Register now or log in to join your professional community.
I have no knowledge or experience of the subject in question but I am sure you will get some insights and concrete answers from others who do. Thank you
The main reason for blaming "red oceans" is the "lack or readiness" to cope with what it takes to survice and propser in these red oceans.
To clarify further, if a company enjoyed (1) exclusivity (2) monopoly (3) government protection (4) favoring bias (5) low competition .... etc ... etc and then things changed for them removing such factors away, their blue ocean turns red very quickly and they can no further survice in the new atmosphere !!
When I said lack of readiness, I try also to blame the "lazy" and"relaxed" attitude these companies usually develop and adopt after living so long in the "comfort zone" of their own blue oceans !!
because people are more familiar with the rules of red ocean and understand it. it is like a sport contest.
1. Beat your rivals and expand your share in market.
2. Make your product/service as good as possible.
...
But the rules of blue ocaen are totally different:
1. differentiate your position in market by innovative solutions
2. try to respond customers' needs and requirements,
........
price-cutting dilemmas, stealing of each other’s customers and execution of similar and costly distribution strategies.
no follow up internaly and externaly
A steady company tends tp keep the financial line steady consistant case.
Creativity needs bravery to spend more money in trials ans training to achieve new industries by implementing outstanding objecties and do the best to gain more and more. This procedure creating the blue oceans.
The main reason for that is that corporate strategy is heavily influenced by its roots in military strategy. The very language of strategy is deeply imbued with military references—chief executive “officers” in “headquarters,” “troops” on the “front lines.” Described this way, strategy is all about red ocean competition. It is about confronting an opponent and driving him off a battlefield of limited territory.
Focusing on the red ocean therefore means accepting the key constraining factors of war—limited terrain and the need to beat an enemy to succeed. And it means denying the distinctive strength of the business world—the capacity to create new market space that is uncontested.
The tendency of corporate strategy to focus on winning against rivals was exacerbated by the meteoric rise of Japanese companies in the1970s and1980s. For the first time in corporate history, customers were deserting Western companies in droves. As competition mounted in the global marketplace, a slew of red ocean strategies emerged, all arguing that competition was at the core of corporate success and failure. Today, one hardly talks about strategy without using the language of competition. The term that best symbolizes this is “competitive advantage.” In the competitive-advantage worldview, companies are often driven to outperform rivals and capture greater shares of existing market space.
Of course competition matters. But by focusing on competition, scholars, companies, and consultants have ignored two very important—and, we would argue, far more lucrative—aspects of strategy: One is to find and develop markets where there is little or no competition—blue oceans—and the other is to exploit and protect blue oceans. These challenges are very different from those to which strategists have devoted most of their attention.
The capability of the company to have variety in its business strategy not to be close on one products or one business sector this will keep the company moving forward through unsteady market.
sorry not mt experties,,
