Opportunity is the primary factor when considering whether to blitzscale. Lots of mistakes get made for sure - some companies believe they’re in a winner take all space when it turns out they’re in a commodity space - in which case blitzscaling is a disastrous strategy to employ. During the Dot Com era, both Amazon and Yahoo attempted frontal assaults on eBay’s auction business, but the network effects of eBay’s two-sided marketplace of buyers and sellers meant that its first scaler advantage was too strong to overcome - and so eBay dominated their important market for decades. Blitzscaling is unlikely to prove successful if another company has already achieved the “first-scaler” advantage, or if the market itself doesn’t offer compelling sources of lasting competitive advantages, such as network effects. Companies should adopt a strategy of blitzscaling when tackling a market in which becoming the first player to achieve scale confers strong and lasting competitive advantages. But you can’t and probably shouldn’t blitzscale all the time. You can successfully blitzscale in good times, and you can successfully blitzscale in bad times. In a rapidly growing market, a company that grows 100% per year might be losing share during turbulent times, a company that grows 50% per year might be gaining enough share to achieve market dominance. The key nuance to keep in mind during these mixed market conditions is that a company’s rate of growth needs to be measured on a relative - rather than absolute - scale. But even today, those who choose to limit their pursuit of growth to favorable market conditions are forgoing potentially valuable opportunities. “But wait!”, you think - it’s 2016 now - isn’t the era of crazy growth over? Aren’t we back to a more sober time? The recent turmoil in the markets that has affected many technology companies - both public and private - may indeed lead some to conclude that the aggressive pursuit of growth needs be restricted to bouyant markets.
0 kommentar(er)
