Strategy is about making specific choices that helps one win in the marketplace – a conscious way to behave differently than one’s rivals to deliver unique value. Strategy is discipline choice about what to do and what not to do. In short, strategy is choice. More specifically, strategy is an integrated set of choices that uniquely positions a company in its industry so as to create sustainable advantage and superior value relative to the competition.
Strategy is not vision
Strategy is not a plan. it is part of strategy, but not the whole thing
Strategy requires medium and long-term thinking (not purely emergent, short-term strategy)
Strategy is not optimization of the status quo
Don’t allow what is urgent outshine what is important
Strategy is an interconnected group of 5 core choices – winning aspiration, where to play, how to win, core capabilities and management systems. This is a choice cascade. The first question ripples down to the second and so forth. Choose what you’ll do and not at each stage. This is an iterative and interconnected process
Winning aspiration – seems obvious, but make sure you’re playing to win rather than simply playing to play
Winning aspirations has to be customer focused and not product focused
Where to play – which channels, geographies, categories, customers you’re going after
How to win – how will you win within the channels chosen above?
On the human heart – the fact is that men almost never act in natural conformity to their characters but from a momentary secret passion that has taken refuge in the farthest recesses of his heart (fear / self-interest are the underlying motives of all behavior)
On the political order – do you know what I admire most in the world? It’s the total inability of force to organize anything. There are only two powers in the world – the power of the sword and the spirit…In the long run, the sword is always beaten by the spirit
On the art of ruling – my character possesses all those qualities that are capable of strengthening my power and deceiving those who imagine they know me. A true master of politics is able to calculate, down to the smallest fraction, the advantages to which he may put his very faults
On law and social order – man is entitled by birthright to a share of the earth’s produce sufficient to fill the needs of his existence
Napoleon accepted peace from the outset. Cosmic problems stimulated his fancy without causing him unrest. God, to him, was the solution of a sociopolitical problem, and in religion he saw the mystery of the social order – little time for metaphysics or ideologies, a true man of action
How can there be a state without any religion? Society cannot exist without inequality of fortune, and inequality of fortune cannot exist without religion
In Spinoza, each thought is a step to another thought; in Napoleon, each thought is a step to an action
Luck is the ability to exploit accidents. A series of great actions is never the result of chance and luck, always the product of planning and genius
Napoleon had ruthless consistency and the ability of his mind to apply what he’d learned in any problem with almost instantaneous results. My policies are the result of meditation and strength
Work, I was built for work. I have known the limitations of my legs, I have known the limitations of my eyes, I have never known the limitations of my working capacity
Tirelessness, concentration, and speed – these were the characteristics of his mechanism
I know that men have always been the same, that nothing chan change their nature. It is from the past that I will draw my lessons in order to shape the present
Destiny is carried out, fate is suffered
A revolution can neither be made nor stopped
I am a poet in action
What is a theory? Mere nonsense if you want to apply it to human masses
I was sure of being understood by the last drummer boy
Each looks through his own prism, which often misleads him
There is little merit in copying or imitating
Silence often produces the same effect as wisdom
I see further into the future than others
I always lived 2 years ahead of the present
I start out by believing the worst
One must have the will to live and be willing to die
I had few really definite ideas, and the reason for this was that, instead of obstinately seeking to control circumstances, I obeyed them, and they forced me to change my mind all the time. Thus it happened that most of the time, to tell the truth, I had no definite plans but only projects
He who fears to lose his reputation is sure to lose it
History I conquered rather than studied: that is to say, I wanted from it and retained of it only what could add to my ideas, I spurned what was of no use, and I seized upon certain conclusions that pleased me
Frederick was great above all at moments of crisis. This is the highest praise that can be given his character
Liberty is a need felt by a small class of people whom nature has endowed with nobler minds than the mass of men. Consequently, it may be repressed with impunity. Equality, on the other hand, pleases the masses
This is an incredibly deep insight – the French motto of Liberty, Fraternity, Equality was deconstructed by Napoleon – he understood he could do away with liberty and fraternity, but appealed to the masses’ desire for equality
When custom and reason are at odds, custom always wins out
One should never attempt to forbid what one lacks the power to prevent
Avoid everything that might give false ideas of the truth
We are here to guide public opinion, not to discuss it. They must be guided without their noticing
I always went along with the opinion of the masses and with events. I always paid little attention to individual opinions and a great deal to public opinion
What do I care for the opinion of drawing room gossips? I don’t listen to them. For me, only one opinion counts – that of the rich peasants. All the rest is nothing
Absolute power has no need to lie: it is silent. Responsible government, on the other hand, being obliged to speak, dissimulates and lies shamelessly
This famous division of labor, which in our age has brought mechanical pursuits to perfection, is absolutely fatal to the perfection of intellectual production. The quality of a production of the mind is in direct ratio to the universality of its creator
I am sensitive only to the forcefulness of thought
My policies are frank and open, because they are the results of long meditations of strength
True politics is merely the calculus of combinations and of chances
The policies of all the powers are inherent in their geography
Great men are never cruel without necessity
You must know that I am not in the least afraid of committing an act of cowardice if it were useful to me
A true man never hates. A man made for public life and authority never takes account of personalities; he only takes account of things, of their weight and of their consequences
Force is the law of animals; men are ruled by conviction
Men who have changed the world never achieved their success by winning the chief citizens to their side, but always by stirring the masses
Between meditating an action and carrying it out, you must put an interval of 3 years
I know all of Caprara’s defects: I recommend him to you
The great art of governing consists in not letting men grow old in their jobs
The art of choosing men is not nearly so difficult as the art of enabling those one has chosen to attain their full worth
The art consists in making others work rather than in wearing oneself out
War – an immense art which comprises all others
When an enemy army is in flight, you must either build a golden bridge for it or stop it with a wall of steel
As a rule it is easy to find officers, but it is sometimes very hard to find noncomissioned officers
We should do as the Spartan did: the generals ought to mess with the ranks
Napoleon said that war consists of nothing but accidents and that a commander, though he must always adjust himself to general principles, should never overlook anything that might enable him to exploit these accidents. The vulgar would call this luck, but in fact is is the characteristic of genius
My great and most distinctive talent is to see everything in a clear light
I shall be credited with great profundity and subtlety in things which perhaps were simplicity itself
The French people has two equally powerful passions which seem opposed to each other but which in fact derive from the same sentiment – love of equality and love of distinctions. A government cannot satisfy those two needs except by being exceedingly just. In its laws and actions, the government must be the same for all; honors and rewards must be given to those men who, in the eyes of the government, are most worthy of them
My son should read much history and meditate upon it: it is the only true philosophy
Greatness has its beauties, but only in retrospect and in the imagination
I had a taste for founding, not for owning
What I got out of it
His bias for action, ability to simplify things, fickleness were amazing to read about and I found it interesting that he described in himself a lack of ambition, but more being in the right place at the right time and being perfectly suited for what he did. Not ambition, but natural gifts, he couldn’t help but do what he did
Caro’s legendary book about the rise of LBJ from Texas Hill Country to Senator
Social justice was the key platform for LBJ and the war in Vietnam became the black eye that haunted him to his last days. He was caught in many lies – both big and small – and the media coined “credibility gap” to describe his situation. LBJ drove a great divide, both domestically and internationally. Before him, the president was revered, feared even, and that image forever changed after his presidency
LBJ had a nose for power and would destroy anything in his way to achieving it. He had a nearly unlimited capacity for deceit and betrayal, coupled with the ability to mobilize government to help the downtrodden. His whole life and presidency brings up the question between means and ends. Many of the noble ends – especially with social justice – would likely not be where they are today if it weren’t for the ignoble means in which LBJ took to accomplish them. There is no more important question his life covers than between means and ends
LBJ started his political career by stealing thousands of votes to get into the Senate. This has become known as the “87 votes”
LBJ was the first political candidate to campaign in a modern way with advertising firms, helicopter, use of electronic media to influence voters. It was new politics vs old
He grew up very poor in the Texas hill country. He was driven by fear – fear of having to go back, fear of having nothing, worst of all, fear of being like his daddy. His dad was a successful politician for sometime but a terrible businessman. He eventually was penniless but was too proud to change his ways, which led to ridicule. The Johnson’s became the joke of the town. From then on, it wasn’t enough just to lead, he had to dominate. He had to be the one giving orders and never taking them, he had to stand out from the crowd
He very consciously tried to earn the trust and affection of influential older men and sarcastically became known as a “professional son”. FDR helped LBJ with a lot, giving him his backing during his political runs
LBJ was a master at counting votes, solving problems and raising money. He was fun and charismatic
He was an incredible bullshitter but the thing that separated him was that he eventually came to wholeheartedly believe his own bullshit
LBJ embarrassed Ladybird in public and treated her as hired help. He had an affair, he was rude to her in front of others, he was demeaning. Even though she took it all in stride and never lost her patience, beneath her shyness she was incredibly ambitious and determined. She was incredibly well read and able. She eventually became a big part of his political life, helping organize and run campaigns
While he was in Congress, he did everything he could to keep his opinion to himself. He avoided saying anything substantive, saying what he knew the other side wanted to hear.
