Use of modern technology for Asymmetric Strategy

Nice post by Umair Haque on the use of modern technology to compete with established heavyweights, which he calls asymmetric competition - he use the Obama / Clinton run-off as an example. We don't usually go in for politics, but as Umair uses it it to illustrate a point:

So let's discuss how he clinched the Democratic nomination - from a strategic, not a political, point of view. Put aside your own personal politics for a moment – and I’ll put mine aside, too (or let's at least try to .

What’s immediately obvious is that Obama didn’t spend decades building the resources to power a campaign which could defeat Hillary: he was able to do so in a matter of months.

Here’s a parallel. Yesterday, it took Coke decades – and billions invested in advertising – to build the world’s most powerful brand. As we’ve discussed, today, the most powerful brand in the world is Google. And Google built it in less than decade – with almost nothing spent on advertising.

Two points here - one, the Obama example, two the impact on say Coke vs Google (Google now being the worlds No 1 brand). First, Obama - one of the commentators on Umair's post points to this very interesting analysis.

The result may have lacked the glamour of a sweep, but last night, with the delegates he picked up in Montana and South Dakota and a flood of superdelegate endorsements, Obama sealed one of the biggest upsets in U.S. political history and became the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to wrest his party's nomination from the candidate of the party establishment. The surprise was how well his strategy held up -- and how little resistance it met.
ad_icon

"We kept waiting for the Clinton people to send people into the caucus states," marveled Jon Carson, one of Obama's top ground-game strategists.

"It's the big mystery of the campaign," said campaign manager David Plouffe, "because every delegate counts."

The Obama strategy had its limits. Like a basketball team entering halftime with a 30-point lead, the campaign played a less-than-inspired second half. Obama managed only a split yesterday, losing South Dakota and winning Montana, meaning that he lost nine of the last 14 primaries. Before last night, that erratic finish translated into losing 458 of the 867 pledged delegates available since Wisconsin voted on Feb. 19, and 53.2 percent of the popular vote.

His inability to capture battleground states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania may be a portent of what could await him in November against Sen. John McCain.

I'll be the first to admit I haven't followed the race in detail, but what the above article implies to me is that this is a classic strategic play of taking on the enemy where they are not, and doing it in a novel way. It seemingly took the Clinton team about half the campaign to get themselves in order, by which time - in a time limited game - it was too late. One thought I did have re Obama is that its one thing to divert the party machine - essentially a massive social network with all sorts of internal relationships - its another think entirely to be able to command it without being deeply enmeshed in it. That may take a lot more time, as many corporate CEO's parachuted in from outside also find!

Now onto the second point, re Coke et al and business strategies- I think this may be different for two reasons:

Firstly, its just another a turn in the circle of life - Coke is no longer the leading drink it once was as we have diversified, eco-friendly fied, smoothified etc so it's inherent support base has reduced. Google is the dominant part of a new thing we do a lot more.

Secondly, the Obama tactic historically works well in the one-off game, so long as the game then ends - its much harder to do in any ongoing game, which I would argue business strategy is more like. To use two military examples (as this strategy is quite well articulated in Sun Tzu's Art of War, written some 3,000 years ago) to illustrate.

Germany's Blitzkrieg method of warfare in World War II took more conventional armies by surprise, and they did manage to put one of Europe's superpowers (France) out the war. However, Britain stayed in the game and rapid analysis of Blitzkrieg allowed both Russia and Britain to develop alternatives, initially playing on their respective strengths (Russia's Fabian strategy and Britain fighting on "home turf" - the air over Britain and the sea) and then sorting out new approaches to counter the German tactics.

Ditto, in the Hundred Years War, England's use of the longbow allowed them to achieve some notable victories early on - but they could not force France out the war, and France eventually found the tactics to beat the English and win the war.

A business example might be Dell's use of Just In Time supply methodologies from the motor industry in computers, which gave them an entree, and a rapid company build - but over time les autres have learned how to play their own game and its no longer a slamdunk

So in conclusion, my thought re Umair's article - yes, he is absolutely right - there is currently an opportunity to use new technology to asymmetrically compete with current incumbents, and go very far, very fast if done right. It's especially useful if the incumbent, like Medieval France, "remembers nothing and forgets nothing" - but big behemoths have a lot of advantages they too can bring to bear once they have sussed out the game plan.

And as for Google, their place in the sun too will pass, its the Circle of Corporate Life.