The two functions that perfect the Business are Production and Sales, all the others must be subordinated to these. The basic management approach of any enterprise or company cannot depart from the consideration of this premise. The Organization can keep everything else in order, but if it does not produce and sell satisfactorily the rest is irrelevant. From the smallest undertaking to the largest of Corporations, there is a fundamental fact: they are all supported by a Business.
When organizations grow healthy, they are forced to incorporate many support tasks into their operating structures, from the most basic Accounting, through administrative tasks of all kinds to more sophisticated commercial tasks. These support functions are part of the Support Structures and are understood and justified only because the Business needs them. Organizations cannot exist without Business.
The ONLY two functions of the Business are Production and Sales, they allow the essential meaning of the Business to be perfected, that is, to support "an activity that generates utility, interest or profit for those who put it into practice".
As in any case it is logical to suppose that nobody will do business producing what cannot be sold, the function of SALES predominates over that of Production and thus constitutes the fundamental task of the Business. If it is not sold there is no need to produce and all the support tasks are not important.
Some of the main management problems in enterprises and companies occur because a situation as basic as this is not addressed. Large companies frequently lose sensitivity regarding their own Business and are managed according to the interest of objectives that emerge from large bureaucratic structures; and the ventures confuse their courses of action trying to act on the interests of Sales by means of mechanics and techniques that originate in the support functions and not in those of the Business. The typical case of this is mainly Marketing techniques.
With the same emphasis that must be used to affirm that BUSINESS is not the same as COMPANY, it must be established that MARKETING is not the same as SALES.
Marketing is a set of tools intended to support Sales tasks. Marketing alone DOES NOT SELL and neither does it have the ability to direct Sales operations, this is reserved for the Business Strategy, or what is the same, for the Sales Strategy.
For a Business or a Company to effectively carry out their Sales tasks, they need to focus all organizational resources on this objective, ensure its proper coordination and correct the guidelines of the entire structure when necessary. Furthermore, since Sales tasks essentially involve Market Action and interaction with competitors, they cannot be “anchored to laboratory interests”, that is, to prerogatives that are developed in offices far from the point of contact and usually related to efforts of planning. Sales are daily tasks closely linked to Action.
This set of requirements can NOT be managed by Marketing because it lacks the necessary scope; On the other hand, if this scope were granted, the essential contribution demanded would lose value. Marketing participates in efforts to optimize Sales when the Sales Strategy demands it.
The Sales Strategy is who should gather, involve and apply ALL the resources of the Organization towards the interests of the Business. In reality, the very concept of Strategy (which will not be discussed in this article), is exclusively conceived for this: managing the interests of the Business as a consequence of the effect that the actions of the Competition have on them.
The Entrepreneur, like the Manager of the large company, must always maintain a pure and clear mental focus towards Sales. This is the best guarantee of good management and obtaining results! Everything else fits easily when this requirement has been met.
A Sales Strategy involves at least the following:
- Approach to Major Purposes related to Sales. Establishment of Sales Objectives. Determination of HOW TO SELL (Strategic Routes, Strategic Approach, Direct Strategies. Market Evaluation. Identification, Evaluation, Positioning and Movement of Strategic Resources.
In this article, a Summary of points 2) and 3) will be made, that is, the Establishment of Sales Objectives and the Determination of HOW TO SELL (Routes and Strategic Approach).
Aside from the fact that the space available here is not suitable for full development, these points of the Sales Strategy are also the most useful for the Entrepreneur.
Basic considerations of the sales strategy (Establishment of objectives and determination of "how to sell").
All Sales Strategy begins with the fact that the SALES OBJECTIVES are always conditioned by four factors that must be evaluated and resolved with great care because they affect the QUALITY of them:
1) Desires.- These do not have a direct technical correlation with Possibilities and Needs. As such they can affect the foundation of a Basic Strategic Principle: The balance between means and ends. On the other hand, Desires are an indispensable element in the formulation of objectives and their existence cannot be, much less, unknown.
2) Expectations.- They have more technical foundations than Desires, but they also generate an important bias. They can affect the Strategic Principle of balance between means and ends.
3) Longings.- Particularly they have more power between people and in their social aggregate, but they constitute one of the least favorable elements for the technical-rational establishment of objectives. Obviously, they can generate exceptional dynamics among people, but the dimension they achieve in the objective setting must be rationalized as much as possible.