LBJ believed – to the point of obsession – that he’d die early like his father. This gave him an insane drive to achieve things while he could. Normal means of ascent were too slow
Coke Stevenson was governor and became known as Mr Texas. He had his own ranch, got up at 5 every morning to read, never made a campaign promise, was the cowboy politician who never spoke an ill word about anyone. He hated politics but loved government. He truly loved the ranch he had built with his own hands. LBJ and Stevenson went up against each other for Senator in 1948. LBJ would use modern means such as radio and press and advertising whereas Stevenson would do it the old fashioned way with road trips and small gatherings. Stevenson was far more popular but because of this difference, LBJ actually had a chance. LBJ also was the first to travel by helicopter to various small towns around Texas. He was ridiculed at first, but it was a stroke of genius. It was novel and drew a crowd, but most of all it eliminated the daunting task of traversing a state the size of Texas. LBJ’s Machiavellian tactics against Stevenson are legendary. He used money, psychology, press, antics, and more. Anything to give voters some doubt and to tarnish Stevenson’s reputation. He had to utilize brash and unconventional means because anything else would utterly fail. He knew that Stevenson would never do anything he was pressured to do. Even though he was for a labor bill, Johnson said he wasn’t and that if Stevenson now said he was, he’d be flip flopping. It worked perfectly. Stevenson didn’t want to play politics and didn’t speak out soon enough. It was enough to introduce some doubt
LBJ was a political genius, but had many other world class talents too. He would see the simple answer in a complex situation. He’d be able to think clearly even under the most intense pressure. He’d be able to persuade any man to come work for him and know exactly how to make the most of their talents. To him, every man was a tool and knew to use them best
Although it went to court and nearly turned against LBJ, it was never conclusively proven that LBJ had stolen the election. While he won, it formed the foundation for misgivings and distrust that would follow him all the way to the White House. The stealing of the election was essentially confirmed later on. LBJ was one of the slickest politicians – in the most vulgar form of the word – and would do anything to amass power. He was amoral in his approach and would use it in the senate to become the most powerful majority leader up to that point
What I got out of it
An insanely good book. I felt like I was there and really came to know each character. Caro’s ability to transport you into the moment and share the details and personality traits of these people who were obsessed with power is just incredible
This book holds that the sequence technological revolution – financial bubble – collapse – golden age – political unrest recurs about every 50 years and is based on causal mechanisms that are in the nature of capitalism. These mechanisms stem from 3 features of the system, which interact with and influence one another
The fact that technological change occurs by clusters of radical innovations forming successive and distinct revolutions that modernize the whole productive structure
The functional separation between financial and production capital, each pursuing profits by different means; and
The much greater inertia and resistance to change of the socio-institutional framework in comparison with the techno-economic sphere, which is spurred by competitive pressures
The techno-economic paradigm is both a propeller of diffusion and a delaying force – it provides a model that can eventually be followed by all but this learning must eventually be overcome
It is precisely the need for reforms and the inevitable social resistance to them that lies behind the deeper crises and longer-term cyclical behavior of the system. Each technological revolution, originally received as a bright new set of opportunities, is soon recognized as a threat to the established way of doing things in firms, institutions and society at large
Old industries rejuvenated as well
New input (iron, steel, chips) reaches mass scale economics which creates massive price drops and it can therefore spread further
All areas of society are interconnected and impact each other – technological, social, political
Big bang leads to irrational exuberance which leads to structured adjustment, then installation period (irruption and frenzy), and eventually to deployment (synergy and maturity)
How new tech goes to third world and financial / debt’s role
Financial capital plays a crucial role all along. It first supports the development of the technological revolution, it then contributes to deepen the mismatch leading to a possible crash, it later becomes a contributing agent in the deployment process once the match is achieved and, when that revolution is spent, it helps give birth to the next
Regulation is the last part that is needed as part of the cycle
Monopolies, oligopolies in phase 4 must try radical innovations to stretch lifecycle, reduce cost of peripheral activities
Installation leads to turning points which leads to deployment
The turning point has to do with the balance between individual and social interests within capitalism. It is the swing of the pendulum from the extreme individualism of Frenzy to giving greater attention to collective well-being, usually through the regulatory intervention of the state and the active participation of other forms of civil society
Related services, cultural adaptation, education, regulation all come up
Becomes ubiquitous, common sense which leads to coherence. When exhausted and tired, ripe for new paradigm
Financial vs. Production Capital
Financial capital – invest, money to make more money
Production capital – builders, scaling more profit, making capacity
Little knowledge in an area vs. a lot; foot loose vs. roots
When productional capital is in control (post bubbles) it leads to real wealth creation
Financial capital should be the facilitator, not the game itself
When the companies (engines of growth) start seeking unorthodox ways to deploy their profits, that stage is at maturity (M&A, conglomerates)
In maturity, financial capital also becomes unorthodox. Idleness leads to bad loans
Provides the funding for the next paradigm
Taking a successful behavior to its extreme causes failure
Big crashes teach big lessons, but are often short lived
Cost reductions in the core inputs/infrastructure leads to further explosion
What I got out of it
Love seeing and learning about these centuries-wide deep dives that helps stitch together patterns. The cycle from irruption to frenzy to tipping point to synergy and finally maturity plays out time and again and having the image and jargon to think about it is so useful
Good strategy almost always looks this simple and obvious and does not take a thick deck of PowerPoint slides to explain. It does not pop out of some “strategic management” tool, matrix, chart, triangle, or fill-in-the-blanks scheme. Instead, a talented leader identifies the one or two critical issues in the situation—the pivot points that can multiply the effectiveness of effort—and then focuses and concentrates action and resources on them. A strategy is like a lever that magnifies force. Some fundamental sources of power used in good strategies: leverage, proximate objectives, chain-link systems, design, focus, growth, advantage, dynamics, inertia, and entropy.
The core of strategy work is always the same: discovering the critical factors in a situation and designing a way of coordinating and focusing actions to deal with those factors. A leader’s most important responsibility is identifying the biggest challenges to forward progress and devising a coherent approach to overcoming them.
A good strategy honestly acknowledges the challenges being faced and provides an approach to overcoming them.
Strategy is about how an organization will move forward. Doing strategy is figuring out how to advance the organization’s interests.
The most basic idea of strategy is the application of strength against weakness. Or, if you prefer, strength applied to the most promising opportunity.
Having a coherent strategy—one that coordinates policies and actions. A good strategy doesn’t just draw on existing strength; it creates strength through the coherence of its design.
The creation of new strengths through subtle shifts in viewpoint. An insightful reframing of a competitive situation can create whole new patterns of advantage and weakness. The most powerful strategies arise from such game-changing insights.
Good strategy is unexpected
Good strategy requires leaders who are willing and able to say no to a wide variety of actions and interests. Strategy is at least as much about what an organization does not do as it is about what it does.
Half of what alert participants learn in a strategy exercise is to consider the competition even when no one tells you to do it in advance. Looking just at the actions of a winning firm, you see only part of the picture. Whenever an organization succeeds greatly, there is also, at the same time, either blocked or failed competition.
Copying elements of its strategy piecemeal, there will be little benefit. A competitor would have to adopt the whole design, not just a part of it.
The hidden power of Wal-Mart’s strategy came from a shift in perspective. Lacking that perspective, Kmart saw Wal-Mart like Goliath saw David—smaller and less experienced in the big leagues. The network replaced the store. A regional network of 150 stores serves a population of millions! Walton didn’t break the conventional wisdom; he broke the old definition of a store.
Having a true competitive strategy meant engaging in actions that imposed exorbitant costs on the other side.
To detect a bad strategy, look for one or more of its four major hallmarks:
Failure to face the challenge.
Mistaking goals for strategy.
Bad strategic objectives.
A hallmark of true expertise and insight is making a complex subject understandable. A hallmark of mediocrity and bad strategy is unnecessary complexity—a flurry of fluff masking an absence of substance.
A leader’s most important job is creating and constantly adjusting this strategic bridge between goals and objectives.
The second form of bad strategic objectives is one that is “blue sky.” A good strategy defines a critical challenge. What is more, it builds a bridge between that challenge and action, between desire and immediate objectives that lie within grasp.
Bad strategy is vacuous and superficial, has internal contradictions, and doesn’t define or address the problem. Bad strategy generates a feeling of dull annoyance when you have to listen to it or read it.
Strategy is scarcity’s child and to have a strategy, rather than vague aspirations, is to choose one path and eschew others. There is difficult psychological, political, and organizational work in saying “no” to whole worlds of hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
Good strategy is coherent action backed up by an argument, an effective mixture of thought and action with a basic underlying structure I call the kernel. The kernel of a strategy contains three elements:
A diagnosis that defines or explains the nature of the challenge.
A guiding policy for dealing with the challenge.
A set of coherent actions that are designed to carry out the guiding policy.
