Being Dick Dastardly is a dangerous move

Há muito que uso aqui a metáfora do Dick Dastardly para retratar as empresas que se focam mais nos concorrentes do que nos clientes. Por exemplo:

• Qual era o grande defeito de Dick Dastardly?
• Acerca do fenómeno das empresas tipo-Dick Dastardly

Neste artigo, "You can’t beat TikTok by becoming its clone", pode ler-se:

"Competitor orientation

What is so wrong with all of this, you might wonder? Why not focus on competitors and what they do, and augment it by evolving your own offering? I’m often asked this question by marketers I train and who are shocked at the lack of competitor assessments that I recommend as part of brand diagnosis.

I like looking at competitors through customer’s eyes, but I’m less interested in the insights that can be derived from directly studying competitors. In fact, it turns out there are very good reasons not to focus too heavily on competitors, what they do and how they do it.

There is a long and rewarding literature on the power of market orientation and keeping the customer in your cross hairs at all times. And there is an equally persuasive literature on the perils of competitor orientation – of switching our gaze from our customers to our competitors and how they do things. And that danger multiplies significantly if these insights turn to action and we start to replicate our competitors’ moves in our own approach.

...

As strategy guru Roger Martin observes, we are set for “a financial bloodbath”. That’s the scenario he predicts when multiple companies go to the same market, with the same strategy, at the same time. And he is right.

We’ve beaten up differentiation for too long in marketing. Sure, there is no unique offering out there. And no one will ever own any attribute or association. But playing the game your way, to your strengths, on your terms remains one of the hallmarks of successful business strategy."

Clientes versus concorrentes

Há dias citei aqui e comentei:

It is axiomatic that a first step in a firm's formulation of competitive strategy is the identification of its major competitors (e.g., Porter, 1980). [Moi ici: Não penso assim, não sigo este axioma. Tenho receio dos Dick Dastardly desta vida, e dos motards. Prefiro imaginar uma paisagem competitiva cheia de picos. Prefiro começar por determinar quem são os clientes-alvo e qual o ecossistema que deve ser mobilizado para os seduzir, satisfazer e desenvolver]

Entretanto, ontem li "Research in Cognition and Strategy: Reflections on Two Decades of Progress and a Look to the Future" de Sarah Kaplan e publicado no Journal of Management Studies 48:3 May 2011, e voltei a pensar no mesmo tema. A autora faz um trabalho muito interessante a descrever a evolução da investigação sobre as categorias de conhecimento. Outra vez um foco na categorização dos concorrentes. Por exemplo:

"Firms from other parts of the UK and other countries, even if they produced fully-fashioned knitwear at similar price points, were seen as being in different businesses or only ‘somewhat’ competitors

...

‘Cognitive oligopolies’ exist because competitors define each other as such.

...

They showed that managers based their categorization of competitors on a hierarchical understanding of the product offerings

...

Managers of larger hotels categorized competitors over a wider range of prices than did those of small hotels

...

The Scottish knitwear study showed how the categorization of different competitors as direct rivals affected the strategic choices and actions of firms."

Enquanto lia isto pensava em como seria se os autores citados tivesse optado por trabalhar com base na categorização dos clientes. À noite fui à minha biblioteca e saquei o meu velho "Managing for Results" de Peter Drucker, publicado em 1986 e fui ao capítulo 6, "The Customer Is the Business" ... continua tão actual e tão fresco:

"Business is a process which converts a resource, distinct knowledge, into a contribution of economic value in the marketplace. The purpose of a business is to create a customer. [Moi ici: O propósito não é o de ganhar aos concorrentes] The purpose is to provide something for which an independent outsider, who can choose not to buy, is willing to exchange his purchasing power. And knowledge alone  (excepting only the case of the complete monopoly) gives the products of any business that leadership position on which success and survival ultimately depend.

...

1. What the people in the business think they know about customer and market is more likely to be wrong than right. There is only one person who really knows: the customer. Only by asking the customer, by watching him, by trying to understand his behavior can one find out who he is, what he does, how he buys, how he uses what he buys, what he expects, what he values, and so on.

