Nearly two decades o f o bserving dell had allo wed

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: mber 19, 2007, http:/ / www.f astco m/ magazine/ 88/ dell.html. And since Dell P Cs were usually cheaper, to o , the f irm co uld o f ten start a price war and still have better o verall margins than rivals. It was a brilliant mo del that f o r years pro ved resistant to imitatio n. While Dell so ld direct to co nsumers, rivals had to share a cut o f sales with the less ef f icient retail chains respo nsible f o r the majo rity o f their sales. Dell’s rivals struggled in mo ving to ward direct sales because any retailer sensing its suppliers were co mpeting with it thro ugh a direct-sales ef f o rt co uld easily cho se ano ther supplier that so ld a nearly identical pro duct. It wasn’t that HP , IBM, So ny, and so many o thers didn’t see the advantage o f Dell’s mo del—these f irms were wedded to mo dels that made it dif f icult f o r them to imitate their rival witho ut the inef f icient burden o f straddling two dif f erent mo dels o f do ing business. But then Dell’s killer mo del, o ne that had beco me a staple case study in business scho o ls wo rldwide, began to lo se steam. Nearly two decades o f o bserving Dell had allo wed the co ntract manuf acturers serving Dell’s rivals to impro ve manuf acturing ef f iciency.T. Friscia, K. O’Marah, D. Ho f man, and J. So uza, “The AMR Research Supply Chain To p 25 f o r 2009,” AMR Research, May 28, 2009, http:/ / m/ Co ntent/ View.aspx?co mpURI=tcm:7-43469. Co mpo nent suppliers lo cated near co ntract manuf acturers, and assembly times f ell dramatically. And as the co st o f co mputing f ell, the price advantage Dell enjo yed o ver rivals also shrank in abso lute terms. That meant savings f ro m buying a Dell weren’t as big as they o nce were. On to p o f that, the direct-to -co nsumer mo del also suf f ered when sales o f no tebo o k P Cs o utpaced the mo re co mmo ditized deskto p market. No tebo o ks can be co nsidered to be mo re dif f erentiated than deskto ps, and custo mers o f ten want to co mpare pro ducts in perso n— lif t them, type o n keybo ards, and view screens—bef o re making a purchase decisio n. In time, these shif ts created an o ppo rtunity f o r rivals to kno ck Dell f ro m its ranking as the wo rld’s number o ne P C manuf acturer. Dell has even abando ned its direct-o nly business mo del and no w also sells pro ducts thro ugh third-party brick-and-mo rtar retailers. Dell’s struggles as co mputers, custo mers, and the pro duct mix changed all undersco re the impo rtance o f co ntinually assessing a f irm’s strategic po sitio n amo ng changing market co nditio ns. There is no guarantee that to day’s winning strategy will do minate f o rever. Brand A f irm’s brand is the symbo lic embo diment o f all the inf o rmatio n co nnected with a pro duct o r service, and a stro ng brand can also be an exceptio nally po werf ul reso urce f o r co mpetitive advantage. Co nsumers use brands to lo w er search co sts, so having a stro ng brand is particularly vital f o r f irms ho ping to be the f irst o nline sto p f o r co nsumers. Want to buy a bo o k o nline? Auctio n a pro duct? Search f o r inf o rmatio n? Which f irm wo uld yo u visit f irst? Almo st certainly Amazo n, eBay, o r Go o gle. But ho w do yo u build a stro ng brand? It’s no t just abo ut advertising and pro mo tio n. First and f o remo st, custo mer experience co unts. A stro ng brand pro xies quality and inspires trust, so if co nsumers can’t rely o n a f irm to deliver as pro mised, they’ll go elsewhere. As an upside, tech can play a critical ro le in rapidly and co st-ef f ectively strengthening a brand. If a f irm perf o rms well, co nsumers can o f ten be enlisted to pro mo te a pro duct o r service (so -called viral market ing). Co nsider that while sco res o f do t-co ms burned thro ugh mo ney o n Super Bo wl ads and o ther co stly pro mo tio nal ef f o rts, Go o gle, Ho tmail, Skype, eBay, Facebo o k, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yo uTube, and so many o ther do minant o nline pro perties built multimillio n member f o llo wings bef o re co mmitting any signif icant spending to advertising. Figure 2. 3 Icons accomp anying s t ories on t he New York Times Web s it e enlis t cus t omers t o s p read t he word about p roduct s and s ervices , us er t o us er, like a virus . Early custo mer acco lades f o r a no vel service o f ten mean that po sitive press (a kind o f f ree advertising) will also likely f o llo w. But sho w up late and yo u may end up paying much mo re to co unter an incumbent’s place in the co nsumer psyche. In recent years, Amazo n has spent no mo ney o n televisio n advertising, while rivals m and Oversto m spent millio ns. Go o gle, ano ther stro ng brand, has beco me a verb, and the co st to challenge it is asto nishingly high. Yaho o ! and Micro so f t’s Bing each spent $ 100 millio n o n Go o gle-challenging branding campaigns, but the early results o f these ef f o rts seemed to do little to gro w share at Go o gle’s expense.J. Edwards, “JWT’s $ 100 Millio n Campa...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 01/31/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online