4) Dreams.- The gravitation that great dreams have in the general progress of men can be explained philosophically, but for the purposes of setting goals and the need for them to be achieved in practice, they constitute one of the least favorable conditions in the quality of the objectives.
Taking care that none of the Sales Objectives is conditioned by any of these factors, the process continues defining the answers to the following questions:
Than?
What do we want to sell?
a) The Sales Strategy defines the Organization's efforts to manage ONE SINGLE BUSINESS, that is, a homogeneous operation of the Production and Sales functions. If the operation is not homogeneous in terms of these two functions, then it is likely that it is not a single Business and therefore you are required to define MORE THAN ONE Sales Strategy.
The What do we want to sell? You must narrow this down precisely.
b) A second variable that is incorporated to address the question of What do we want to sell ?, is the manifest intention of many organizations to sell "something more" than what the product is physically proposing. In these cases, the intention is to sell rather a "specific function" or "added value" that the product can provide.
It should not be forgotten that selling drills is not the same as selling “holes” and this distinction must be clarified in the answer to the question.
The answers to What do we want to sell ?, must be as precise and comprehensive as possible; they must incorporate all the necessary detail to avoid omissions or defects in the course of the execution.
The result of the answer must be a specific list of products and / or sub-products, with name and surname.
If inconsistencies are found in this first classification that could significantly affect the effectiveness of the Sales Strategy, it is appropriate to make specific feedback to the planning agencies.
If the QUE that we want to sell shows that the Organization is trying to work in more than One Business, then the development of a second Sales Strategy should be considered or else limit the actions among the operations of the Business that is considered the main one. If it is officially the case of a Corporate Organization, each Business must develop its own Sales Strategy and, ultimately, the Coordination System between all of them.
The purpose of the question What do we want to sell? is to achieve FOCUS, COHERENCE AND CONSISTENCY in the administration of actions and resources.
Why?
Why do we want to sell this?
Obtaining the answer to this question is essential in order to permanently rationalize the character and destiny of the efforts that will be invested in the sales tasks. STRATEGOS (responsible for developing and executing the Strategy) and all the people in the Organization involved in the Sales Strategy need to understand the importance of the task they will have to perform.
The production and sales functions improve the Business but do not explain it.
Every Business must support a Principle or a Sense for the activities it carries out. Probably this one has a simply mercantile or speculative orientation, but from then on it already constitutes a principle or a meaning that seeks to prevail in the Market.
The right answers to Why do we want to sell this? They must have a tenor similar to the following, with the detail that essentially corresponds to each reality:
- This organization needs to survive and this can only be achieved by meeting the stated sales objective. We need to grow. We need to conquer "as many" additional points of market share. We want to affect the position of the competition in "this Business and in these products and in these proportions. "We are under attack and we need to consolidate our position in the market. We want to be the first to do so and consolidate positions in an emerging market. We must consolidate our leadership in the market. Etc.
No Sales Objective can be managed apart from a clear, precise and forceful answer to this Why.
How much?
How much do we want to sell?
How Much Can We Sell?
How Much Should We Sell?
The answer to these questions must pursue the necessary Quantification of sales efforts. On very few occasions the answer is the same for all three questions. There are more frequent cases in which you cannot sell what you want or you MUST sell a certain level to protect fundamental interests.
The best way to guarantee the success of the Sales Strategy (or avoid its failure), is by setting the quantitative objectives that must be achieved in the most rational way possible, investing all efforts in determining achievable parameters. There is nothing to be gained by working the Strategy in areas of uncertainty, closer to "desired" than "possible" parameters.
Only Success appropriately rates the Strategy.
And the Success or Failure are measured according to the fulfillment of objectives that the Strategy has had, and the final way of measuring the fulfillment of objectives is reduced, in most cases, to quantitative objectives. This direct relationship is the one that justifies the greatest care in evaluating the approach of quantitative objectives.
At this point it is worth making another basic consideration:
What happens in organizations when the Sales Strategies (which are the only ones that can be recognized as a Business Strategy), fail ?:
First of all all the plans have failed. The Great Objectives have not been achieved. The vision of the company has been affected. Financial Income has not been met. The Investment Programs could not be completed. The Expense Structures have had to be contracted. Fixed Costs have increased in proportion to the reduction in Contribution Margins, etc.
