Marketing Warfare Strategies
Many believe that the core of marketing is to identify and profitably satisfy the needs of the customer. Yet, why does fulfilling that goal not always lead to business success? The key could be that a shift in focus is needed. Instead of a customer-oriented product development and marketing strategy, maybe businesses need to become competitor-oriented. If the key to succeeding in business were to focus on products closest to those the customers want, the market leader would be the one that performs the best market research and testing.There must be more to success than just market research.Click To Tweet
Assuming that all other things are equal, larger armies have a distinct advantage over smaller armies. Size matters. If several businesses enter the market at the same time with a similar product offering, the larger company, the one with the bigger sales force, is likely to win. The larger company can afford the resources to outnumber and overpower their competition. This, of course, does not mean that small companies don’t stand a chance. Smaller companies need to realize that the way to success is a superior strategy, rather than a brute force attack on a larger competitor.
To understand what kind of marketing warfare strategy a company should adopt, let’s assume four hypothetical companies – each one half the size of the larger. Each firm will have a different objective to their marketing war:
Company 1: Continued Market Domination
Company 2: Increase Market Share
Company 3: Profitable Survival
Company 4: Survival
Market Shares of Our Hypothetical Companies
Why isn’t the goal of the number 1 company to further increase market share? The main reason is due to the existence of antitrust laws, built to protect the consumers. If the market leader is continually growing larger, this anti-trust legislation could come into play, especially if they were to cause a smaller competitor to close its doors, either through bankruptcy or purchase. For that reason, defending the leading market share is more important than offensively attacking the market.The Defensive Marketing Strategy: Continue your market domination.Click To Tweet
The second company’s ideal strategy would be an offensive against the market leader. Well, that is, if there is a large market share gap between the second and third company – if they are close competitors roughly the same size, they would likely each be the other’s main strategic focus). If there is a large gap between those two companies – gaining the market share of the third company will do little, relative to the much larger second company. Instead, there are potentially significant rewards, and perhaps even potentially becoming the market leader if shares can be gained from the first company – the dominant firm.
The Offensive Marketing Strategy: Increase your market share.Click To Tweet
The third company, at least in our example, would be too small to sustain a prolonged offensive on the largest company. That company’s best strategy would be to utilize a flanking attack. A flank will avoid direct competition with the other companies – perhaps by launching a product that is significantly different from that of the larger firms, courting a niche audience.The Flanking Marketing Strategy: Ensure a profitable survival.Click To Tweet
The fourth company, the smallest one, would not have the resources to attack anyone. It can’t flank, because any one of the larger competitors can launch a similar product, and have vastly greater resources at their disposal to assure success. The smallest firm needs to use a guerrilla warfare strategy, by identifying segments big enough to be profitable for the smaller firm, but not large enough to attract larger competition.The Guerrilla Marketing Strategy: Simply survive by any means necessary.Click To Tweet
Now, how do each of these strategies play out?
You will have to read on…