance standard. And by facing a more challenging set of international competitors, a company may be spurred to develop a stronger set of competitive capabilities. More- over, by entering international markets, firms may be able to augment their capability set by learning from international rivals, cooperative partners, or acquisition targets.
However, cross-border resource sharing and transfers of capabilities are not guar- anteed recipes for competitive success. For example, whether a resource or capabil- ity can confer a competitive advantage abroad depends on the conditions of rivalry in each particular market. If the rivals in a foreign-country market have superior resources and capabilities, then an entering firm may find itself at a competitive dis- advantage even if it has a resource-based advantage domestically and can transfer the resources at low cost. In addition, since lifestyles and buying habits differ internation- ally, resources and capabilities that are valuable in one country may not have value in
Final PDF to printer
202 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 202 10/11/16 08:00 PM
another. Sometimes a popular or well-regarded brand in one country turns out to have little competitive clout against local brands in other countries.
To illustrate, Netherlands-based Royal Philips Electronics, with 2012 sales of about €25 billion in more than 60 countries, is a leading seller of electric shavers, lighting products, small appliances, televisions, DVD players, and health care products. It has proven competitive capabilities in a number of businesses and countries and has been consistently profitable on a global basis. But the company’s Philips and Magnavox brand names and the resources it has invested in its North American organization have proved inadequate in changing its image as a provider of low-end TVs and DVD players, recruiting retailers that can effectively merchandise its Magnavox and Philips products, and exciting consumers with the quality and features of its products. It has lost money in North America every year since 1988.
Benefiting from Cross-Border Coordination Companies that compete on an international basis have another source of competitive advantage relative to their purely domestic rivals: They are able to benefit from coordinating activities across different countries’ domains.16 For example, an international manufacturer can shift production from a plant in one country to a plant in another to take advantage of exchange rate fluctuations, to cope with components shortages, or to profit from changing wage rates or energy costs. Production schedules can be coordinated worldwide; shipments can be diverted from one distribution center to another if sales rise unexpectedly in one place and fall in another. By coordinating their activities, international companies may also be able to enhance their leverage with host-country governments or respond adaptively to changes in tariffs and quotas. Efficiencies can also be achieved by shifting workloads from where they are unusually heavy to locations where personnel are underutilized.
CROSS-BORDER STRATEGIC MOVES While international competitors can employ any of the offensive and defensive moves discussed in Chapter 6, there are two types of strategic moves that are particularly suited for companies competing internationally. Both involve the use of “profit sanctuaries.”
Profit sanctuaries are country markets (or geographic regions) in which a com- pany derives substantial profits because of a strong or protected market position. In most cases, a company’s biggest and most strategically crucial profit sanctuary is its home market, but international and global companies may also enjoy profit sanctu- ary status in other nations where they have a strong position based on some type of competitive advantage. Companies that compete globally are likely to have more profit sanctuaries than companies that compete in just a few country markets; a domestic- only competitor, of course, can have only one profit sanctuary. Nike, which markets its products in 190 countries, has two major profit sanctuaries: North America and Greater China (where it earned $13.7 billion and $3.1 billion, respectively, in revenues in 2015).
Using Profit Sanctuaries to Wage a Strategic Offensive Profit sanctuaries are valuable competitive assets, providing the financial strength to support strategic offensives in selected country markets and fuel a company’s race for world-market leadership. The added financial capability afforded by multiple profit
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 203
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 203 10/11/16 08:00 PM
sanctuaries gives an international competitor the financial strength to wage a market offensive against a domestic competitor whose only profit sanctuary is its home mar- ket. The international company has the flexibility of lowballing its prices or launching high-cost marketing campaigns in the domestic company’s home market and grabbing market share at the domestic company’s expense. Razor-thin margins or even losses in these markets can be subsidized with the healthy profits earned in its profit sanctuaries—a practice called cross-market subsidization. The international company can adjust the depth of its price cutting to move in and capture market share quickly, or it can shave prices slightly to make gradual market inroads (per- haps over a decade or more) so as not to threaten domestic firms precipitously and trigger protectionist government actions. If the domestic company retaliates with matching price cuts or increased marketing expenses, it thereby exposes its entire revenue stream and profit base to erosion; its profits can be squeezed substantially and its competitive strength sapped, even if it is the domestic market leader.
When taken to the extreme, cut-rate pricing attacks by international competitors may draw charges of unfair “dumping.” A company is said to be dumping when it sells its goods in foreign markets at prices that are (1) well below the prices at which it normally sells them in its home market or (2) well below its full costs per unit. Almost all governments can be expected to retaliate against perceived dumping prac- tices by imposing special tariffs on goods being imported from the countries of the guilty companies. Indeed, as the trade among nations has mushroomed over the past 10 years, most governments have joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), which promotes fair trade practices among nations and actively polices dumping. Companies deemed guilty of dumping frequently come under pressure from their own govern- ment to cease and desist, especially if the tariffs adversely affect innocent companies based in the same country or if the advent of special tariffs raises the specter of an international trade war.
Using Profit Sanctuaries to Defend against International Rivals Cross-border tactics involving profit sanctuaries can also be used as a means of defending against the strategic moves of rivals with multiple profit sanctuaries of their own. If a company finds itself under competitive attack by an international rival in one country market, one way to respond is to conduct a counterattack against the rival in one of its key markets in a different country—preferably where the rival is least protected and has the most to lose. This is a possible option when rivals compete against one another in much the same markets around the world.
For companies with at least one profit sanctuary, having a presence in a rival’s key markets can be enough to deter the rival from making aggressive attacks. The reason for this is that the combination of market presence in the rival’s key markets and a profit sanctuary elsewhere can send a signal to the rival that the company could quickly ramp up production (funded by the profit sanctuary) to mount a com- petitive counterattack if the rival attacks one of the company’s key markets.
When international rivals compete against one another in multiple-country markets, this type of deterrence effect can restrain them from taking aggressive action against one another, due to the fear of a retaliatory response that might escalate the battle into a cross-border competitive war. Mutual restraint of this sort tends to stabilize the competitive position of multimarket rivals against one another. And while it may prevent each firm from making any major market
CORE CONCEPT
Cross-market subsidization—supporting competitive offensives in one market with resources and profits diverted from operations in another market—can be a powerful competitive weapon.
CORE CONCEPT
When the same companies compete against one another in multiple geographic markets, the threat of cross-border counterattacks may be enough to deter aggressive competitive moves and encourage mutual restraint among international rivals.
Final PDF to printer
204 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 204 10/11/16 08:00 PM
share gains at the expense of its rival, it also protects against costly competitive battles that would be likely to erode the profitability of both companies without any compensating gain.
STRATEGIES FOR COMPETING IN THE MARKETS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Companies racing for global leadership have to consider competing in developing- economy markets like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, Poland, Mexico, and Russia—countries where the business risks are considerable but where the opportuni- ties for growth are huge, especially as their economies develop and living standards climb toward levels in the industrialized world.17 In today’s world, a company that aspires to international market leadership (or to sustained rapid growth) cannot ignore the market opportunities or the base of technical and managerial talent such countries offer. For example, in 2015 China was the world’s second-largest economy (behind the United States), based on purchasing power and its population of over 1.6 billion peo- ple. China’s growth in demand for consumer goods has made it the fifth largest market for luxury goods, with sales greater than those in developed markets such as Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Thus, no company that aspires to global market lead- ership can afford to ignore the strategic importance of establishing competitive market positions in the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), as well as in other parts of the Asia-Pacific region, Latin America, and eastern Europe.
Tailoring products to fit market conditions in developing countries, however, often involves more than making minor product changes and becoming more familiar with local cultures. McDonald’s has had to offer vegetable burgers in parts of Asia and to rethink its prices, which are often high by local standards and affordable only by the well-to-do. Kellogg has struggled to introduce its cereals successfully because consum- ers in many less developed countries do not eat cereal for breakfast. Single-serving pack- ages of detergents, shampoos, pickles, cough syrup, and cooking oils are very popular in India because they allow buyers to conserve cash by purchasing only what they need immediately. Thus, many companies find that trying to employ a strategy akin to that used in the markets of developed countries is hazardous.18 Experimenting with some, perhaps many, local twists is usually necessary to find a strategy combination that works.
Strategy Options for Competing in Developing-Country Markets There are several options for tailoring a company’s strategy to fit the sometimes unusual or challenging circumstances presented in developing-country markets:
∙ Prepare to compete on the basis of low price. Consumers in developing markets are often highly focused on price, which can give low-cost local competitors the edge unless a company can find ways to attract buyers with bargain prices as well as better products. For example, in order to enter the market for laundry detergents in India, Unilever had to develop a low-cost detergent (named Wheel), construct new low-cost production facilities, package the detergent in single-use amounts so that it could be sold at a very low unit price, distribute the product to local merchants by
LO 6
The unique characteristics of competing in developing-country markets.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 205
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 205 10/11/16 08:00 PM
handcarts, and craft an economical marketing campaign that included painted signs on buildings and demonstrations near stores. The new brand quickly captured $100 million in sales and by 2014 was the top detergent brand in India based dollar sales. Unilever replicated the strategy in India with low-priced packets of shampoos and deodorants and in South America with a detergent brand-named Ala.
∙ Modify aspects of the company’s business model to accommodate the unique local circumstances of developing countries. For instance, Honeywell had sold industrial products and services for more than 100 years outside the United States and Europe using a foreign subsidiary model that focused international activi- ties on sales only. When Honeywell entered China, it discovered that industrial customers in that country considered how many key jobs foreign companies cre- ated in China, in addition to the quality and price of the product or service when making purchasing decisions. Honeywell added about 150 engineers, strategists, and marketers in China to demonstrate its commitment to bolstering the Chinese economy. Honeywell replicated its “East for East” strategy when it entered the market for industrial products and services in India. Within 10 years of Honeywell establishing operations in China and three years of expanding into India, the two emerging markets accounted for 30 percent of the firm’s worldwide growth.
∙ Try to change the local market to better match the way the company does busi- ness elsewhere. An international company often has enough market clout to drive major changes in the way a local country market operates. When Japan’s Suzuki entered India, it triggered a quality revolution among Indian auto parts manufac- turers. Local component suppliers teamed up with Suzuki’s vendors in Japan and worked with Japanese experts to produce higher-quality products. Over the next two decades, Indian companies became proficient in making top-notch compo- nents for vehicles, won more prizes for quality than companies in any country other than Japan, and broke into the global market as suppliers to many automak- ers in Asia and other parts of the world. Mahindra and Mahindra, one of India’s premier automobile manufacturers, has been recognized by a number of organiza- tions for its product quality. Among its most noteworthy awards was its number- one ranking by J.D. Power Asia Pacific for new-vehicle overall quality.
∙ Stay away from developing markets where it is impractical or uneconomical to modify the company’s business model to accommodate local circumstances. Home Depot’s executive vice president and CFO, Carol Tomé, argues that there are few developing countries where Home Depot can operate successfully.19 The company expanded successfully into Mexico, but it has avoided entry into other developing countries because its value proposition of good quality, low prices, and attentive customer service relies on (1) good highways and logistical systems to minimize store inventory costs, (2) employee stock ownership to help motivate store personnel to provide good customer service, and (3) high labor costs for housing construction and home repairs that encourage homeowners to engage in do-it-yourself projects. Relying on these factors in North American markets has worked spectacularly for Home Depot, but the company found that it could not count on these factors in China, from which it withdrew in 2012.
Company experiences in entering developing markets like Argentina, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brazil indicate that profitability seldom comes quickly or easily. Building a market for the company’s products can often turn into a long-term process that involves reeducation of consumers, sizable investments in adver- tising to alter tastes and buying habits, and upgrades of the local infrastructure
Profitability in developing markets rarely comes quickly or easily—new entrants have to adapt their business models to local conditions, which may not always be possible.
Final PDF to printer
206 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 206 10/11/16 08:00 PM
(transportation systems, distribution channels, etc.). In such cases, a company must be patient, work within the system to improve the infrastructure, and lay the foundation for generating sizable revenues and profits once conditions are ripe for market takeoff.
DEFENDING AGAINST GLOBAL GIANTS: STRATEGIES FOR LOCAL COMPANIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
If opportunity-seeking, resource-rich international companies are looking to enter developing-country markets, what strategy options can local companies use to survive? As it turns out, the prospects for local companies facing global giants are by no means grim. Studies of local companies in developing markets have disclosed five strategies that have proved themselves in defending against globally competitive companies.20
1. Develop business models that exploit shortcomings in local distribution networks or infrastructure. In many instances, the extensive collection of resources pos- sessed by the global giants is of little help in building a presence in developing markets. The lack of well-established local wholesaler and distributor networks, telecommunication systems, consumer banking, or media necessary for advertis- ing makes it difficult for large internationals to migrate business models proved in developed markets to emerging markets. Emerging markets sometimes favor local companies whose managers are familiar with the local language and culture and are skilled in selecting large numbers of conscientious employees to carry out labor-intensive tasks. Shanda, a Chinese producer of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), overcame China’s lack of an established credit card network by selling prepaid access cards through local merchants. The compa- ny’s focus on online games also protects it from shortcomings in China’s software piracy laws. An India-based electronics company carved out a market niche for itself by developing an all-in-one business machine, designed especially for India’s millions of small shopkeepers, that tolerates the country’s frequent power outages.
2. Utilize keen understanding of local customer needs and preferences to create cus- tomized products or services. When developing-country markets are largely made up of customers with strong local needs, a good strategy option is to concentrate on customers who prefer a local touch and to accept the loss of the customers attracted to global brands.21 A local company may be able to astutely exploit its local orientation—its familiarity with local preferences, its expertise in traditional products, its long-standing customer relationships. A small Middle Eastern cell phone manufacturer competes successfully against industry giants Samsung, Apple, Nokia, and Motorola by selling a model designed especially for Muslims— it is loaded with the Koran, alerts people at prayer times, and is equipped with a compass that points them toward Mecca. Shenzhen-based Tencent has become the leader in instant messaging in China through its unique understanding of Chinese behavior and culture.
3. Take advantage of aspects of the local workforce with which large international companies may be unfamiliar. Local companies that lack the technological capa- bilities of foreign entrants may be able to rely on their better understanding of the local labor force to offset any disadvantage. Focus Media is China’s largest outdoor advertising firm and has relied on low-cost labor to update its more than 170,000 LCD displays and billboards in over 90 cities in a low-tech manner, while
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 7 Strategies for Competing in International Markets 207
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 207 10/11/16 08:00 PM
international companies operating in China use electronically networked screens that allow messages to be changed remotely. Focus uses an army of employees who ride to each display by bicycle to change advertisements with programming contained on a USB flash drive or DVD. Indian information technology firms such as Infosys Technologies and Satyam Computer Services have been able to keep their personnel costs lower than those of international competitors EDS and Accenture because of their familiarity with local labor markets. While the large internationals have focused recruiting efforts in urban centers like Bangalore and Delhi, driving up engineering and computer science salaries in such cities, local companies have shifted recruiting efforts to second-tier cities that are unfamiliar to foreign firms.
4. Use acquisition and rapid-growth strategies to better defend against expansion- minded internationals. With the growth potential of developing markets such as China, Indonesia, and Brazil obvious to the world, local companies must attempt to develop scale and upgrade their competitive capabilities as quickly as possible to defend against the stronger international’s arsenal of resources. Most success- ful companies in developing markets have pursued mergers and acquisitions at a rapid-fire pace to build first a nationwide and then an international presence. Hindalco, India’s largest aluminum producer, has followed just such a path to achieve its ambitions for global dominance. By acquiring companies in India first, it gained enough experience and confidence to eventually acquire much larger foreign companies with world-class capabilities.22 When China began to liberalize its foreign trade policies, Lenovo (the Chinese PC maker) realized that its long- held position of market dominance in China could not withstand the onslaught of new international entrants such as Dell and HP. Its acquisition of IBM’s PC busi- ness allowed Lenovo to gain rapid access to IBM’s globally recognized PC brand, its R&D capability, and its existing distribution in developed countries. This has allowed Lenovo not only to hold its own against the incursion of global giants into its home market but also to expand into new markets around the world.23
5. Transfer company expertise to cross-border markets and initiate actions to con- tend on an international level. When a company from a developing country has resources and capabilities suitable for competing in other country markets, launching initiatives to transfer its expertise to foreign markets becomes a viable strategic option. Televisa, Mexico’s largest media company, used its expertise in Spanish culture and linguistics to become the world’s most prolific producer of Spanish-language soap operas. By continuing to upgrade its capabilities and learn from its experience in foreign markets, a company can sometimes transform itself into one capable of competing on a worldwide basis, as an emerging global giant. Sundaram Fasteners of India began its foray into foreign markets as a supplier of radiator caps to General Motors—an opportunity it pursued when GM first decided to outsource the production of this part. As a participant in GM’s supplier network, the company learned about emerging technical standards, built its capa- bilities, and became one of the first Indian companies to achieve QS 9000 quality certification. With the expertise it gained and its recognition for meeting quality standards, Sundaram was then able to pursue opportunities to supply automotive parts in Japan and Europe.