Second (although it may be a major issue), the Organization's Strategic Resources are weakened. And this weakness can be progressive, because it in turn reflects an enhancement of the Strategic Resources of Competition. The state of weakness of own Strategic Resources does not end the moment of the failure of the Strategy, it continues beyond it, as long as the market dynamics are sustained. The next Strategy is conceived and developed in a state of fragility and although it does not suffer from miscalculations like the previous one, it is essentially weaker.
Among all the Strategic Resources, there is one that is much more sensitive to the failure of the Strategy: Human Resources. Man, unlike the system, feels and remembers. It internalizes failure and makes it part of its future development, thereby causing unpredictable results.
Setting Rational Sales Targets is Fundamental. From this starting point the success of the Strategy is conditioned. The best case is when there is a match between what you want and what you can sell.
When?
When do we want the Sales Objectives to be reached?
The answer to this question also tests the consistency, coherence and rationality of the objectives.
The fulfillment of the objectives is a function of the volume that they have and of the time in which they are intended to be achieved. Based on the "quantity", it will then be necessary to assess whether the time is enough to meet the objectives.
Normally this cannot be considered a detail, it has, rather, the same dimension as the other variables and in general it could be treated with a method similar to the previous one: how long do we want to achieve the sales objectives? the sales targets? and / or in how long should we reach the sales objectives?
Where?
Where do we want to sell?
The answer to this question is important because, just like the observations directed to the WHAT, you can also define the nature of the Business (and therefore the Strategy) or the Type and form of the Sales Strategy.
A Business can be defined as such, that is to say as ONE in particular, when it is perfected through the Production and Sales functions in a geographically homogeneous market or one that constitutes a specific Geographic Unit. If this premise is not fulfilled, it can be argued that there is more than one Business, which in fact makes the Organization a Corporation rather than an Organic entity. In this case, a Geographically Diversified Corporation.
Obviously, it is easier here to differentiate Businesses than in cases where the evaluation of production and sales functions is the fundamental parameter of discrimination.
Geographically diverse markets require more than one Sales Strategy. And if, in addition to this, the objectives propose the opening of a new and distant market, they will also condition the Type of Sales Strategy that corresponds to that market and with that purpose.
A serious mistake is made in assuming very important similarities in geographically diverse market characteristics. Normally the differences are greater than the coincidences. Geographically diverse markets must be served through different Business Units and each of them must develop its own Sales Strategy, subordinating itself only to the objectives, the central policies and the Integration and Coordination System of the Units.
To who?
Who do we want to sell to?
This objective is also transcendental, and therefore it must be stated with the greatest possible clarity and detail. The Sales Strategy is very importantly conditioned by the definition of the individuals or groups of individuals to whom the strategic efforts are directed. The fundamental guiding criteria in this regard must be carefully worked out at the Planning stage, but it is normal that many subtleties have to be carefully reviewed at the implementation stage, especially those related to establishing precisely the degree of homogeneity that the target groups of the Sales Strategy.
The higher the degree of uniformity of these objectives, the greater the guarantees of effectiveness for the Strategy, because in the end, it will be able to work with sufficient depth among the prospects, favoring actions aimed at dominating the market rather than those aimed at conquering it or establishing presence..
An important Strategic Principle holds the advantage of working "vertically" in the market, rather than "horizontally". The Position built on «the vertical» (defined segments, “niches”) optimizes the effect of the concentration of resources and prevents, for a long time, the competitor from organizing for an offensive, forcing him to sustain defensive efforts.
"Horizontal" work in the market requires the investment of considerable resources to guarantee its own effectiveness, and as much as a point has been reached in which a certain solidity in the positions can be argued, this does not avoid the possibility of being attacked in some section of the line by competitors who are working "vertically" and therefore have highly concentrated resources.
To determine to "WHO we want to sell" it is important to take into account the following:
1. It is not appropriate to work in many Market Segments. The Segmentation process itself has to be very elaborate to work with the most promising. It is possible that more than one Segment or some very different from the others, force to work with more than one Sales Strategy, as if it were more than one Business (probably without being one). This obviously makes the development and movement of Strategic Resources more expensive.
