The New Era of Competition
Aggressiveness alone is not the mark of a good military strategy. Especially aggressiveness as represented by the “more” school of management. More product, more sales people, more meetings, more advertising, more hard work.
Especially more hard work. Somehow we feel better about success if we have to work hard to achieve it. So we schedule more meetings, more reports, more memos, more management reviews.
Yet military history teaches the reverse. A single-minded commitment to winning the battle on effort alone usually dissolves into defeat. The military commander that lets his armies get bogged down in a hand-to-hand slugging match is usually defeated.
Much better are quick, lightning-like strokes that depend more on timing than muscle. (What the Germans call blitzkrieg). Not that muscle, or the principle of force, is not important. Far from it. But unless an attack is properly planned, you throw away your advantage if you let the battle degenerate into a war of attrition. Whenever you hear your commander say “We have to redouble our efforts,” you know you’re listening to a loser talk.
— Al Ries and Jack Trout, Marketing Warfare, Chapter 4
No Comments
This entry is filed under Marketing Warfare.
You can also follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.