\n
Strategy (noun): \u201c<\/em>A <\/em>plan<\/a><\/em> of <\/em>action<\/a><\/em> intended<\/a><\/em> to <\/em>accomplish<\/a><\/em> a <\/em>specific<\/a><\/em> goal<\/em>\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Robert Greene wrote a great book about military strategy entitled \u201cThe 33 Strategies of War<\/a>\u201d (Viking Press). Fascinating reading. In it, Greene analyzes the 33 strategies in great detail, citing numerous historical examples over the course of history from the ancient Greeks to the 21st century.<\/span><\/p>\n Along with the more well know strategies like \u201cThe Divide and Conquer Strategy\u201d, several had intriguing titles, like: \u201cThe Guerilla War-of-the-Mind Strategy”, \u201cThe Controlled Chaos Strategy\u201d, \u201cThe Strategy of the Void\u201d, \u201cThe Death Ground Strategy\u201d (not<\/em> my favorite) and the \u201cRipening for the Sickle Strategy\u201d .<\/span><\/p>\n Small-to-midsize business could learn a lot from that book.<\/span><\/p>\n But, with 33 strategies to choose from, few executive teams are able to dedicate the time and resource necessary to gather and analyze enough field intelligence, and then grind through the decision making and selection process, to pick the precise best strategy to execute. More typically the strategic planning process is done in a short time window each year, commonly facilitated by a non-strategic expert.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Barring the existence of a proven tool or affordable expert to assist small to midsize firms in the selection of the best of \u201cThe 33\u201d strategies, we suggest 6 basic strategic alternatives that executives might find easier to understand and select from.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n A frontal strategy is a tempting, and typically, poorly thought out alternative that is too common in business. It is, many times, the default strategy. It can be paraphrased as, \u201cHere is our product. It\u2019s the best. Go out and sell it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n New companies often have that strategy, and inventors and entrepreneurs are notorious for it when they say, in one form or another, \u201cEveryone<\/em> can use this\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Frontal assaults typically fail.<\/span><\/p>\n Examples of famous failed frontal assaults in business were IBM in their assault on the PC market, Coca-Cola with their New Coke debacle and Segway with their assault on the personal transportation market. As an aside, neither Coke nor IBM\u2019s powerful brand recognition helped them avoid failure.<\/span><\/p>\n Notable military frontal assault failures were Pickett\u2019s charge at the Battle of Gettysburg during the U.S. Civil War, Napoleon\u2019s assault on Russia in 1812 and Hitler\u2019s assault on Russia (Operation Barbarossa) in 1941. Even Napoleon\u2019s and Hitler\u2019s huge, powerful and highly capable armies could not overcome the fallacy of the frontal assault on Russia with its immense land mass, winter weather and dedicated and committed army.<\/span><\/p>\n Frontal assaults are extremely costly, and research suggests that it takes anywhere between and 3 to 5 times the resources of the enemy (competition) is required to overcome a defended position in business or war.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Fragmentation in business is the same as segmentation. Fragmentation allows a firm to focus their energy and their value proposition in a much narrower arena, increasing significantly their ability to develop a meaningful value proposition and establish a defensible foothold. Both development and marketing expenses are reduced and the outcome of product design focus is typically a much more relevant value proposition for the market, which ultimately makes selling easier.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Flanking, in military terms, is differentiation<\/em> in business terms. Differentiation allows firms to create a unique brand presence in the mind of the customer.<\/span><\/p>\n Flanking and Fragmentation go hand in hand.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Just as a frontal assault requires 3 to 5 times more resource to succeed, a defend strategy requires 3 to 5 times less resource to succeed. In business, overcoming a defended position is challenging for many reasons; the defender\u2019s customer relationships and channel are already established, their brand name is already known, their customers\u2019 buying processes and contracts are already established and all the support and service mechanics are in place. That\u2019s a lot of bonds for the attacking competitor to break.<\/span><\/p>\n On the other hand, the defend strategy is extremely vulnerable to a Fragment and Flank strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n The best example I can think of is the Japanese success in the US auto industry. The Big 3 (GM, Ford and Chrysler) had become complacent in their market share. Together they owned 90% of the US auto market. GM had the highest share at roughly 50%.<\/span><\/p>\n The Japanese fragmented out and targeted the small car market where the US automakers had a poorly defended position, and quite frankly, had little interest in defending. Small cars simply didn\u2019t contribute enough margin to the Big 3\u2019s bottom line.<\/span><\/p>\n The demographics of the times (baby boomer new-household growth) were promising, as was the economic value proposition of the small 2nd car. Fragmenting and Flanking, based on quality and economics, were all that was required. GM now has roughly 20% market share.<\/span><\/p>\n That foothold was the first in a series of sequential fragment and flanking moves that took the Asian automakers from economy compact cars to luxury sedans and SUVs.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sometimes it\u2019s simply better to decide not to fight. Also called the \u201cCut-Your-Losses\u201d strategy, it is better labeled as the \u201cReallocate-Your-Resources-to-a-More-Lucrative \u2013Market-Opportunity\u201d strategy. That more lucrative alternative would likely be a fragment and flank opportunity.<\/span><\/p>\n The Depart strategy comprises overlooking the battle field and simply deciding not to engage at all. The biggest enemy to overcome in accepting the wisdom of this strategy is pride. Executives must allow reason to triumph. The depart strategy is best utilized when it becomes apparent, that the enemy is well dug in, having a strong defensible position.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Develop strategy is the common follow on to the Depart strategy. If the market opportunity is judged intuitively attractive, but temporarily impenetrable, after departing the field the develop strategy suggests that you remain engaged through intelligence gathering, looking for just the right opportunity to find a poorly defended fragment of the competitor\u2019s market to attack.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The point of all this that the only strategy that produces consistently good results is the combined Fragment-Flank strategy aka Market Focus and Differentiation. Whether your products and markets are mature or new, Fragment and Flank, or Segmentation and Differentiation is key.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/span><\/p>\n Copyright Jerry Vieira, CMC and The QMP Group, Inc. 2014 All Rights Reserved<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n For more information about formulating winning market strategies contact Jerry Vieira, CMC at Jerry@qmpassociates.com ,<\/a> call to<\/a> 503.318.2696 or visit the QMP Website at www.TheQMPGroup.com<\/a>\u00a0 or connect with us through our Contact Us<\/a> page.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Just as a frontal assault requires 3 to 5 times more resource to succeed, a defend strategy requires 3 to 5 times less resource to succeed. In business, overcoming a defended position is challenging for many reasons; the defender\u2019s customer relationships and channel are already established, their brand name is already known, their customers\u2019 buying processes and contracts are already established and all the support and service mechanics are in place. That\u2019s a lot of bonds for the attacking competitor to break.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":4658,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,105,21],"tags":[43,102,24,60],"yoast_head":"\nThe 33 Strategies<\/span><\/em>:<\/span><\/h3>\n
The six basic strategy alternatives – 3 F\u2019s and 3 D\u2019s<\/em><\/span>:<\/span><\/h3>\n
The F<\/strong><\/span>rontal Assault Strategy<\/em>:<\/span><\/h3>\n
The F<\/strong><\/span>ragmentation Strategy<\/em>:<\/span><\/h3>\n
The F<\/strong><\/span>lanking Strategy:<\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n
T<\/em>he D<\/strong><\/span>efend Strategy<\/em>:<\/span><\/h3>\n
The D<\/strong><\/span>epart Strategy<\/em>:<\/span><\/h3>\n
The D<\/strong><\/span>evelop Strategy<\/em>:<\/span><\/h3>\n
The Best Strategy<\/span><\/em>:<\/span><\/h3>\n