Illustration Capsule 7.3 discusses how a travel agency in China used a combina- tion of these strategies to become that country’s largest travel consolidator and online travel agent.
Final PDF to printer
208
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 208 10/11/16 08:00 PM
Ctrip has utilized a business model tailored to the Chinese travel market, its access to low-cost labor, and its unique understanding of customer preferences and buy- ing habits to build scale rapidly and defeat foreign rivals such as Expedia and Travelocity in becoming the larg- est travel agency in China. The company was founded in 1999 with a focus on business travelers, since corpo- rate travel accounts for the majority of China’s travel bookings. The company initially placed little emphasis on online transactions because at the time there was no national ticketing system in China, most hotels did not belong to a national or international chain, and most consumers preferred paper tickets to electronic tickets. To overcome this infrastructure shortcoming and enter the online market, the company established its own cen- tral database of 5,600 hotels located throughout China and flight information for all major airlines operating in China. Ctrip set up a call center of 3,000 representa- tives that could use its proprietary database to provide travel information for up to 100,000 customers per day.
Because most of its transactions were not done over the Internet at the start, the company hired couriers in all major cities in China to ride by bicycle or scooter to col- lect payments and deliver tickets to Ctrip’s corporate customers. Ctrip also initiated a loyalty program that provided gifts and incentives to the administrative per- sonnel who arranged travel for business executives, who were more likely to use online services. By 2011, Ctrip. com held 60 percent of China’s online travel market, having grown 40 percent every year since 1999, leading to a market cap coming close to those of some major U.S. online travel agencies.
However, the phenomenal growth of the Chinese market for such travel agency services, along with changing technological ability and preferences, has led to a new type of competition: online, and more pivotally, mobile travel booking. Dominance in the mobile space drove a competitor, Qunar, to experience a huge surge in growth. While this competition was a negative in the traditional financial sense for Ctrip, analysts believe that new technology has ended up benefiting the entire industry. Additionally, this has provided the two compa- nies with the opportunity to utilize another important local strategy to grow and remain competitive against global firms—a partnership, which Ctrip and Qunar undertook in 2013, combining their unique advantages to cross-sell travel products. The solidity of this partner- ship was furthered in late 2015, when the two companies agreed to an alliance through the exchange of shares in one another’s companies. Together, the two companies control more than 80 percent of China’s hotel and air ticket markets. The long-term effects of the new agree- ment still have yet to be seen, but the success of Ctrip has demonstrated the potential benefits of an effective local-market strategy.
© Nelson Ching/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Note: Developed with Harold W. Greenstone.
Sources: Arindam K. Bhattacharya and David C. Michael, “How Local Companies Keep Multinationals at Bay,” Harvard Business Review 86, no. 3 (March 2008), pp. 85–95; B. Perez, “Ctrip Likely to Gain More Business from Stronger Qunar Platform,” South China Morning Press online, October 2, 2013 (accessed April 3, 2014); B. Cao, “Qunar Jumps on Mobile User Growth as Ctrip Tumbles,” Bloomberg online, January 5, 2014 (accessed April 3, 2014); www.thatsmags.com/shanghai/article/detail/480/a-journey-with-ctrip; money.cnn.com/quote/ quote.html?symb5EXPE (accessed March 28, 2012).
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 7.3
How Ctrip Successfully Defended against International Rivals to Become China’s Largest Online Travel Agency
Final PDF to printer
209
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 209 10/11/16 08:00 PM
KEY POINTS
1. Competing in international markets allows a company to (1) gain access to new customers; (2) achieve lower costs through greater economies of scale, learning, and increased purchasing power; (3) gain access to low-cost inputs of production; (4) further exploit its core competencies; and (5) gain access to resources and capabilities located outside the company’s domestic market.
2. Strategy making is more complex for five reasons: (1) Different countries have home-country advantages in different industries; (2) there are location-based advantages to performing different value chain activities in different parts of the world; (3) varying political and economic risks make the business climate of some countries more favorable than others; (4) companies face the risk of adverse shifts in exchange rates when operating in foreign countries; and (5) differences in buyer tastes and preferences present a conundrum concerning the trade-off between cus- tomizing and standardizing products and services.
3. The strategies of firms that expand internationally are usually grounded in home- country advantages concerning demand conditions; factor conditions; related and supporting industries; and firm strategy, structure, and rivalry, as described by the Diamond of National Competitive Advantage framework.
4. There are five strategic options for entering foreign markets. These include maintain- ing a home-country production base and exporting goods to foreign markets, licensing foreign firms to produce and distribute the company’s products abroad, employing a franchising strategy, establishing a foreign subsidiary via an acquisition or greenfield venture, and using strategic alliances or other collaborative partnerships.
5. A company must choose among three alternative approaches for competing internationally: (1) a multidomestic strategy—a think-local, act-local approach to crafting international strategy; (2) a global strategy—a think-global, act- global approach; and (3) a combination think-global, act-local approach, known as a transnational strategy. A multidomestic strategy (think local, act local) is appropriate for companies that must vary their product offerings and competi- tive approaches from country to country in order to accommodate different buyer preferences and market conditions. The global strategy (think global, act global) works best when there are substantial cost benefits to be gained from taking a standardized, globally integrated approach and there is little need for local respon- siveness. A transnational strategy (think global, act local) is called for when there is a high need for local responsiveness as well as substantial benefits from taking a globally integrated approach. In this approach, a company strives to employ the same basic competitive strategy in all markets but still customizes its product offering and some aspect of its operations to fit local market circumstances.
6. There are three general ways in which a firm can gain competitive advantage (or offset domestic disadvantages) in international markets. One way involves locat- ing various value chain activities among nations in a manner that lowers costs or achieves greater product differentiation. A second way draws on an interna- tional competitor’s ability to extend its competitive advantage by cost-effectively sharing, replicating, or transferring its most valuable resources and capabilities across borders. A third looks for benefits from cross-border coordination that are unavailable to domestic-only competitors.
Final PDF to printer
210
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 210 10/11/16 08:00 PM
7. Two types of strategic moves are particularly suited for companies competing internationally. Both involve the use of profit sanctuaries—country markets where a company derives substantial profits because of its strong or protected market position. Profit sanctuaries are useful in waging strategic offenses in international markets through cross-subsidization—a practice of supporting competitive offen- sives in one market with resources and profits diverted from operations in another market (the profit sanctuary). They may be used defensively to encourage mutual restraint among competitors when there is international multimarket competition by signaling that each company has the financial capability for mounting a strong counterattack if threatened. For companies with at least one profit sanctuary, hav- ing a presence in a rival’s key markets can be enough to deter the rival from mak- ing aggressive attacks.
8. Companies racing for global leadership have to consider competing in develop- ing markets like the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—where the business risks are considerable but the opportunities for growth are huge. To succeed in these markets, companies often have to (1) compete on the basis of low price, (2) modify aspects of the company’s business model to accommodate local circumstances, and/or (3) try to change the local market to better match the way the company does business elsewhere. Profitability is unlikely to come quickly or easily in developing markets, typically because of the investments needed to alter buying habits and tastes, the increased political and economic risk, and/or the need for infrastructure upgrades. And there may be times when a company should simply stay away from certain developing markets until conditions for entry are better suited to its business model and strategy.
9. Local companies in developing-country markets can seek to compete against large international companies by (1) developing business models that exploit shortcom- ings in local distribution networks or infrastructure, (2) utilizing a superior under- standing of local customer needs and preferences or local relationships, (3) taking advantage of competitively important qualities of the local workforce with which large international companies may be unfamiliar, (4) using acquisition strategies and rapid-growth strategies to better defend against expansion-minded interna- tional companies, or (5) transferring company expertise to cross-border markets and initiating actions to compete on an international level.
ASSURANCE OF LEARNING EXERCISES
1. L’Oréal markets 32 brands of cosmetics, fragrances, and hair care products in 130 countries. The company’s international strategy involves manufacturing these products in 40 plants located around the world. L’Oréal’s international strategy is discussed in its operations section of the company’s website (www.loreal.com/ careers/who-you-can-be/operations) and in its press releases, annual reports, and presentations. Why has the company chosen to pursue a foreign subsidiary strategy? Are there strategic advantages to global sourcing and production in the cosmetics, fragrances, and hair care products industry relative to an export strategy?
LO 1, LO 3
Final PDF to printer
211
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 211 10/11/16 08:00 PM
2. Alliances, joint ventures, and mergers with foreign companies are widely used as a means of entering foreign markets. Such arrangements have many purposes, including learning about unfamiliar environments, and the opportunity to access the complementary resources and capabilities of a foreign partner. Illustration Capsule 7.1 provides an example of how Walgreens used a strategy of entering foreign markets via alliance, followed by a merger with the same entity. What was this entry strategy designed to achieve, and why would this make sense for a com- pany like Walgreens?
3. Assume you are in charge of developing the strategy for an international company selling products in some 50 different countries around the world. One of the issues you face is whether to employ a multidomestic strategy, a global strategy, or a transnational strategy.
a. If your company’s product is mobile phones, which of these strategies do you think it would make better strategic sense to employ? Why?
b. If your company’s product is dry soup mixes and canned soups, would a multi- domestic strategy seem to be more advisable than a global strategy or a trans- national strategy? Why or why not?
c. If your company’s product is large home appliances such as washing machines, ranges, ovens, and refrigerators, would it seem to make more sense to pursue a multidomestic strategy, a global strategy, or a transnational strategy? Why?
4. Using your university library’s subscription to LexisNexis, EBSCO, or a similar database, identify and discuss three key strategies that Volkswagen is using to compete in China.
LO 1, LO 3
LO 2, LO 4
LO 5, LO 6
EXERCISE FOR SIMULATION PARTICIPANTS
The following questions are for simulation participants whose companies operate in an international market arena. If your company competes only in a single country, then skip the questions in this section.
1. To what extent, if any, have you and your co-managers adapted your company’s strat- egy to take shifting exchange rates into account? In other words, have you under- taken any actions to try to minimize the impact of adverse shifts in exchange rates?
2. To what extent, if any, have you and your co-managers adapted your company’s strategy to take geographic differences in import tariffs or import duties into account?
3. Which one of the following best describes the strategic approach your company is taking in trying to compete successfully on an international basis?
∙ Multidomestic or think-local, act-local approach. ∙ Global or think-global, act-global approach. ∙ Transnational or think-global, act-local approach.
Explain your answer and indicate two or three chief elements of your company’s strategy for competing in two or more different geographic regions.
LO 2
LO 2
LO 4
Final PDF to printer
212
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 212 10/11/16 08:00 PM
ENDNOTES 8 K. W. Glaister and P. J. Buckley, “Strategic Motives for International Alliance Formation,” Journal of Management Studies 33, no. 3 (May 1996), pp. 301–332. 9 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). 10 Yves Doz and Gary Hamel, Alliance Advan- tage: The Art of Creating Value through Partnering (Harvard Business School Press, 1998); Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Collaborative Advantage: The Art of the Alliance,” Harvard Business Review 72, no. 4 (July–August 1994), pp. 96–108. 11 Jeremy Main, “Making Global Alliances Work,” Fortune, December 19, 1990, p. 125. 12 C. K. Prahalad and Kenneth Lieberthal, “The End of Corporate Imperialism,” Harvard Business Review 81, no. 8 (August 2003), pp. 109–117. 13 Pankaj Ghemawat, “Managing Differences: The Central Challenge of Global Strategy,” Harvard Business Review 85, no. 3 (March 2007). 14 C. A. Bartlett and S. Ghoshal, Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution, 2nd ed. (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998). 15 Lynn S. Paine, “The China Rules,” Harvard Business Review 88, no. 6 (June 2010), pp. 103–108. 16 C. K. Prahalad and Yves L. Doz, The Multina- tional Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision (New York: Free Press, 1987). 17 David J. Arnold and John A. Quelch, “New Strategies in Emerging Markets,” Sloan
1 Sidney G. Winter and Gabriel Szulanski, “ Getting It Right the Second Time,” Harvard Business Review 80, no. 1 (January 2002), pp. 62–69. 2 P. Dussauge, B. Garrette, and W. Mitchell, “Learning from Competing Partners: Outcomes and Durations of Scale and Link Alliances in Europe, North America and Asia,” Strategic Management Journal 21, no. 2 (February 2000), pp. 99–126; K. W. Glaister and P. J. Buckley, “Strategic Motives for International Alliance Formation,” Journal of Management Studies 33, no. 3 (May 1996), pp. 301–332. 3 Michael E. Porter, “The Competitive Advan- tage of Nations,” Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990, pp. 73–93. 4 Tom Mitchell and Avantika Chilkoti, “China Car Sales Accelerate Away from US and Brazil in 2013,” Financial Times, January 9, 2014, www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c649078-78f8-11e3- b381-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2rpEq jkZO. 5 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing 2012,” August 9, 2013. (The numbers for India and China are estimates.) 6 Sangwon Yoon, “South Korea Targets Internet Addicts; 2 Million Hooked,” Valley News, April 25, 2010, p. C2. 7 Joel Bleeke and David Ernst, “The Way to Win in Cross-Border Alliances,” Harvard Business Review 69, no. 6 (November–December 1991), pp. 127-133; Gary Hamel, Yves L. Doz, and C. K. Prahalad, “Collaborate with Your Competitors– and Win,” Harvard Business Review 67, no. 1 (January–February 1989), pp. 134–135.
Management Review 40, no. 1 (Fall 1998), pp. 7–20. 18 Tarun Khanna, Krishna G. Palepu, and Jayant Sinha, “Strategies That Fit Emerging Markets,” Harvard Business Review 83, no. 6 (June 2005), p. 63; Arindam K. Bhattacharya and David C. Michael, “How Local Companies Keep Multinationals at Bay,” Harvard Business Review 86, no. 3 (March 2008), pp. 94–95. 19 www.ajc.com/news/business/home-depot- eschews-large-scale-international-expan/ nSQBh/ (accessed February 2, 2014). 20 Tarun Khanna and Krishna G. Palepu, “Emerging Giants: Building World-Class Com- panies in Developing Countries,” Harvard Business Review 84, no. 10 (October 2006), pp. 60–69. 21 Niroj Dawar and Tony Frost, “Competing with Giants: Survival Strategies for Local Compa- nies in Emerging Markets,” Harvard Business Review 77, no. 1 (January-February 1999), p. 122; Guitz Ger, “Localizing in the Global Village: Local Firms Competing in Global Markets,” California Management Review 41, no. 4 (Summer 1999), pp. 64–84. 22 N. Kumar, “How Emerging Giants Are Rewrit- ing the Rules of M&A,” Harvard Business Review, May 2009, pp. 115–121. 23 H. Rui and G. Yip, “Foreign Acquisitions by Chinese Firms: A Strategic Intent Perspective,” Journal of World Business 43 (2008), pp. 213–226.
Final PDF to printer
tho32789_ch07_178-213.indd 213 10/11/16 08:00 PM
Final PDF to printer
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 214 10/13/16 07:07 PM
CHAPTER 8
Corporate Strategy Diversification and the Multibusiness Company
Learning Objectives
THIS CHAPTER WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND:
LO 1 When and how business diversification can enhance shareholder value.
LO 2 How related diversification strategies can produce cross-business strategic fit capable of delivering competitive advantage.
LO 3 The merits and risks of unrelated diversification strategies.
LO 4 The analytic tools for evaluating a company’s diversification strategy.
LO 5 What four main corporate strategy options a diversified company can employ for solidifying its strategy and improving company performance.
