MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not...

36
MKTG 640 Value Innovation

Transcript of MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not...

Page 1: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

MKTG 640

Value Innovation

Page 2: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM

What does this show?

Imitative – not innovative approaches to the market

These companies act REACTIVELYA company’s understanding of

emerging mass markets and changing customer demands becomes hazy

Page 3: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

What is the key to sustained high growth vs competitors?

Value innovation

That is…..focus on the customer and new ways of satisfying him or her

Page 4: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Companies with sustained high growth and profits practice value innovation

Page 5: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value Innovation not dependent on:

SizeYears of operationIndustry conditionsCounty of origin

Page 6: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value Innovation

Offers fundamentally new and superior buyer value

Makes competition irrelevant

Example: Callaway Golf

Page 7: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value Innovation – Callaway Golf

Callaway Golf – changed the question

It used to be – How can I hit the ball farther?

Their’s was – How can I hit the ball easier?

Page 8: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value Innovation – Callaway Golf

They got the country club marketAt a country club, people chose

either tennis or golf.Golf was perceived as too hard. (How

can I hit that ball?)Callaway’s golf club (Big Bertha)

made it easier to hit.Viola – access to a new segment.

Page 9: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value Innovation

Places the buyer – not the competition at the center of strategic thinking.

Page 10: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Shifting the Basis of Strategy

After WWII global competition ballooned.

US companies responded – with a focus on beating competition

Market conditions are assumed NOT to be under firm control

So – firms trade-off between price and product performance

Page 11: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Shifting the Basis of Strategy

Competing for a share of a contracting market is a ‘second best’ strategy

Stimulating the demand side is a ‘first best strategy.’

Companies pursuing a first best strategy FAR outperform those with a second best strat.

Page 12: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Shifting the Basis of Strategy

Land, labor and capital – finite factors of production

BUT --- Knowledge and ideas are infinite economic goods that can generate increasing returns through their systematic use.

Page 13: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Companies that pursue innovation systematically

….can create new demand.

Page 14: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value and Innovation

Value innovation – anchors innovation with buyer value.

Value innovation is not the same as value creation

VC is incrementalVI is breakthrough

Page 15: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value and Innovation

Value innovation – links innovation to what the MASS of buyers want.

Questions:1. Are we offering customers radically

superior value?2. Is our price level accessible to the

mass of buyers in our target audience?

Page 16: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Technological versus Value Innovation

Tech innovation focuses on finding solutions for problems

Value innovation focuses on redefining the problems themselves

Page 17: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value creation

Page 18: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value Innovation - Schumpeter

‘creative destruction’ – new stuff kills or makes irrelevant – old stuff

Schumpeter => entrepreneurs do creative destruction

Page 19: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value Innovation

Schumpeter => entrepreneurs do creative destruction

Not really, anyone in an organization can come up with a creative innovation

Page 20: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Market Dynamics of Value Innovation

Offering buyers fundamentally new and superior value in traditional businesses through innovative ideas and knowledge…..

Page 21: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Market Dynamics of Value Innovation – product to knowledge economy

Two consequences: First – it creates the potential for

increasing returns Second - it creates the potential for

‘free riders.’

Page 22: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Market Dynamics of Value Innovation – product to knowledge economy

In the old economy – one firm’s use of a rival good – precludes its use by others (the one Nobel laureate who knows about financial markets)

Use of a nonrival good – can be used by others

Page 23: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Example:

Virgin Atlantic’s Upper Class – (First Class at Business Class prices)

The idea is a nonrival good.

Why – anyone can copy it (more easily)- free riders

Page 24: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

How to protect your nonrival good?

Notion of EXCLUDABILITY

Excludability a function of: The Legal System (patents)

Intel can exclude rival chipmakers from using their plant – property laws

The Nature of the Good

Starbuck’s? The highest value item in its product is not excludable (the idea of a chic coffee bar)

Page 25: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

The ideas that contain the real value are usually not excludable or only partially so.

Page 26: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Even software is subject to free riding

Code is patentable – or at least can be protected

The look and feel is not patentableSoooo…duplicate the look and feel

and write new code..It happened to Netscape (IE)

Page 27: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

What’s the best way to maximize profits?

Should value innovators follow the tech strategy (price skimming, restrict supply)?

Page 28: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

What’s the best way to maximize profits?

Successful value innovators use a distinctly different market approach from that of conventional monopolists.

Page 29: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Value innovators market approach

Strategic pricing for demand creation.

Target costing for profit creation.

Page 30: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Strategic pricing for demand creation

Strategic pricing leads to high volume and rapidly establishes a powerful brand reputation.

Page 31: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Target costing for profit creation

Target costing leads to attractive profit margins and a cost structure that is hard for potential followers to match.

Page 32: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Quantity

Page 33: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Rapid brand recognition built by VIPlus simultaneous drive to lower costs

Makes competition nearly irrelevantComps must overcome economies of

scale, learning effects and increasing returns.

Page 34: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

To make value innovation happen

Ask five questions…

Page 35: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Conventional Logic Value Innovation Logic

Question 1 Does your company allow industry conditions to dictate the realm of what is possible, probable, and profitable?

Question 2 Does your company focus on outpacing the competition?

Question 3 Does management start by considering current assets and capabilities?

Question 4 Does your company focus on customer segmentation, customization, and retention?

Question 5 Does your company strive to improve the products and services of your industry?

Page 36: MKTG 640 Value Innovation. Consider 1998 Compaq vs IBM zWhat does this show? zImitative – not innovative approaches to the market zThese companies act.

Conventional Logic Value Innovation Logic

Question 1 Does your company allow industry conditions to dictate the realm of what is possible, probable, and profitable?

Does your company challenge the inevitability of industry conditions?

Question 2 Does your company focus on outpacing the competition?

Does your company focus on dominating the market by introducing a major advance in buyer value?

Question 3 Does management start by considering current assets and capabilities?

Does management consider starting anew?

Question 4 Does your company focus on customer segmentation, customization, and retention?

Does your company search for key value commodities that can unlock the mass market even if some existing customers will be lost?

Question 5 Does your company strive to improve the products and services of your industry?

Does your company think in terms of a total customer solution even if this pushes beyond the industry's traditional offerings?