The replica economy: New strategies for emerging markets
The end of competitive advantage.
Rita McGrath
is a professor at Columbia Business School. She is ranked by Thinkers 50
as one of the top thinkers of our time. In her latest book (The end of Competitive
Advantage), she came up with a very bold
proposition based on a singular idea that competitive advantage as we have been
taught is no longer a valid pursuit for businesses that operate in today's
postmodern economic environment. This is not only an audacious proposition but
one that is highly contrarian. It is against the conventional wisdom made
popular by Mike Porter that the objective of every strategy is to create a
competitive advantage. A typical strategy development process begins with
a current situation assessment. This covers analysis of past and
present operating performance and environment in which an entity's
performance is bench marked against industry standards. Tools such as
Porter Five model forces, SWOT/PESTEL analysis e.t.c are deployed alongside
other tools like BCG Matrix with the objective of defining the market
share and position of a business in an industry. It helps to understand
the dynamics of growth relative to an entity's portfolio. At the end of
such rigorous process, an entity is expected to have been able to dimension
three factors that represent the fundamentals of any business or industry;
Consumers, Cost and Competition. It
is on this wise that new objectives are then set and tactics developed.
The rest is left to execution. In between, new realities emerge that
necessitate executives to adjust.
Contemporary
strategy development is based on being able to leverage barriers
to entry (patents, trademarks e.t.c) to create competitive advantage for a
business. This is what we have done for decades. However, with the turn of the
century, we now know that there is nothing like sustainable competitive
advantage. Factors of production have become commodities. No business
today can claim to have a monopoly of anything. Patents are no longer sure fire
defense (Apple vs Samsung). The lines that existed between industries are fast
blurring out. Just a couple of months ago, Tesco (a UK retailer) announced its
decision to go into telecommunications via its new business Tesco Mobile. Starbucks has
since expanded into adjacent industries to create new value equation. You'd be
myopic to refer to Starbucks as a Coffee company. New entrants are disrupting
entire industries while those that have existed for years are equally
transforming. Today, Kickstarter (a crowd funding site) has successfully financed dozens of
projects. Today, there are no longer dichotomies. Competitors are co-operating
in remarkable ways. P&G created a joint venture with Clorox to create a
business in excess of $1 Billion. This is coopetition. When it is difficult to
differentiate between who a consumer and a producer is, you know things are no
longer what they used to be. Our business vocabulary now includes a new
coinage; prosumers;
a term which describes what happens when you go to Nike website to design your
own sketchers. We are indeed at the cusp of resets and massive changes. This is
the era of transient competitive advantages. The objective of this piece
is to challenge the conventional wisdom of what and how strategy is considered
to be with a view of expanding the frontiers of what choices are available for
businesses.
In search of a viable business model
Growth has stalled in Europe. The
story is not different in the Americas where recession hasn't quite
waned-off. Now the eyes of the world is set on Africa and some others
countries. In the last few years, we have had the classification of some
countries as emerging markets. First it was the BRIC
(Brazil, Russia, India and China) then of recent the MINT
(Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey). The underlying logic for these
classification is based on a set of economic indicators that suggest that these
countries have better return on investment (ROI) which earns them the title of
emerging market. These countries share some similar attributes such as large
population (relative), low income distribution e.t.c. Although, the population
of these markets make them targets for global organisations, international
consortium and multinationals seeking growth. In Nigeria, the recently updated
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) puts it as the largest economy in Africa. In some
certain quarters, it is held that if you are not doing business in Nigeria, you
are missing out. The arrival of new brands and millions of dollars in Foreign
Direct Investment (FDIs) seem to support this. Last year, Nigeria had the
biggest FDI in Africa to the tune of $7.03billion. South Africa was second with $4.572 billion.