2. High precision in Demographic Segmentation. The number of variables that this alternative provides can complicate the objectives and effectiveness of the Strategy. In crystallized markets (the majority are now due to the effect of global trends), subject to effective and atomized competition, the Market Segment being worked on must have clear differences with its peers (it seems a contradiction but in practice it is not). In a Gender and Age Segmentation, for example, it can no longer be assumed that a 40-year-old woman who works is a consumer agent similar to a 45-year-old woman who does not work; Nor is a 35-year-old divorced woman a consumer agent similar to a 35-year-old married woman.
3. The target Segment or Segments must be worked in as deep as possible, therefore they cannot be very numerous since they may exceed the possibilities of Strategic Resources.
4. If the Objectives are not proposing Depth and on the contrary are privileging a work on "the horizontal", they must necessarily do so taking as a starting point the own and dominated market.
5. If the Organization works on very long lines, the objectives should be considered considering the possibility that a contrary offensive exists and that it may be carried out in the Flanks. If the approach of own objectives contemplates this possibility, it will allow the Sales Strategy to assign Strategic Resources proportional to the needs of the line, without necessarily committing all efforts in the work of reaching an overly ambitious objective and that does not contemplate any attempt to Flank the competitors.
Against whom?
Who does it affect or does it seek to affect the fulfillment of its own sales objectives?
When the sales objectives are established, it must also be established who are the competitors with whom the confrontation will take place and how it is intended to affect their interests for their own benefit.
Achieving your own sales objectives should always be understood as a process in which sales are "snatched away" from the competitor. In this sense, there are no considerations like the one that suggests that own sales are, rather, an effect of market growth or demand for the type of product or service offered. This consideration has a completely neutral sense, because an eventual gap in demand (or unsatisfied demand), will try to be covered by one of the agents that compete in the market. If at a particular moment that is not happening, you are just proceeding to take away from the competitor something that he has "not yet" taken.
The judgments that the Strategy establishes in these cases are completely timeless. The market does not give anything away, it did not do so yesterday, nor will it do tomorrow. What is wanted or needed must be taken from someone. This criterion is the only one that guarantees the Quality of the Competitive State of an Organization and with it the health of the Business. For the rest, nothing is truer than adjusting to the adage of "compete or die", and since the dead are the only ones who do not compete, this end allows to guide the approach (or at least the intention), of the actions in the market and towards the competitor.
The approach of the objectives in this aspect must go through a set of careful considerations:
1. If there is no possibility of directing the efforts of the Strategy towards a single competitor, in any case its emphasis should be directed towards only one. The acceptable exception in this case is probably only made up of two or more significantly weaker competitors than the Organization itself.
2. The Organization is obliged to know in depth the habitual ways in which that competitor reacts to attacks or the way in which it organizes its own attacks. This consideration is important when setting goals, especially if they are opponents known for their aggressiveness, for the risks they take, and for the zeal they show when attacking or defending.
3. It is also important to calculate the level of sensitivity that the competitor will have to the actions taken against him. By the inertia of their own strength, some actions can put the competitor "on the ropes", with little choice but to react to avoid their own collapse. These situations are not desirable. The old eastern thinkers of Strategy said: "It is not advisable to corner a tiger, not even a cat, because you only force him to hurt you." On the other hand, Machiavelli said: "It is necessary to be very careful when offending, one must have sufficient integrity to support the response, or one must have the greatness necessary to offend in such a way that there is no possibility of response."
4. Nor should it be forgotten, especially when there are several competitors, that while the Main Strategy is directed against one of them, the others may be directing their efforts against the Organization. This forces defense mechanisms to be active and expands the universe of adversaries. This is not a minor factor when defining objectives, many times the precept of "zero sum" is also fulfilled in the market: "what you take on the one hand, is taken on the other."
How?
How will we achieve the sales objectives?
Answering this question starts the final part of the Sales Strategy Implementation Process.
Among all the analyzes and contributions that many thinkers have made in the business world, the synthesis obtained by working with the precepts of two of them, seems to be the most practical and effective in describing the complex process of How to achieve the Objectives selling:
The first precept corresponds to the Japanese thinker Kenichi Ohmae, who establishes that there are Four Routes or Paths to develop the Strategy:
1. Concentrating efforts on Key Success Factors
2. Taking advantage of any type of Relative Superiority
3. Implementing Aggressive Initiatives
4. Making Innovations
The objectives of the Sales Strategy can be achieved by following one of these four paths. The good and the important thing is that each of them is broad and flexible enough to "contain" many minor actions or directions. It is not reasonable to assume that an Organization may choose to take more than one of these paths simultaneously. Each presents different focus considerations.