John gave me a sidelong look and said, “It looks to me as if there is really only one question you are asking in each case. That question is ‘What’s going on here?’ ” John’s comment was something I had never heard said explicitly, but it was instantly and obviously correct. A great deal of strategy work is trying to figure out what is going on. Not just deciding what to do, but the more fundamental problem of comprehending the situation.
Furthermore, a good strategic diagnosis does more than explain a situation—it also defines a domain of action.
Good strategy is not just “what” you are trying to do. It is also “why” and “how” you are doing it. A good guiding policy tackles the obstacles identified in the diagnosis by creating or drawing upon sources of advantage. Indeed, the heart of the matter in strategy is usually advantage. Just as a lever uses mechanical advantage to multiply force, strategic advantage multiplies the effectiveness of resources and/or actions. The coordination of action provides the most basic source of leverage or advantage available in strategy. A strategy coordinates action to address a specific challenge.
The idea that coordination, by itself, can be a source of advantage is a very deep principle. It is often underappreciated because people tend to think of coordination in terms of continuing mutual adjustments among agents. Strategic coordination, or coherence, is not ad hoc mutual adjustment. It is coherence imposed on a system by policy and design.
Folly is the direct pursuit of happiness and beauty. —GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
One of a leader’s most powerful tools is the creation of a good proximate objective—one that is close enough at hand to be feasible. Proximate objectives not only cascade down hierarchies; they cascade in time.
IKEA teaches us that in building sustained strategic advantage, talented leaders seek to create constellations of activities that are chain-linked. This adds extra effectiveness to the strategy and makes competitive imitation difficult. What is especially fascinating is that both excellence and being stuck are reflections of chain-link logic.
When someone says “Managers are decision makers,” they are not talking about master strategists, for a master strategist is a designer.
At the core, strategy is about focus, and most complex organizations don’t focus their resources. Instead, they pursue multiple goals at once, not concentrating enough resources to achieve a breakthrough in any of them.”
Increasing value requires a strategy for progress on at least one of four different fronts: deepening advantages, broadening the extent of advantages, creating higher demand for advantaged products or services, or strengthening the isolating mechanisms that block easy replication and imitation by competitors.
Follow the story of Nvidia and you will clearly see the kernel of a good strategy at work: diagnosis, guiding policy, and coherent action. You will also glimpse almost every building block of good strategy: intelligent anticipation, a guiding policy that reduced complexity, the power of design, focus, using advantage, riding a dynamic wave of change, and the important role played by the inertia and disarray of rivals.
A new strategy is, in the language of science, a hypothesis, and its implementation is an experiment. As results appear, good leaders learn more about what does and doesn’t work and adjust their strategies accordingly.
Joe Santos’s comments imply that incumbents had difficulty understanding Starbucks because it was vertically integrated—because it roasted, branded, and served its own coffee in its own company restaurants. Starbucks did not vertically integrate to purposefully confuse the competition. It did so in order to be able to mutually adjust multiple elements of its business and to capture the information generated by each element of its business operations.
To guide your own thinking in strategy work, you must cultivate three essential skills or habits.
First, you must have a variety of tools for fighting your own myopia and for guiding your own attention.
Second, you must develop the ability to question your own judgment. If your reasoning cannot withstand a vigorous attack, your strategy cannot be expected to stand in the face of real competition.
Third, you must cultivate the habit of making and recording judgments so that you can improve.
What I got out of it
Good strategy is simple. Good strategy is unexpected. Good strategy focuses on a small handful of critical factors and helps outline a path forward – it defines a domain of action. Good strategy creates exorbitant costs and ultimately blocks the competition. Good strategy is coherent and “chain-linked”
Luxury is about elevation, social stratification, the object must be handmade, the service rendered by a human, hedonistic more than utilitarian, timeless, have both a social and personal component, elicit dreams but not envy, be superlative and not comparative.
Luxury items share a common core made of six criteria:
A very qualitative hedonistic experience or product made to last
Offered at a price that far exceeds what their mere functional value would command
Tied to a heritage, unique know-how and culture attached to the brand
Available in purposefully restricted and controlled distribution
Offered with personalized accompanying services
Representing a social marker, making the owner or beneficiary feel special, with a sense of privilege.
A luxury product is rooted in a culture. In buying a Chinese luxury product (silk, let’s say), you are buying not just a piece of material but a little bit of China as well – a luxury product comes along with a small fragment of its native soil. This does of course mean that a luxury brand has to stay absolutely true to its roots and be produced in a place that holds some legitimacy for it: by remaining faithful to its origins, the luxury product offers an anchor point in a world of cultural drift, trivialization and deracination. A luxury brand should not yield to the temptation of relocation, which effectively means dislocation: a relocated product is a soulless product (it has lost its identity), even if it is not actually anonymous (it still bears a brand name); it no longer has any business in the world of luxury. We shall be returning to this later and in greater detail, but we need to understand one thing right away: a product whose production centre has been relocated loses its right to be called a luxury product.
A luxury brand that cannot go global finishes up disappearing; it is better to have a small nucleus of clients in every country – because there is every chance that it will grow – than a large nucleus in just one country, which could disappear overnight. That’s the law of globalization.
In addition to this key social function, luxury is an access to pleasure: it should have a very strong personal and hedonistic component, otherwise it is no longer a luxury but simple snobbery
When it comes to luxury, hedonism takes precedence over functionality.
Luxury has to be multisensory: it is not only the appearance of a Porsche that matters but also the sound of it, not only the scent of a perfume but also the beauty of the bottle it comes in. It is multisensory compression.
It immediately follows from this analysis that if one wants a luxury product or service to be a lasting financial success (which is the point of this book) it absolutely must possess the following two aspects: a social aspect (luxury as a social statement in relation to other products or services – connecting luxury, brand status); a personal aspect (luxury as an individual pleasure – cocooning luxury, customer experience).
a luxury item is both timeless and of the here and now. Put another way, a luxury item has to appear both perfectly modern to the society of the day and at the same time laden with history.
Now we come back to what we said at the outset: price, and therefore money, is not a determinant of luxury. It is quite obvious that price on its own does not make something a luxury; an ordinary car will cost more than a luxury bag, and it is a common error to believe that to turn any product into a luxury product all it takes is to raise its price, which will soon bring about financial failure – a product that is more expensive can often turn into a product that is too expensive, one that nobody wants, rather than a luxury product that people long for. For anyone looking for financial success (which is the point of this book), things are even more clear-cut: within a given range, the most expensive products are never the most profitable, and a company that makes only very expensive products does not generally have any financial success (as in the case of Rolls-Royce, for example), or is likely to find it outside of its core production (designer jewellery and haute couture, for example). Too narrow a client base would entail crippling costs; Volkswagen has publicly admitted that each Bugatti Veyron costs the company over €4 million to produce, whereas it is sold for (only!) €1 million.
Money fuels the luxury engine but is not the engine; the engine is the recreation of vertical hierarchy or social stratification. Luxury converts the raw material that is money into a culturally sophisticated product that is social stratification.
In placing ourselves in the territory of value, so dear to economists, we could say that luxury introduces a new notion of value that goes beyond the classic dialectic of use-value and exchange-value: symbolic value.
the extent to which luxury and fashion differ from each other in two fundamental respects: relationship to time (durability versus ephemerality); and relationship to self (luxury is for oneself, fashion is not).
The parallelism between religion, art and luxury is striking: all three are concerned with eternity, or at least timelessness. We call what survived through the ages art, religion promises eternal happiness after death and luxury is about timeless objects of extra quality and beauty. But the comparison extends to luxury brands behaviour per se: luxury brands start small, with few clients acting as a sect of believers. Later the brand wishes to enlarge this sect, building a real community of faithful. Structurally, like religions, most luxury brands have the following: They have a creator. They have a founding myth and legend. Storytelling will maintain mystery about them. There will be a holy land, or holy place where it all started. There will be a chest of symbols ( logos, numbers, signs, etc) whose signification is known only by those who have been initiated. Luxury brands will have icons (products endowed with a sacred history). Flagship stores for these brands will be seen as new urban cathedrals. There will be regular moments of communion (called ‘community management’). Sacrifices will be involved. The most important is price. One should recall the Latin etymology of sacrifice (‘making sacred’). It is the ability to sacrifice a high sum that seals the sacred dimension of the object. A nice jewel is only nice: once you pay a lot for it, far beyond what reason or function commands, only then does it become fascinating. The sacrifice is the right to wear the object, as one has to pay a fee to enter a club. We are also close to the initiation rituals involving a physical sacrifice or at least deprivation, as described by anthropologist Mauss (1950).
He reminds us also that it is only by spending on non-productive items that people signal their rank. Here lies the difference between luxury and premium. People buying premium or even super-premium cars like to justify every dollar by a return on investment. Premium means pay more, get more in functional benefits. Luxury is elsewhere: it signals the capacity of the buyer to transcend needs, functions, or objective benefits.
Luxury is superlative, never comparative. Comparisons must be avoided at all costs. Upper-premium brands remain comparative, whereas luxury is superlative. The price of any upper-premium car must be justifiable by its utility curve.