2. The customer rarely buys what the business thinks it sells him. One reason for this is, of course, that nobody pays for a “product.” What is paid for is satisfactions. But nobody can make or supply satisfactions as such—at best, only the means to attaining them can be sold and delivered.

...

3. A corollary is that the goods or services which the manufacturer sees as direct competitors rarely adequately define what and whom he is really competing with. They cover both too much and too little.

...

Because the customer buys satisfaction, all goods and services compete intensively with goods and services that look quite different, seem to serve entirely different functions, are made, distributed, sold differently—but are alternative means for the customer to obtain the same satisfaction.

...

5. The customers have to be assumed to be rational. But their rationality is not necessarily that of the manufacturer; it is that of their own situation."

Live and let live

Se fossem crianças, no Portugal do início dos anos 70 do século passado, depois do almoço estariam em frente à televisão para ver as Corridas Loucas ou o Stop the Pigeon.

Nas Corridas Loucas, Dick Dastardly dava cabo da minha paciência por estar mais preocupado em dar cabo da concorrência do que em ganhar a corrida. Basta pesquisar Dastardly neste blogue para ver como uso a personagem na minha relação com as empresas.

Gosto de usar a metáfora de David e Golias na minha relação com as empresas, mas procuro sublinhar que a metáfora não é sobre o combate em si, o mundo dos negócios não é uma guerra para aniquilar os concorrentes, é um esforço para seduzir e servir clientes. Já agora, gosto de usar a metáfora de David e Golias por causa do "twist" na estória, tal como nesta outra estória, para transmitir a mensagem de que há uma alternativa ao pensamento dominante à espera de ser encontrada ou melhor, construída.

Por isso, recomendo muitas vezes o "Live and let live", uma deturpação do título de um antigo filme de cowboys. Outra metáfora que gosto de usar é a da relação entre economia e biologia:

A continuação da leitura de "When More Is Not Better" de Roger Martin prossegue:

"Executives dream of becoming the next John D. Rockefeller, who built a monopoly in the oil-refining business in the late nineteenth century. Eliminating the competition feels like a natural goal; it means you’ve won. ... Managers feel more secure when their customers have no alternative to the product or service they produce. Given that American monopolists from Rockefeller to Bill Gates to Mark Zuckerberg have become among the richest men in history, the appeal of establishing a monopoly is understandable. But it has a downside. Monopolies don’t last in the natural world, and they don’t last in business either.
.
Monopolies don’t last in nature because they don’t adapt, [Moi ici: Claro que monopólios protegidos, pelo estado, têm a possibilidade de serem eternos] and the fundamental rule of nature, as posited by Charles Darwin, is survival of the fittest—by which he meant those most able to adapt to the environment and its changes. And what drives adaptation in business? It is learning from one’s customers how to provide better value for them. Customers, not those who serve them, define value. Providers can only hypothesize about what constitutes customer value. Providers learn based on customer feedback, and therefore customer feedback is the linchpin of positive adaptation. It is very difficult to become a better provider of a given product or service in the absence of real customer feedback.
.
It is not the mere existence of customer feedback that produces positive adaptation. Listening to customer feedback and taking action on it are both necessary preconditions for positive adaptation. But change is never easy. It is tiring and expensive. As a consequence, most companies, most of the “time, will listen to customers only when they must, and they have to only when the customer can credibly threaten to become an ex-customer if the provider doesn’t listen and change.
.
Therein lies the fundamental sustainability problem for monopolists. They don’t have to listen to their customers. ... In the end, monopolists exist to serve themselves, not to serve their customers. They don’t get the training that customers normally provide, because the monopolist doesn’t have to train.
.
As a consequence, monopolies stultify over time. They may have virtually unlimited resources, but they don’t have the motivation to deploy them productively. When the environment in which they operate necessitates major adaptation, they are unable to adjust, because they are out of practice."

