The top business strategist, at least arguably, Michael Porter, spoke in his book Competitive Advantage about the concept of a “good” competitor. What is a good competitor exactly? Well, Porter defines it, on page 212, as:
“one that challenges the firm not to be complacent but is a competitor with which the firm can achieve a stable and profitable industry equilibrium without protracted warfare.”
The protracted warfare reference I believe alludes to actions that must be taken because the competitor has taken steps to destabilize the industry.
Social media has been widely touted as being a marketing tactic that is “destabilizing” or perhaps I should say “disrupting.” Just read the Cluetrain Manifesto for more on this concept. So if we can agree that the employment of social media has a tendency to destabilize an industry, would any competitor using social media be considered “good?”
One of the “tests” that Porter uses to determine a “good” competitor from a “bad” one is the test of “understanding the rules.” To be classified as a “good” competitor, according to Porter, the competitor must:
“promote the existing technology rather than attempt(ing) strategies that involve technological or competitive discontinuities . . .”
Are we considering social media technology as “existing?” I would say not, given that most companies now are not engaged in using social media in their marketing mix. We can hardly classify social media technology as “existing” or average or commonly accepted. Any company engaging in the “disruption” would have to be classified, by Porter’s definition and at least with regard to this test, as not a “good” competitor, but as a “bad” competitor.
But do we treat our competitors using social media in their marketing mix as “bad” competitors; applying against them the requisite strategies needed for such rivals?
No, not necessarily because Porter implies that there are no absolutes in categorizing competitors as bad or good. There are shades of gray. In addition to the test of technology employment, there are many other tests that must be applied to classify a competitor as good or bad. No one competitor meets all of those tests, he says.
Yet it would seem that any competitor willing to use social media, beyond a preliminary, exploratory stage, would not appear as one which is willing to go along with the status quo, but as one which is threatening the “industry equilibrium.” Indeed, it would seem that they are trying to upset the status quo. It would seem that they are “disruptive.”
Does this describe your competitor?
Does this describe your company?
__________
Like this post? Tweet it! >> “Is Your Rival a ‘Good’ Competitor?” http://tinyurl.com/9o2s72
