The Trouble with Imitation

I got dragged into an annoying conversation a few days ago, and it's stuck in my craw since. The implication, which may have been unintentional, was that a company should look to its competitors for ideas - and if someone is doing something drastically different, the firm should move aggressively to copy it to prevent the originator from gaining competitive advantage.

In a way, that almost makes sense: competitive advantage is gained by doing something differently from the competition that causes your firm to offer a unique value to customers. If you copy an opponent's maneuvers, its offering is no longer unique, and it no longer has an advantage. That seems logical enough, but I have a sense that it's not a good approach to strategy, and not even a very good tactical maneuver.

But just because someone is doing something different doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Chances are, you don't have sufficient information to make an accurate assessment. As such, a tactic of aggressive imitation can lead a company to invest in a bad idea, or a half-baked one, if it proceeds without considering what they are trying to accomplish, or waiting to see if the action they have taken has any appreciable results. You could very well be copying a bad idea.

And even if time is taken to analyze the maneuver to make an educated guess at the motives and outcomes, based on what little information is available outside of the organization that pioneered a concept, my sense is that it's unlikely to be a good analysis. Frankly, if you're not smart enough to come up with a plan on your own, you're probably not smart enough to comprehend the rationale of someone else's plan, either.

That sounds a bit sharp, but I don't think it's at all unfair. The very act of imitation is based on the implicit acceptance that the party whom you are attempting to imitate is smarter, better, or more competent than yourself In the classroom, the smartest students don't make their marks by copying the work of those ho are duller - it's the other way around.

And if you choose the path of imitation, you implicitly choose to remain inferior to your competition. Your efforts can only be a wan reflection of theirs, crippled by a lack of understanding of their intentions, unable to assess whether your own imitation is successful because you do not understand the criteria for success.

More importantly, seeking to follow the competition's lead misdirects your own strategy and the application of your resources. Ultimately, success as a company is measured by market share, which in turns derives from the willingness of customers to purchase your product because it is better suited to their needs - which means that the proper field of investigation for gaining competitive advantage is not what the competition is doing, but what the customer's needs are. Only if you understand the needs of the customer can you figure out a way to serve them better.

Seen in that light, you might attempt to intelligently consider the maneuvers of your opponent, assessing whether they are likely to result in greater values. But to do that, you have to know what the customer values - and if you know what the customer values, chances are you don't need to look to your competitors to determine how to deliver it.

I have a sense this meditation is degenerating into a vicious circle - it may require a bit more thought to fully explore the problems with the notion of an imitative strategy, but I have a sense that I've struck upon the core of it.