Dastardlys

Dedicado aquelas empresas que vivem mais preocupadas com o que faz a concorrência do que em surpreender os clientes, do que em ganhar clientes, do que em subir na escala de valor, do que melhorar a eficiência.

When natural selection trumps sexual selection... pic.twitter.com/E4ne4izquL

— Steve Stewart-Williams (@SteveStuWill) July 26, 2019

"Customers expect your attention to be on them"

Um excelente texto que recomendo para reflexão, sobretudo para os adeptos de Dick Dastardly, "The New Retail: Sell to Me in a Me2B World":

"Jeff Bezos said, “If we can keep our competitors focused on us while we stay focused on the customer, ultimately we´ll turn out all right.”
.
Many retailers today seem to do exactly this and try to compete with Amazon.com. It's not rare that I have conversations with retailers about implementing strategies to compete with, or even leapfrog, Amazon. I usually provocatively ask the question, “which part of Amazon would you aim to overtake?”
.
Focusing on competing with Amazon isn't a winning strategy. Retailers, instead, need to laser-focus on their customers and not primarily on the competition.
...
Consumers say, “Treat me like a person, not as a sales opportunity. Don´t just sell products. Sell to me!” [Moi ici: Pensar nos inputs do cliente e não nos outputs]
...
Consumers are willing to pay more for positive experiences. Making individual consumers happy will be the ultimate driver for loyalty and differentiation. However, companies must first be able to see their own business through the eyes of the customer,
...
How you sell what you sell is important! Customers expect your attention to be on them, not your competitors. It's all about more empathy, more fun and less friction, which results in happy customers for life."

"not “winning,” “beating,” or “defeating” competitors"

Motards, Dastardlys, ...

“To get ahead of disruption, we need to pay far more attention to customers than we ordinarily do, and commensurately less attention to competitors. We need to discipline ourselves to look at markets from the customer’s perspective, not just the company’s, and to understand customers’ evolving desires and behaviors.
...
At first glance, executives might resist shifting their strategic focus from competitors to customers. In my experience, most executives care about customers, but they are obsessed with competitors—and understandably so. Modern business strategy has focused squarely on the firm, on assessing the competitive landscape, and on responding to competitors.
...
Game theory models, meanwhile, conceptualize games as played with a competitor. Customers are secondary, conceived as the “prize” for which competitors are vying.
...
Focusing on competitors has worked well in the past, and it might still work in some situations, but it has become less applicable for companies competing in markets threatened with disruption. Traditional corporate strategy assumed a situation in which companies faced only one or a few competitors, and in which opponents’ actions were somewhat predictable. Under such conditions, competition really did bear more similarity to a chess match or to warfare. In today’s markets, incumbents across many industries often square off against not one or two large and predictable opponents, but dozens more of small, nimble, and less predictable challengers.
...
For these reasons alone, executives would do better to return to the basics of business—not “winning,” “beating,” or “defeating” competitors, but acquiring and retaining customers. Entrepreneurs at disruptive startups see the world in precisely this way, paying heed to Peter Drucker’s famous dictum “The purpose of a business is to create a customer.” Indeed, entrepreneurs perceive the focus on customers as a defining quality of startups as opposed to incumbents.”

A mesma doença está na base disto:

"I’m a terrified dinosaur. I’ve been living in this cozy world of old brands [and] big volumes. You could just focus on being very efficient and you’d be OK. All of a sudden we are being disrupted in all ways. If you go to a supermarket, you see hundreds of new brands. In beer, we had the new kinds of beer coming in from all over. We are running to adjust."

Trechos iniciais retirados de “Unlocking the Customer Value Chain” de Thales S. Teixeira.

"play your own game, and always have a healthy respect for the competition"

Engraçado, neste postal, "É nestes momentos de mudança ... (parte IV)", escrevi:

"As empresas não devem focar-se demasiado na concorrência, mas ao iniciar um processo de transformação convém perceber onde estamos, quem pode competir connosco no novo espaço para onde poderemos pensar ir, e se poderemos ter alguma hipótese nele."

