Marketing warfare assignment

Ries and Trout maintain that while it may be possible to assemble a small group of star performers, on a larger scale the employee abilities will approach the mean. Another argument is that a better product will overcome other weaknesses. Again, Ries and Trout disagree. Once consumers already have in their minds that a product is number one, it is extremely difficult for another product, even if superior, to take over that number one place in the consumer’s mind. The way to win the battle is not to recruit superior employees or to develop a superior product.

Rather, Ries and Trout argue that to win the battle, a firm must successfully execute a superior strategy. The Superiority of the Defense The attackers require a much larger force to overcome the defensive positions. The same is true in marketing warfare. Many companies with insufficient resources have tried unsuccessfully to attack a leader. A study was made of 25 brands that held the number one position. Sixty years later, 20 of those 25 brands still held the number one position. It is very difficult to overtake the market leader.

For this discussion, assume that there are four firms and each is approximately twice the size of the next closest to it. In such an environment, each of the four firms has different objectives: ??? Number 1 firm: market domination ??? Number 2 firm: increased market share ??? Number 3 firm: profitable survival ??? Number 4 firm: survival According to Ries and Trout, the main competitor of the market leader that holds the majority of market share is not one of the other firms in the industry, but rather, the government. Consequently, the best strategy for such a firm is a defensive one.

The number two firm’s best strategy is an offensive attack on the market leader if there is a large gap between the number two firm and number three. The reason is that the gaining of market share from the number three firm is unlikely to make a large impact on the much larger number two firm. However, there are potentially significant rewards if market share can be gained from the dominant firm. The number three firm is too small to sustain an offensive attack on a larger firm. Its best strategy often is to launch a flanking attack, avoiding direct competition.

Sometimes the weakness in the leader’s strength arises from the fact that it has a major investment in assets that cannot be readily adapted. A more flexible challenger can use this fact to its advantage. The challenger should attack on as narrow a front as possible. Generally, this means one product rather than a wide range of products. The reason for keeping the attack narrow is the principle of force; a narrow attack allows the challenger to concentrate its resources in the narrow area, and in that area may present more force than the leader.

A narrow attack is particularly effective when the leader has attempted to be all things to all people with a single product. In that situation, a challenger can identify a segment within the leader’s market and offer a product that serves only that segment. The challenger then stands a chance of winning a position in the consumer’s mind for that more narrow class of product. Principles of Flanking Warfare A flanking attack is not a direct attack on the leader, but rather, an attack in an area where the leader has not established a strong position.