© Roy Scott/Ikon Images/age fotostock
Final PDF to printer
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 215 10/13/16 07:07 PM
The roll of takeovers is to improve unsatisfactory com- panies and to allow healthy companies to grow strate- gically by acquisitions.
Sir James Goldsmith—Billionaire financier
Make winners out of every business in your company. Don’t carry losers.
Jack Welch—Legendary CEO of General Electric
Fit between a parent and its businesses is a two-edged sword: A good fit can create value; a bad one can destroy it.
Andrew Campbell, Michael Goold, and Marcus
Alexander—Academics, authors, and consultants
The task of crafting a diversified company’s overall corporate strategy falls squarely in the lap of top-level executives and involves three distinct facets:
1. Picking new industries to enter and deciding on the means of entry. Pursuing a diversification strategy requires that management decide which new industries to enter and then, for each new industry, whether to enter by starting a new business
WHAT DOES CRAFTING A DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGY ENTAIL?
This chapter moves up one level in the strategy- making hierarchy, from strategy making in a single-business enterprise to strategy making in a diversified enterprise. Because a diversified com- pany is a collection of individual businesses, the strategy-making task is more complicated. In a one-business company, managers have to come up with a plan for competing successfully in only a single industry environment—the result is what Chapter 2 labeled as business strategy (or business- level strategy). But in a diversified company, the strategy-making challenge involves assessing mul- tiple industry environments and developing a set of business strategies, one for each industry arena in which the diversified company operates. And top executives at a diversified company must still go
one step further and devise a companywide (or corporate) strategy for improving the performance of the company’s overall business lineup and for making a rational whole out of its diversified collec- tion of individual businesses.
In the first portion of this chapter, we describe what crafting a diversification strategy entails, when and why diversification makes good strategic sense, the various approaches to diversifying a company’s business lineup, and the pros and cons of related versus unrelated diversification strategies. The sec- ond part of the chapter looks at how to evaluate the attractiveness of a diversified company’s business lineup, how to decide whether it has a good diversifi- cation strategy, and the strategic options for improv- ing a diversified company’s future performance.
Final PDF to printer
216 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 216 10/13/16 07:07 PM
As long as a company has plentiful opportunities for profitable growth in its present industry, there is no urgency to pursue diversification. But growth opportunities are often limited in mature industries and markets where buyer demand is flat or declin- ing. In addition, changing industry conditions—new technologies, inroads being made by substitute products, fast-shifting buyer preferences, or intensifying competition— can undermine a company’s ability to deliver ongoing gains in revenues and profits. Consider, for example, what the growing use of debit cards and online bill payment has done to the check-printing business and what mobile phone companies and mar- keters of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) have done to the revenues of long- distance providers such as AT&T, British Telecommunications, and NTT in Japan. Thus, diversifying into new industries always merits strong consideration whenever a single-business company encounters diminishing market opportunities and stagnating sales in its principal business.
The decision to diversify presents wide-ranging possibilities. A company can diversify into closely related businesses or into totally unrelated businesses. It can diversify its present revenue and earnings base to a small or major extent. It can move into one or two large new businesses or a greater number of small ones. It can achieve diversification by acquiring an existing company, starting up a new business from
from the ground up, by acquiring a company already in the target industry, or by forming a joint venture or strategic alliance with another company.
2. Pursuing opportunities to leverage cross-business value chain relationships, where there is strategic fit, into competitive advantage. The task here is to determine whether there are opportunities to strengthen a diversified company’s businesses by such means as transferring competitively valuable resources and capabilities from one business to another, combining the related value chain activities of dif- ferent businesses to achieve lower costs, sharing the use of a powerful and well- respected brand name across multiple businesses, and encouraging knowledge sharing and collaborative activity among the businesses.
3. Initiating actions to boost the combined performance of the corporation’s col- lection of businesses. Strategic options for improving the corporation’s overall performance include (1) sticking closely with the existing business lineup and pursuing opportunities presented by these businesses, (2) broadening the scope of diversification by entering additional industries, (3) retrenching to a narrower scope of diversification by divesting either poorly performing businesses or those that no longer fit into management’s long-range plans, and (4) broadly restructur- ing the entire company by divesting some businesses, acquiring others, and reor- ganizing, to put a whole new face on the company’s business lineup.
The demanding and time-consuming nature of these four tasks explains why cor- porate executives generally refrain from becoming immersed in the details of crafting and executing business-level strategies. Rather, the normal procedure is to delegate lead responsibility for business strategy to the heads of each business, giving them the latitude to develop strategies suited to the particular industry environment in which their business operates and holding them accountable for producing good financial and strategic results.
WHEN TO CONSIDER DIVERSIFYING
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 217
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 217 10/13/16 07:07 PM
Diversification must do more for a company than simply spread its business risk across various industries. In principle, diversification cannot be considered wise or justifiable unless it results in added long-term economic value for shareholders— value that shareholders cannot capture on their own by purchasing stock in companies in different industries or investing in mutual funds to spread their investments across several industries. A move to diversify into a new business stands little chance of building shareholder value without passing the following three Tests of Corporate Advantage.1
1. The industry attractiveness test. The industry to be entered through diversifica- tion must be structurally attractive (in terms of the five forces), have resource requirements that match those of the parent company, and offer good prospects for growth, profitability, and return on investment.
2. The cost of entry test. The cost of entering the target industry must not be so high as to exceed the potential for good profitability. A catch-22 can prevail here, however. The more attractive an industry’s prospects are for growth and good long-term profitability, the more expensive it can be to enter. Entry bar- riers for startup companies are likely to be high in attractive industries—if bar- riers were low, a rush of new entrants would soon erode the potential for high profitability. And buying a well-positioned company in an appealing indus- try often entails a high acquisition cost that makes passing the cost of entry test less likely. Since the owners of a successful and growing company usually demand a price that reflects their business’s profit prospects, it’s easy for such an acquisition to fail the cost of entry test.
3. The better-off test. Diversifying into a new business must offer potential for the company’s existing businesses and the new business to perform better together under a single corporate umbrella than they would perform operating as inde- pendent, stand-alone businesses—an effect known as synergy. For example, let’s say that company A diversifies by purchasing company B in another indus- try. If A and B’s consolidated profits in the years to come prove no greater than what each could have earned on its own, then A’s diversification won’t provide its shareholders with any added value. Company A’s shareholders could have achieved the same 1 + 1 = 2 result by merely purchasing stock in company B. Diversification does not result in added long-term value for shareholders unless it produces a 1 + 1 = 3 effect, whereby the businesses perform better together as part of the same firm than they could have performed as indepen- dent companies.
Diversification moves must satisfy all three tests to grow shareholder value over the long term. Diversification moves that can pass only one or two tests are suspect.
CORE CONCEPT
To add shareholder value, a move to diversify into a new business must pass the three Tests of Corporate Advantage: 1. The industry
attractiveness test 2. The cost of entry test 3. The better-off test
CORE CONCEPT
Creating added value for shareholders via diversification requires building a multibusiness company in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; such 1 + 1 = 3 effects are called synergy.
BUILDING SHAREHOLDER VALUE: THE ULTIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR DIVERSIFYING
LO 1
When and how business diversification can enhance shareholder value.
scratch, or forming a joint venture with one or more companies to enter new busi- nesses. In every case, however, the decision to diversify must start with a strong economic justification for doing so.
Final PDF to printer
218 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 218 10/13/16 07:07 PM
The means of entering new businesses can take any of three forms: acquisition, inter- nal startup, or joint ventures with other companies.
Diversifying by Acquisition of an Existing Business Acquisition is a popular means of diversifying into another industry. Not only is it quicker than trying to launch a new operation, but it also offers an effective way
to hurdle such entry barriers as acquiring technological know-how, establish- ing supplier relationships, achieving scale economies, building brand awareness, and securing adequate distribution. Acquisitions are also commonly employed to access resources and capabilities that are complementary to those of the acquiring firm and that cannot be developed readily internally. Buying an ongoing operation allows the acquirer to move directly to the task of building a strong market posi- tion in the target industry, rather than getting bogged down in trying to develop the knowledge, experience, scale of operation, and market reputation necessary for a startup entrant to become an effective competitor.
However, acquiring an existing business can prove quite expensive. The costs of acquiring another business include not only the acquisition price but also the
costs of performing the due diligence to ascertain the worth of the other company, the costs of negotiating the purchase transaction, and the costs of integrating the business into the diversified company’s portfolio. If the company to be acquired is a successful company, the acquisition price will include a hefty premium over the preacquisition value of the company for the right to control the company. For example, the $28 billion that Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital agreed to pay for H. J. Heinz Company in 2014 included a 30 percent premium over its one-year average share price.2 Premiums are paid in order to convince the shareholders and managers of the target company that it is in their financial interests to approve the deal. The average premium paid by U.S. companies was 19 percent in 2013, but it was more often in the 20 to 25 percent range over the last 10 years.3
While acquisitions offer an enticing means for entering a new business, many fail to deliver on their promise.4 Realizing the potential gains from an acquisition requires
a successful integration of the acquired company into the culture, systems, and structure of the acquiring firm. This can be a costly and time-consuming opera- tion. Acquisitions can also fail to deliver long-term shareholder value if the acquirer overestimates the potential gains and pays a premium in excess of the realized gains. High integration costs and excessive price premiums are two reasons that an acquisition might fail the cost of entry test. Firms with significant experience in making acquisitions are better able to avoid these types of problems.5
Entering a New Line of Business through Internal Development Achieving diversification through internal development involves starting a new business subsidiary from scratch. Internal development has become an increasingly important way for companies to diversify and is often referred to as corporate venturing or new venture development. Although building a new business from the ground up is generally a time-consuming and uncertain process, it avoids the
CORE CONCEPT
An acquisition premium, or control premium, is the amount by which the price offered exceeds the preacquisition market value of the target company.
CORE CONCEPT
Corporate venturing (or new venture development) is the process of developing new businesses as an outgrowth of a company’s established business operations. It is also referred to as corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship since it requires entrepreneurial- like qualities within a larger enterprise.
APPROACHES TO DIVERSIFYING THE BUSINESS LINEUP
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 219
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 219 10/13/16 07:07 PM
pitfalls associated with entry via acquisition and may allow the firm to realize greater profits in the end. It may offer a viable means of entering a new or emerging industry where there are no good acquisition candidates.
Entering a new business via internal development, however, poses some signifi- cant hurdles. An internal new venture not only has to overcome industry entry bar- riers but also must invest in new production capacity, develop sources of supply, hire and train employees, build channels of distribution, grow a customer base, and so on, unless the new business is quite similar to the company’s existing business. The risks associated with internal startups can be substantial, and the likelihood of failure is often high. Moreover, the culture, structures, and organizational systems of some companies may impede innovation and make it difficult for corporate entre- preneurship to flourish.
Generally, internal development of a new business has appeal only when (1) the parent company already has in-house most of the resources and capabilities it needs to piece together a new business and compete effectively; (2) there is ample time to launch the business; (3) the internal cost of entry is lower than the cost of entry via acquisition; (4) adding new production capacity will not adversely impact the supply– demand balance in the industry; and (5) incumbent firms are likely to be slow or ineffective in responding to a new entrant’s efforts to crack the market.
Using Joint Ventures to Achieve Diversification Entering a new business via a joint venture can be useful in at least three types of situations.6 First, a joint venture is a good vehicle for pursuing an opportunity that is too complex, uneconomical, or risky for one company to pursue alone. Second, joint ventures make sense when the opportunities in a new industry require a broader range of competencies and know-how than a company can marshal on its own. Many of the opportunities in satellite-based telecommunications, biotechnology, and network- based systems that blend hardware, software, and services call for the coordinated development of complementary innovations and the tackling of an intricate web of financial, technical, political, and regulatory factors simultaneously. In such cases, pooling the resources and competencies of two or more companies is a wiser and less risky way to proceed. Third, companies sometimes use joint ventures to diversify into a new industry when the diversification move entails having operations in a foreign country. However, as discussed in Chapters 6 and 7, partnering with another company has significant drawbacks due to the potential for conflicting objectives, disagree- ments over how to best operate the venture, culture clashes, and so on. Joint ventures are generally the least durable of the entry options, usually lasting only until the part- ners decide to go their own ways.
Choosing a Mode of Entry The choice of how best to enter a new business—whether through internal devel- opment, acquisition, or joint venture—depends on the answers to four important questions: ∙ Does the company have all of the resources and capabilities it requires to enter the
business through internal development, or is it lacking some critical resources? ∙ Are there entry barriers to overcome? ∙ Is speed an important factor in the firm’s chances for successful entry? ∙ Which is the least costly mode of entry, given the company’s objectives?
Final PDF to printer
220 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 220 10/13/16 07:07 PM
The Question of Critical Resources and Capabilities If a firm has all the resources it needs to start up a new business or will be able to easily pur- chase or lease any missing resources, it may choose to enter the business via inter- nal development. However, if missing critical resources cannot be easily purchased or leased, a firm wishing to enter a new business must obtain these missing resources through either acquisition or joint venture. Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch to obtain critical investment banking resources and capabilities that it lacked. The acqui- sition of these additional capabilities complemented Bank of America’s strengths in corporate banking and opened up new business opportunities for the company. Firms often acquire other companies as a way to enter foreign markets where they lack local marketing knowledge, distribution capabilities, and relationships with local suppli- ers or customers. McDonald’s acquisition of Burghy, Italy’s only national hamburger chain, offers an example.7 If there are no good acquisition opportunities or if the firm wants to avoid the high cost of acquiring and integrating another firm, it may choose to enter via joint venture. This type of entry mode has the added advantage of spreading the risk of entering a new business, an advantage that is particularly attractive when uncertainty is high. De Beers’s joint venture with the luxury goods company LVMH provided De Beers not only with the complementary marketing capabilities it needed to enter the diamond retailing business but also with a partner to share the risk.
The Question of Entry Barriers The second question to ask is whether entry barriers would prevent a new entrant from gaining a foothold and succeeding in the industry. If entry barriers are low and the industry is populated by small firms, internal development may be the preferred mode of entry. If entry barriers are high, the company may still be able to enter with ease if it has the requisite resources and capabilities for overcoming high barriers. For example, entry barriers due to reputa- tional advantages may be surmounted by a diversified company with a widely known and trusted corporate name. But if the entry barriers cannot be overcome readily, then the only feasible entry route may be through acquisition of a well-established com- pany. While entry barriers may also be overcome with a strong complementary joint venture, this mode is the more uncertain choice due to the lack of industry experience.
The Question of Speed Speed is another determining factor in deciding how to go about entering a new business. Acquisition is a favored mode of entry when speed is of the essence, as is the case in rapidly changing industries where fast mov-
ers can secure long-term positioning advantages. Speed is important in industries where early movers gain experience-based advantages that grow ever larger over time as they move down the learning curve. It is also important in technology- based industries where there is a race to establish an industry standard or leading technological platform. But in other cases it can be better to enter a market after the uncertainties about technology or consumer preferences have been resolved and learn from the missteps of early entrants. In these cases, joint venture or internal development may be preferred.
The Question of Comparative Cost The question of which mode of entry is most cost-effective is a critical one, given the need for a diversification strategy to pass the cost of entry test. Acquisition can be a high-cost mode of entry due to the need to pay a premium over the share price of the target company. When the premium is high, the price of the deal will exceed the worth of the acquired
CORE CONCEPT
Transaction costs are the costs of completing a business agreement or deal, over and above the price of the deal. They can include the costs of searching for an attractive target, the costs of evaluating its worth, bargaining costs, and the costs of completing the transaction.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 221
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 221 10/13/16 07:07 PM
company as a stand-alone business by a substantial amount. Whether it is worth it to pay that high a price will depend on how much extra value will be created by the new combination of companies in the form of synergies. Moreover, the true cost of an acquisition must include the transaction costs of identifying and evaluating potential targets, negotiating a price, and completing other aspects of deal making. In addition, the true cost must take into account the costs of integrating the acquired company into the parent company’s portfolio of businesses.
Joint ventures may provide a way to conserve on such entry costs. But even here, there are organizational coordination costs and transaction costs that must be consid- ered, including settling on the terms of the arrangement. If the partnership doesn’t proceed smoothly and is not founded on trust, these costs may be significant.