Agora, encontro "Play Your Game, But Don’t Ignore Everyone Else Playing Theirs":

"There are two schools of thought on competition. One is “play your own game.” This means to focus on yourself and not allow your approach to be influenced by what anyone else is doing. The other is to study the competition relentlessly and react to everything they do.
...
“playing your own game” can be dangerous when organizations underestimate the competition.
...
There is no question that ignoring—or worse, underestimating—your competition, is a dangerous practice. But businesses and teams, can also go too far to the other extreme.
...
You have to have a healthy awareness of your competition, but if you take it too far, it can dilute your message and you’ll end up deviating from what you stand for. I have seen this approach cost companies deals when they tried to play the competition’s game and came up short.
...
So my advice is to play your own game, understand the kind of people you need to make your game successful, and always have a healthy respect for the competition (without being maniacal)."

O efeito de rebanho (parte II)

Parte I.

O segundo viés cognitivo é o do efeito de rebanho.

"Proposition 2: The extent of managerial price herding is negatively related to the extent to which firms practice value-based pricing."

O que é isto do efeito de rebanho?

"Herding is defined as individual disregard of private information, instead basing decisions on the observed actions of the majority. In so doing, individuals assume that decisions taken by the majority constitute valuable information for their own decision-making.
...
In the context of pricing, managers who engage in herding deliberately disregard private information (e.g., about customers' purchase history) and instead conform to market prices. The assumption underlying this herding effect is that market prices constitute a viable point of reference. Managers may resort to herding because they believe that competitor prices reveal information about the market, or that pricing like one's competitors seems a justifiable tactic. ... many firms evade responsibility for pricing decisions by following market or competitor prices instead. Managers “do not want to stand alone when they increase the prices if the competition does not move”. In other words, managers fear accountability in the event of an unfavorable outcome. This suggests that herding's foundations may be motivational as well as cognitive. On the other hand, ... firms that “set the rules of the game” —do not hand over pricing responsibility to the market but instead price strategically. In other words, these firms consider pricing to be a matter of meticulous managerial activity.
...
companies that simply match competitors' prices irrespective of cost and customer considerations are mimicking those competitors rather than analyzing them; this is not competition-based pricing but rather indicates a herd mentality.
...
That said, the weight of the evidence suggests that price herding is habitual rather than strategic. Consequently, a herd mentality is myopic, as it typically neglects distinct product characteristics, and increases the likelihood of price wars. That being so, it becomes important to understand product differences and to withstand competitive price pressure.
The fundamental issue with price herding is its reactive nature and its disregard for potentially useful information about cost and customer value. Moreover, a strong emphasis on market and competitor prices diverts managerial attention from the effort to comprehend customer perceived value. [Moi ici: Recordar Dastardly] It also distracts from efforts to comprehend the strategic actions of competitors (e.g., their pricing strategy) and to observe or anticipate market developments (e.g., changes in market structure or segments)."

Trechos retirados de "Value-based pricing and cognitive biases: An overview for business markets" de Mario Kienzler e publicado online por Industrial Marketing Management.

"Violations of rational choice principles in pricing decisions"

"We are interested in how customer purchase decisions exhibit behavioral patterns that are inconsistent with rational choice models. As we will see, violations of rational choice can take many forms: demand that increases with price increases, choices that are influenced by the addition of irrelevant options, preferences that are unstable, and a willingness to pay that is fluid and subject to contextual influences. In this context we thus summarize how firms can influence customer perceptions of value and price without changing the price. Second is the manager. Managers set prices and in this process are equally susceptible to violating fundamental principles of rational choice. These violations can take the following forms: conformity bias, competition neglect, competitor obsession, simple heuristics, and underpricing for new product introductions.
...
This refers to the tendency to pursue competitor-oriented goals—such as market share—to the detriment of one's own profitability. When comparative profits are provided, managers show a consistent tendency to price below optimal levels in order to hurt competition, as opposed to maximizing their own profits. Field studies suggest that competitor orientation and market share goals are detrimental to profitability. ...  “The use of market share as a measure of corporate or executive performance is at best a waste of time; at worst, it is totally misleading. We recommend that you never make the market share calculation. If you emphasize competitive goals, you are letting the competition define your business and its success.” Competitor obsession leads to lower prices and lower profits. This effect is well documented in industrial markets.

