Reduzir custos não é estratégia

"Today in business, the term 'race to the bottom' refers to companies cutting costs, prices and customer value to compete with one another - resulting in a sick industry that serves no one well, whether customers, companies, shareholders, employees, or society in general.

...

In each industry, the emphasis is on taking out costs to improve price competitiveness, which just begets copycat competitive responses and, depending on the state of evolution, an ever-worsening customer experience — with US air travel being the perfect exemplar.

But the cycle is the result of their pursuit of faux low cost strategies, not the real thing." [Moi ici: As empresas adoptam frequentemente métodos de redução de custos, como a subcontratação ou a racionalização, que são necessidades operacionais, mas não estabelecem uma diferenciação competitiva. Estas "faux low cost strategies" levam à comoditização e à “race to the bottom” em toda a indústria. Recordo de 2006 "Redução dos salários em Portugal"]

Muitas empresas equiparam erradamente a eficiência de custos a uma “estratégia de baixo custo”, levando a acções competitivas que não produzem vantagens significativas. As verdadeiras estratégias de baixo custo envolvem escolhas estratégicas fundamentais que criam diferenças de custos sustentáveis ​​em relação aos concorrentes.

"In a cost leadership or low cost strategy (I generally use the latter term but you should use whichever you prefer), the company opens a meaningful and sustainable cost gap with all relevant competitors. That is, for the customers you are targeting, you produce their desired offering at a meaningfully lower cost than any competitor. To be a real cost leadership strategy, it needs to conform with the fundamental rule of strategy: if opposite of your choice is stupid on its face, it isn't a strategy choice. The great low cost strategies that have stood the test of time are all underpinned by choices for which the opposite is definitively not stupid on its face." [Moi ic: Recordar ser pobre ou ser rico]

A verdadeira liderança em termos de custos requer escolhas distintas, em que o oposto da escolha não seja inerentemente “estúpido”. 

"All great cost leaders make choices for which the opposite is definitively not stupid on its face — it is what everyone else does. And it generates much lower costs than all competitors. Does the resulting offer appeal to all customers? Hell no! But for many, it is just perfect!" [Moi ici: a importância de não querer ser tudo para todos e escolher os clientes-alvo]

"Faux low cost strategies are ones in which the company makes choices about costs where the opposite is stupid on its face. These companies drive out waste. They outsource activities that outside providers can do more cheaply. They streamline processes. They deploy information technologies. They merge with competitors to reduce corporate overhead costs. They source from low-cost jurisdictions, etc.

But none of that is going to produce a low cost strategy because everyone else is doing it too. They will get you a good cost position. And that is superimportant for a successful differentiation strategy. But those are all choices that any competent manager would make in a similar situation. That is not strategy. Those are operating imperatives - smart things that any smart company would do. You can't open a meaningful and sustainable cost gap with competitors by doing what they do, even if you do it a little bit better." [Moi ici: Tanta gente precisava de ler este parágrafo e reflectir profundamente nas suas implicações]

O parágrafo que se segue também devia ser de leitura obrigatória para a maioria, os que acreditam que excelência operacional é estratégia:

"The best way to spur a race for the bottom is for the competitors in an industry to drive down costs in the same way — and for each to focus on that as its hoped for way to win. That is, they each incur the same set of costs in similar ways. That approach doesn't produce competitive advantage. However, very often each will continue to pursue that approach, believing that if it just cut costs a little bit more, it will eventually win. They will sacrifice innovation — too costly. They will sacrifice any attempt to be unique — too costly. They will commoditize their industry. And they will shape a miserable industry for all involved."

Strategy is and will always be an integrated set of choices that compels desired customer action. And to produce distinctively meritorious results, those choices must be distinctive. And to be distinctive, the opposite of the choices can't be stupid on their face.

These rules apply equally to low cost and differentiation strategies. A company does not have a low cost strategy just because it is cost effective. That is not to imply that being cost effective is unimportant. It is super important. For example, the only way to be a strong differentiator is to have no excess costs. Every dollar of wasted costs takes away from the strength of the differentiator.

...

If you want to have a real low cost strategy, you can't simply look cost item by cost item and attempt to reduce each. Instead, you need to figure out how to remove a cost item entirely ... This is where the Where-to-Play choice comes to the fore. You can't make distinctive choices compared to competitors that appeal to all customers. If you could, the opposite of your choices would be stupid on their face — because there is an obvious set of choices that wins with all customers. A set of choices can only not be stupid on its face if it alienates some customers, which competitors will serve.

As I always say, my dream for any competitive landscape is the separation of competitors, not overlap. You should aim to serve some customers exceedingly well while competitors serve others equally well — whether you are a differentiator or cost leader. It is that sort of real strategy choice that averts races to the bottom. That kind of choice is better for everyone — the company, its competitors, customers, employees, and society in general."

As PME devem evitar em entrar em "races to the bottom". Daí a citação recente de Tabeb sobre a importância de fugir das "rat races". Como enfrentam frequentemente uma forte e intensa concorrência podem sentir-se tentadas a competir apenas com base nos custos. Roger Martin mostra os perigos desta abordagem, destacando como pode levar à comoditização, à redução da rentabilidade e à diminuição do valor do cliente. As PME podem utilizar esta visão para se concentrarem na criação de vantagens competitivas sustentáveis, em vez de apenas na redução de custos.

A verdadeira liderança em custos implica fazer escolhas distintas que reduzam significativamente os custos de formas que os concorrentes não conseguem replicar facilmente (por exemplo, eliminando categorias inteiras de custos, como o modelo de mobiliário desmontado da IKEA). As PME, ao identificarem estas inovações estratégicas, podem diferenciar-se eficazmente sem se envolverem simplesmente em medidas de redução de custos. Para as PME, é vital compreender que uma estratégia deve ter como objectivo servir extremamente bem segmentos de clientes específicos (enquanto potencialmente aliena outros). Este foco pode ajudá-los a alocar os recursos de forma mais eficiente e a evitar uma dispersão excessiva.

Para as PME, é vital compreender que uma estratégia deve ter como objectivo servir extremamente bem segmentos de clientes específicos (enquanto potencialmente aliena outros). Este foco ajuda a alocar os recursos de forma mais eficiente e a evitar uma dispersão excessiva. A diferenciação não exige gastos excessivos, mas sim uma alocação inteligente e estratégica de recursos para criar valor que tenha uma ressonância única junto do seu público-alvo. As PME podem aproveitar esta visão para encontrar formas inovadoras de se destacarem sem aumentar desnecessariamente os custos.

Trechos retirados de "Faux 'Low Cost' Strategies" de Roger Martin.