CORE CONCEPT
Related businesses possess competitively valuable cross-business value chain and resource commonalities; unrelated businesses have dissimilar value chains and resource requirements, with no competitively important cross-business commonalities at the value chain level.
CHOOSING THE DIVERSIFICATION PATH: RELATED VERSUS UNRELATED BUSINESSES Once a company decides to diversify, it faces the choice of whether to diversify into related businesses, unrelated businesses, or some mix of both. Businesses are said to be related when their value chains exhibit competitively important cross-business commonalities. By this, we mean that there is a close correspon- dence between the businesses in terms of how they perform key value chain activ- ities and the resources and capabilities each needs to perform those activities. The big appeal of related diversification is the opportunity to build shareholder value by leveraging these cross-business commonalities into competitive advan- tages, thus allowing the company as a whole to perform better than just the sum of its individual businesses. Businesses are said to be unrelated when the resource requirements and key value chain activities are so dissimilar that no competitively important cross-business commonalities exist.
The next two sections explore the ins and outs of related and unrelated diversification.
A related diversification strategy involves building the company around businesses where there is good strategic fit across corresponding value chain activities. Strategic fit exists whenever one or more activities constituting the value chains of different busi- nesses are sufficiently similar to present opportunities for cross-business sharing or transferring of the resources and capabilities that enable these activities.8 Prime exam- ples of such opportunities include:
∙ Transferring specialized expertise, technological know-how, or other competi- tively valuable strategic assets from one business’s value chain to another’s. Google’s ability to transfer software developers and other information technol- ogy specialists from other business applications to the development of its Android mobile operating system and Chrome operating system for PCs aided consider- ably in the success of these new internal ventures.
∙ Sharing costs between businesses by combining their related value chain activi- ties into a single operation. For instance, it is often feasible to manufacture the
DIVERSIFICATION INTO RELATED BUSINESSES
LO 2
How related diversification strategies can produce cross- business strategic fit capable of delivering competitive advantage.
Final PDF to printer
222 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 222 10/13/16 07:07 PM
products of different businesses in a single plant, use the same warehouses for shipping and distribution, or have a single sales force for the products of differ- ent businesses if they are marketed to the same types of customers.
∙ Exploiting the common use of a well-known brand name. For example, Yamaha’s name in motorcycles gave the company instant credibility and recognition in entering the personal-watercraft business, allowing it to achieve a significant market share without spending large sums on advertising to establish a brand identity for the WaveRunner. Likewise, Apple’s reputation for producing easy- to-operate computers was a competitive asset that facilitated the company’s diversification into digital music players, smartphones, and connected watches.
∙ Sharing other resources (besides brands) that support corresponding value chain activities across businesses. When Disney acquired Marvel Comics, management saw to it that Marvel’s iconic characters, such as Spiderman, Iron Man, and the Black Widow, were shared with many of the other Disney
CORE CONCEPT
Strategic fit exists whenever one or more activities constituting the value chains of different businesses are sufficiently similar to present opportunities for cross-business sharing or transferring of the resources and capabilities that enable these activities.
CORE CONCEPT
Related diversification involves sharing or transferring specialized resources and capabilities. Specialized resources and capabilities have very specific applications and their use is limited to a restricted range of industry and business types, in contrast to general resources and capabilities, which can be widely applied and can be deployed across a broad range of industry and business types.
businesses, including its theme parks, retail stores, motion picture division, and video game business. (Disney’s characters, starting with Mickey Mouse, have always been among the most valuable of its resources.) Automobile companies like Ford share resources such as their relationships with suppliers and dealer net- works across their lines of business.
∙ Engaging in cross-business collaboration and knowledge sharing to create new competitively valuable resources and capabilities. Businesses performing closely related value chain activities may seize opportunities to join forces, share knowl- edge and talents, and collaborate to create altogether new capabilities (such as virtually defect-free assembly methods or increased ability to speed new products to market) that will be mutually beneficial in improving their competitiveness and business performance.
Related diversification is based on value chain matchups with respect to key value chain activities—those that play a central role in each business’s strategy and that link to its industry’s key success factors. Such matchups facilitate the sharing or transfer of the resources and capabilities that enable the performance of these activities and
underlie each business’s quest for competitive advantage. By facilitating the shar- ing or transferring of such important competitive assets, related diversification can elevate each business’s prospects for competitive success.
The resources and capabilities that are leveraged in related diversification are specialized resources and capabilities. By this we mean that they have very specific applications; their use is restricted to a limited range of business contexts in which these applications are competitively relevant. Because they are adapted for particular applications, specialized resources and capabilities must be utilized by particular types of businesses operating in specific kinds of industries to have value; they have limited utility outside this designated range of industry and busi- ness applications. This is in contrast to general resources and capabilities (such as general management capabilities, human resource management capabilities, and general accounting services), which can be applied usefully across a wide range of industry and business types.
L’Oréal is the world’s largest beauty products company, with more than $30 billion in revenues and a successful strategy of related diversification built on leveraging a highly specialized set of resources and capabilities. These include 23 dermatologic and cosmetic research centers, R&D capabilities and scientific knowl- edge concerning skin and hair care, patents and secret formulas for hair and skin
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 223
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 223 10/13/16 07:07 PM
care products, and robotic applications developed specifically for testing the safety of hair and skin care products. These resources and capabilities are highly valuable for businesses focused on products for human skin and hair—they are specialized to such applications, and, in consequence, they are of little or no value beyond this restricted range of applications. To leverage these resources in a way that maximizes their potential value, L’Oréal has diversified into cosmetics, hair care products, skin care products, and fragrances (but not food, transportation, industrial services, or any application area far from the narrow domain in which its specialized resources are competitively relevant). L’Oréal’s businesses are related to one another on the basis of its value-generating specialized resources and capabilities and the cross-business link- ages among the value chain activities that they enable.
Corning’s most competitively valuable resources and capabilities are specialized to applications concerning fiber optics and specialty glass and ceramics. Over the course of its 150-year history, it has developed an unmatched understanding of fundamen- tal glass science and related technologies in the field of optics. Its capabilities now span a variety of sophisticated technologies and include expertise in domains such as custom glass composition, specialty glass melting and forming, precision optics, high-end transmissive coatings, and optomechanical materials. Corning has leveraged these specialized capabilities into a position of global leadership in five related market segments: display technologies based on glass substrates, environmental technologies using ceramic substrates and filters, optical fibers and cables for telecommunications, optical biosensors for drug discovery, and specialty materials employing advanced optics and specialty glass solutions. The market segments into which Corning has diversified are all related by their reliance on Corning’s specialized capability set and by the many value chain activities that they have in common as a result.
General Mills has diversified into a closely related set of food businesses on the basis of its capabilities in the realm of “kitchen chemistry” and food production tech- nologies. Its five U.S. retail divisions—meals, cereal, snacks, baking, and yogurt— include brands such as Old El Paso, Green Giant, Lucky Charms and General Mills brand cereals, Nature Valley, Annie’s Organic, Pillsbury and Betty Crocker, and Yoplait yogurt. Earlier it had diversified into restaurant businesses on the mistaken notion that all food businesses were related. By exiting these businesses in the mid- 1990s, the company was able to improve its overall profitability and strengthen its position in its remaining businesses. The lesson from its experience—and a takeaway for the managers of any diversified company—is that it is not product relatedness that defines a well-crafted related diversification strategy. Rather, the businesses must be related in terms of their key value chain activities and the specialized resources and capabilities that enable these activities.9 An example is Citizen Holdings Company, whose products appear to be different (watches, miniature card calculators, hand- held televisions) but are related in terms of their common reliance on miniaturization know-how and advanced precision technologies.
While companies pursuing related diversification strategies may also have oppor- tunities to share or transfer their general resources and capabilities (e.g., information systems; human resource management practices; accounting and tax services; bud- geting, planning, and financial reporting systems; expertise in legal and regulatory affairs; and fringe-benefit management systems), the most competitively valuable opportunities for resource sharing or transfer always come from leveraging their spe- cialized resources and capabilities. The reason for this is that specialized resources and capabilities drive the key value-creating activities that both connect the busi- nesses (at points along their value chains where there is strategic fit) and link to the
Final PDF to printer
224 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 224 10/13/16 07:07 PM
key success factors in the markets where they are competitively relevant. Figure 8.1 illustrates the range of opportunities to share and/or transfer specialized resources and capabilities among the value chain activities of related businesses. It is important to recognize that even though general resources and capabilities may be shared by multiple business units, such resource sharing alone cannot form the backbone of a strategy keyed to related diversification.
Identifying Cross-Business Strategic Fit along the Value Chain Cross-business strategic fit can exist anywhere along the value chain—in R&D and technology activities, in supply chain activities and relationships with suppliers, in manufacturing, in sales and marketing, in distribution activities, or in customer ser- vice activities.10
Strategic Fit in Supply Chain Activities Businesses with strategic fit with respect to their supply chain activities can perform better together because of the potential for transferring skills in procuring materials, sharing resources and capabilities in logistics, collaborating with common supply chain partners, and/or
FIGURE 8.1 Related Businesses Provide Opportunities to Benefit from Competitively Valuable Strategic Fit
Representative Value Chain Activities
Business A
Business B
Support Activities
Support Activities
Supply Chain Activities
Sales and Marketing
Customer ServiceTechnology Operations Distribution
Supply Chain Activities
Sales and Marketing
Customer ServiceTechnology
Operations Distribution
Share or transfer valuable specialized resources and capabilities at one or more points along the value chains of business A and business B.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 225
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 225 10/13/16 07:07 PM
increasing leverage with shippers in securing volume discounts on incoming parts and components. Dell Computer’s strategic partnerships with leading suppliers of micro- processors, circuit boards, disk drives, memory chips, flat-panel displays, wireless capabilities, long-life batteries, and other PC-related components have been an impor- tant element of the company’s strategy to diversify into servers, data storage devices, networking components, and LED TVs—products that include many components common to PCs and that can be sourced from the same strategic partners that provide Dell with PC components.
Strategic Fit in R&D and Technology Activities Businesses with strategic fit in R&D or technology development perform better together than apart because of potential cost savings in R&D, shorter times in getting new products to market, and more innovative products or processes. Moreover, technological advances in one business can lead to increased sales for both. Technological innovations have been the driver behind the efforts of cable TV companies to diversify into high-speed Internet access (via the use of cable modems) and, further, to explore providing local and long-distance telephone service to residential and commercial customers either through a single wire or by means of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. These diversification efforts have resulted in companies such as DISH, XFINITY, and Comcast now offering TV, Internet, and phone bundles.
Manufacturing-Related Strategic Fit Cross-business strategic fit in manufacturing-related activities can be exploited when a diversifier’s expertise in qual- ity control and cost-efficient production methods can be transferred to another busi- ness. When Emerson Electric diversified into the chain-saw business, it transferred its expertise in low-cost manufacture to its newly acquired Beaird-Poulan business divi- sion. The transfer drove Beaird-Poulan’s new strategy—to be the low-cost provider of chain-saw products—and fundamentally changed the way Beaird-Poulan chain saws were designed and manufactured. Another benefit of production-related value chain commonalities is the ability to consolidate production into a smaller number of plants and significantly reduce overall production costs. When snowmobile maker Bombar- dier diversified into motorcycles, it was able to set up motorcycle assembly lines in the manufacturing facility where it was assembling snowmobiles. When Smucker’s acquired Procter & Gamble’s Jif peanut butter business, it was able to combine the manufacture of the two brands of peanut butter products while gaining greater lever- age with vendors in purchasing its peanut supplies.
Strategic Fit in Sales and Marketing Activities Various cost- saving opportunities spring from diversifying into businesses with closely related sales and marketing activities. When the products are sold directly to the same custom- ers, sales costs can often be reduced by using a single sales force instead of having two different salespeople call on the same customer. The products of related busi- nesses can be promoted at the same website and included in the same media ads and sales brochures. There may be opportunities to reduce costs by consolidating order processing and billing and by using common promotional tie-ins. When global power toolmaker Black & Decker acquired Vector Products, it was able to use its own global sales force to sell the newly acquired Vector power inverters, vehicle battery chargers, and rechargeable spotlights because the types of customers that carried its power tools (discounters like Kmart, home centers, and hardware stores) also stocked the types of products produced by Vector.
Final PDF to printer
226 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 226 10/13/16 07:07 PM
A second category of benefits arises when different businesses use similar sales and marketing approaches. In such cases, there may be competitively valuable opportuni- ties to transfer selling, merchandising, advertising, and product differentiation skills from one business to another. Procter & Gamble’s product lineup includes Pampers diapers, Olay beauty products, Tide laundry detergent, Crest toothpaste, Charmin toi- let tissue, Gillette razors and blades, Swiffer cleaning products, Oral-B toothbrushes, and Head & Shoulders shampoo. All of these have different competitors and different supply chain and production requirements, but they all move through the same whole- sale distribution systems, are sold in common retail settings to the same shoppers, and require the same marketing and merchandising skills.
Distribution-Related Strategic Fit Businesses with closely related dis- tribution activities can perform better together than apart because of potential cost savings in sharing the same distribution facilities or using many of the same wholesale distributors and retail dealers. When Conair Corporation acquired Allegro Manufac- turing’s travel bag and travel accessory business, it was able to consolidate its own distribution centers for hair dryers and curling irons with those of Allegro, thereby generating cost savings for both businesses. Likewise, since Conair products and Alle- gro’s neck rests, ear plugs, luggage tags, and toiletry kits were sold by the same types of retailers (discount stores, supermarket chains, and drugstore chains), Conair was able to convince many of the retailers not carrying Allegro products to take on the line.
Strategic Fit in Customer Service Activities Strategic fit with respect to customer service activities can enable cost savings or differentiation advan- tages, just as it does along other points of the value chain. For example, cost savings may come from consolidating after-sale service and repair organizations for the prod- ucts of closely related businesses into a single operation. Likewise, different busi- nesses can often use the same customer service infrastructure. For instance, an electric utility that diversifies into natural gas, water, appliance repair services, and home security services can use the same customer data network, the same call centers and local offices, the same billing and accounting systems, and the same customer service infrastructure to support all of its products and services. Through the transfer of best practices in customer service across a set of related businesses or through the sharing of resources such as proprietary information about customer preferences, a multibusi- ness company can also create a differentiation advantage through higher-quality cus- tomer service.
Strategic Fit, Economies of Scope, and Competitive Advantage What makes related diversification an attractive strategy is the opportunity to convert cross-business strategic fit into a competitive advantage over business rivals whose operations do not offer comparable strategic-fit benefits. The greater the relatedness among a diversified company’s businesses, the bigger a company’s window for con- verting strategic fit into competitive advantage via (1) transferring skills or knowledge, (2) combining related value chain activities to achieve lower costs, (3) leveraging the use of a well-respected brand name, (4) sharing other valuable resources, and (5) using cross-business collaboration and knowledge sharing to create new resources and capa- bilities and drive innovation.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 227
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 227 10/13/16 07:07 PM
Strategic Fit and Economies of Scope Strategic fit in the value chain activities of a diversified corporation’s different businesses opens up opportu- nities for economies of scope—a concept distinct from economies of scale. Econo- mies of scale are cost savings that accrue directly from a larger-sized operation—for example, unit costs may be lower in a large plant than in a small plant. Economies of scope, however, stem directly from strategic fit along the value chains of related businesses, which in turn enables the businesses to share resources or to transfer them from business to business at low cost. Such economies are open only to firms engaged in related diversification, since they are the result of related businesses performing R&D together, transferring managers from one business to another, using common manufacturing or distribution facilities, sharing a common sales force or dealer network, using the same established brand name, and the like. The greater the cross-business economies associated with resource sharing and transfer, the greater the potential for a related diversification strategy to give a multibusiness enterprise a cost advantage over rivals.
From Strategic Fit to Competitive Advantage, Added Profit- ability, and Gains in Shareholder Value The cost advantage from economies of scope is due to the fact that resource sharing allows a multibusiness firm to spread resource costs across its businesses and to avoid the expense of having to acquire and maintain duplicate sets of resources—one for each business. But related diversified companies can benefit from strategic fit in other ways as well.
Sharing or transferring valuable specialized assets among the company’s busi- nesses can help each business perform its value chain activities more proficiently. This translates into competitive advantage for the businesses in one or two basic ways: (1) The businesses can contribute to greater efficiency and lower costs relative to their competitors, and/or (2) they can provide a basis for differentiation so that customers are willing to pay relatively more for the businesses’ goods and services. In either or both of these ways, a firm with a well-executed related diversification strategy can boost the chances of its businesses attaining a competitive advantage.