Trechos retirados de "Violations of rational choice principles in pricing decisions" de Andreas Hinterhuber

Comparar o primeiro truque, "price quality effect", com:

"Why did Apple push the limits of pricing on the highly anticipated device? A key reason involves using a premium price to set an expectation of excellence in consumers’ minds."

Trecho retirado de "The Psychology Behind the New iPhone’s Four-Digit Price"

Está tudo relacionado

Está tudo relacionado.

Este texto, "Starbucks Closes Online Store to Focus on In-Person Experience", tem tudo a ver com "How Not to Fail at Retail" e com perceber o papel das interacções e da co-criação de valor.

Tudo o que, por exemplo, o jornalismo mainstream nunca percebeu.

Se os "chineses" do retalho, as lojas online, têm preços e diversidade de oferta imbatível, não adianta tentar competir com eles nesse campeonato (good old Kasparov), não adianta entrar numa guerra entre cães, mais vale mudar para gato.

"O truque está no jogador reconhecer aquilo que faz melhor. Se é melhor na espera e numa estratégia de paciência, então é esse o caminho que deve seguir; se é melhor num ataque poderoso, deve criar condições para o fazer. O elemento chave para uma estratégia de sucesso é assegurar que, no ambiente que está criado, somos muito melhores do que o nosso concorrente. Trata-se de forçá-lo a cometer erros.
...
é preciso conhecer a nossa natureza e a do nosso adversário. Reconhecer as forças e as fraquezas de cada um. E assegurar que a luta se processa num território no qual as nossas fraquezas são menos importantes, enquanto que as do adversário são flagrantes.
...
Se o meu exército tem cavalaria, convém que a batalha seja num vale; mas se a cavalaria for do adversário é melhor que o confronto seja nos montes. Trata-se de encontrar o campo de batalha que potencia a nossa vantagem competitiva e no qual as potenciais vantagens do adversário encontrem contrariedades. Acredito que a maioria das batalhas - na história militar, nos negócios ou no xadrez - são decididas por manobras prévias e que as grandes vantagens competitivas são acumuladas antes da batalha propriamente dita." [Moi ici: Claro que há que dar um desconto à visão dos negócios como uma guerra ou um jogo. Não devemos ser como o Dick Dastardly e darmos demasiada importância à concorrência. Nos negócios o objectivo não é eliminar o concorrente, o objectivo é  seduzir de forma sustentada um cliente]

Por um lado:

"“Every retailer that is going to win in this new environment must become an experiential destination,” Mr. Schultz told investors in April." [Moi ici: O mais provável é que o máximo que o comércio online possa fazer seja "permutar". O comércio online é muito bom para artigos padrão, é muito bom para artigos permutados, não é bom para quem procura algo à sua medida, para quem procura algo que ainda não existe, para quem não sabe o que procura]

O que é um concorrente em Mongo? (parte II)

Parte I.

Agora acabo de ler estes trechos de "Geographic Patterns of Craft Breweries at the Intraurban Scale" de Isabelle Nilsson, Neil Reid & Matthew Lehnert, publicado por The Professional Geographer.