The first path favors the use of factors that the Organization has determined as its own strengths. The mobilization of these factors gives solidity to the Sales Strategy, even more so if they are directed precisely against the weaknesses of the competitor. The Key Success Factors form a solid foundation on which the Sales Strategy can be developed. Own strengths will always constitute an objective advantage in the effort to carry out the task, and if in addition to this they are used precisely to affect the opponent's weaknesses, the expected results can be seen at least optimistically.
When the Organization does not have the security or the sufficient conviction to know that it possesses the Strengths that constitute (or may be) Key Success Factors in the development of the Strategy, then Route number two becomes an advisable option, among other things. because it sustains the spirit of the first, that is, taking advantage of an advantage. Taking advantage of any kind of relative advantage is a strategic imperative and is practically a constant in the conditioning of action. Taking advantage of the Relative Advantage, unlike taking advantage of the Key Success Factors, can mean for the Organization a greater investment of effort and time. It also demands better operating conditions for Strategic Resources,who will bear the burden of the task in a greater proportion than that represented by the demands of the Key Success Factors Route. The latter may be the result of long work over time, the product of strategic processes and successes accumulated in the Organization's past or past history, and as such have their livelihood in themselves and do not need the support of Strategic Resources. Furthermore, the Organization's Aggregate Strengths can constitute, in turn, a Strategic Resource.and as such they have in themselves their sustenance and do not need the support of the Strategic Resources, what is more, the Aggregate Strengths of the Organization can constitute, in turn, a Strategic Resource.and as such they have in themselves their sustenance and do not need the support of the Strategic Resources, what is more, the Aggregate Strengths of the Organization can constitute, in turn, a Strategic Resource.
The way to take advantage of Relative Advantages, on the other hand, generates an absolute demand on Strategic Resources.
Of the four Routes that Ohmae raises as options to develop the Strategy, the second, that is, the Exploitation of Relative Advantages, rescues, like no other, the essential virtues of the Strategy as an ordering concept of actions. In processes sustained over time, this route also becomes the most used. The very nature of the Conflict determines that actions based on Key Success Factors, Aggressive Initiatives or Innovations cannot always be sustained over time. In time the only sustainable thing is the possibility (and the ability) to take advantage of any relative advantage to prevail over the opponent.
It should not be forgotten that the Strategy is, finally, a study of experiences, of thousands and thousands of STRATEGOS throughout hundreds and hundreds of years of history, interacting with the Conflict. And that valuable experience (if it helps to escape the possibility of dogma as such), affirms that the use of Relative Advantage is the prevailing condition in time to develop the Strategy.
For this reason, the Organization must always be prepared to travel this route, much more than it may eventually be to travel the other roads. The two that immediately precede and precede it are older brothers (taking advantage of key success factors) and younger brothers (Aggressive Initiatives), but in the course of time things almost always revolve around the need to take advantage of relative advantages.
The third route to develop the Strategy lies in implementing Aggressive Initiatives. This route normally leads to Attack, or at least Deterrence. It can of course be considered a defensive option (specific circumstances must always be kept in mind), but in essence it corresponds to Attack.
Aggressive Initiatives involve Risks greater than those that can be evaluated between the previous or subsequent options, but they also promise greater results.
Aggressive Initiatives are more a matter of timing and as such strategically useful. They are the strategies that receive the hardest answers on the market. This is something to be aware of and to be prepared for. It is difficult to measure the power of an Aggressive Initiative. Nor is it easy to calculate its scope. For all these reasons it is better to prepare for the greatest number of unwanted effects.