The competitive advantage potential that flows from the capture of strategic-fit benefits is what enables a company pursuing related diversification to achieve 1 + 1 = 3 financial performance and the hoped-for gains in shareholder value. The greater the relatedness among a diversified company’s businesses, the big- ger a company’s window for converting strategic fit into competitive advantage. The strategic and business logic is compelling: Capturing the benefits of strategic fit along the value chains of its related businesses gives a diversified company a clear path to achieving competitive advantage over undiversified competitors and competitors whose own diversification efforts don’t offer equivalent strategic-fit benefits.11 Such competitive advantage potential provides a company with a dependable basis for earning profits and a return on investment that exceeds what the company’s businesses could earn as stand-alone enterprises. Converting the competitive advantage potential into greater profitability is what fuels 1 + 1 = 3 gains in shareholder value—the necessary outcome for satisfying the better-off test and proving the business merit of a company’s diversification effort.
There are five things to bear in mind here:
1. Capturing cross-business strategic-fit benefits via a strategy of related diver- sification builds shareholder value in ways that shareholders cannot undertake by simply owning a portfolio of stocks of companies in different industries.
CORE CONCEPT
Economies of scope are cost reductions that flow from operating in multiple businesses (a larger scope of operation). This is in contrast to economies of scale, which accrue from a larger-sized operation.
Diversifying into related businesses where competitively valuable strategic-fit benefits can be captured puts a company’s businesses in position to perform better financially as part of the company than they could have performed as independent enterprises, thus providing a clear avenue for increasing shareholder value and satisfying the better-off test.
Final PDF to printer
228 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 228 10/13/16 07:07 PM
2. The capture of cross-business strategic-fit benefits is possible only via a strategy of related diversification.
3. The greater the relatedness among a diversified company’s businesses, the bigger the company’s window for converting strategic fit into competitive advantage.
4. The benefits of cross-business strategic fit come from the transferring or shar- ing of competitively valuable resources and capabilities among the businesses— resources and capabilities that are specialized to certain applications and have value only in specific types of industries and businesses.
5. The benefits of cross-business strategic fit are not automatically realized when a company diversifies into related businesses; the benefits materialize only after management has successfully pursued internal actions to capture them.
Illustration Capsule 8.1 describes the merger of Kraft Foods Group, Inc. with the H. J. Heinz Holding Corporation, in pursuit of the strategic-fit benefits of a related diversification strategy.
DIVERSIFICATION INTO UNRELATED BUSINESSES Achieving cross-business strategic fit is not a motivation for unrelated diversification. Companies that pursue a strategy of unrelated diversification generally exhibit a will- ingness to diversify into any business in any industry where senior managers see an opportunity to realize consistently good financial results. Such companies are fre- quently labeled conglomerates because their business interests range broadly across diverse industries. Companies engaged in unrelated diversification nearly always enter new businesses by acquiring an established company rather than by forming a startup subsidiary within their own corporate structures or participating in joint ventures.
With a strategy of unrelated diversification, an acquisition is deemed to have potential if it passes the industry-attractiveness and cost of entry tests and if it has good prospects for attractive financial performance. Thus, with an unrelated diversifi- cation strategy, company managers spend much time and effort screening acquisition candidates and evaluating the pros and cons of keeping or divesting existing busi- nesses, using such criteria as:
∙ Whether the business can meet corporate targets for profitability and return on investment.
∙ Whether the business is in an industry with attractive growth potential. ∙ Whether the business is big enough to contribute significantly to the parent firm’s
bottom line.
But the key to successful unrelated diversification is to go beyond these consider- ations and ensure that the strategy passes the better-off test as well. This test requires more than just growth in revenues; it requires growth in profits—beyond what could be achieved by a mutual fund or a holding company that owns shares of the businesses without adding any value. Unless the combination of businesses is more profitable together under the corporate umbrella than they are apart as independent businesses, the strategy cannot create economic value for shareholders. And unless it does so, there is no real justification for unrelated diversification, since top executives have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize long-term shareholder value for the company’s owners (its shareholders).
LO 3
The merits and risks of unrelated diversification strategies.
Final PDF to printer
229
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 229 10/13/16 07:07 PM
Building Shareholder Value via Unrelated Diversification Given the absence of cross-business strategic fit with which to create competitive advantages, building shareholder value via unrelated diversification ultimately hinges on the ability of the parent company to improve its businesses (and make the combina- tion better off ) via other means. Critical to this endeavor is the role that the parent com- pany plays as a corporate parent.12 To the extent that a company has strong parenting capabilities—capabilities that involve nurturing, guiding, grooming, and governing
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 8.1
The $62.6 billion merger between Kraft and Heinz that was finalized in the summer of 2015 created the third largest food and beverage company in North Amer- ica and the fifth largest in the world. It was a merger predicated on the idea that the strategic fit between these two companies was such that they could create more value as a combined enterprise than they could as two separate companies. As a combined enterprise, Kraft Heinz would be able to exploit its cross-business value chain activities and resource similarities to more efficiently produce, distribute, and sell profitable pro- cessed food products.
Kraft and Heinz products share many of the same raw materials (milk, sugar, salt, wheat, etc.), which allows the new company to leverage its increased bargaining power as a larger business to get better deals with suppli- ers, using strategic fit in supply chain activities to achieve lower input costs and greater inbound efficiencies. More- over, because both of these brands specialized in pre- packaged foods, there is ample manufacturing-related strategic fit in production processes and packaging technologies that allow the new company to trim and streamline manufacturing operations.
Their distribution-related strategic fit will allow for the complete integration of distribution channels and transportation networks, resulting in greater outbound efficiencies and a reduction in travel time for prod- ucts moving from factories to stores. The Kraft Heinz Company is currently looking to leverage Heinz’s global platform to expand Kraft’s products internationally. By utilizing Heinz’s already highly developed global distri- bution network and brand familiarity (key specialized resources), Kraft can more easily expand into the global
market of prepackaged and processed food. Because these two brands are sold at similar types of retail stores (supermarket chains, wholesale retailers, and local gro- cery stores), they are now able to claim even more shelf space with the increased bargaining power of the com- bined company.
Strategic fit in sales and marketing activities will allow the company to develop coordinated and more effective advertising campaigns. Toward this aim, the Kraft Heinz Company is moving to consolidate its mar- keting capabilities under one marketing firm. Also, by combining R&D teams, the Kraft Heinz Company could come out with innovative products that may appeal more to the growing number of on-the-go and health- conscious buyers in the market. Many of these potential and predicted synergies for the Kraft Heinz Company have yet to be realized, since merger integration activi- ties always take time.
The Kraft–Heinz Merger: Pursuing the Benefits of Cross-Business Strategic Fit
© Scott Olson/Getty Images
Note: Developed with Maria Hart.
Sources: w w w.forbes.com/sites/paulmartyn/2015/03/31/heinz-and-kraft-merger-makes-supply-management-sense/; fortune.com/2015/03/2 5/kraft- mess-how-heinz- deal-helps/; w w w.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/dealbook /kraft-and-heinz-to -merge.html?_ r=2; company websites (accessed December 3, 2015).
Final PDF to printer
230 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 230 10/13/16 07:07 PM
constituent businesses—a corporate parent can propel its businesses forward and help them gain ground over their market rivals. Corporate parents also contribute to the competitiveness of their unrelated businesses by sharing or transferring general resources and capabilities across the businesses—competitive assets that have utility in any type of industry and that can be leveraged across a wide range of business types as a result. Examples of the kinds of general resources that a corporate parent lever- ages in unrelated diversification include the corporation’s reputation, credit rating, and access to financial markets; governance mechanisms; management training programs; a corporate ethics program; a central data and communications center; shared admin- istrative resources such as public relations and legal services; and common systems for functions such as budgeting, financial reporting, and quality control.
The Benefits of Astute Corporate Parenting One of the most important ways that corporate parents contribute to the success of their businesses is by offering high-level oversight and guidance.13 The top executives of a large diversi- fied corporation have among them many years of accumulated experience in a variety of business settings and can often contribute expert problem-solving skills, creative strategy suggestions, and first-rate advice and guidance on how to improve competi- tiveness and financial performance to the heads of the company’s various business subsidiaries. This is especially true in the case of newly acquired, smaller businesses. Particularly astute high-level guidance from corporate executives can help the subsid- iaries perform better than they would otherwise be able to do through the efforts of the business unit heads alone. The outstanding leadership of Royal Little, the founder of Textron, was a major reason that the company became an exemplar of the unre- lated diversification strategy while he was CEO. Little’s bold moves transformed the company from its origins as a small textile manufacturer into a global powerhouse
known for its Bell helicopters, Cessna aircraft, and a host of other strong brands in a wide array of industries. Norm Wesley, a former CEO of the conglomerate Fortune Brands, is similarly credited with driving the sharp rise in the company’s stock price while he was at the helm. Under his leadership, Fortune Brands became the $7 billion maker of products ranging from spirits (e.g., Jim Beam bourbon and rye, Gilbey’s gin and vodka, Courvoisier cognac) to golf products (e.g., Titleist golf balls and clubs, FootJoy golf shoes and apparel, Scotty Cameron putters) to hardware (e.g., Moen faucets, American Lock security devices). (Fortune Brands has since been converted into two separate entities, Beam Inc. and Fortune Brands Home & Security.)
Corporate parents can also create added value for their businesses by provid- ing them with other types of general resources that lower the operating costs of the individual businesses or that enhance their operating effectiveness. The administra- tive resources located at a company’s corporate headquarters are a prime example. They typically include legal services, accounting expertise and tax services, and other elements of the administrative infrastructure, such as risk management capa- bilities, information technology resources, and public relations capabilities. Provid- ing individual businesses with general support resources such as these creates value by lowering companywide overhead costs, since each business would otherwise have to duplicate the centralized activities.
Corporate brands that do not connote any specific type of product are another type of general corporate resource that can be shared among unrelated busi- nesses. General Electric, for example, has successfully applied its GE brand to such unrelated products and businesses as appliances (GE refrigerators, ovens, and
CORE CONCEPT
Corporate parenting refers to the role that a diversified corporation plays in nurturing its component businesses through the provision of top management expertise, disciplined control, financial resources, and other types of general resources and capabilities such as long- term planning systems, business development skills, management development processes, and incentive systems. The parenting activities of corporate executives often include recruiting and hiring talented managers to run individual businesses.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 231
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 231 10/13/16 07:07 PM
washer-dryers), medical products and health care (GE Healthcare), jet engines (GE Aviation), and power and water optimization technologies (GE Power and Water). Corporate brands that are applied in this fashion are sometimes called umbrella brands. Utilizing a well-known corporate name (GE) in a diversified company’s individual businesses has the potential not only to lower costs (by spreading the fixed cost of developing and maintaining the brand over many businesses) but also to enhance each business’s customer value proposition by linking its products to a name that consumers trust. In similar fashion, a corporation’s reputation for well- crafted products, for product reliability, or for trustworthiness can lead to greater customer willingness to purchase the products of a wider range of a diversified company’s businesses. Incentive systems, financial control systems, and a company’s culture are other types of general corporate resources that may prove useful in enhanc- ing the daily operations of a diverse set of businesses.
We discuss two other commonly employed ways for corporate parents to add value to their unrelated businesses next.
Judicious Cross-Business Allocation of Financial Resources By reallocating surplus cash flows from some businesses to fund the capital require- ments of other businesses—in essence, having the company serve as an internal capi- tal market—corporate parents may also be able to create value. Such actions can be particularly important in times when credit is unusually tight (such as in the wake of the worldwide banking crisis that began in 2008) or in economies with less well devel- oped capital markets. Under these conditions, with strong financial resources a corpo- rate parent can add value by shifting funds from business units generating excess cash (more than they need to fund their own operating requirements and new capital invest- ment opportunities) to other, cash-short businesses with appealing growth prospects. A parent company’s ability to function as its own internal capital market enhances overall corporate performance and increases shareholder value to the extent that (1) its top managers have better access to information about investment opportunities internal to the firm than do external financiers or (2) it can provide funds that would otherwise be unavailable due to poor financial market conditions.
Acquiring and Restructuring Undervalued Companies Another way for parent companies to add value to unrelated businesses is by acquiring weakly performing companies at a bargain price and then restructuring their operations in ways that produce sometimes dramatic increases in profitability. Restructuring refers to overhauling and streamlining the operations of a business—combining plants with excess capacity, selling off underutilized assets, reducing unnecessary expenses, revamping its product offerings, consolidating administrative functions to reduce overhead costs, and otherwise improving the operating efficiency and profitability of a company. Restructuring generally involves transferring seasoned managers to the newly acquired business, either to replace the top layers of manage- ment or to step in temporarily until the business is returned to profitability or is well on its way to becoming a major market contender.
Restructuring is often undertaken when a diversified company acquires a new business that is performing well below levels that the corporate parent believes are achievable. Diversified companies that have proven turnaround capabilities in rejuvenating weakly performing companies can often apply these capabilities in a relatively wide range of unrelated industries. Newell Rubbermaid (whose diverse product line includes Sharpie pens, Levolor window treatments, Goody hair
An umbrella brand is a corporate brand name that can be applied to a wide assortment of business types. As such, it is a type of general resource that can be leveraged in unrelated diversification.
CORE CONCEPT
Restructuring refers to overhauling and streamlining the activities of a business—combining plants with excess capacity, selling off underutilized assets, reducing unnecessary expenses, and otherwise improving the productivity and profitability of a company.
Final PDF to printer
232 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 232 10/13/16 07:07 PM
accessories, Calphalon cookware, and Lenox power and hand tools—all businesses with different value chain activities) developed such a strong set of turnaround capa- bilities that the company was said to “Newellize” the businesses it acquired.
Successful unrelated diversification strategies based on restructuring require the parent company to have considerable expertise in identifying underperforming tar- get companies and in negotiating attractive acquisition prices so that each acquisition passes the cost of entry test. The capabilities in this regard of Lord James Hanson and Lord Gordon White, who headed up the storied British conglomerate Hanson Trust, played a large part in Hanson Trust’s impressive record of profitability.
The Path to Greater Shareholder Value through Unrelated Diversification For a strategy of unrelated diversification to produce companywide financial results above and beyond what the businesses could generate operating as stand-alone enti- ties, corporate executives must do three things to pass the three tests of corporate advantage:
1. Diversify into industries where the businesses can produce consistently good earnings and returns on investment (to satisfy the industry-attractiveness test).
2. Negotiate favorable acquisition prices (to satisfy the cost of entry test). 3. Do a superior job of corporate parenting via high-level managerial oversight and
resource sharing, financial resource allocation and portfolio management, and/or the restructuring of underperforming businesses (to satisfy the better-off test).
The best corporate parents understand the nature and value of the kinds of resources at their command and know how to leverage them effectively across their businesses. Those that are able to create more value in their businesses than other diversified companies have what is called a parenting advantage. When a corpo- ration has a parenting advantage, its top executives have the best chance of being able to craft and execute an unrelated diversification strategy that can satisfy all three tests of corporate advantage and truly enhance long-term economic share- holder value.
The Drawbacks of Unrelated Diversification Unrelated diversification strategies have two important negatives that undercut the pluses: very demanding managerial requirements and limited competitive advan- tage potential.
Demanding Managerial Requirements Successfully managing a set of fundamentally different businesses operating in fundamentally different industry and competitive environments is a challenging and exceptionally difficult proposition.14 Consider, for example, that corporations like General Electric, ITT, Mitsubishi, and Bharti Enterprises have dozens of business subsidiaries making hundreds and some- times thousands of products. While headquarters executives can glean information about an industry from third-party sources, ask lots of questions when making occa- sional visits to the operations of the different businesses, and do their best to learn about the company’s different businesses, they still remain heavily dependent on brief- ings from business unit heads and on “managing by the numbers”—that is, keeping a
CORE CONCEPT
A diversified company has a parenting advantage when it is more able than other companies to boost the combined performance of its individual businesses through high-level guidance, general oversight, and other corporate-level contributions.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 233
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 233 10/13/16 07:07 PM
close track on the financial and operating results of each subsidiary. Managing by the numbers works well enough when business conditions are normal and the heads of the various business units are capable of consistently meeting their numbers. But prob- lems arise if things start to go awry in a business and corporate management has to get deeply involved in the problems of a business it does not know much about. Because every business tends to encounter rough sledding at some juncture, unrelated diversi- fication is thus a somewhat risky strategy from a managerial perspective.15 Just one or two unforeseen problems or big strategic mistakes—which are much more likely without close corporate oversight—can cause a precipitous drop in corporate earnings and crash the parent company’s stock price.