"The emergence, growth, and success of the craft brewing industry are a David versus Goliath story.
...
as an industry takes on an oligopolistic structure, it often produces an increasingly homogeneous product (American pale lager) that depends on economies of scale in production, marketing, and distribution to perpetuate its success. Although American pale lager has historically satisfied the palates of most Americans, there emerged a growing segment of the population that preferred craft beer. Craft beer drinkers prefer craft over mass-produced beer for a number of reasons, including its greater variety in terms of styles and flavors; the independent, local, and small-scale nature of craft breweries; and the innovative nature of the industry, which means that there are always new beers to sample. The growing popularity of locally produced craft beer mirrors what has happened in other food- and drink-related sectors; witness the increasing number of farmers markets and wineries across the country.
...
Early craft beer drinkers have been referred to as insurgents or rebels, who identified a “hot cause”—a desire for more choice in terms of taste, quality, and styles of beer. Hot causes, however, require “cool mobilization”; that is, someone must engage in actions that challenge the status quo and turn desire into reality.
...
Home brewing clubs provided a venue where individuals could hone their skills, experiment with new recipes, and share ideas with fellow enthusiasts. The clubs were critical in developing the culture of collaboration that is a cornerstone of the industry today. They also became the places where the seeds of revolution were sown, a revolution that manifest itself when, one by one, some home brewers decided to commercialize their hobby. Collaboration was particularly valuable for the early home and commercial craft brewers, as there existed only a small number of books on the brewing process. Hence, home brewing clubs became places where knowledge was traded and collective learning occurred. Home brewing clubs were akin to communities of practice. They were also places where tacit knowledge, such as demonstrating how to make and use brewing equipment, was exchanged."

Quando ontem à noite em "Strategy For a Networked World" de Ramírez & Mannervik li:

"Collaboration is at Least as Important as Competition
...
in the VCS aproach to strategy, collaboration is at least as important as competition. The decisive strength lies in how well the interactions within the VCS enable values to be co-created, i.e. on how well the actors collaborate, and how capable they are to attract and keep actors to collaborate with. This means that the roles they are offered in a VCS have to be attractive.
...
It follows that the ability to invite, interest, enroll, and mobilize others into one's VCS is more important than focusing on competing with opponents who provide similar products or services and have designed competing VCS.
...
competing organizations also can engage each other in collaboration to achieve a common value.
...
Collaboration helps the pie to get bigger for everyone; competition is about what size of a given pie one might take.[Moi ici: Este trecho é certeiro!]
...
The VCS framework invites and allows a focus on how to come together to "make the pie bigger", enabling better, and more varied types of value to be co-created among actors, by actors, and with and for other actors - jointly."

E:

"In a networked world, co-designed configuring offerings imply that strategy is as important in terms of collaborative advantage as it is in terms of competitive advantage - perhaps even more so. It is a world of business where those who design offerings with others create better design and value than others who do not collaborate in the designing."

O que é um concorrente em Mongo?

Ainda em "Value Co-production: Intelectual Origins and Implications for Practice and Research" de Rafael Ramirez, publicado por Strategic Management Journal, 20: 49–65 (1999) sublinho:

"A value co-production view emphasizes that economic actors hold different roles in relation not only to different counterparts (one is one’s suppliers’ customer; one’s customers’ supplier), but also in relation to a single counterpart. For example, one economic actor ‘A’ may simultaneously be ( i ) a supplier to another economic actor ‘B’, (ii) as well as a customer of economic actor ‘B’, (iii) as well as a competitor of ‘B’, (iv) as well as a partner with ‘B’ to co- produce value with and for a third economic actor ‘C’, and (v) possibly a competitor with ‘B’s partners, if ‘A’s own alliance with others competes with ‘B’s."

Que relaciono com:

"Aunque las cervecerías artesanales sí compiten una contra la otra en estos distritos cerveceros, sus productos tienden a ser mucho más diferenciados de los de las cervecerías grandes, por lo que la competencia es menos directa.
...
Aproximadamente un 90% de los cerveceros artesanales profesionales empezaron como cerveceros caseros.
.
Según el estudio, el espíritu colaborativo y experimental de estos clubs de cerveceros caseros persisten en los distritos de cervecerías artesanales de hoy día."

Trechos retirados de Las cervecerías artesanales están transformando los vecindarios industriales de EEUU.

Como não recordar os temas:

• Live and let live
• a ver motards e Dastardlys

Uma guerra tão antiga quanto a minha vida de consultor, tentar convencer os empresários a fugir desta paranóia que só leva a erosão do preço. Pensar mais na concorrência, esses malvados inimigos, do que nos clientes.