Two observations need to be made at this point. First, the history need not necessarily be a long one: new genuine luxury brands will be born tomorrow. Second, history alone is not enough: it is necessary to create a myth, a legendary discourse that gives birth to the dream. This is what distinguishes luxury from the brand, even from the upper-premium brand.
In this chapter we shall be putting forward 24 management principles, which we call anti-laws of marketing peculiar to luxury, as they are at the opposite extreme of what marketing doctrine normally preaches – and rightly so – concerning products and brands, even premium ones.
Forget about ‘positioning’, luxury is not comparative
When it comes to luxury, being unique is what counts, not any comparison with a competitor. Luxury is the expression of a taste, of a creative identity, of the intrinsic passion of a creator; luxury makes the bald statement ‘this is what I am’, not ‘that depends’ – which is what positioning implies.
Does your product have enough flaws? Their ‘flaw’ is a source of emotion. In the world of luxury, the models and the products must have character or personality.
Do not pander to your customers’ wishes
There are two ways to go bankrupt: not listening to the client, but also listening to the client too much.
Keep non-enthusiasts out
When it comes to luxury, trying to make a brand more relevant is to dilute its value, because not only does the brand lose some of its unique features, but also its wider availability erodes the dream potential among the elite, among leaders of opinion.
Do not respond to rising demand
‘When a product sells too much we stop producing it,’ says Hermès CEO.
a luxury brand must have far more people who know it and dream of it than people who buy it.
Dominate the client
The luxury brand should be ready to play this role of adviser, educator and sociological guide. On this account it simply has to dominate.
Make it difficult for clients to buy
People do eventually get to enjoy the luxury after passing through a series of obstacles – financial obstacles, needless to say, but more particularly cultural (they have to know how to appreciate the product, wear it, consume it), logistical (find the shops) and time obstacles (wait two years for a Ferrari or a Mikimoto pearl necklace).
To create this obstacle to immediate consumption, it should always be necessary to wait for a luxury product – time is a key dimension of luxury,
Protect clients from non-clients, the big from the small
In practice that means that the brand must be segregationist and forget all society’s democratic principles. In stores, for example, it is necessary subtly to introduce a measure of social segregation: ground floor for some, first floor for others.
The role of advertising is not to sell
Advertising feeds on a sustained myth, mystery, magic, racing, highly people-centred but private shows, product placement, and art – as we saw above, an extremely important element for any luxury brand.
Communicate to those you are not targeting
Luxury has two value facets – luxury for oneself and luxury for others. To sustain the latter facet it is essential that there should be many more people who are familiar with the brand than those who could possibly afford to buy it for themselves.
The presumed price should always seem higher than the actual price
Luxury sets the price, price does not set luxury
Raise your prices as time goes on in order to increase demand
Keep raising the average price of the product range
Do not sell
You tell customers the story of the product, the facts, but you do not pressure them into making a purchase there and then.
Keep stars out of your advertising. If celebrities are used to promote the luxury product, the status of the latter is reduced to that of a mere accessory.
However, it is legitimate for a luxury brand to test new products with a selection of existing good customers of the brand, and especially on the shop floor, where a real face-to-face discussion is possible. Not only is the opinion of these brand-lovers good to collect, as they share the dream of the brand, but also it helps them to feel more ‘part of the club’, enhancing their brand loyalty.
Do not look for consensus
Do not look after group synergies
Do not look for cost reduction
Just sell marginally on the internet
This marker conserves in its genes this first function: maintaining rank, and the visibility of rank. This is why it must be highly visible: like a social seal.
It is noticeable that the brands themselves diminish the size and visibility of their logos for their products in the more expensive price ranges. It is obvious for the accessories
The internet is a fabulous place to sell fashion or premium products, but a very dangerous one to sell luxury ones.
Today you can reach the masses, but you have to do it through communities.
In order for a luxury product to succeed, it is important to master three concepts: the separation of the dream aspect from the functional aspect, the holistic understanding of the competitive universe, and management of the time relationship.
The conclusion is that initially it is necessary to expend all your energies and resources on fine-tuning the product and conquering a first core group of clients who will be the brand’s advocates. Once critical mass has been attained, it is then better to stabilize the offer and no longer invest heavily in the product, but reorientate your financial investments towards distribution and communication.
The luxury product is not a perfect product, but a sacred product
Extraordinary customer care needs extending to boundaries beyond the company’s natural expertise, to an individual and customized approach, and finally surprise and delight.
More than empathy, anticipation of desires is also required.
the true role of the salesperson is not to sell the product – it is to sell the price.
The sales personnel should never earn direct sales commission
The second challenge linked to globalization can be summarized by the statement: one brand, one world.
An own brand store makes it possible, in particular, to know exactly and in real time which products are selling, leading to a very precise steering of the logistical chain. On this point, the system is very effective: we calculated at the time that a competitor, not having integrated its production and not selling through its own network, would have had to sell a bag at twice the price that Louis Vuitton sold it in order to make ends meet. In fact, the exceptional (sometimes criticized) margins at Louis Vuitton did not arise from excessively high prices, but from the removal of all costs and damages due to intermediaries. Louis Vuitton’s competitiveness was therefore structural.
You need to sponsor an event – since you can then control all its parameters – but not a competitor (Louis Vuitton sponsors the LV Cup, not a boat; Hermès sponsors the Grand Prix de Diane, not a horse). You must choose an event that is coherent with the universe of the brand’s core, its roots (Hermès and horses; Louis Vuitton and travel, therefore boats), and concentrate on the most prestigious events.
One last point: the luxury brand should not disperse itself across multiple events in multiple sectors but concentrate fully on a single universe, in which you can develop a very strong image by devoting all your available means to it. For instance, Royal Salute has chosen Polo only.
Premium and luxury differ in their use of these strategies: premium uses an ambassador, luxury shows testimonial users.
The black and white ball organized by Truman Capote on 28 November 1966 at the Plaza Hotel in New York remains a model of the genre. The dress code was dinner jackets and long dresses, with a mask: even the journalists and bodyguards had to wear masks. Truman Capote invited 540 friends, only the rich, powerful or famous. But he made 15,000 enemies that evening: in fact, he organized a leak of information and the New York Times published the list of invitees. All those who had not been invited therefore knew that they were not members of the club, and would do anything to be invited next time.
There are nine systematic and necessary elements of the signature of a luxury brand:
The figure of the brand’s creator, the individual who made the brand a work and not a production.
The typographical logos, generally short and very visual, such as Chanel’s double
A visual symbol that accompanies the typographical signature: Aston Martin’s wings, Mercedes’ circle.
A brand colour: Tiffany’s blue, Veuve Clicquot’s orange.
A favourite material, such as silk for Hermès or python skin and ostrich leather for Prada.
The cult of detail, to the point of obsession, which is expressed visually, for example through close-ups on the seams and the lock details at Louis Vuitton. The constant hymns to the manual work, to the excellence of the artisans who have contributed to each object, to the know-how.
A way of doing things that is typical of the brand: whether it is the ‘Chanel style’ so visible in the woman’s suit – an icon of the brand – or the quilting of the Chanel bag, or the typical driving experience at the wheel of a BMW.
The creator–manager tandem is a characteristic of luxury. In contrast, Pierre Cardin’s solitude was the cause for his decline, despite his immense talent.
There are few real synergies within a group. In fact, groups that work well, such as LVMH, are associations of companies each with its own brand, teams, CEO, and considerable freedom of management, with just a small central holding activity, limited to the management of only part of the finances and human resources, and not rigid, heavy structures managing subsidiaries dependent on an all-powerful headquarters.
This is a major characteristic of this business model: you need entry products, that is, ‘budget’ products, but you need as few of these as possible, since they are not there to ‘meet a quota’ or ‘make money’.
You need to begin local and specific (one place, one product) in order to ensure coherence and the personal link to the clients from the start, and then become regional, and finally national. We have seen that the luxury product always carries the marks of its birthplace, which forms part of the client dream. Wine is French, silk is Chinese, caviar is Russian, Rolls-Royce is British.
This step is crucial, and requires skilful steering. In particular, you should not launch ‘in all directions’, nor choose markets according to their size. You must begin with those whose clients are most receptive to the brand, and who will accept the product as it stands, without modifications, as a luxury product.
Scarcity is painful, but rarity, if well managed, can become a dream.
The essence of luxury strategy is to never sacrifice long term to short term.
What I got out of it
A really thorough book on the ins and outs of luxury. Luxury is superlative, not comparative. It has to have personal and social ramifications
World chess grand master Gary Kasparov discusses his entrance, rise, and dominance of the chess world
What makes chess such an ideal laboratory for the decision-making process? To play chess on a truly high level requires a constant stream of exact, informed decisions, made in real time and under pressure from your opponent. What’s more, it requires a synthesis of some very different virtues, all of which are necessary to good decisions: calculation, creativity, and a desire for results. If you ask a Grandmaster, an artist, and a computer scientist what makes a good chess player, you’ll get a glimpse of these different strengths in action.