These are some final recommendations when the time comes to adopt this path for the development of the Strategy:
- Preferably direct Aggressive Initiatives in the face of very evident opportunities that are being provided by the market or competition, those in which it would be absurd to waste the situation and the moment. If the previous case is not fulfilled, try to implement the Aggressive Initiatives flanking the lines of competitor defense. Never implement an Aggressive Initiative through direct attack on positions that sustain any defensive element. The costs can be very high, almost unjustifiable. The attack by Aggressive Initiatives must go as deep as possible, essentially for two reasons: first, because these opportunities will not always present themselves and merit their maximum use, and second, because immediately after they are achieved achieve the results of the operation,the attacks of the competition as a whole will be sustained and tireless, seeking to promote a return to the initial balance.
The fourth route that guides the development of the Strategy is much more subtle and can be very effective and profitable: Make Innovations.
Many like to understand this as doing new things. And sometimes it is better to understand it that way, because there are not a few people (even STRATEGOS), who associate the word Innovation with strictly technological factors. Innovation, of course, has no semantic, conceptual or empirical commitment, with specific or exclusive factors.
Innovations must present "news", "new things". This implies the presence of the word Different, and when this last word is incorporated into the treatment of the Strategic in the business world, it almost always brings success. A different way of being is innovating, is doing new things. The new is always different.
Now, it must be very clear where and how the Innovation is located, or ultimately, what is being innovated?
In the first place, Innovation is not present in the "way of doing things to work the market or deal with the competition", that is, Innovation is not the Strategy itself. To the question of what is being innovated? The Strategy cannot be presented in response.
Every Strategy is New and Different from all the others. No two strategies are the same, neither can they be classified as "old" or "old", the Strategy in this sense is timeless. There are as many Strategies as there are STRATEGOS, before, now and after. Therefore the precept of Making Innovations does not apply to or refer to the Strategy. Rather, it refers to the Offer, to what the Strategy can bring to the Market and may constitute a way of achieving the stated objectives.
What innovations can the Sales Strategy support ?:
A new product, a new service, new services, new features, new uses, new applications, etc. All this multiplies the number of objective agents in the market, and it also places them in a position to receive a new, different offer that is not (at that time) being worked on by a competitor (for something that has to constitute an Innovation).
Among all the innovations that can be considered (the truth is that this universe is only limited by the borders of your own imagination), it is always strategically advisable to start the evaluation with products and services that do not involve a "jump" or exit from the Business. This is in keeping with the nature of what has been described for the treatment of the first question of the cycle What are we going to sell? Innovations that force Business discrimination are not necessarily bad ideas, but in fact force the Sales Strategy to adopt different criteria.
If Kenichi Ohmae gives us important guidance to start the answers to How are we going to sell ?, the English author Barrie James complements them perfectly.
James describes a set of strategic action guidelines, which he calls Strategic Approaches, that ideally fit the stage that comes immediately after the Organization and STRATEGOS had defined the Route or Path for the development of the Strategy.
The Strategic Approach is a vision of the development that the Sales Strategies must have in the course of the campaign. Referring to the latter in the plural is logical because the Approach may include the consideration of more than one Sales Strategy. All this depends on the magnitude of the Objectives that have been set and the difficulty that the task presents.
When the Strategic Approach is referred to as a vision of the development of the Strategies, it is not necessarily dealing with the case of many Strategies and many Businesses, it is rather, most of the time, a single Business and a single Strategy that it changes over time. How these changes should occur over time shapes the nature of the Approach.
The forms that the Strategic Approaches can take are:
1. Sequential Strategies.- They are series of successive steps, each one dependent on the preceding step, leading to a final objective.
The Approach, which relies on the existence of Sequential Strategies, normally addresses objectives that are difficult to achieve. And for this, it is necessary to mobilize the Strategic Resources of the Organization in successive "batches", exactly as the waves of the sea unfold when they touch the beaches: one behind the other, with rhythm and order. Depending on the difficulty of the objectives to be achieved, many Strategies can be developed "in sequence". This is not a matter of time, it has more to do with the ability to organize successive movements of resources. An important fact to keep in mind about Sequential Strategies is that they should preferably work focused on the same objective, one that finally ends up being obtained after successive efforts.In this case, the Approach will have defined movements that will be grouped into Strategy No. 1, then Strategy No. 2, then Strategy No. 3, and so on to the extent deemed sufficient, all of them working in "waves" over the objective. In addition to being very useful in attacking difficult targets, Sequential Strategies help a lot in the process that the Sequence of Movements itself establishes in the process of implementing the Strategy, that is, the Offensive, then Consolidation of Positions, then Dominance. of Positions and then the Defense of Positions.Sometimes these four stages of the Movement Sequence must be worked with more than one Strategy and there arises the need to have a Strategic Approach defined with four component Strategies or four mutations of the main Strategy for each of the stages of the sequence.