Investing in Nigeria and other
emerging markets is not a walk in the park. Some of these countries have above
average risk profiles making it knotty for investors. The returns however seem
to compensate for the risk. Some companies like Rocket Internet (a German-South African technology company) whose consolidation of Sabunta and
Kasuwa to form Jumia (an e-commerce platform said to be the biggest in the
Nigeria). The buildup of activities in the Broadband internet segment is
another interesting development. New entrants have come in to challenge the
grip of the major telecos (MTN, Globacom, ETISALAT, AIRTEL). These companies
are faced with the challenge of evolving winning strategies. The stakes are
high and only the best will win. This contest is not for the faint hearted and
losing is not just an option. The market leaders are doing all they can to
strengthen and better their positions. The pressures from new entrants and
challengers makes it even more difficult and this is not a zero sum game.
There are no promises. Multichoice Nigeria
Limited (DSTV) (another South African
company providing digital entertainment services) learnt the hard way when
it lost the Premier League license to an earlier startup (HITV). The impact of
that loss meant immense pressures on the cash flow and profitability of
DSTV who for years had been unchallenged. In a dramatic turn, it (DSTV) moved
to create a new venture (GoTV) to quell the rising tide of competition. This
uncharacteristic move represents one of the many strategic choices for
businesses. In this case, by creating GoTV; a low cost alternative to its
premium service (DSTV), Multichoice had expanded its where to play choice.
According to Monitor Deloitte, there are five of such cascading choices in strategy. These
choices are mutually reinforcing and are integrated. They are:
- What does success mean to your
business?
- Where will you play as a
business?
- How will you win?
- What capabilities do you
require to succeed?
- What initiative and management
information systems do you need to establish?
The second and third questions forms
what is referred to as the heart of strategy.
The replica economy.
Traditional strategy come in two
forms. It’s either you are a low-cost competitor or you are a differentiator.
As over simplistic as this may sound, the acid test ration for defining the
logic, virility and coherence of any strategy choice is to be able to ascertain
this position. It is through these lens that any business leader or executive
can be sure to know where he is. It is also expedient to state that this
is not a YES or NO answer. It is possible to have a hybrid strategy where bits
and pieces of cost leadership are mixed with Differentiation. However, the law
of position says that "You can't be all things to all men." Apple is
a premium brand. Southwest Airlines is a low-cost brand. The two companies are
undisputed leaders in their chosen markets.
So what is the Replica economy and
what has it got to do with anything?
The epiphany for this began as
a random observation really. I walked into a retail supermarket to pick a few
items including a body spray. My eyes was drawn to a section of the shelf
containing a lineup of a collection. I moved closer and what I saw opened a
deluge of curiosity and a fountain of questions. There I was standing
face-to-face with what looked too good to be true. How on earth did Issey Miyake
come up with a low priced body spray? I decided to
buy this seemingly "fake" product and alas, I was rocked to my core. The scent
was identical with the "original" Issey Miyake. Could this be a new line of
product? But what would make a premium perfume brand create a low cost body
spray? More disturbing was the fact that the package came with the unique
Issey Miyake design language and color. It wasn't a shy imitation. I have seen Louis Vuitton
spelt as Luis Vitton before. Once in a lifetime, everyone would come in contact
with knockoffs and copy-cat products. For the life of me, this was not the
case.
Months after, I had another surreal
encounter. This time around, I was left with even more confusion and amusement. I saw a 100ml
of Issey Miyake signature scent (the one with the kwirky bottle) priced for
N1000 (less than $10). The average price of a 50ml Issey Miyake perfume (for
men) goes for nothing less than $40. This time, I called the attention of the
shop attendant to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. I was assured, they hadn't
made a mistake at all. Again, I decided to try it out. Boy was I dazed! I
couldn't even differentiate from the "original". The feedback from
colleagues was awesome. My only regret was that I didn't buy the entire stock
when I had the chance to. The next time I went to the shop to buy, I didn't find my Issey Miyake. This time around though, other brands had joined. Givenchy, Armani,
Chanel, Hugo Boss, Perry Ellis, e.t.c.
In the period since my first
encounter, I have watched with keen eyes the systematic growth in the number of
brands that now exist in the SMART COLLECTION row of perfumes and body spray
(For men and women). It’s proven difficult to establish the validity of this
product line (My native mind consider the possibility of a massive infringement
here). Attempts to investigate SMART COLLECTION has been abortive. The
questions lingers on.
- What type of business model is
this?