Having spent a lifetime analyzing the game of chess and comparing the capacity of computers to the capacity of the human brain, I’ve often wondered, where does our success come from? The answer is synthesis, the ability to combine creativity and calculation, art and science, into a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts. Chess is a unique cognitive nexus, a place where art and science come together in the human mind and are then refined and improved by experience.
We can explore our own boundaries and the boundaries of our own lives. But before we go exploring, we’ll need a map. Having a personalized map of your decision-making process is essential, and this book can only roughly chart the stages of observation and analysis that go into drawing that map. The map tells you which areas of your mind are well-known to you and which are still uncharted. It reveals your strengths, weaknesses, and areas as yet untested. Most important, you must look to develop your own map. There is no advantage in trying to identify the common denominator that links you to your friends or colleagues or opponents. We must all look higher and dig deeper, move beyond the basic and universal.
We cannot pick and choose which style we would prefer for ourselves. Personal style is not generic software you can download and install. You must instead recognize what works best for you and then, through challenge and trial, develop your own method—your own map. To begin, ask yourself, What am I lacking? What are my strengths? What type of challenges do I tend to avoid and why? The method you employ to achieve success is a secret because it can be discovered only by you analyzing your own decisions. This is what my questioners should really have been asking me about instead of my trivial habits: How did I push myself? What questions did I ask myself? How did I investigate and understand my strengths and weaknesses? And how did I use what I learned to get better and further define and hone my method?
Better Decision-Making Cannot Be Taught, but It Can Be Self-Taught. Let me explain. You must become conscious of your decision-making processes, and with practice they will improve your intuitive—unconscious— performance. Developing your personal blueprint allows you to make better decisions, to have the confidence to trust your instincts, and to know that no matter the result, you will come out stronger. There, inside each of us, is our unique secret of success. It’s not enough to be talented. It’s not enough to work hard and to study late into the night. You must also become intimately aware of the methods you use to reach your decisions.
Whereas strategy is abstract and based on long-term goals, tactics are concrete and based on finding the best move right now. Tactics are conditional and opportunistic, all about threat and defense. No matter what pursuit you’re engaged in—chess, business, the military, managing a sports team—it takes both good tactics and wise strategy to be successful. As Sun Tzu wrote centuries ago, “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
The lesson here is that if you play without long-term goals your decisions will become purely reactive and you’ll be playing your opponent’s game, not your own. As you jump from one new thing to the next, you will be pulled off course, caught up in what’s right in front of you instead of what you need to achieve.
The strategist starts with a goal in the distant future and works backward to the present. A Grandmaster makes the best moves because they are based on what he wants the board to look like ten or twenty moves in the future. This doesn’t require the calculation of countless twenty-move variations. He evaluates where his fortunes lie in the position and establishes objectives. Then he works out the step-by-step moves to accomplish those aims.
“The strategist’s method is to challenge the prevailing assumptions with a single question: Why?” “Why?” is the question that separates visionaries from functionaries, great strategists from mere tacticians. You must ask this question constantly if you are to understand and develop and follow your strategy.
Experience allows us to instantly apply the patterns we have successfully used in the past. Tactics involve calculations that can tax the human brain, but when you boil them down, they are actually the simplest part of chess and are almost trivial compared to strategy. Think of tactics as forced, planned responses, basically a series of “if—then” statements that would make a computer programmer feel right at home.
Every time you make a move, you must consider your opponent’s response, your answer to that response, and so on. A tactic ignites an explosive chain reaction
And yet they never believed the airplane would amount to much beyond novelty and sport. The American scientific community shared that view, and soon the USA fell way behind in the aircraft business. The Wright brothers failed to envision the potential of their creation, and it was left to others to exploit the power of flight for commercial and military purposes.
A key to developing successful strategies is to be aware of your strengths and weaknesses, to know what you do well. Two strong chess players can have very different strategies in the same position and they might be equally effective—leaving aside those positions in which a single forced winning line is available. Each player has his own style, his own way of solving problems and making decisions.
So before I played Petrosian again, less than a year after the defeats described above, I spoke with Spassky, who was playing in the same tournament in Yugoslavia. He counseled me that the key was to apply pressure, but just a little, steadily. “Squeeze his balls,” he told me in an unforgettable turn of phrase. “But just squeeze one, not both!”
You must always be aware of your limitations and also of your best qualities. This knowledge allows you to both play your own game and adapt when it is required.
Instead of continuing to be frustrated in my attempts to change the character of the games, I decided my best chance was to go with the flow. Instead of making sharp moves that I thought were more in my style, I played the best solid moves available even if they led to quiet positions. Freed from the psychological difficulty of trying to force the issue in each game, I could just play chess.
Change can be essential, but it should only be made with careful consideration and just cause. Losing can persuade you to change what doesn’t need to be changed, and winning can convince you everything is fine even if you are on the brink of disaster. If you are quick to blame faulty strategy and change it all the time, you don’t really have any strategy at all. Only when the environment shifts radically should you consider a change in fundamentals. We all must walk a fine line between flexibility and consistency. Avoid change for the sake of change.
The problem, as many of these players discovered, is that most of their “original” concepts were rare for good reason. The virtue of innovation only rarely compensates for the vice of inadequacy.
Finally we come to the hardest part of developing and employing strategic thinking: the confidence to use it and the ability to stick to it consistently. Once you have your strategy down on paper, the real work begins. How do you stay on track, and how do you know when you have slipped away from thinking strategically? We stay on track with rigorous questioning of our results, both good and bad, and our ongoing decisions. During a game I question my moves, and after the game I question how accurate my evaluations were in the heat of battle. Were my decisions good ones? Was my strategy sound? If I won, was it due to luck or skill? When this system fails, or fails to operate quickly enough, disaster can strike.
In 2000 I met a former pupil of mine, Vladimir Kramnik, in a sixteen-game match for the world chess championship, my sixth title defense. I had won the title back in 1985, and headed into this match, I had been playing some of the best chess of my life. In other words, I was ripe for defeat. Years of success had made it difficult for me to imagine I could lose. Going into that match, I had won seven consecutive grand slam tournaments in a row and I wasn’t aware of my own weaknesses. I felt I was in great form and unbeatable. After all, hadn’t I beaten everyone else? With each success the ability to change is reduced. My longtime friend and coach, Grandmaster Yuri Dokhoian, aptly compared it to being dipped in bronze. Each victory added another coat.
Questioning yourself must become a habit, one strong enough to surmount the obstacles of overconfidence and dejection. It is a muscle that can be developed only with constant practice.
Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do; strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do. —SAVIELLY TARTAKOWER
What exactly do you do when there is nothing to do? We call these phases “positional play” because our goal is to improve our position. You must avoid creating weaknesses, find small ways to improve your pieces, and think small—but never stop thinking. One tends to get lazy in quiet positions, which is why positional masters such as Karpov and Petrosian were so deadly. They were always alert and were happy to go long stretches without any real action on the board if it meant gaining a tiny advantage, and then another. Eventually their opponents would find themselves without any good moves at all, as if they were standing on quicksand.
In life there is no such obligation to move. If you can’t find a useful plan, you can watch television, stick with business as usual, and believe that no news is good news. Human beings are brilliantly creative at finding ways to pass time in unconstructive ways. At these times, a true strategist shines by finding the means to make progress, to strengthen his position and prepare for the inevitable conflict. And conflict, we cannot forget, is inevitable.
I often refer to the need for effective development, something that is now taken for granted by any chess player beyond the rank of novice. But it took the first great American sports hero to demonstrate the importance of this fundamental concept to the world. His lesson, that you should have a solid and well-developed position before going on the attack, is applicable to every field of battle.
Morphy’s secret, and it’s unlikely he was aware of it himself, was his understanding of positional play. Instead of flying directly into an attack, as was the rule in those days, Morphy first made sure everything was ready. He understood that a winning attack should only be launched from a strong position, and that a position with no weaknesses could not be overwhelmed. Unfortunately, he left no map behind, few writings that could explain his method. Morphy was so far ahead of his time that it took another quarter century for these principles of development and attack to be rediscovered and formulated.
Trusting yourself means having faith in your strategy and in your instincts.
Studies performed by Dutch psychologist Adriaan de Groot have shown that elite players don’t in fact look ahead that much further than considerably weaker players while solving chess problems. They can, on occasion, but it doesn’t define their superior play. A computer may look at millions of moves per second, but lacks a deep sense of why one move is better than another; this capacity for evaluation is where computers falter and humans excel. It doesn’t matter how far ahead you see if you don’t understand what you are looking at. We have seen that precise calculation is the first key to effective decision-making. The second is the ability to evaluate both static (permanent) and fluid factors. When I contemplate my move, I don’t start out by immediately running down the decision tree for every possible move. First I consider all of the elements in the position—such as material and king safety—so I can establish a strategy and develop intermediate objectives. Only when I have these goals in mind do I select the moves to analyze.
In a complicated game this tree of analysis usually stays within a depth of four or five moves—that is, four or five moves for each player, or eight to ten total moves.