Por isso, a promoção da concorrência imperfeita e dos monopólios informais. Por isso, a crença de que a mentalidade de empresas como Uber, Facebook, Google e Amazon algures vai falhar. Esta mentalidade quer o monopólio da carteira, da atenção do cliente, o promotor da concorrência imperfeita e dos monopólios informais não acredita que faz tudo sozinho, sabe que há coisas em que decidiu não ser bom e, por isso, em certos contextos, em certos ambientes, em certos momentos da vida de um potencial cliente a sua oferta será adequada, noutros não. 

Asneira

Mal vi o título, "H&M lança nova marca para dar luta à Inditex", pensei:

-Asneira!

Como não recordar Dastardly:

Recomendaria à H&M que não se preocupasse tanto com a Inditex mas se preocupasse mais com os seus clientes-alvo e as suas aspirações.

"think about selling a transformation"

"The starting point of most competitive analysis is a question: Who is your competition? That’s because most companies view their competition as another brand, product, or service. But smart leaders and organizations go broader.
.
The question is not who your competition is but what it is. And the answer is this: Your competition is any and every obstacle your customers encounter along their journeys to solving the human, high-level problems your company exists to solve.
...
Sure, someone in your company needs to understand the marketplace: who your competition is, what other products are on the market, and how they are doing, at a basic level. But there’s a point at which paying attention to other companies and what they’re doing interferes with your team’s ability to immerse itself in the world of your consumer. Focusing on competitive products and companies often leads to “me-too” products, which purport to compete with or iterate on something that customers might not have liked much in the first place.
...
First, rethink what you sell. Most companies think they sell a product. To transcend strictly one-time, transactional relationships with your customers, your company must think about selling a transformation: a journey from a problematic status quo to the new levels and possibilities that will unfurl after the behavior change you help make happen.
...
Next, rethink your customers. They are not just the people who have purchased your product or the people who follow you on Facebook. Your customers are all the people who grapple with the problem your business exists to solve.
.
Now, focus on their problems. Engage in customer research, online and in the real world, to understand and document their journeys. I don’t mean their customer life cycle with your brand. Map out your (redefined) customer’s journey from having the problem you exist to solve to no longer having that problem. That may be the journey from unhealthy to healthy living, or from being broke to being a good steward of their finances."

Recordar o Dick Dastardly e os observadores de motards.

Trechos retirados de "Obsess Over Your Customers, Not Your Rivals"

"this rarely ends well"

"Trying to beat Amazon at its own game is not only likely to fail, it’s also not in Walmart’s best interests. Walmart has perhaps the best physical distribution and retail network in the world. It needs to be competitive on digital channels, sure. But, more important, it should excel at brick-and-mortar. Improving the in-store experience, promoting omnichannel shopping and fulfillment options, and developing in-person service innovations are avenues that leverage its brand equity and core competencies — and they’re approaches that would put Amazon at a disadvantage. Instead of cutting human resource jobs (which seems counterproductive for a company that employs 2.3 million people) and closing new store formats (which make the brand more convenient and accessible to more people), Walmart should invest to advance its strongest competitive advantage: its physical stores.
.
The company’s obsession with competing with Amazon also seems to have taken Walmart’s focus off its brand identity in everyday low prices.
...
Many companies feel a pull to imitate the practices of successful rivals. But this rarely ends well. Core competencies stagnate, customers become confused, and the opportunity to lead instead of follow is squandered. Instead of gaining on Amazon, Walmart seems poised to lose valuable ground."