Hence, competently overseeing a set of widely diverse businesses can turn out to be much harder than it sounds. In practice, comparatively few companies have proved that they have top-management capabilities that are up to the task. There are far more companies whose corporate executives have failed at delivering consistently good financial results with an unrelated diversification strategy than there are companies with corporate executives who have been successful.16 Unless a company truly has a parenting advantage, the odds are that the result of unrelated diversification will be 1 + 1 = 2 or even less.
Limited Competitive Advantage Potential The second big nega- tive is that unrelated diversification offers only a limited potential for competi- tive advantage beyond what each individual business can generate on its own. Unlike a related diversification strategy, unrelated diversification provides no cross-business strategic-fit benefits that allow each business to perform its key value chain activities in a more efficient and effective manner. A cash-rich cor- porate parent pursuing unrelated diversification can provide its subsidiaries with much-needed capital, may achieve economies of scope in activities relying on general corporate resources, and may even offer some managerial know-how to help resolve problems in particular business units, but otherwise it has little to offer in the way of enhancing the competitive strength of its individual business units. In comparison to the highly specialized resources that facilitate related diversification, the general resources that support unrelated diversification tend to be relatively low value, for the simple reason that they are more common. Unless they are of exceptionally high quality (such as GE’s world-renowned general man- agement capabilities or Newell Rubbermaid’s turnaround capabilities), resources and capabilities that are general in nature are less likely to provide a source of com- petitive advantage for diversified companies. Without the competitive advantage potential of strategic fit in competitively important value chain activities, consoli- dated performance of an unrelated group of businesses stands to be little more than the sum of what the individual business units could achieve if they were indepen- dent, in most circumstances.
Misguided Reasons for Pursuing Unrelated Diversification Companies sometimes pursue unrelated diversification for reasons that are misguided. These include the following:
∙ Risk reduction. Spreading the company’s investments over a set of diverse indus- tries to spread risk cannot create long-term shareholder value since the company’s
Relying solely on leveraging general resources and the expertise of corporate executives to wisely manage a set of unrelated businesses is a much weaker foundation for enhancing shareholder value than is a strategy of related diversification.
Final PDF to printer
234 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 234 10/13/16 07:07 PM
shareholders can more flexibly (and more efficiently) reduce their exposure to risk by investing in a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds.
∙ Growth. While unrelated diversification may enable a company to achieve rapid or continuous growth, firms that pursue growth for growth’s sake are unlikely to maximize shareholder value. Only profitable growth—the kind that comes from creating added value for shareholders—can justify a strategy of unrelated diversification.
∙ Stabilization. Managers sometimes pursue broad diversification in the hope that market downtrends in some of the company’s businesses will be partially offset by cyclical upswings in its other businesses, thus producing somewhat less earn- ings volatility. In actual practice, however, there’s no convincing evidence that the consolidated profits of firms with unrelated diversification strategies are more stable or less subject to reversal in periods of recession and economic stress than the profits of firms with related diversification strategies.
∙ Managerial motives. Unrelated diversification can provide benefits to managers such as higher compensation (which tends to increase with firm size and degree of diversification) and reduced unemployment risk. Pursuing diversification for these reasons will likely reduce shareholder value and violate managers’ fiduciary responsibilities.
Because unrelated diversification strategies at their best have only a limited potential for creating long-term economic value for shareholders, it is essential that managers not compound this problem by taking a misguided approach toward unrelated diversification, in pursuit of objectives that are more likely to destroy shareholder value than create it.
Only profitable growth— the kind that comes from creating added value for shareholders—can justify a strategy of unrelated diversification.
COMBINATION RELATED–UNRELATED DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES
There’s nothing to preclude a company from diversifying into both related and unrelated businesses. Indeed, in actual practice the business makeup of diversified companies varies considerably. Some diversified companies are really dominant- business enterprises—one major “core” business accounts for 50 to 80 percent of total revenues and a collection of small related or unrelated businesses accounts for the remainder. Some diversified companies are narrowly diversified around a few (two to five) related or unrelated businesses. Others are broadly diversified around a wide-ranging collection of related businesses, unrelated businesses, or a mixture of both. A number of multibusiness enterprises have diversified into unrelated areas but have a collection of related businesses within each area—thus giving them a busi- ness portfolio consisting of several unrelated groups of related businesses. There’s ample room for companies to customize their diversification strategies to incorpo- rate elements of both related and unrelated diversification, as may suit their own competitive asset profile and strategic vision. Combination related– unrelated diver- sification strategies have particular appeal for companies with a mix of valuable competitive assets, covering the spectrum from general to specialized resources and capabilities.
Figure 8.2 shows the range of alternatives for companies pursuing diversification.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 235
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 235 10/13/16 07:07 PM
FIGURE 8.2 Three Strategy Options for Pursuing Diversification
Diversify into Related Businesses
Diversification Strategy Options
Diversify into Both Related and Unrelated
Businesses
Diversify into Unrelated Businesses
Strategic analysis of diversified companies builds on the concepts and methods used for single-business companies. But there are some additional aspects to consider and a couple of new analytic tools to master. The procedure for evaluating the pluses and minuses of a diversified company’s strategy and deciding what actions to take to improve the company’s performance involves six steps:
1. Assessing the attractiveness of the industries the company has diversified into, both individually and as a group.
2. Assessing the competitive strength of the company’s business units and drawing a nine-cell matrix to simultaneously portray industry attractiveness and business unit competitive strength.
3. Evaluating the extent of cross-business strategic fit along the value chains of the company’s various business units.
4. Checking whether the firm’s resources fit the requirements of its present business lineup.
5. Ranking the performance prospects of the businesses from best to worst and deter- mining what the corporate parent’s priorities should be in allocating resources to its various businesses.
6. Crafting new strategic moves to improve overall corporate performance.
EVALUATING THE STRATEGY OF A DIVERSIFIED COMPANY
LO 4
The analytic tools for evaluating a company’s diversification strategy.
Final PDF to printer
236 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 236 10/13/16 07:07 PM
The core concepts and analytic techniques underlying each of these steps merit further discussion.
Step 1: Evaluating Industry Attractiveness A principal consideration in evaluating the caliber of a diversified company’s strategy is the attractiveness of the industries in which it has business operations. Several ques- tions arise:
1. Does each industry the company has diversified into represent a good market for the company to be in—does it pass the industry-attractiveness test?
2. Which of the company’s industries are most attractive, and which are least attractive? 3. How appealing is the whole group of industries in which the company has invested?
The more attractive the industries (both individually and as a group) that a diversi- fied company is in, the better its prospects for good long-term performance.
Calculating Industry-Attractiveness Scores A simple and reli- able analytic tool for gauging industry attractiveness involves calculating quantitative industry-attractiveness scores based on the following measures:
∙ Market size and projected growth rate. Big industries are more attractive than small industries, and fast-growing industries tend to be more attractive than slow- growing industries, other things being equal.
∙ The intensity of competition. Industries where competitive pressures are relatively weak are more attractive than industries where competitive pressures are strong.
∙ Emerging opportunities and threats. Industries with promising opportunities and minimal threats on the near horizon are more attractive than industries with mod- est opportunities and imposing threats.
∙ The presence of cross-industry strategic fit. The more one industry’s value chain and resource requirements match up well with the value chain activities of other industries in which the company has operations, the more attractive the industry is to a firm pursuing related diversification. However, cross-industry strategic fit is not something that a company committed to a strategy of unrelated diversification considers when it is evaluating industry attractiveness.
∙ Resource requirements. Industries in which resource requirements are within the company’s reach are more attractive than industries in which capital and other resource requirements could strain corporate financial resources and organiza- tional capabilities.
∙ Social, political, regulatory, and environmental factors. Industries that have sig- nificant problems in such areas as consumer health, safety, or environmental pol- lution or those subject to intense regulation are less attractive than industries that do not have such problems.
∙ Industry profitability. Industries with healthy profit margins and high rates of return on investment are generally more attractive than industries with historically low or unstable profits.
Each attractiveness measure is then assigned a weight reflecting its relative impor- tance in determining an industry’s attractiveness, since not all attractiveness mea- sures are equally important. The intensity of competition in an industry should nearly
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 237
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 237 10/13/16 07:07 PM
always carry a high weight (say, 0.20 to 0.30). Strategic-fit considerations should be assigned a high weight in the case of companies with related diversification strategies; but for companies with an unrelated diversification strategy, strategic fit with other industries may be dropped from the list of attractiveness measures altogether. The importance weights must add up to 1.
Finally, each industry is rated on each of the chosen industry-attractiveness mea- sures, using a rating scale of 1 to 10 (where a high rating signifies high attractive- ness, and a low rating signifies low attractiveness). Keep in mind here that the more intensely competitive an industry is, the lower the attractiveness rating for that industry. Likewise, the more the resource requirements associated with being in a particular industry are beyond the parent company’s reach, the lower the attrac- tiveness rating. On the other hand, the presence of good cross-industry strategic fit should be given a very high attractiveness rating, since there is good potential for competitive advantage and added shareholder value. Weighted attractiveness scores are then calculated by multiplying the industry’s rating on each measure by the corresponding weight. For example, a rating of 8 times a weight of 0.25 gives a weighted attractiveness score of 2. The sum of the weighted scores for all the attrac- tiveness measures provides an overall industry-attractiveness score. This procedure is illustrated in Table 8.1.
Interpreting the Industry-Attractiveness Scores Industries with a score much below 5 probably do not pass the attractiveness test. If a company’s industry-attractiveness scores are all above 5, it is probably fair to conclude that the group of industries the company operates in is attractive as a whole. But the group of industries takes on a decidedly lower degree of attractiveness as the number of indus- tries with scores below 5 increases, especially if industries with low scores account for a sizable fraction of the company’s revenues.
For a diversified company to be a strong performer, a substantial portion of its revenues and profits must come from business units with relatively high attrac- tiveness scores. It is particularly important that a diversified company’s principal businesses be in industries with a good outlook for growth and above-average prof- itability. Having a big fraction of the company’s revenues and profits come from industries with slow growth, low profitability, intense competition, or other trou- bling conditions tends to drag overall company performance down. Business units in the least attractive industries are potential candidates for divestiture, unless they are positioned strongly enough to overcome the unattractive aspects of their indus- try environments or they are a strategically important component of the company’s business makeup.
Step 2: Evaluating Business Unit Competitive Strength The second step in evaluating a diversified company is to appraise the competitive strength of each business unit in its respective industry. Doing an appraisal of each business unit’s strength and competitive position in its industry not only reveals its chances for success in its industry but also provides a basis for ranking the units from competitively strongest to competitively weakest and sizing up the competitive strength of all the business units as a group.
Final PDF to printer
238 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 238 11/21/16 01:10 PM
Calculating Competitive-Strength Scores for Each Business Unit Quantitative measures of each business unit’s competitive strength can be cal- culated using a procedure similar to that for measuring industry attractiveness. The following factors are used in quantifying the competitive strengths of a diversified company’s business subsidiaries:
∙ Relative market share. A business unit’s relative market share is defined as the ratio of its market share to the market share held by the largest rival firm in the industry, with market share measured in unit volume, not dollars. For instance, if business A has a market-leading share of 40 percent and its largest rival has 30 percent, A’s relative market share is 1.33. (Note that only business units that are market share leaders in their respective industries can have relative market shares
Industry-Attractiveness Assessments
Industry- Attractiveness Measure
Industry A Industry B Industry C
Importance Weight
Attractiveness Rating*
Weighted Score
Attractiveness Rating*
Weighted Score
Attractiveness Rating*
Weighted Score
Market size and projected growth rate
0.10 8 0.80 3 0.30 5 0.50
Intensity of competition
0.25 8 2.00 2 0.50 5 1.25
Emerging opportunities and threats
0.10 6 0.60 5 0.50 4 0.40
Cross-industry strategic fit
0.30 8 2.40 2 0.60 3 0.90
Resource requirements
0.10 5 0.50 5 0.50 4 0.40
Social, political, regulatory, and environmental factors
0.05 8 0.40 3 0.15 7 1.05
Industry profitability
0.10 5 0.50 4 0.40 6 0.60
Sum of importance weights
1.00
Weighted overall industry- attractiveness scores
7.20 2.95 5.10
*Rating scale: 1 = very unattractive to company; 10 = very attractive to company.
TABLE 8.1 Calculating Weighted Industry-Attractiveness Scores
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 239
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 239 10/13/16 07:07 PM
greater than 1.) If business B has a 15 percent market share and B’s largest rival has 30 percent, B’s relative market share is 0.5. The further below 1 a business unit’s relative market share is, the weaker its competitive strength and market position vis-à-vis rivals.
∙ Costs relative to competitors’ costs. Business units that have low costs relative to those of key competitors tend to be more strongly positioned in their indus- tries than business units struggling to maintain cost parity with major rivals. The only time a business unit’s competitive strength may not be undermined by having higher costs than rivals is when it has incurred the higher costs to strongly differ- entiate its product offering and its customers are willing to pay premium prices for the differentiating features.
∙ Ability to match or beat rivals on key product attributes. A company’s competi- tiveness depends in part on being able to satisfy buyer expectations with regard to features, product performance, reliability, service, and other important attributes.
∙ Brand image and reputation. A widely known and respected brand name is a valu- able competitive asset in most industries.
∙ Other competitively valuable resources and capabilities. Valuable resources and capabilities, including those accessed through collaborative partnerships, enhance a company’s ability to compete successfully and perhaps contend for industry leadership.
∙ Ability to benefit from strategic fit with other business units. Strategic fit with other businesses within the company enhances a business unit’s competitive strength and may provide a competitive edge.
∙ Ability to exercise bargaining leverage with key suppliers or customers. Having bargaining leverage signals competitive strength and can be a source of competi- tive advantage.
∙ Profitability relative to competitors. Above-average profitability on a consistent basis is a signal of competitive advantage, whereas consistently below-average profitability usually denotes competitive disadvantage.
After settling on a set of competitive-strength measures that are well matched to the circumstances of the various business units, the company needs to assign weights indicating each measure’s importance. As in the assignment of weights to industry-attractiveness measures, the importance weights must add up to 1. Each busi- ness unit is then rated on each of the chosen strength measures, using a rating scale of 1 to 10 (where a high rating signifies competitive strength, and a low rating signifies competitive weakness). In the event that the available information is too limited to confidently assign a rating value to a business unit on a particular strength measure, it is usually best to use a score of 5—this avoids biasing the overall score either up or down. Weighted strength ratings are calculated by multiplying the business unit’s rat- ing on each strength measure by the assigned weight. For example, a strength score of 6 times a weight of 0.15 gives a weighted strength rating of 0.90. The sum of the weighted ratings across all the strength measures provides a quantitative measure of a business unit’s overall competitive strength. Table 8.2 provides sample calculations of competitive-strength ratings for three businesses.
Interpreting the Competitive-Strength Scores Business units with competitive-strength ratings above 6.7 (on a scale of 1 to 10) are strong market contenders in their industries. Businesses with ratings in the 3.3-to-6.7 range have
Final PDF to printer
240 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 240 11/21/16 01:10 PM
moderate competitive strength vis-à-vis rivals. Businesses with ratings below 3.3 have a competitively weak standing in the marketplace. If a diversified company’s business units all have competitive-strength scores above 5, it is fair to conclude that its busi- ness units are all fairly strong market contenders in their respective industries. But as the number of business units with scores below 5 increases, there’s reason to question whether the company can perform well with so many businesses in relatively weak competitive positions. This concern takes on even more importance when business units with low scores account for a sizable fraction of the company’s revenues.
