超强竞争理论ppt课件.ppt

HypercompetitionHypercompetitive RivalriesRichard DAveni and Robert Gunther.The PLC PhaseFocus on the firm andits strategies at differentstages of the PLCSWOT frameworkHypercompetition PhaseFocus on the competitiveinteractions w.r.t. the fourcompetitive arenasC-Q/T-K/S/D frameworkValueNet PhaseFocus on all the playersrelevant to your operationsPARTS frameworkNumber of PlayersComplexity of Analysis.Limitations of traditional viewA key limitation of all the above strategies is that it ignores the dynamics of competition in the marketplace. While the issue of foremost importance for the company is the customer, DAveni notes that competitive interaction among firms typically goes through six stages.Strategic Competitive AdvantageProfits from asustained competitiveadvantageTimeLaunchExploitationCounterattackProfits from aseries of actionsTimeExploitationLaunchCounterattackFirm has already moved to advantage 2Traditional ViewHypercompetition.DECDEC in minicomputers. The company posted a 31% average growth rate from 1977 to 1982 by focusing on the minicomputer. The company clung so tenaciously to its advantage in minicomputer technology that it failed to develop a strong position in the emerging markets for minicomputers and PCs. As CEO Ken Olsen commented in 1984 (Businessweek), “We had 6 PCs in-house that we could have launched in the late 70s. But we were selling so many (VAX minis), it would have been immoral to chase a new market.” .HypercompetitionFour arenas of competitionCost & Quality (C-Q)Timing and know-how (T-K)Strongholds (S)Deep pockets (D).Coke vs. PepsiCoke: 1886; Pepsi: 18931933: Pepsi struggling to stave off bankruptcy. Dropped price of its 10c, 12 oz. bottle to 5c, making it a better valueAd jingle “twice as much for a nickel” better known in the US than the Star Spangled BannerPepsiCokePrice / OuncePrice / OuncePepsiCokePerceived QualityPerceived Quality.Coke vs. Pepsi, Contd.PepsiCokePrice / OuncePrice / OunceFirst move:PepsiChallengePerceived QualityPerceived QualityuPepsi keeps price advantage through 60s and 70s, when Pepsi charged its bottlers 20% less for its concentrateuWith rising ingredient costs, Pepsi could no longer offer twice as much for the same price. So it raised price to Cokes level giving it a war chest to fuel an aggressive ad campaignuBattle shifted from Price to Quality, with Pepsi targeting the youthuWhat followed was the Pepsi Challenge & “Real Thing” Coke ads Youth & MiddleClass Segments2nd move:Cokes Ad war.Coke vs. Pepsi, Contd.Price / OuncePrice / OuncePerceived QualityPerceived QualityuPerceived quality caught up. Deeper pocketed and lower cost Coke initiated a price war in selective markets where Pepsi was weak in the 70s. Pepsi responded with its discounts and by the end of the 80s, 50% of food store sales were on discountuOther companies moved into the lower left quadrant of the market. But the two major players forced price down to “ultimate value.”uTo break price spiral, Coke launched New Coke to keep Coke loyals and induce switching among Pepsi buyers. Rejected by market.uAttempts to move to next arena via niches in caffeine and sugar substitutesGenericsRC ColaCoke &PepsiPriceSpiralNewCokeActualClassic Coke& PepsiNewCokeIntended.Price-Quality ManeuversPrice WarFull line ProducersNiching & OutflankingMove to Ultimate ValueAttempt to redefine QualityCommodity like MarketReturn to Price WarsMove to the next ArenaThe Cycle of Price-Quality Competition - MovingUp the Escalation Ladder.PricePerceived Quality.#1 Low quality (leaky) unbranded& 2 piece diapers#2 Pampers (P&G)#3 Kimbies (Kimberly Clark)#4 Huggies (Kimberly-Clark)#5 Luvs (P&G)Creeping up the line in diapers.The Move Towards Offering Ultimate ValueE1DE2E3E4DE5V1V2V3First Value LineNext Value LineUltimate Value LinePerceived QualityPrice.The Fast Food BusinessPerceived QualityPriceM1B1W1W2B2M2UVWendysBurger KingMcDonalds.Firm builds a Tech. ResourceBase to create advantageThen moves into a new marketfirst: PioneerFollowers imitate products & overcome switching costsand brand loyaltiesPioneer throws up impediments to imitationFollowers overcome impedimentsand replicate pioneers resource baseFirst mover uses a TransformationStrategy & abandons product design/technology based approachBuilds resources to match followersmanufacturing skillsPrice WarFirst mover uses a LeapfrogStrategy to a new resource baseFirst mover movesdownstream intohigher value addedproductsEscalating costs &risks each cycleCycle of Timing / Know-HowCompetition.The First Dynamic Strategic Interaction:Capturing First Mover AdvantagesResponse lags: Obtaining monopoly rentsEconomies of scaleReputation, switching costs and loyaltyAdvertising and channel crowdingUser-base effects: Network size and user base provide funds for the next leapProducer learning / experience effectsPre-emption of scarce assets (McDonalds restaurant locations)First movers needInnovation skillsCustomer knowledgeMarket penetration and marketing skillsFlexible manufacturi。