Trechos retirados de "Walmart Won’t Stay on Top If Its Strategy Is “Copy Amazon”"

Estratégia não é sobre ver os motards

"when leaders think of business as a war with their competitors—and many continue to do just that—they inevitably seek to beat their rivals in ways that don’t meaningfully enhance customer-perceived benefits—such as with product-feature frenzy or predatory pricing. Such moves rarely grow the total market and almost always produce lower margins and losing products.
...
When strategy is about competitors, leaders lose focus on the unlimited opportunities to grow customer value.
...
Whereas making strategy about competitors can be highly destructive, making it about the customer encourages leaders to find ways to win without having to pay the price for their victories. Does this mean that competitors can be safely ignored when it comes to strategy? No. Understanding competitors’ value propositions is one effective way to generate new thinking on how to improve your own value propositions.
...
Business is not war or sport. Strategy in business is different than strategy in war and sport. It’s not about competitors. It’s about the customer, your value proposition, and the capabilities you need to deliver it better than anyone else. It’s that simple—and that difficult."

Recordar:

• A ver passar motards (Janeiro de 2017)
• Qual era o grande defeito de Dick Dastardly? (Agosto de 2015)
• Acerca do fenómeno das empresas tipo-Dick Dastardly (Agosto de 2014)

Trechos retirados de "Strategy Is Not About The Competition"

Dick Dastardly é um mau exemplo

Do outro lado do Atlântico e do equador, o @AllanMoura  mandou-me este texto "Por que deixar de lado a competição" de onde sublinhei:

"embora seja difícil encontrar um ramo empresarial sem concorrentes, é possível e desejável deixar de lado o sentimento de competição. Isso faz bem não só para a saúde, mas para o negócio também, diz Kiechel. Se a fixação por derrotar os “adversários” se tornar objetivo prioritário, um desempenho indesejado pode levar ao sentimento geral de autodepreciação dentro da empresa, à caça às bruxas na equipe e, principalmente, a deixar para trás os focos principais do negócio.
...
Em outras palavras, concentrar o foco em alguém a quem servir, não derrotar.”"

Um conselho deste blogue e também de Buffett.
.
Como não recordar Dick Dastardly!

Mitos, para reflexão

Há tempos uma colega consultora mandou-me este artigo "4 Marketing Myths Threaten Your Sales" de onde sublinho estas passagens:

"People Always Buy Where They Get the Cheapest Price
.
If this was true, only businesses that charge cheap prices would exist. Some people buy where they get the cheapest price. But most people are more interested in getting value for their money than in getting a bargain.
...
Offering Your Customers Many Options Will Boost Your Sales [Moi ici: Este é um mito tremendamente popular e, por isso, muito nefasto]
.
Presenting your customers with options usually reduces your sales. Here’s why…
.
When confronted with several options, most customers have difficulty making a clear decision. They often react by procrastinating – and never making a decision. When this happens, you lose a sale you already had.
.
Tip: Try to limit your customer’s decision making to either “Yes. I’ll buy.” or “No. I won’t buy”. Don’t risk losing them by including “which one” decisions.
...
Everybody Needs My Product/Service
.
That’s what YOU think. Most of them don’t think they need it…and most aren’t ready to spend their money for it.
.
The hazard of this myth is that it causes many marketers to believe they can succeed without doing much marketing or selling.
...
Tip: Look for narrowly defined niche markets where your product or service solves a unique need of the customers. [Moi ici: Isto é tão difícil de meter na cabeça de um empresário. Deixar mercado para outros é tão anti-instintivo... o live and let live, dá mais facilmente lugar aos "motards lover's"e aos Dick Dastardly] Focus your marketing on them instead of trying to reach a broadly defined general market. You’ll generate more sales and enjoy a better return on your advertising expense.

...

Acerca do fenómeno das empresas tipo-Dick Dastardly

Há anos que escrevo sobre o fenómeno das empresas tipo-Dick Dastardly:

Empresas que se preocupam mais com a concorrência do que com o viver da sua própria vida:

• "A ver passar motards"; e
• "Quasi uma blasfémia".

Daí o sublinhar de:

"“Never innovate to compete, innovate to change the rules of the game” to express the mindset of a true innovator.
...
our culture likes to pit companies against each other because it’s the type of  stuff that grabs headlines; unfortunately most can’t see beyond the bias.
...
For me, innovation makes competition irrelevant. Anywhere. Period."

Trechos retirados de "True innovation makes competition irrelevant"