Know-How Exchange : Book Club

We seem to be making analogies more easily with this book. Synapses firing and all that. I love your idea of Blue Ocean Strategy because I prefer to be "for" something vs. "against" something.

This is also where the portion of your marketplace dominated by women will go. Might that be the greater portion? I say it is. I say positive and creation as new space entirely without going against old are winners.

What are others' points of view?

Certainly Blue Ocean strategy is another way of saying “Create a new category you can be first in.”

However, the lack of competition is not necessarily advantageous for the first company to launch a new brand in a new category. The more competitors that jump into the market, the more they validate the category. The best thing that ever happened to Coca-Cola may have been Pepsi. It made the category more important and more interesting.

Then take one of the most successful brands in the 21st century, Red Bull. Today, Red Bull has hundreds of competitors, yet still has some 50 percent share of the energy drink market. Last year, Red Bull did $3.4 billion in worldwide sales. Without the competition, the brand would probably be just a minor factor in the soft drink market.

I will say, the branding of Blue Ocean Strategy has been brilliant. The words themselves are fantastic. A major reason it has become such a buzzword and bestselling book.

FedEx always said they never would be who they are without "Big Brown" (UPS). This was because of negative associations with UPS, not because the market needed two players.

I'd attribute Red Bull's success to a Gen X "extreme sports" culture latching onto a fun sounding brand that gives them a massive and legal psychotropic rush. Their competition was Mountain Dew, which just had less kick to it. It was unique positioning, great packaging, and visible physical and mental effects. I doubt that Red Bull would have failed without Monster, Rockstar and the others. Red Bull is a $3 billion brand in a trillion dollar market. But they've carved out a nice niche to work in, so good for them.

To answer your question, I didn't see too many clear parallels except at the most conceptual level. BOS was very specific about higher perceived value at lower delivery costs, which is brilliant stuff. It's been a while since I read it, though, so many of the specific lessons are a bit hazy.

I think it is about comparison. You see, our mind is adept at comparing, be it people or products. Thus, competition helps well in allowing the consumer/customer to compare.

Indeed, how do you judge a product? Most of the time it is by comparing it with another product, don't you agree?

Nevertheless, great discussion!

ps: I have read both books and implementing their advice -- super-advice!

One of the biggest problems in marketing is trying to differenciate between the theoretical and the practical. Would you rather have 100 percent of a market with no competition or 50 percent of a market with a lot of competitors?

In theory, I'd rather have 100 percent. In practice, however, I know of no big market without a lot of competitors. Computers, cellphones, energy drinks, beer, you name it. Every truly big category has a raft of competitors.

The implication of Blue Ocean Strategy is that a company can create a unique category and then become the only brand in that category. In the long run, I don't think that has ever happened.

That's the problem with convergence. The difference between the theoretical and the practical. In theory, I'd rather have one device that's a computer, cellphone, electronic calendar, alarm clock, digital recorder, GPS, etc.

In practice, however, such devices are confusing, complicated, expensive and subject to almost instant obsolesence. Exactly like Swiss Army knives which capture the imagination and are seldom used.