Using a Nine-Cell Matrix to Simultaneously Portray Industry Attractiveness and Competitive Strength The industry-attractiveness and business-strength scores can be used to portray the strategic positions of each business in a diversified company. Industry attractiveness is plotted on the vertical axis and competitive strength on the horizontal axis. A nine-cell grid emerges from
Competitive-Strength Assessments
Business A in Industry A
Business B in Industry B
Business C in Industry C
Competitive-Strength Measures
Importance Weight
Strength Rating*
Weighted Score
Strength Rating*
Weighted Score
Strength Rating*
Weighted Score
Relative market share 0.15 10 1.50 2 0.30 6 0.90
Costs relative to competitors’ costs
0.20 7 1.40 4 0.80 5 1.00
Ability to match or beat rivals on key product attributes
0.05 9 0.45 5 0.25 8 0.40
Ability to benefit from strategic fit with sister businesses
0.20 8 1.60 4 0.80 8 0.80
Bargaining leverage with suppliers/customers
0.05 9 0.45 2 0.10 6 0.30
Brand image and reputation
0.10 9 0.90 4 0.40 7 0.70
Other valuable resources/ capabilities
0.15 7 1.05 2 0.30 5 0.75
Profitability relative to competitors
0.10 5 0.50 2 0.20 4 0.40
Sum of importance weights 1.00
Weighted overall competitive strength scores
7.85 3.15 5.25
*Rating scale: 1 = very weak; 10 = very strong.
TABLE 8.2 Calculating Weighted Competitive-Strength Scores for a Diversified Company’s Business Units
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 241
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 241 10/13/16 07:07 PM
FIGURE 8. 3 A Nine-Cell Industry-Attractiveness–Competitive-Strength Matrix
Competitive Strength/Market Position
In d
u st
ry A
tt ra
ct iv
e n
e ss
High
Medium
Low
Strong Average Weak
7.85 5.25
3.36.7
3.3
6.7
7.20
5.10
2.95
3.15
High priority for resource allocation Medium priority for resource allocation
Low priority for resource allocation
Business A in
industry A
Business C in
industry C
Note: Circle sizes are scaled to reflect the percentage of companywide revenues generated by the business unit.
Business B in
industry B
dividing the vertical axis into three regions (high, medium, and low attractiveness) and the horizontal axis into three regions (strong, average, and weak competitive strength). As shown in Figure 8.3, scores of 6.7 or greater on a rating scale of 1 to 10 denote high industry attractiveness, scores of 3.3 to 6.7 denote medium attractiveness, and scores below 3.3 signal low attractiveness. Likewise, high competitive strength is defined as scores greater than 6.7, average strength as scores of 3.3 to 6.7, and low strength as scores below 3.3. Each business unit is plotted on the nine-cell matrix according to its
Final PDF to printer
242 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 242 10/13/16 07:07 PM
overall attractiveness score and strength score, and then it is shown as a “bubble.” The size of each bubble is scaled to the percentage of revenues the business generates relative to total corporate revenues. The bubbles in Figure 8.3 were located on the grid using the three industry-attractiveness scores from Table 8.1 and the strength scores for the three business units in Table 8.2.
The locations of the business units on the attractiveness–strength matrix provide valuable guidance in deploying corporate resources. Businesses positioned in the three cells in the upper left portion of the attractiveness–strength matrix (like business A) have both favorable industry attractiveness and competitive strength.
Next in priority come businesses positioned in the three diagonal cells stretching from the lower left to the upper right (like business C). Such businesses usually merit intermediate priority in the parent’s resource allocation ranking. However, some busi- nesses in the medium-priority diagonal cells may have brighter or dimmer prospects than others. For example, a small business in the upper right cell of the matrix, despite being in a highly attractive industry, may occupy too weak a competitive position in its industry to justify the investment and resources needed to turn it into a strong market contender.
Businesses in the three cells in the lower right corner of the matrix (like business B) have comparatively low industry attractiveness and minimal competitive strength, making them weak performers with little potential for improvement. At best, they have the lowest claim on corporate resources and may be good candidates for being divested (sold to other companies). However, there are occasions when a business located in the three lower-right cells generates sizable positive cash flows. It may make sense to retain such businesses and divert their cash flows to finance expansion of business units with greater potential for profit growth.
The nine-cell attractiveness–strength matrix provides clear, strong logic for why a diversified company needs to consider both industry attractiveness and business strength in allocating resources and investment capital to its different businesses. A good case can be made for concentrating resources in those businesses that enjoy higher degrees of attractiveness and competitive strength, being very selective in mak- ing investments in businesses with intermediate positions on the grid, and withdraw- ing resources from businesses that are lower in attractiveness and strength unless they offer exceptional profit or cash flow potential.
Step 3: Determining the Competitive Value of Strategic Fit in Diversified Companies While this step can be bypassed for diversified companies whose businesses are all unrelated (since, by design, strategic fit is lacking), assessing the degree of strategic fit across a company’s businesses is central to evaluating its related diversification strategy. But more than just checking for the presence of strategic fit is required here.
The real question is how much competitive value can be generated from whatever strategic fit exists. Are the cost savings associated with economies of scope likely to give one or more individual businesses a cost-based advantage over rivals? How much competitive value will come from the cross-business transfer of skills, tech- nology, or intellectual capital or the sharing of competitive assets? Can leveraging a potent umbrella brand or corporate image strengthen the businesses and increase sales significantly? Could cross-business collaboration to create new competitive capabilities lead to significant gains in performance? Without significant cross- business strategic fit and dedicated company efforts to capture the benefits, one has to be skeptical about the potential for a diversified company’s businesses to perform better together than apart.
The greater the value of cross-business strategic fit in enhancing the performance of a diversified company’s businesses, the more competitively powerful is the company’s related diversification strategy.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 243
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 243 10/13/16 07:07 PM
Figure 8.4 illustrates the process of comparing the value chains of a company’s businesses and identifying opportunities to exploit competitively valuable cross- business strategic fit.
Step 4: Checking for Good Resource Fit The businesses in a diversified company’s lineup need to exhibit good resource fit. In firms with a related diversification strategy, good resource fit exists when the firm’s businesses have well-matched specialized resource requirements at points along their value chains that are critical for the businesses’ market success. Matching resource requirements are important in related diversification because they facilitate resource sharing and low-cost resource transfer. In companies pursuing unrelated diversification, resource fit exists when the company has solid parenting capabil- ities or resources of a general nature that it can share or transfer to its compo- nent businesses. Firms pursuing related diversification and firms with combination related–unrelated diversification strategies can also benefit from leveraging corporate parenting capabilities and other general resources. Another dimension of resource fit that concerns all types of multibusiness firms is whether they have resources sufficient to support their group of businesses without being spread too thin.
CORE CONCEPT
A company pursuing related diversification exhibits resource fit when its businesses have matching specialized resource requirements along their value chains; a company pursuing unrelated diversification has resource fit when the parent company has adequate corporate resources (parenting and general resources) to support its businesses’ needs and add value.
FIGURE 8.4 Identifying the Competitive Advantage Potential of Cross-Business Strategic Fit
Business A
Business B
Business C
Business D
Business E
Purchases from
Suppliers Technology Operations Sales and Marketing Distribution Service
Value Chain Activities
Opportunity to combine purchasing activities and gain more leverage with suppliers and realize supply chain economics
Opportunity to share technology, transfer technical skills, combine R&D
Opportunity to combine sales and marketing activities, use common distribution channels, leverage use of a common brand name, and/or combine after-sale service activities
Collaboration to create new competitive capabilities
No strategic-fit opportunities
Final PDF to printer
244 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 244 10/13/16 07:07 PM
Financial Resource Fit The most important dimension of financial resource fit concerns whether a diversified company can generate the internal cash flows sufficient to fund the capital requirements of its businesses, pay its dividends, meet its debt obligations, and otherwise remain financially healthy. (Financial resources, including the firm’s ability to borrow or otherwise raise funds, are a type of general resource.) While additional capital can usually be raised in financial mar- kets, it is important for a diversified firm to have a healthy internal capital market that can support the financial requirements of its business lineup. The greater the extent to which a diversified company is able to fund investment in its businesses through internally generated cash flows rather than from equity issues or borrow- ing, the more powerful its financial resource fit and the less dependent the firm is on external financial resources. This can provide a competitive advantage over single business rivals when credit market conditions are tight, as they have been in the United States and abroad in recent years.
A portfolio approach to ensuring financial fit among a firm’s businesses is based on the fact that different businesses have different cash flow and invest- ment characteristics. For example, business units in rapidly growing industries are often cash hogs—so labeled because the cash flows they are able to generate from internal operations aren’t big enough to fund their operations and capital require- ments for growth. To keep pace with rising buyer demand, rapid-growth businesses frequently need sizable annual capital investments—for new facilities and equip- ment, for new product development or technology improvements, and for additional working capital to support inventory expansion and a larger base of operations. Because a cash hog’s financial resources must be provided by the corporate parent, corporate managers have to decide whether it makes good financial and strategic sense to keep pouring new money into a cash hog business.
In contrast, business units with leading market positions in mature industries may be cash cows in the sense that they generate substantial cash surpluses over what is needed to adequately fund their operations. Market leaders in slow-growth industries often generate sizable positive cash flows over and above what is needed for growth and reinvestment because their industry-leading positions tend to generate attractive earnings and because the slow-growth nature of their industry often entails relatively modest annual investment requirements. Cash cows, although not attractive from a growth standpoint, are valuable businesses from a financial resource perspective. The surplus cash flows they generate can be used to pay corporate dividends, finance acquisitions, and provide funds for investing in the company’s promising cash hogs. It makes good financial and strategic sense for diversified companies to keep cash cows in a healthy condition, fortifying and defending their market position so as to preserve their cash-generating capability and have an ongoing source of financial resources to deploy elsewhere. General Electric considers its advanced materials, equipment ser- vices, and appliance and lighting businesses to be cash cow businesses.
Viewing a diversified group of businesses as a collection of cash flows and cash requirements (present and future flows) can be helpful in understanding what the financial ramifications of diversification are and why having businesses with good financial resource fit can be important. For instance, a diversified company’s businesses exhibit good financial resource fit when the excess cash generated by its cash cow businesses is sufficient to fund the investment requirements of prom-
ising cash hog businesses. Ideally, investing in promising cash hog businesses over time results in growing the hogs into self-supporting star businesses that have strong or market-leading competitive positions in attractive, high-growth markets and high
CORE CONCEPT
A strong internal capital market allows a diversified company to add value by shifting capital from business units generating free cash flow to those needing additional capital to expand and realize their growth potential.
CORE CONCEPT
A portfolio approach to ensuring financial fit among a firm’s businesses is based on the fact that different businesses have different cash flow and investment characteristics.
CORE CONCEPT
A cash hog business generates cash flows that are too small to fully fund its growth; it thereby requires cash infusions to provide additional working capital and finance new capital investment.
CORE CONCEPT
A cash cow business generates cash flows over and above its internal requirements, thus providing a corporate parent with funds for investing in cash hog businesses, financing new acquisitions, or paying dividends.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 245
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 245 10/13/16 07:07 PM
levels of profitability. Star businesses are often the cash cows of the future. When the markets of star businesses begin to mature and their growth slows, their competi- tive strength should produce self-generated cash flows that are more than sufficient to cover their investment needs. The “success sequence” is thus cash hog to young star (but perhaps still a cash hog) to self-supporting star to cash cow. While the practice of viewing a diversified company in terms of cash cows and cash hogs has declined in popularity, it illustrates one approach to analyzing financial resource fit and allocating financial resources across a portfolio of different businesses.
Aside from cash flow considerations, there are two other factors to consider in assessing whether a diversified company’s businesses exhibit good financial fit:
∙ Do any of the company’s individual businesses present financial challenges with respect to contributing adequately to achieving companywide performance tar- gets? A business exhibits poor financial fit if it soaks up a disproportionate share of the company’s financial resources, while making subpar or insignificant con- tributions to the bottom line. Too many underperforming businesses reduce the company’s overall performance and ultimately limit growth in shareholder value.
∙ Does the corporation have adequate financial strength to fund its different busi- nesses and maintain a healthy credit rating? A diversified company’s strategy fails the resource-fit test when the resource needs of its portfolio unduly stretch the company’s financial health and threaten to impair its credit rating. Many of the world’s largest banks, including Royal Bank of Scotland, Citigroup, and HSBC, recently found themselves so undercapitalized and financially overextended that they were forced to sell off some of their business assets to meet regulatory requirements and restore public confidence in their solvency.
Nonfinancial Resource Fit Just as a diversified company must have ade- quate financial resources to support its various individual businesses, it must also have a big enough and deep enough pool of managerial, administrative, and other parenting capabilities to support all of its different businesses. The following two questions help reveal whether a diversified company has sufficient nonfinancial resources:
∙ Does the parent company have (or can it develop) the specific resources and capa- bilities needed to be successful in each of its businesses? Sometimes the resources a company has accumulated in its core business prove to be a poor match with the competitive capabilities needed to succeed in the businesses into which it has diver- sified. For instance, BTR, a multibusiness company in Great Britain, discovered that the company’s resources and managerial skills were quite well suited for par- enting its industrial manufacturing businesses but not for parenting its distribution businesses (National Tyre Services and Texas-based Summers Group). As a result, BTR decided to divest its distribution businesses and focus exclusively on diver- sifying around small industrial manufacturing. For companies pursuing related diversification strategies, a mismatch between the company’s competitive assets and the key success factors of an industry can be serious enough to warrant divest- ing businesses in that industry or not acquiring a new business. In contrast, when a company’s resources and capabilities are a good match with the key success factors of industries it is not presently in, it makes sense to take a hard look at acquiring companies in these industries and expanding the company’s business lineup.
∙ Are the parent company’s resources being stretched too thinly by the resource requirements of one or more of its businesses? A diversified company must guard
Final PDF to printer
246 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 246 10/13/16 07:07 PM
against overtaxing its resources and capabilities, a condition that can arise when (1) it goes on an acquisition spree and management is called on to assimilate and oversee many new businesses very quickly or (2) it lacks sufficient resource depth to do a creditable job of transferring skills and competencies from one of its busi- nesses to another. The broader the diversification, the greater the concern about whether corporate executives are overburdened by the demands of competently parenting so many different businesses. Plus, the more a company’s diversifica- tion strategy is tied to transferring know-how or technologies from existing busi- nesses to newly acquired businesses, the more time and money that has to be put into developing a deep-enough resource pool to supply these businesses with the resources and capabilities they need to be successful.17 Otherwise, its resource pool ends up being spread too thinly across many businesses, and the opportunity for achieving 1 + 1 = 3 outcomes slips through the cracks.
Step 5: Ranking Business Units and Assigning a Priority for Resource Allocation Once a diversified company’s strategy has been evaluated from the perspective of industry attractiveness, competitive strength, strategic fit, and resource fit, the next step is to use this information to rank the performance prospects of the businesses from best to worst. Such ranking helps top-level executives assign each business a priority for resource support and capital investment.
The locations of the different businesses in the nine-cell industry-attractiveness– competitive-strength matrix provide a solid basis for identifying high- opportunity businesses and low-opportunity businesses. Normally, competitively strong busi- nesses in attractive industries have significantly better performance prospects than competitively weak businesses in unattractive industries. Also, the revenue and earnings outlook for businesses in fast-growing industries is normally better than for businesses in slow-growing industries. As a rule, business subsidiaries with the brightest profit and growth prospects, attractive positions in the nine-cell matrix, and solid strategic and resource fit should receive top priority for allocation of corporate resources. However, in ranking the prospects of the different businesses from best to worst, it is usually wise to also take into account each business’s past performance in regard to sales growth, profit growth, contribution to company earnings, return on capital invested in the business, and cash flow from operations. While past performance is not always a reliable predictor of future performance, it does signal whether a business is already performing well or has problems to overcome.
Allocating Financial Resources Figure 8.5 shows the chief strategic and financial options for allocating a diversified company’s financial resources. Divesting businesses with the weakest future prospects and businesses that lack adequate stra- tegic fit and/or resource fit is one of the best ways of generating additional funds for redeployment to businesses with better opportunities and better strategic and resource fit. Free cash flows from cash cow businesses also add to the pool of funds that can be usefully redeployed. Ideally, a diversified company will have sufficient financial resources to strengthen or grow its existing businesses, make any new acquisitions that are desirable, fund other promising business opportunities, pay off existing debt, and periodically increase dividend payments to shareholders and/or repurchase shares of
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 247
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 247 10/13/16 07:07 PM
stock. But, as a practical matter, a company’s financial resources are limited. Thus, to make the best use of the available funds, top executives must steer resources to those businesses with the best prospects and either divest or allocate minimal resources to businesses with marginal prospects—this is why ranking the performance prospects of the various businesses from best to worst is so crucial. Strategic uses of corporate financial resources should usually take precedence over strictly financial consider- ations (see Figure 8.5) unless there is a compelling reason to strengthen the firm’s balance sheet or better reward shareholders.