- What is the business case for
it?
Let us imagine that SMART COLLECTION
is not a scam. Let us for a moment assume that this is not different from what
happens in the Nigerian music industry. Nosa is an artist under the auspices of
Chocolate City; a hugely popular record label here in Nigeria. He recently
released his maiden album via iTunes. Weeks after, the album was available on
the street for N150. The album goes for more than that price on iTunes and it
has more tracks listed. And, the album being peddled by the street hawkers is
not illegal. Nosa and his record label allowed it. It is a deliberate
distribution strategy. It is obvious why this is the case. A typical Nigerian
(those in the larger income demography) will not buy an album on iTunes. His
archetype doesn't just fit the existing channel. For Nosa to win, he had to
create a less premium product that is affordable and easily accessible by his
target market. This doesn't diminish the premiumness of Nosa. He is a super talented
musician and a differentiated brand for that matter. His key differentiation is
his style and his lyrics. All of these didn't stop him and his management from
tapping into the opportunity. Similar strategies has been used by other premium
brands in the Nigerian music industry. When Procter and Gamble (P&G) via
its men's grooming brand (Gillette) chose to play in the Indian market, it went
through a product development guided by design thinking to create a razor for
men that fit the unique buying state of the Indian man. Of course, the price
point was reflective of the income attribute of that market which incidentally
is an emerging market.
The Smart Collection example, the
Nigerian music industry illustration and the strategy that was adopted by
Gillette point to one and the same thing. It is a trend that is here to stay.
When next you come across a product that bears semblance with a premium brand,
don't be quick to judge it as fake. The lines are blurring. Welcome to the
replica economy.
Image Credit: Google.

Fantastic piece Femi.
ReplyDeleteI laughed at the SMART collection example. That was a great way to pass on the message of the replica economy. It brought it all home...
Been away from the comment box on your blog for a while, I need to leave some confirmation that I was here.
Awwww. My beautiful (inside out) sister. I am elated to say the least. I am thrilled to have you drop-by. Thanks again for hosting me the last time. I am still spell bound. Thanks for being a worthy example of God's leading lady. I love you.
ReplyDeleteI am back again, trust me, I was not disappointed. You touched on so many relevant talking points. Most of which I have had to review as part of my exposure and recent thesis on the need for more FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in the FMCG industry in Nigeria and other African Nations; in our journey towards better human and natural resource maximization. Your notion on the "Replica" economy and SMART collection is very valid. I would say it seems very similar to the "bottom of the pyramid" approach that has been used by some brands in LATAM. This approach focuses on creating specific products suitable and affordable for the lowest income earners. While luxury brands like LVMH and the likes might find it difficult to cultivate this low price approach, I think it would be a valid entry strategy for companies looking to make a strong entrance into emerging economies like Africa. And to make it better, Just like P&G did with the Gillette razor product in India, a good marketing campaign would do a lot to allay fears of low "quality" that comes with cheaper priced products.
ReplyDeleteWe can go on and on with comments on your well thought analysis, but I must say again, good job. But do you think the concept of competitive advantage is really changing? I would rather say we are beginning to find non-conventional ways to achieve competitive advantage.Factors of production, demand, etc(Ref Porter's Diamond model) are maybe taking a lesser role. Non-conventional and out of the box thinking is taking more center stage. As a company and a provider of products and services, there is always the need to seek out an edge. But of late, we have seen new methods that contradict conventional ways of carving out that edge.
One can always count on Aderounmu Babafemi for thorough and insightful review. Such is the nature of the review you just did. I agree with you that nothing has changed in terms of what the objective of business strategy is. Its very much about creating an edge. So long the factors of COST, CONSUMER and COMPETITION remains, there would always need to be the need for businesses to carve their own niche. This is what winning is about. The wisdom of the moment however is that new realities has taught us that there are new ways to win that beat old conventions. Imagination has never been this important. New permutations and combinations now exist that defile traditional rules of what is possible. Disruption is no longer a farsighted reality but a closer phenomenon. This understanding is crucial for those that lead businesses, those who own them and the rest of us who care. Thanks for dropping-by. Cheers!
Delete