The decision tree must constantly be pruned. Move from one variation to the next, discarding the less promising moves and following up the better ones. Don’t jump to another before you’ve reached a conclusion on the move you’re analyzing; you’ll waste precious time and risk confusing yourself. You must also have a sense of when to stop. Discipline yourself to keep calculating until you have determined a path that is clearly the best, or until further analysis won’t return enough value for the time spent.
In some cases, the best move will be so obvious that it’s not necessary to work out all the details, especially if time is of the essence. This is rare, however, and it is often when we assume something is obvious and react hastily that we make a mistake. More often you should break routine by doing more analysis, not less. These are the moments when your instincts tell you that something is lurking below the surface, or that you’ve reached a critical juncture and a deeper look is required. To detect these key moments you must be sensitive to trends and patterns in your analysis. If one of the branches in your analysis starts to show surprising results, good or bad, it’s worth investing the time to find out what’s going on. Sometimes it’s hard to explain exactly what makes those bells go off in your head telling you there is more to be found. The important thing is to listen to them when they ring. One of my best games came about thanks to this sixth sense. I saw the final winning position, an incredible fifteen moves away. It was a feat of calculation, but there is no way your mind can go that far without help from your imagination.
As an aside, although it turned out well for me, my missing the best move illustrates one of the perils of becoming fixated on a distant goal. I was so entranced by my vision of the gold at the end of this rainbow that I stopped looking around as I approached it. I’d convinced myself that such a pretty finish must be scientifically correct too—a potentially dangerous delusion.
As for internal factors, it is clear to me that I would not have achieved such success at anything other than chess. The game came to me naturally, its requirements fitting my talents like a glove. My talents for memorization and calculation were blended with an aggressive streak for an ideal chess combination.
The position doesn’t have to be an exact replica to produce this benefit. If you play the Najdorf Defense your entire career, you develop a feel for what moves to make and when in response to certain ideas and plans. We automatically find parallels and apply our knowledge of analogous positions. A Grandmaster will retain tens of thousands of fragments and patterns of chess data and adds to them constantly through frequent practice. My ability to recall so many games and positions doesn’t mean I have an easier time remembering names, dates, or anything else.
De Groot illustrated this in an elegant fashion in his 1944 study of chess players. He tested players of every level, from former world champions to beginners, seeking to unlock the secrets of master chess. He gave the players a set of positions from games to memorize, then recorded how well they could reproduce them. Predictably, the stronger the player, the better he scored. The elite players scored ninety-three percent, the experts seventy-two percent, the average players just 51 percent. Thirty years later, in 1973, researchers Bill Chase and Herb Simon replicated de Groot’s experiment but added a key second set of test positions. For the second set they placed the pieces on the boards randomly, not following the rules of the game or any pattern at all. As in de Groot’s study, the stronger players scored better on the positions taken from actual games. But with the random positions, all levels of players scored approximately the same. Without being able to utilize patterns, or what psychologists call chunks, the masters didn’t display superior memory prowess. The same processes are at work in every human endeavor. Rote memorization is far less important than the ability to recognize meaningful patterns.
Most people talk about unwinding after work or school, putting the day behind them so they can relax. How much more effective would they become if, at the end of each day, they asked themselves what lessons they had taken away for tomorrow?
Fantasy isn’t something you can turn on with the flip of a switch. The key is to indulge it as often as you can to encourage the habit, to allow your unconventional side to flourish. Everyone develops his own device for prompting his muse. The goal is for it to become continuous and unconscious, so your fantasy is always active.
Before I resigned myself to the seemingly inevitable queen move, I took a deep breath and surveyed the rest of the board. As with so many fantasy moves, this one started with a mental “Wouldn’t it be nice if . . .” If you daydream a little about what you’d like to see happen, sometimes you find that it is really possible.
Too often we quickly discard apparently outlandish ideas and solutions, especially in areas where the known methods have been in place for a long time. The failure to think creatively is as much self-imposed as it is imposed by the parameters of our jobs and of our lives. “What if?” often leads to “Why not?” and at that point we must summon our courage and find out.
The more you experiment, the more successful your experiments will be. Break your routines, even to the point of changing ones you are happy with to see if you can find new and better methods.
If critics and competitors can’t match your results, they will often denigrate the way you achieve them. Fast, intuitive types are called lazy. Dedicated burners of midnight oil are called obsessed. And while it’s obviously not a bad idea to hear and consider the opinions of others, you should be suspicious when these criticisms emerge right on the heels of a success.
Few lives and few endeavors permit such devotion. But in truth it’s not the amount of time that really counts—it’s the quality of your study and how you use your time. Becoming a 24/7 fanatic who counts every minute and second isn’t going to make you a success. The keys to great preparation are self-awareness and consistency. Steady effort pays off, even if not always in an immediate, tangible way.
There was an almost mystical correlation between work and achievement, with no direct tie between them. Perhaps I was benefiting from the chess equivalent of the placebo effect. Going into battle with what I believed were lethal weapons gave me confidence even though they went largely unused and wouldn’t in some cases have been effective.
You can—and must—look for ways to experiment and to push the boundaries of your capacity in different areas.
Now, though retired from professional chess, I stick with my routine as closely as possible. This means hours of sleep, mealtimes, hours of work on different projects, and staying conscious of how these things are balanced daily and weekly. I’ve adapted my new activities into the old chess program, preserving the patterns that have kept me comfortable and productive. Where there used to be chess, there is now politics. Where before I would analyze the games of my chess opponents, I now analyze the statements of my political opponents. My afternoon nap is still sacrosanct.
This isn’t a cookbook, and I’m not offering a recipe for your success. Everyone must create his own successful combinations with the ingredients he has. There are guidelines for what works, but each person has to discover what works for him. This doesn’t happen by itself. Through practice and observation, you must take an active role in your own education.
Evaluating a position goes well beyond looking for the best move. The move is only the result, the product of an equation that must first be imagined and developed. So, determine the relevant factors, measure them, and, most critically, determine the optimal balance among them. Before you can begin your search for the keys to a position, you have to perform this basic due diligence. We can categorize these factors into three groups: material, time, and quality.
Botvinnik made it clear that the worst type of mistake was one produced due to a bad habit because it made you predictable.
Our friends, colleagues, and family usually know much more about our bad habits than we do. Hearing about these psychological tics can be as surprising as being told by your spouse that you snore. Prejudices and preferences in your decisions are unlikely to be harmful as long as you are aware of them and actively work to iron them out. Awareness can mean the difference between a harmless habit and a bias that leads to a dangerous loss of objectivity.
Put that bad piece, that underperforming asset, to good use or get rid of it and your overall position will improve.
Successfully exploiting your advantages leads to greater advantages, eventually great enough to win a decisive amount of material. This is where the alchemy comes in, the transformation of one type of advantage into another. With accurate play we can turn material into time and back again, or invest both for a high return in quality.
When measuring imbalances, you should consider the elements of your operation not just in relation to your rivals’, but also in relation to one another. In chess we talk about having harmony in our position. Are your pieces working together? Is your material developed in accordance with your strategic goals? The difficulty of achieving successful coordination increases with the number of assets.
Physics also tells us that “ordered systems lose less energy than chaotic systems.” In chess terms, when our pieces work together, they can turn one advantage into another without losing quality. A position or a company or a military unit that is disorganized can be torn apart by attempting a transformation. Trying to achieve the objective can leave them so depleted that they are quickly wiped out. This happens most frequently— in chess and in life—when positions or circumstances are already tenuous.
A player in a difficult position tends to make mistakes due to the psychological pressure that comes with knowing he’s in trouble. But another key dynamic is also at work: an inferior position is less able to withstand the loss of energy required by an attempt at change. This is why a company that is in financial trouble should never gamble on a risky venture.
In competitive play, though, that theory rarely holds up. Long before a player becomes a master, he realizes that rote memorization, however prodigious, is useless without understanding. At some point, he’ll reach the end of his memory’s rope and be without a premade fix in a position he doesn’t really understand. Without knowing why all the moves were made, he’ll have little idea of how to continue when play inevitably advances beyond the moves he was able to store in his memory.
All the study and preparation in the world can’t show you what it’s really going to be like in the wild. Observing typical plans in action, mistakes and accidents included, is vastly superior to ivory-tower planning.
Intuition and instinct form the bedrock of our decision-making, especially the rapid-fire decisions that make up our daily lives.
This mentality requires us to overcome the desire to release the tension. Many bad decisions come from wanting to just get the process over to escape the pressure of having to make the decision. This is the worst type of haste, an unforced error. Resist it! If there is no benefit to making the decision at the moment and no penalty in delaying it, use that time to improve your evaluation, to gather more information, and to examine other options. As Margaret Thatcher put it, “I’ve learned one thing in politics. You don’t make a decision until you have to.”
Success Is the Enemy of Future Success
Question the status quo at all times, especially when things are going well. When something goes wrong, you naturally want to do it better the next time, but you must train yourself to want to do it better even when things go right. Failing to do this leads to stagnation and eventual breakdown. For me, it led to a crushing defeat.