Step 6: Crafting New Strategic Moves to Improve Overall Corporate Performance The conclusions flowing from the five preceding analytic steps set the agenda for crafting strategic moves to improve a diversified company’s overall performance. The strategic options boil down to four broad categories of actions (see Figure 8.6):
1. Sticking closely with the existing business lineup and pursuing the opportunities these businesses present.
2. Broadening the company’s business scope by making new acquisitions in new industries.
3. Divesting certain businesses and retrenching to a narrower base of business operations.
4. Restructuring the company’s business lineup and putting a whole new face on the company’s business makeup.
LO 5
What four main corporate strategy options a diversified company can employ for solidifying its strategy and improving company performance.
FIGURE 8.5 The Chief Strategic and Financial Options for Allocating a Diversified Company’s Financial Resources
Strategic Options for Allocating Company
Financial Resources
Financial Options for Allocating Company
Financial Resources
Invest in ways to strengthen or grow existing businesses
Pay o� existing long-term or short-term debt
Fund long-range R&D ventures aimed at opening market opportunities
in new or existing businesses
Increase dividend payments to shareholders
Build cash reserves; invest in short-term securities
Make acquisitions to establish positions in new industries or to complement existing businesses
Repurchase shares of the company’s common stock
Final PDF to printer
248 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 248 10/13/16 07:07 PM
Sticking Closely with the Present Business Lineup The option of sticking with the current business lineup makes sense when the company’s exist- ing businesses offer attractive growth opportunities and can be counted on to create economic value for shareholders. As long as the company’s set of existing businesses have good prospects and are in alignment with the company’s diversification strategy, then major changes in the company’s business mix are unnecessary. Corporate execu- tives can concentrate their attention on getting the best performance from each of the businesses, steering corporate resources into the areas of greatest potential and profit- ability. The specifics of “what to do” to wring better performance from the present business lineup have to be dictated by each business’s circumstances and the preceding analysis of the corporate parent’s diversification strategy.
Broadening a Diversified Company’s Business Base Diversified companies sometimes find it desirable to build positions in new industries, whether related or unrelated. Several motivating factors are in play. One is sluggish growth
FIGURE 8.6 A Company’s Four Main Strategic Alternatives after It Diversifies
Restructure the Company’s Business Lineup through a Mix of Divestitures and New Acquisitions Sell o� competitively weak businesses in unattractive industries, businesses with little strategic or resource fit, and noncore businesses. Use cash from divestitures plus unused debt capacity to make acquisitions in other, more promising industries.
Strategy Options for a Company
That Is Already Diversified
Stick Closely with the Existing Business Lineup Makes sense when the current business lineup o�ers attractive growth opportunities and can generate added economic value for shareholders.
Broaden the Diversification Base Acquire more businesses and build positions in new related or unrelated industries. Add businesses that will complement and strengthen the market position and competitive capabilities of business in industries where the company already has a stake.
Divest Some Businesses and Retrench to a Narrower Diversification Base Get out of businesses that are competitively weak, that are in unattractive industries, or that lack adequate strategic and resource fit. Focus corporate resources on businesses in a few, carefully selected industry arenas.
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 249
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 249 10/13/16 07:07 PM
that makes the potential revenue and profit boost of a newly acquired business look attractive. A second is the potential for transferring resources and capabilities to other related or complementary businesses. A third is rapidly changing conditions in one or more of a company’s core businesses, brought on by technological, legislative, or demographic changes. For instance, the passage of legislation in the United States allowing banks, insurance companies, and stock brokerages to enter each other’s busi- nesses spurred a raft of acquisitions and mergers to create full-service financial enter- prises capable of meeting the multiple financial needs of customers. A fourth, and very important, motivating factor for adding new businesses is to complement and strengthen the market position and competitive capabilities of one or more of the com- pany’s present businesses. Procter & Gamble’s acquisition of Gillette strengthened and extended P&G’s reach into personal care and household products—Gillette’s busi- nesses included Oral-B toothbrushes, Gillette razors and razor blades, Duracell batter- ies, Braun shavers, small appliances (coffeemakers, mixers, hair dryers, and electric toothbrushes), and toiletries.
Another important avenue for expanding the scope of a diversified company is to grow by extending the operations of existing businesses into additional country markets, as discussed in Chapter 7. Expanding a company’s geographic scope may offer an exceptional competitive advantage potential by facilitating the full capture of economies of scale and learning- and experience-curve effects. In some businesses, the volume of sales needed to realize full economies of scale and/or benefit fully from experience-curve effects exceeds the volume that can be achieved by operating within the boundaries of just one or several country markets, especially small ones.
Retrenching to a Narrower Diversification Base A number of diversified firms have had difficulty managing a diverse group of businesses and have elected to exit some of them. Selling a business outright to another company is far and away the most frequently used option for divesting a business. In 2012, Sara Lee Corporation sold its International Coffee and Tea business to J.M. Smucker, while Nike sold its Umbro and Cole Haan brands to focus on brands like Jordan and Converse that are more complementary to the Nike brand. But sometimes a business selected for divestiture has ample resources and capabilities to compete successfully on its own. In such cases, a corporate parent may elect to spin the unwanted business off as a financially and managerially independent company, either by selling shares to the public via an initial public offering or by distributing shares in the new company to shareholders of the corporate parent. In 2015, health care company Baxter Interna- tional spun off its biotech arm into a new company, Baxalta, leaving its parent com- pany to focus on medical products and equipment. eBay spun off PayPal in 2015 at a valuation of $45 billion—a value 30 times more than what eBay paid for the company in a 2002 acquisition.
Retrenching to a narrower diversification base is usually undertaken when top management concludes that its diversification has ranged too far afield and that the company can improve long-term performance by concentrating on a smaller number of businesses. But there are other important reasons for divesting one or more of a company’s present businesses. Sometimes divesting a business has to be considered because market conditions in a once-attractive industry have badly deteriorated. A business can become a prime candidate for divestiture because it lacks adequate strategic or resource fit, because it is a cash hog with question- able long-term potential, or because remedying its competitive weaknesses is too expensive relative to the likely gains in profitability. Sometimes a company
A spin-off is an independent company created when a corporate parent divests a business either by selling shares to the public via an initial public offering or by distributing shares in the new company to shareholders of the corporate parent.
Final PDF to printer
250 PART 1 Concepts and Techniques for Crafting and Executing Strategy
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 250 10/13/16 07:07 PM
acquires businesses that, down the road, just do not work out as expected even though management has tried its best. Subpar performance by some business units is bound to occur, thereby raising questions of whether to divest them or keep them and attempt a turnaround. Other business units, despite adequate financial performance, may not mesh as well with the rest of the firm as was originally thought. For instance, PepsiCo divested its group of fast-food restaurant businesses to focus on its core soft-drink and snack-food businesses, where their specialized resources and capabilities could add more value.
On occasion, a diversification move that seems sensible from a strategic-fit stand- point turns out to be a poor cultural fit.18 When several pharmaceutical companies diversified into cosmetics and perfume, they discovered their personnel had little respect for the “frivolous” nature of such products compared to the far nobler task of developing miracle drugs to cure the ill. The absence of shared values and cultural compatibility between the medical research and chemical-compounding expertise of
the pharmaceutical companies and the fashion and marketing orientation of the cosmetics business was the undoing of what otherwise was diversification into businesses with technology-sharing potential, product development fit, and some overlap in distribution channels.
A useful guide to determine whether or when to divest a business subsidiary is to ask, “If we were not in this business today, would we want to get into it now?” When the answer is no or probably not, divestiture should be considered. Another signal that a business should be divested occurs when it is worth more to another company than to the present parent; in such cases, shareholders would be well served if the company sells the business and collects a premium price from the buyer for whom the business is a valuable fit.
Restructuring a Diversified Company’s Business Lineup Restructuring a diversified company on a companywide basis (corporate restruc- turing) involves divesting some businesses and/or acquiring others, so as to put a whole new face on the company’s business lineup.19 Performing radical surgery on a company’s business lineup is appealing when its financial performance is being squeezed or eroded by:
CORE CONCEPT
Companywide restructuring (corporate restructuring) involves making major changes in a diversified company by divesting some businesses and/or acquiring others, so as to put a whole new face on the company’s business lineup.
Diversified companies need to divest low-performing businesses or businesses that don’t fit in order to concentrate on expanding existing businesses and entering new ones where opportunities are more promising.
∙ A serious mismatch between the company’s resources and capabilities and the type of diversification that it has pursued.
∙ Too many businesses in slow-growth, declining, low-margin, or otherwise unat- tractive industries.
∙ Too many competitively weak businesses. ∙ The emergence of new technologies that threaten the survival of one or more
important businesses. ∙ Ongoing declines in the market shares of one or more major business units that
are falling prey to more market-savvy competitors. ∙ An excessive debt burden with interest costs that eat deeply into profitability. ∙ Ill-chosen acquisitions that haven’t lived up to expectations.
On occasion, corporate restructuring can be prompted by special circumstances— such as when a firm has a unique opportunity to make an acquisition so big and important that it has to sell several existing business units to finance the new
Final PDF to printer
CHAPTER 8 Corporate Strategy 251
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 251 10/13/16 07:07 PM
acquisition or when a company needs to sell off some businesses in order to raise the cash for entering a potentially big industry with wave-of-the-future technologies or products. As businesses are divested, corporate restructuring generally involves align- ing the remaining business units into groups with the best strategic fit and then rede- ploying the cash flows from the divested businesses to either pay down debt or make new acquisitions to strengthen the parent company’s business position in the industries it has chosen to emphasize.
Over the past decade, corporate restructuring has become a popular strategy at many diversified companies, especially those that had diversified broadly into many different industries and lines of business. VF Corporation, maker of North Face and other popular “lifestyle” apparel brands, has used a restructuring strategy to provide its shareholders with returns that are more than five times greater than shareholder returns for competing apparel makers. Since its acquisition and turnaround of North Face in 2000, VF has spent nearly $5 billion to acquire 19 additional businesses, including about $2 billion in 2011 for Timberland. New apparel brands acquired by VF Corporation include 7 For All Mankind sportswear, Vans skateboard shoes, Nau- tica, John Varvatos, Reef surf wear, and Lucy athletic wear. By 2015, VF Corporation had become a $12 billion powerhouse—one of the largest and most profitable apparel and footwear companies in the world. It was listed as number 248 on Fortune’s 2015 list of the 500 largest U.S. companies.
Illustration Capsule 8.2 discusses how Hewlett-Packard (HP) has been restructur- ing its operations to address internal problems and improve its profitability.
Final PDF to printer
252
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 252 10/13/16 07:07 PM
ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 8.2
Since its misguided acquisition of PC maker Compaq (under former CEO Carly Fiorina), Hewlett-Packard has been struggling. In the past few years, it has faced declining demand, rapid technological change, and fierce new competitors, such as Google and Apple, in its core markets. To address these problems, CEO Meg Whitman announced a restructuring of the company that was approved by the company’s board of directors in October 2015. In addition to trimming operations, the plan was to split the company into two independent entities: HP Inc. and HP Enterprise. The former would primarily house the company’s legacy PC and printer businesses, while the latter would retain the company’s
technology infrastructure, services, and cloud comput- ing businesses.
A variety of benefits were anticipated as a result of this fundamental reshaping of the company. First, the split would enable the faster-growing enterprise busi- ness to pursue opportunities that are less relevant to the concerns of its more staid sister business. As several have observed, “it is hard to be good at both consumer and enterprise computing,” which suggests an absence of strategic fit along the value chains of the two newly separated businesses. Second, in creating smaller, more nimble entities, the new companies would be better posi- tioned to respond to competitive moves and anticipate the evolving needs of customers. This is primarily because management teams would be responsible for a smaller, more focused set of products, which would leave them better equipped to innovate in the fast-moving world of technology. Third, the more streamlined organizations would better align incentives for managers, since they would be more likely to see their individual efforts hit the bottom line under a more focused operation.
By cutting back operations to match areas of declin- ing demand and moving some operations overseas, the company anticipates a reduction in costs of more than $2 billion. And while this will be offset by the costs of restructuring (including the need for duplicate adminis- trative functions), the hope is that, overall, these moves will soon return the company to profitability.
Restructuring for Better Performance at Hewlett- Packard (HP)
© Angel Navarrete/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Note: Developed with Ken Martin, CFA.
Sources: CNBC Online, “Former HP Chair: Spinoff Not a Defensive Play,” October 6, 2015, w w w.cnbc.com/2014/10/06/hairman-spin- off-not-a- defensive- play.html; S. Mukherjee and E. Chan, Reuters Online, “Hewlett-Packard to Split into Two Public Companies, Lay Off 5,000,” October 6, 2015, w w w.reuters .com/article/us-hp -restructuring-idUSKCN0HV0U720141006; J. Vanian, Fortune Online, “How Hewlett-Packard Plans to Split in Two,” July 1, 2015, fortune.com/2015/07/01/hewlett-packard-filing-split/; company website (accessed March 3, 2016).
KEY POINTS
1. A “good” diversification strategy must produce increases in long-term share- holder value—increases that shareholders cannot otherwise obtain on their own. For a move to diversify into a new business to have a reasonable prospect of add- ing shareholder value, it must be capable of passing the industry attractiveness test, the cost-of-entry test, and the better-off test.
Final PDF to printer
253
tho32789_ch08_214-257.indd 253 10/13/16 07:07 PM
2. Entry into new businesses can take any of three forms: acquisition, internal startup, or joint venture. The choice of which is best depends on the firm’s resources and capabilities, the industry’s entry barriers, the importance of speed, and relative costs.
3. There are two fundamental approaches to diversification—into related businesses and into unrelated businesses. The rationale for related diversification is to ben- efit from strategic fit: Diversify into businesses with commonalities across their respective value chains, and then capitalize on the strategic fit by sharing or trans- ferring the resources and capabilities across matching value chain activities to gain competitive advantages.
4. Unrelated diversification strategies surrender the competitive advantage poten- tial of strategic fit at the value chain level in return for the potential that can be realized from superior corporate parenting or the sharing and transfer of general resources and capabilities. An outstanding corporate parent can benefit its busi- nesses through (1) providing high-level oversight and making available other cor- porate resources, (2) allocating financial resources across the business portfolio, and (3) restructuring underperforming acquisitions.
5. Related diversification provides a stronger foundation for creating shareholder value than does unrelated diversification, since the specialized resources and capabilities that are leveraged in related diversification tend to be more valu- able competitive assets than the general resources and capabilities underlying unrelated diversification, which in most cases are relatively common and easier to imitate.
6. Analyzing how good a company’s diversification strategy is consists of a six-step process:
Step 1: Evaluate the long-term attractiveness of the industries into which the firm has diversified. Determining industry attractiveness involves developing a list of industry-attractiveness measures, each of which might have a different importance weight. Step 2: Evaluate the relative competitive strength of each of the company’s busi- ness units. The purpose of rating the competitive strength of each business is to gain a clear understanding of which businesses are strong contenders in their industries, which are weak contenders, and what the underlying reasons are for their strength or weakness. The conclusions about industry attractiveness can be joined with the conclusions about competitive strength by drawing a nine-cell industry-attractiveness–competitive-strength matrix that helps identify the pros- pects of each business and the level of priority each business should be given in allocating corporate resources and investment capital. Step 3: Check for the competitive value of cross-business strategic fit. A business is more attractive strategically when it has value chain relationships with the other business units that offer the potential to (1) combine operations to realize econo- mies of scope, (2) transfer technology, skills, know-how, or other resource capa- bilities from one business to another, (3) leverage the use of a trusted brand name or other resources that enhance differentiation, (4) share other competitively valu- able resources among the company’s businesses, and (5) build new resources and competitive capabilities via cross-business collaboration. Cross-business strategic fit represents a significant avenue for producing competitive advantage beyond what any one business can achieve on its own.
Final PDF to printer

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.
Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com