We use analytics and advertising tools by default. You can update this anytime.

How to understand the essence of any business
There’s really only four competitive strategies:
Of course, this might strike you as a wild oversimplification. But I want to convince you that it’s not.
In fact, I believe this lens is one of the most powerful tools that any founder, operator, or investor can have. Because it cuts to the core of the two most important challenges every business has to overcome in order to succeed: why would anyone buy your product, and how can you make money selling it?
Understand that, and everything else a business needs to do clicks into place. Overlook them, you’re in grave danger of losing your way.
It’s important to know that this “four strategies” framework wasn’t just something I made up. It was created by the most cited author in the fields of business and economics, Michael Porter. He introduced it in his book, Competitive Advantage, and it’s been a staple in business schools and in practice ever since.
Navigating the market without this framework is like trying to navigate the world with no concept of north, south, east, and west. It’s possible — our ancestors certainly did it! — but those equipped with a compass can go much further and faster without getting lost.
This essay is split into five major sections. The first four sections cover each of the four strategies. These all contain one main example, three shorter examples, and some additional commentary on how to make the strategy in question work. The final section covers a special case: strategy for monopolies.
Companies examined include:
Let’s get started :)
All strategies require obsessive focus. But “focus” doesn’t always mean a narrower segment of customers. Sometimes it can take the form of obsessing over delivering acceptable value to a wide range of customers at a lower price than anyone else.
Here, the goal isn’t to charge the lowest price possible, but instead to have the lowest cost possible without sacrificing too much in product performance. Then, you’re in position to charge a bit less than anyone else and still maximize profits.
Dollar General. Despite all the talk about the death of retail, Dollar General is thriving. Over the past five years the Dollar General stock (NYSE: $DG) has earned a 129% return and shows no signs of stopping. This is all a result of their focused execution of the “cost leadership” strategy.
It starts with how they choose retail store locations. Dollar General stores are built in places that Walmart (their biggest competitor) often won’t go—inner city neighborhoods and tiny rural towns. Since these neighborhoods aren’t attractive to most retailers, Dollar General pays rock-bottom prices for rent, yet still remain in close proximity to their target customer.
Once they find a location, Dollar General stores are cheap to develop. They cost only $250k to open and each store is around 7,300 square feet - about one-tenth the average size of a Walmart.
Dollar General also doesn’t employ any excess staff members (such as greeters) which further keeps costs down.
Finally, Dollar General offers a no frills shopping experience with a limited product selection. Their stores have only 10-12 thousand unique items (compared to ~60,000 at a Walmart Supercenter) and they rarely carry any fresh produce. This helps to simplify inventory buying in addition to saving money on cold storage and product spoilage.
These four factors—lower rent, cheaper build-out, fewer employees, and a limited product selection—all contribute towards what Porter would call low direct operating costs. It’s one of the main ways to pursue the cost leadership strategy.
Additional examples:
Summary: The key thing to remember here is that a cost leadership strategy starts with a unique advantage in unlocking lower operating costs. Don’t make it fancy, make it cheap.
Sometimes new technologies come along that are just better. The iPhone, for example, wasn’t created to serve any particular niche or segment (e.g. business users, teenagers, etc). Instead, it’s for anyone willing to pay for quality.
Here, the key is to understand what your customers care about, and give it to them in a superior way. In order to do this, you’ll often (but not always) have to spend a bit more money. But that’s ok, so long as your customers are willing to pay a premium.
Companies that manage to do this are said to have achieved “differentiation.”
Slack. One interesting thing about software is how common it is for SaaS companies to follow a “differentiation” strategy. It’s hard to compete on price in this sector, because everyone has basically zero marginal distribution costs, and the main expense is your team (which you really don’t want to skimp on). There’s not a lot of interesting cost savings to be had in the same way there would be if you were manufacturing widgets.
So, instead, most companies try to offer superior value and charge a higher price.
Slack is a perfect example of this. They’re able to charge a premium by starting with several innovative features (seamless messaging, public/private channels, and secure backup, for example) and leveraging that into creating two kinds of network effects:
The first is their ecosystem of integrations. Because Slack is the most popular team chat app, everyone building complementary products has an incentive to integrate with them first. This increases the value to Slack’s users without costing Slack a dime.
The second is their user-to-user network effect. If I used Slack at my old company, and I have multiple secondary slacks I’m a part of, then I’m going to prefer to just keep using Slack for my team chat. To strengthen this even more, they introduced “shared channels” where employees from two different businesses can communicate with each other.
Ultimately, “differentiation” strategies work when a customer has an option to purchase a cheaper option but still buys the more expensive one. There are other messaging systems available, including some that are cheaper or focused on specific verticals, but many companies continue to prefer Slack.
Additional examples:
Summary: The differentiation strategy is achieved when a company meets the aspirational needs of customers as shown through a willingness to pay a premium for that product or service.
This strategy is somewhat rare, but it’s a fascinating one.
Usually when a business focuses on a niche, they charge more for their product and provide extra functionality that’s only important to customers in that niche. But sometimes a business notices a segment that’s actually overserved, and invents a way to serve that segment more cheaply.
Smile Direct Club. Billions of people worldwide — 60% to 75% of the population* — suffer from malocclusion (the misalignment of teeth). Traditionally, metal braces are used to treat this condition, and more recently Align Technologies’ Invisalign product has served the market. But because of cost, only about 1% of people with malocclusion get treatment in any given year.
Enter Smile Direct Club. When the Invisalign patents expired in 2017, they jumped at the opportunity to provide a cheaper option to a specific segment of the market.
Smile Direct Club is able to keep costs low because they only accept patients that require mild tooth crowding and tooth spacing. These cases can be treated with minimal doctor intervention, but still represent a sizable market that wouldn’t have otherwise had access to any treatment.
The average cost of treatment with braces is $5k - $6k and the average cost of treatment with Invisalign is $3k - $5k, while Smile Direct Club is just $1,895. Because the treatments are simpler, patients can order online and treat themselves. They also don’t have to keep many dentists on payroll. Treatment with SDC takes up to 50% less time than traditional methods, further reducing the costs.
In this case, Smile Direct Club is able to offer a lower production cost by targeting patients with mild malocclusion. The interesting piece, of course, is that it’s only possible because they only target a subset of the market.
Additional examples:
Summary: If an incumbent has a high profit margin, there is often an opportunity to segment the market and provide a new option to the price-conscious customer. A successful cost focus strategy must have a lower cost structure to support the lower price.
At first glance, this seems like the easiest strategy.
Just find a group of people, make a product more specifically tailored to their needs than anything else, and charge a premium price.
But executing it well is surprisingly difficult. How much extra can you charge? How big is the subset of the market you’re targeting? Do your customers really need a special solution, or does the mainstream option (which probably has more brand awareness and other scale advantages) adequately serve their needs?
It’s not as easy as it seems!
Superhuman. There are a lot of people that use email. Superhuman had the thesis that a portion of them — those who use email a lot — would pay a lot for an email client that dramatically sped up their experience. The bet is: if Superhuman could create a product that saved customers an hour a day, $30 / month might be worth it for them.
Of course, to improve productivity for these super users, the software had to be fast. Really fast. To engineer this was no small feat - the team started writing code for it in 2015 and didn’t have a product complete until 2017 (even with 14 people!).
And not only did it have to be fast from an engineering perspective, but people had to use it quickly too. If the software was slick but users weren’t more productive, what’s the point?
To solve this, Superhuman requires each customer to have a 1-on-1 onboarding session with a Superhuman employee. In that session, users learn all the keyboard shortcuts, email templates and get to inbox zero — a first for many of them.
Superhuman doesn’t just sell software, they sell training on how to be more productive with email. Yes, it costs them something to provide, but given their high $30/mo price point, it probably pays for itself within one or two months of usage, and is key to delivering on the value they promise.
How many customers they’ll ultimately be able to attract — and whether they’ll be able to withstand discount copycats — remains to be seen.
Additional examples:
Summary: By targeting a subset of a market, a company can better serve the needs of the customer. This is an especially effective strategy for small companies because they can profit in a small market but avoid competition from larger firms.
The four strategies really are derived from two fundamental decisions:
Of course, neither of these questions actually has binary answers. What looks like a “focused” strategy today may end up becoming overly broad in the future, as firms spring up to serve ever-more-specific needs of customers. And what seems like a fundamental trade-off between low cost and premium differentiation can get pretty blurry in practice.
Take Facebook and Google, for example. Which strategy are they pursuing? In the market for advertising, they are both differentiated and low-cost relative to TV, newspapers, magazines, and podcasts.
Because they don’t need content creators, it costs them very little to generate a supply of attention. And yet, their ability to target advertisements to specific people at specific times is hugely valuable to their customers, and can’t be matched by other forms of advertising.
This is where a Michael Porter line from 1998, which he wrote the introduction to the second edition of Competitive Strategy, comes in handy:
“Sometimes companies such as Microsoft get so far ahead that they seem to avoid the need for strategic choices, but this becomes their ultimate vulnerability.”
In order to stay ahead, Facebook and Google need to ultimately pick a side: low cost, or differentiated. Do they need to offer a lower price than alternative forms of advertising, or charge a premium for advanced targeting functionality? It depends.
For now, they have a lot of option value. But if new entrants were to come into the market and threaten their position, they’d need to know which side they were on in order to respond effectively.
What about Amazon? In one sense, it’s clear that they’re pursuing a “broad + low cost” model. But their business is actually more complex than that, and it’s interesting to take note of.
Amazon isn’t just one business. It’s a company that owns hundreds of businesses. Most of these are built around the core “broad + low cost” model, but that’s not necessarily true of all of them. For example, their advertising business is actually “broad + differentiated” because people searching on Amazon have so much intent to purchase, it’s possible for them to charge a premium.
In general, the unit of analysis for strategy is the business, rather than the firm. The lines between firms, businesses, and products can get blurry, but it’s important to try and keep them separate.
This post was co-written with Adam Keesling, who is awesome. You should follow him on Twitter.
If you liked this post, press the purple “like” button so we know to do more like it :)
Also, I’d love to hear what you think! Are these four strategies really exhaustive, or can you think of companies that might be the exception to the rule? Leave a comment.
Join 100,000+ leaders, builders, and innovators

Already have an account? Sign in.
Daily insights from AI pioneers + early access to powerful AI tools
Comments