It can feel a bit paradoxical to muster up the confidence that we are the best but still compete as if we were outsiders and underdogs. But that’s what it takes.
Perhaps you should create your own “happiness index,” which can be as simple as a mental or actual list of things that motivate you and give you pleasure and satisfaction.
Every person has to find the right balance between confidence and correction, but my rule of thumb is, lose as often as you can take it.
I believe that winning requires a constant and strong psychology not just at the board but in every aspect of your life.
I always knew something was wrong if I wasn’t on edge before a game. Nervous energy is the ammunition we take into any mental battle. If you don’t have enough of it, your concentration will fade. If you have a surplus, the results can be explosive.
In the real world, the moment you believe you are entitled to something is exactly when you are ripe to lose it to someone who is fighting harder.
Bronstein was the most creative player of his generation, and he seemed to have all the ingredients necessary to bring down the world champion. But having set his sights on reaching the final, he found it impossible to raise them to winning the match itself.
Weak human + machine + superior process was greater than a strong computer and, remarkably, greater than a strong human + machine with an inferior process.
A manager might say they built an effective team from a group of individuals with disparate skill sets. An army commander would recognize that a well-coordinated force will almost always triumph over a numerically superior enemy who lacks organization. A company with an efficient management structure, or assembly line, will often have better margins than a larger, less agile competitor. Process is critical, especially since its benefits multiply with each cycle.
Engaging with the weakest points in our game and drilling down so we really understand them is the best and fastest way to improve. Working to become a universal player—someone who can defend as well as attack and is at home in any type of position—may not always have an obvious immediate benefit, especially if you are in a specialized field. But in my experience working toward a universal style creates a rising tide that lifts all boats. Gaining experience in one area improves our overall abilities in unexpected, often inexplicable ways.
It sounds strange to say that being a better artist might make me a stronger chess player or that listening to classical music can make you a more effective manager. And yet this is exactly the sort of thing that Feynman had in mind when he said that being a drummer made him a better physicist. When we regularly challenge ourselves with something new—even something not obviously related to our immediate goals—we build cognitive and emotional “muscles” that make us more effective in every way. If we can overcome our fear of speaking in public, or of submitting a poem to a magazine, or learning a new language, confidence will flow into every area of our lives. Don’t get so caught up in “what I do” that you stop being a curious human being. Your greatest strength is the ability to absorb and synthesize patterns, methods, and information. Intentionally inhibiting that ability by focusing too narrowly is not only a crime, but one with few rewards.
Agatha Christie said of intuition, “You can’t ignore it and you can’t explain it.” But we don’t need a pat explanation to recognize how important it is and investigate how we can develop ours to our maximum potential
This is the essential element that cannot be measured by any analysis or device, and I believe it’s at the heart of success in all things: the power of intuition and the ability to harness and use it like a master.
The biggest problem I see among people who want to excel in chess—and in business and in life in general—is not trusting these instincts enough. Too often they rely on having all the information, which then forces them to a conclusion. This effectively reduces them to the role of a microprocessor and guarantees that their intuition will remain dormant.
The truest tests of skill and intuition come when everything looks quiet and we aren’t sure what to do, or if we should do anything at all.
crisis really means a turning point, a critical moment when the stakes are high and the outcome uncertain. It also implies a point of no return. This signifies both danger and opportunity, so Kennedy’s speech was accurate where it mattered.
Apart from its merit as an indicator of good or poor form, the ability to detect these crisis points is a gauge of overall strength in a chess player—and in a decision-maker. The greatest players are distinguished by their ability to recognize crucial factors that are both specific and general.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do in a pressure situation is to allow the tension to persist. The temptation is to make a decision, any decision, even if it is an inferior choice.
One of the constant themes of this book has been how essential it is to continually challenge ourselves. The only way to develop is to venture into the unknown, to take risks, and to learn new things. We must force ourselves out of our comfort zone and trust our ability to adapt and thrive.
What we make of the future is defined by how well we understand and make use of our past. Our past creates a map not only of where we have come from, but of where we are going; on it are marked the things we have valued, and the places we have found success or failure.
I thank Stanley Druckenmiller for his counsel as well as his steady support of chess education in the United States via the Kasparov Chess Foundation,
What I got out of it
Beautiful book on strategy, tactics, mastery, learning. A multi-disciplinary thinker whose insights on chess can help in any endeavor
Helmer sets out to create a simple, but not simplistic,
strategy compass. His 7 powers include: scale economics, switching costs,
cornered resource, counter positioning, branding, network effects, and process.
Strategy: the study of the fundamental determinants of potential business value The objective here is both positive—to reveal the foundations of business value—and normative—to guide businesspeople in their own value-creation efforts. Following a line of reasoning common in Economics, Strategy can be usefully separated into two topics: Statics—i.e. “Being There”: what makes Intel’s microprocessor business so durably valuable? Dynamics—i.e. “Getting There”: what developments yielded this attractive state of affairs in the first place? These two form the core of the discipline of Strategy, and though interwoven, they lead to quite different, although highly complementary, lines of inquiry.
Power: the set of conditions creating the potential for persistent differential returns. Power is the core concept of Strategy and of this book, too. It is the Holy Grail of business—notoriously difficult to reach, but well worth your attention and study. And so it is the task of this book to detail the specific conditions that result in Power
The Mantra: a route to continuing Power in significant markets. I refer to this as The Mantra, since it provides an exhaustive characterization of the requirements of a strategy.
The Value Axiom. Strategy has one and only one objective: maximizing potential fundamental business value.
For the purposes of this book, “value” refers to absolute fundamental shareholder value—the ongoing enterprise value shareholders attribute to the strategically separate business of an individual firm. The best proxy for this is the net present value (NPV) of expected future free cash flow (FCF) of that activity.
Dual Attributes. Power is as hard to achieve as it is important. As stated above, its defining feature ex post is persistent differential returns. Accordingly, we must associate it with both magnitude and duration.
Benefit. The conditions created by Power must materially augment cash flow, and this is the magnitude aspect of our dual attributes. It can manifest as any combination of increased prices, reduced costs and/or lessened investment needs.
Barrier. The Benefit must not only augment cash flow, but it must persist, too. There must be some aspect of the Power conditions which prevents existing and potential competitors, both direct and functional, from engaging in the sort of value-destroying arbitrage Intel experienced with its memory business. This is the duration aspect of Power
Benefits are common, and they often bear little positive impact on company value, as they are generally subject to full arbitrage. The true potential for value lies in those rare instances in which you can prevent such arbitrage, and it is the Barrier which accomplishes this. Thus, the decisive attainment of Power often syncs up with the establishment of the Barrier.
Complex Competition. Power, unlike strength, is an explicitly relative concept: it is about your strength in relation to that of a specific competitor. Good strategy involves assessing Power with respect to each competitor, which includes potential as well as existing competitors, and functional as well as direct competitors. Any such players could be the source of the arbitrage you are trying to circumvent, and any one arbitrageur is enough to drive down differential margins.
The 7 Powers
Scale Economies—the First of the 7 Powers The quality of declining unit costs with increased business size is referred to as Scale Economies.
Benefit: Reduced Cost
Barrier: Prohibitive Costs of Share Gains
Network Economies: the value of the service to each customer is enhanced as new customers join the “network.” In such a situation, having the most customers is everything,
Industries exhibiting Network Economies often exhibit these attributes: Winner take all.
Counter-Positioning: A newcomer adopts a new, superior business model which the incumbent does not mimic due to anticipated damage to their existing business.
This chapter introduces Counter-Positioning, the next Power type. I developed this concept to depict a not well-understood competitive dynamic I often have observed both as a strategy advisor and an equity investor. I must confess it is my favorite form of Power, both because of my authorship and because it is so contrarian. As we will see, it is an avenue for defeating an incumbent who appears unassailable by conventional wisdom metrics of competitive strength.
But nearly always, these featured the same outcome: the incumbent responds either not at all or too late. The incumbent’s failure to respond, more often than not, results from thoughtful calculation. They observe the upstart’s new model, and ask, “Am I better off staying the course, or adopting the new model?” Counter-Positioning applies to the subset of cases in which the expected damage to the existing business elicits a “no” answer from the incumbent. The Barrier, simply put, is collateral damage. In the Vanguard case, Fidelity looked at their highly attractive active management franchise and concluded that the new passive funds’ more modest returns would likely fail to offset the damage done by a migration from their flagship products.
What are the potential causes of such decrements? They could be numerous, but over several decades of client strategy work, I have noted two that seem common. The first involves two characteristics of challenges to incumbency:
The challenger’s approach is novel and, at first, unproven. As a consequence, it is shrouded in uncertainty, especially to those looking in from the outside. The low signal-to-noise of the situation only heightens that uncertainty.
The incumbent has a successful business model. This heritage is influential and deeply embedded, as suggested by Nelson and Winter’s notion of “routines,” and with it comes a certain view of how the world works. The CEO probably can’t help but view circumstances through this lens, at least in part. Together these two characteristics frequently lead incumbents to at first belittle the new approach, grossly underestimating its potential.
