CAUSING DISRUPTION – A VIABLE STRATEGY?

Not so long ago, I looked at the steel crisis here in the UK and questioned whether China was executing a dedicated ‘Disruption Strategy’ rather than simply ‘dumping’ cheap steel onto the world market?

With steel and, especially, Chinese steel in the news again with the threat it has created to the UK steel industry, I thought I would take a closer look at what exactly a ‘Disruption Strategy’ is and how such strategies, when well executed,  provide a proven, viable way of launching new products into already crowded markets.

disruption1For some, seeking to launch a new or replica version of an existing product into a crowded market might seem like lunacy yet, over the years many companies have managed to do just that by the intelligent application of Disruption Strategy. And how such disruption strategies work should be a lesson to those already occupying space in the crowded market for if they aren’t paying attention it is they who might end up getting squeezed out!

How does the Disruption Strategy work?

Let’s take as our example the Japanese car industry. When firms such as Toyota, Datsun (the original name of today’s Nissan) and Honda wanted to enter US and European markets in the sixties they were faced with a number of challenges. Primary among these challenges were that they were perceived to be already overcrowded markets and that Japanese build quality was thought to be inferior.

In a nutshell, the Japanese manufacturers’ strategy was to attack the ‘discount’ end of the market with lower priced cars that had higher spec as standard than the western competition. This disrupted the accepted ‘norm’ and car buyers, liking the added, higher spec option, slowly started buying the new products. Some of those buyers were from the traditional discount end of the market but some were also people seeing a like for like product with the more expensive, higher specification models they had been purchasing. Gradually, this gained the Japanese a foothold, the big US and European manufacturers happy to concede a little ground at that end of the market to a ‘discount’ brand.

But having conceded that ground they opened the whole market to their new competitor. The market was disrupted and the western ‘big boys’ struggled to recognise what was happening. The Japanese companies slowly started competing higher up the quality/price chain, the western manufacturers conceded more ground although now it was not quite so voluntary but the initial damage had been done.

In the UK, it was British Leyland’s build quality that started to be questioned; “not as good as the Japanese” according the buying public. They couldn’t respond and a slow death began.

Meanwhile the Japanese continued to gradually disrupt the previously accepted way of doing things until they reached a point where market share and their own size allowed them to compete not just as equals but in many cases as superior products. The battle for a significant share of the market had been won.

Today, the Japanese are the world’s largest manufacturer of cars. The British automobile industry has been decimated; the US is still struggling to come to terms with the new reality and European companies like Saab have disappeared. The German auto industry reacted both the fastest and the best and now has a reputation for extremely high build quality which has allowed it to survive and thrive in a market redefined by the Japanese.

Elsewhere, the Korean manufacturers have studied, learned and then employed an almost carbon disruption strategy to that of their Asian neighbours 40+ years ago.

In the last decade or so we have witnessed the ultimate triumph of the disruption strategy which enters at the discount end of a market with its arrival as a luxury brand. Back in the sixties and seventies they would never have believed you had you told them how prestigious Toyota (as Lexus) and Datsun/Nissan (as Infiniti) would be in the 21st century.

 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global, 2011, 2016

Contact Cowan Global

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

2 thoughts on “CAUSING DISRUPTION – A VIABLE STRATEGY?

  1. Clive Breedon

    Jim
    In the 1990’s I was tasked ( with others ) to eliminate all other competitive organisations in my market responsibilitythe by my blue chip employer.
    We called the pricing strategy destroyer pricing. it aim was to put pressure on the commercial viability and profitability of our competitors over a 3 year period , by the end of which my company would be undisputed market leader and the only operation in the UK.
    The pricing strategy was aligned to a sales strategy that used a market first 3 year contractual pricing agreement on seasonal products to leverage more time to develop additional ( value and profit added ) products across a wider basket of products than our competitors.

    by the end of the 3 years we had achieved our goals and had put two manufacturers out of business and forced a third to migrate production to Europe using inferior quality produce and manufacturing techniques.

    in this is stance the tactic was used form a position of strength to dominate a market rather than use it as a market entry weapon.

  2. cowanglobal800 Post author

    Thanks Clive. It is indeed a strategy (as oppose tactic) which can be employed from a position of strength within an existing market, something I believe the Chinese are currently seeking to do in the steel market (and others).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *