PERSONAL /COMPETITOR SPECIAL WHAT I LEARNT FROM MY COMPETITOR (1)

PERSONAL /COMPETITOR SPECIAL WHAT I LEARNT FROM MY COMPETITOR(1)





When Apple launched its 4.7-inch iPhone 6 and 5.5-inch iPhone 6 Plus in September 2014, not many were surprised, because there had been enough reports indicating that Apple was ready to move beyond phones with a 4-inch screen. That did not stop tech commentators from pointing out after the launch how Steve Jobs had rubbished big phones and said no one would buy them. But Samsung, LG and other handset makers had shown Apple that big handsets did sell and people couldn't have enough of them. Apple could not continue to ignore the demands for a larger phone so it took a leaf out of its competitors' books and followed suit. Apple may not admit to learning from its rivals but in this case, it clearly did.

Following your rivals' actions closely and learning from them, whether they are successes or failures, is par for the course -in fact essential -in any competitive arena. Some have no trouble acknowledging their competitors' contribution to their growth. Younis Khan is a case in point. The Pakistani batsman said earlier this year that he owed his success as a number three batsman in Test cricket to Rahul Dravid, who had advised Khan on his batting technique.

ET Magazine asked a cross-section of achievers -in business, sports and politics -what is the most valuable lesson they have learnt from their competitor. Their responses range from key learnings specific to their field to insightful life lessons. Read on!

Create Brands in Consumers' Minds, Not on the Shop Floor“

Rajiv Bajaj, managing director, Bajaj Auto

CLAIM TO FAME: Brought the company back from the brink as a motorcycle maker to reckon with, with models like Pulsar and Discover

THE LESSON: I have learnt valuable lessons from all my competitors. And I need not necessarily see them as two-wheeler or four-wheeler makers. It began in the 1980s when I was in college. I constantly grappled with why Bajaj, so overwhelmingly dominant in the scooter world, was a laggard in motorcycles. We were always at No 4, the last. Inside our company, views differed. Some thought because we entered the segment last, we lagged. I was not convinced. Look at Maruti. It came 30 years later than Hindustan Motors -and has led the market.

A few argued that because Bajaj was so convincing a leader in scooters it couldn't lead in other segments. I disagreed. Being strong in a segment cannot be such a huge liability in the others.

Some felt that Bajaj dealers were a problem - they were complacent, not hungry. Others blamed Bajaj's advertising; yet others felt rivals had superior product quality. That too didn't make much sense to me. There are so many products with issues around quality but they still do well in the market.

Today, we are good in big motorcycles but have not been able to do much in smaller bikes. Similarly Suzuki is doing so well in big bikes but not in small ones. And Hero MotoCorp, big in small bikes with half of the domestic market, has not been able to do much in the bigger bike segment. Similarly, Hero lags in scooters. Honda is big in scooters but small in motorcycles. And TVS has a virtual monopoly in the moped segment but barely has double-digit share in scooters and motorcycles. Similarly, in the small three-wheeler segment, we have close to 90% marketshare. But in big three-wheelers Piaggio is the leader.

People have no problem buying Tata trucks. But in cars Tata Motors is struggling.

Mahindra is strong in SUVs but is struggling to move into other segment. Toyota and Honda have prestigious mid-size car brands in India but are today struggling with Etios Liva and Brio, respectively.

Logically you feel a strength in one area should extend to another. But it does not happen that way. Alec Issigonis, doyen of the British car industry, once said: “Fashion dates. But logic is timeless.“ I have my spin to that one: “Fashion dates but perception is timeless.“

So here's what I have learnt from my competitors. Marketing is not logical. Better is not different. I am an engineer and as an engineer you think that if we make a better product the customer will switch. But customer switches not because it is better but because it is different. And, finally, customer satisfaction and customer acquisition are not the same thing. Kaizen, quality improvement and the like can help you get customer satisfaction but not customer acquisition. The latter is a very different game.

The biggest lesson I learnt is that the leaders are not those who create products but who create categories. It's not about selling products but selling perceptions. Bajaj scooter was selling creating a category not a product. Being first to create a category matters. Look at our scooter, the three wheeler, Maruti 800, our Pulsar. Think of a successful company and its products and you will see how successfully it created a new category. I feel the same will apply for our quadricycle Qute. It has no new feature or technology. But it does create a new category in the four-wheeler segment. Technology and quality is important but not sufficient and necessary condition for success. Newton said your solution has to be innovative only in the context of the problem you are solving. And I think it is really true.

To me, brand means only one thing -did it create a new category? As a company, we have to create brands in the minds of people, not on the shop floor. And that's a big learning that my competitors have taught me.

(As told to Malini Goyal)

ETM27DEC15

MORE TO FOLLOW