2. Cumulative Strategies.- They are sets of actions, apparently random but in reality planned to achieve results that progressively add up to those achieved before. Over time they produce great results.
Unlike the Sequential Strategies in which the strategic actions arrive: one, then another, then another, in the Cumulative Strategies the actions arrive: one more another, more another, more other.
The effects are different, the Sequential Strategies put more pressure on the target, the Cumulative Strategies print more weight. Both work "in depth" but with different mechanics. If a previous example helps, the topic can be well illustrated: Sequential Strategies are like sea waves that attack the beach, one after another, the waves reach the beach but just as they arrive then they leave, before a new one appears. In the case of Cumulative Strategies, the waves reach the beach and progressively fill it with water, one plus one, to the required point.
Normally the Approach that works with Cumulative Strategies should have time in its favor. This method of strategic work is heavy, it can have a lot of power but it is slow. It is generally used to wear down the opponent, to the point of causing an oversight or creating a loophole that allows for faster and more forceful strategic action.
This type of approach is common among large competitors, those who definitely need many campaigns to resolve situations.
In any case, the Cumulative Strategies never constitute the random sum of several strategies, on the contrary they are highly planned, because they must even anticipate the development of future events with the smallest margins of error.
3. Indirect or Deterrent Strategies.- They use psychological pressure to defeat the enemy, thus avoiding physical contact. These strategies emphasize political, economic, social, and psychological pressures rather than force, trying to throw the enemy off balance before the bulk of the forces take action. Normally, these types of strategies are not conceived or developed to work alone, generally they are part of a set of strategic intentions and therefore they are incorporated within the framework of an Approach. They may be accompanied by an Attack Strategy, a Defense Strategy, etc. What is pursued with this Approach is to prepare the field of operations in the most convenient way for their own interests,And this preparation goes through the use of any indirect method that can help. Negotiations, Demonstrations of Force, Apparent Movements, Threats, etc. are very effective in these cases.
Almost the entire arsenal of the STRATEGOS of the East (mainly Japan and China) is based on the use of these indirect strategies. And they have very positive effects if they constitute an art that is mastered.
4. Alliance strategies.- Alliance strategies do not occur frequently, and in all cases involve large movements and commitments of resources, objectives, plans, etc. These strategies contemplate special considerations and one of them lies in determining the proper role that STRATEGOS performs in the process, given that this process has a lot to do with political and institutional interests and is, initially, far from operational considerations of competition and of market work.
5. Counterweight Strategies.- In the business world, some typical Counterweight strategies used to neutralize an adversary are found in the challenges of the rival's patents, trademarks, literary property, advertising rights, as well as in the market introduction. of products directly competitive with the enemy's fort. Eg IBM attacks Xerox with photocopiers.
Counterbalance Strategies usually accompany other strategies. The Approach that considers the use of some counterweight movement does not base the results or the final scope of the objectives in the Counterbalance Strategy itself, rather it finds that it can help or facilitate the process. However, counterweight strategies can be very effective. Typical are those aimed at ensuring that the adversary's production capacity is neutralized because he may be unable to manufacture a new product and, of course, attacks against neuralgic points of interest of the competitor, for example attacking a geographic market of the competitor in which it is not it has a business presence, as a "counterweight" to a competitor's presence in its own market, etc.
6. Countervalue strategies.- In the business world, the countervalue strategic actions are the neutralization of the competitor's main clientele by providing exclusive services to the competitor, or also the neutralization of the raw material producing centers obtaining or controlling your access.
By means of countervalue movements, the aim is to create instability and chaos in the opposing structure, cutting essential links between the central support structure and the business units, either complicating or damaging the logistics processes of the competitor, its financial stability, its prestige, etc. When key customers or groups of customers are removed for the competitor, it is done without special consideration of the cost that this represents for their own interests, but rather the effect it will have on the rival Organization. Its variants can be many and very diverse, but the criterion for action is always to work countervalue "behind" the lines of attack or defense of the competitor, where the vital support networks of the competitive activity of the business are located.