As noted in the Introduction, Power must be considered relative to each competitor, actual and implicit. With Counter-Positioning, this is particularly important, because this type of Power only applies relative to the incumbent and says nothing regarding Power relative to other firms utilizing the new business model.
Though this isn’t always the case, I have noticed a frequently repeated script for how an incumbent reacts to a CP challenge. I whimsically refer to it as the Five Stages of Counter-Positioning: Denial Ridicule Fear Anger Capitulation (frequently too late)
Once market erosion becomes severe, a Counter-Positioned incumbent comes under tremendous pressure to do something; at the same time, they face great pressure to not upset the apple cart of the legacy business model. A frequent outcome of this duality? Let’s call it dabbling: the incumbent puts a toe in the water, somehow, but refuses to commit in a way that meaningfully answers the challenge. Counter-Positioning often underlies situations in which the following developments are jointly observed: For the challenger Rapid share gains Strong profitability (or at least the promise of it) For the incumbent Share loss Inability to counter the entrant’s moves Eventual management shake-up (s) Capitulation, often occurring too late
Such reversals are rare in business, because contests typically take place over extended periods and with great thoughtfulness on all sides. Even a momentary lapse by an incumbent won’t present a sufficient opening. The only bet worthwhile for a challenger is one in which even if the incumbent plays its best game, it can be taken off the board. A competent Counter-Positioned challenger must take advantage of the strengths of the incumbent, as it is this strength which molds the Barrier, collateral damage.
Switching Costs arise when a consumer values compatibility across multiple purchases from a specific firm over time. These can include repeat purchases of the same product or purchases of complementary goods.
Benefit. A company that has embedded Switching Costs for its current customers can charge higher prices than competitors for equivalent products or services. This benefit only accrues to the Power holder in selling follow-on products to their current customers; they hold no Benefit with potential customers and there is no Benefit if there are no follow-on products.
Barrier. To offer an equivalent product, competitors must compensate customers for Switching Costs. The firm that has previously roped in the customer, then, can set or adjust prices in a way that puts their potential rival at a cost disadvantage, rendering such a challenge distinctly unattractive. Thus, as with Scale Economies and Network Economies, the Barrier arises from the unattractive cost/benefit of share gains for the challenger.
Switching Costs can be divided into three broad groups:
Switching Costs are a non-exclusive Power type: all players can enjoy their benefits.
Branding is an asset that communicates information and evokes positive emotions in the customer, leading to an increased willingness to pay for the product.
Benefit. A business with Branding is able to charge a higher price for its offering due to one or both of these two reasons:
Affective valence. The built-up associations with the brand elicit good feelings about the offering, distinct from the objective value of the good.
Uncertainty reduction. A customer attains “peace of mind” knowing that the branded product will be as just as expected.
Barrier. A strong brand can only be created over a lengthy period of reinforcing actions (hysteresis), which itself serves as the key Barrier.
Brand Dilution. Firms require focus and diligence to guide Branding over time and ensure that the reputation created remains consistent in the valences it generates. Hence, the biggest pitfall lies in diminishing the brand by releasing products which deviate from, or damage, the brand image. Seeking higher “down market” volumes can reduce affective valence by damaging the aura of exclusivity, weakening positive associations with the product.
Problem is, the qualities that make Branding a Power also make it hard to change; the considerable risk is dilution or brand destruction.
Type of Good. Only certain types of goods have Branding potential as they must clear two conditions:
Magnitude: the promise of eventually justifying a significant price premium. Business-to-business goods typically fail to exhibit meaningful affective valence price premia, since most purchasers are only concerned with objective deliverables. Consumer goods, in particular those associated with a sense of identity, tend to have the purchasing decision more driven by affective valence. Here’s the reason: in order to associate with an identity, there must be some way to signal the exclusion of alternative identities.
For Branding Power derived from uncertainty reduction, the customer’s higher willingness to pay is driven by high perceived costs of uncertainty relative to the cost of the good. Such products tend to be those associated with bad tail events: safety, medicine, food, transport, etc. Branded medicine formulations, for example, are identical to those of generics, yet garner a significantly higher price. Duration: a long enough amount of time to achieve such magnitude. If the requisite duration is not present, the Benefit attained will fall prey to normal arbitraging behavior.
Cornered Resource definition: Preferential access at attractive terms to a coveted asset that can independently enhance value.
Benefit. In the Pixar case, this resource produced an uncommonly appealing product—“superior deliverables”—driving demand with very attractive price/volume combinations in the form of huge box office returns. No doubt—this was material (a large m in the Fundamental Equation of Strategy). In other instances, however, the Cornered Resource can emerge in varied forms, offering uniquely different benefits. It might, for example, be preferential access to a valuable patent, such as that for a blockbuster drug; a required input, such as a cement producer’s ownership of a nearby limestone source, or a cost-saving production manufacturing approach, such as Bausch and Lomb’s spin casting technology for soft contact lenses.
Barrier. The Barrier in Cornered Resource is unlike anything we have encountered before. You might wonder: “Why does Pixar retain the Brain Trust?” Any one of this group would be highly sought after by other animated film companies, and yet over this period, and no doubt into the future, they have stayed with Pixar. Even during the company’s rocky beginning, there was a loyalty that went beyond simple financial calculation.
Our general term for this sort of barrier is “fiat”; it is not based on ongoing interaction but rather comes by decree, either general or personal.
Another way to put this is that a Cornered Resource is a sufficient condition for potential for differential returns.
I save it until last because it is rare. I will use the Toyota Motor Corporation as a case.
Perhaps the best way to think of it is this: Process Power equals operational excellence, plus hysteresis. Having said that, such hysteresis occurs so rarely that I am in strong agreement with Professor Porter’s sentiments.
Benefit. A company with Process Power is able to improve product attributes and/or lower costs as a result of process improvements embedded within the organization. For example, Toyota has maintained the quality increases and cost reductions of the TPS over a span of decades; these assets do not disappear as new workers are brought in and older workers retire.
Barrier. The Barrier in Process Power is hysteresis: these process advances are difficult to replicate, and can only be achieved over a long time period of sustained evolutionary advance. This inherent speed limit in achieving the Benefit results from two factors:
Complexity. Returning to our example: automobile production, combined with all the logistic chains which support it, entails enormous complexity. If process improvements touch many parts of these chains, as they did with Toyota, then achieving them quickly will prove challenging, if not impossible.
Opacity. The development of TPS should tip us off to the long time constant inevitably faced by would-be imitators. The system was fashioned from the bottom up, over decades of trial and error. The fundamental tenets were never formally codified, and much of the organizational knowledge remained tacit, rather than explicit. It would not be an exaggeration to say that even Toyota did not have a full, top-down understanding of what they had created—it took fully fifteen years, for instance, before they were able to transfer TPS to their suppliers. GM’s experience with NUMMI also implies the tacit character of this knowledge: even when Toyota wanted to illuminate their work processes, they could not entirely do so.
The Path to Power: “Me Too” Won’t Do
Here’s the first important takeaway from our consideration of Dynamics: “getting there” (Dynamics) is completely different from “being there” (Statics). In other words, to assess which journeys are worth taking, you must first understand which destinations are desirable. Fortunately the 7 Powers does exactly that: it maps the only seven worthwhile destinations.
The first cause of every Power type is invention, be it the invention of a product, process, business model or brand. The adage “‘Me too’ won’t do” guides the creation of Power.
Planning rarely creates Power. It may meaningfully boost Power once you have established it, but if Power does not yet exist, you can’t rely on planning. Instead you must create something new that produces substantial economic gain in the value chain. Not surprisingly, we have worked our way back to Schumpeter.
Power arrives only on the heels of invention. If you want your business to create value, then action and creativity must come foremost. But success requires more than Power alone; it needs scale. Recall the Fundamental Equation of Strategy: Value = [Market Size] * [Power]
Invention has a powerful one-two value punch: it both opens the door for Power and also propels market size.
By far the most important “value moment” for a business occurs when the bars of uncertainty are radically diminished with regards to the Fundamental Equation of Strategy, market size and Power. At that moment, the cash flow future makes a step-change in transparency.
A primary driver of opacity is high flux: if a business is in a fast-changing environment, then the information facing investment pros tends to have much higher uncertainty bars regarding future free cash flow. But high flux also attends the sort of conditions which orbit the “value moment.” So if the 7 Powers can lead to alpha by identifying Power in these situations ex ante, it also promises to be useful in doing the same for those inventors on the ground trying to find a path to satisfy The Mantra.
The 3 S’s. Power, the potential to realize persistent differential returns, is the key to value creation. Power is created if a business attribute is simultaneously:
Superior—improves free cash flow
Significant—the cash flow improvement must be material
Sustainable—the improvement must be largely immune to competitive arbitrage
What I got out of it
Helmer provides a simple, but not simplistic, strategy framework in which to analyze, build, invest in companies. SSCCBNP – scale economies, switching costs, cornered resource, counter positioning, branding, network effects, process. The book is well worth reading and re-reading. The real world examples he gives relating to his framework are helpful to better understand it all.