Each company often seeks to become the market leader in products and or services they provide. It would be easier if the product or service is new in the market. So when a product or service may be acceptable to the market, it will immediately become a leader.
Most people have started to suggest that sell products and or services that are not in the market so that we can control the market since the beginning and not have to bother to face the challenges of entrepreneurs who have started first. But it can not be enough to guarantee, because not necessarily also be the first to enter the market, we will automatically become the market leader.
But let's say that by all means, either normally or because there are regulations that provide the opportunity for your company to a monopoly, the company that later became the market leader. Is it true that you will be safe?
Depending on how you think. If your employer is already a market leader in more than 20 years and has become incumbent company then maybe you'll feel safe. Because such companies are still be long until the company went bankrupt. Especially if this is the place you work is the incumbent company, in this country not just the state that will be maintained to stay alive, even private companies have long operated even when it can be considered a state asset.
But is it true you want your company does more than stay alive than be able to support you with pretty decent? Indeed, to say thanks and that the company can stay alive only and can support you with a minimum standard of living standard of course everyone has to be grateful.
But to my knowledge has been much written that states that a company created to multiplying wealth is not only creating wealth. That means all those involved in the company should obtain welfare and whenever time passes then welfare must be doubled.
Then what is the cause of an incumbent company could lose their market share even lose a lot of income that has been successfully they achieve? Not much cause except one thing: be a leader.
So, that is be a leader is a mistake?
Depending on your point of view only. But for me, be a leader is a fire. When we can control the fire to keep warm and encouraging the fire to be very useful. But no one would dare leave the fire unattended. When you are camping and make the bed, always have to remember to not let the fire burn itself when you go to bed.
Similarly, be a market leader. Your company's position as market leader is very interesting to pursue. If the business you are running does not have competitors it is rather difficult to set targets or target company. But when the business already has many competitors, it became the market leader is a very exciting target.
Even when one of your company's competitors has become the market leader, then all firms in the same field would make the achievement of the company as a target. Still remember my article titled "Competition Formula One"?
In these writings I stated that it would be better if every company is trying to be better than their competitors, when tried to snatch the leader position. Get more customers and gain more revenue because it provides the quality product or service better.
So, let's say one day the entire enterprise in this beloved country, while vying for the position of leader, made efforts to be better than competitors, so what?
That is precisely the problem for me and you who own or work at a company. That our company that may have become a leader will lose market share. Just like when the F1 driver was overtaken by their opponents.
But, does that risk become a leader?
Oops, you ask questions that are very precise. Indeed so. Michael Schumacher is also aware of it. Raikonen, Montoya, Alonso, Massa, Barichello aware of it. All had been a most unlikely leader for a lap or at the time of pool position. And all also been overtaken by competitors even when they become leaders. Not only that, even some of them later defeated by a competitor who overtook them earlier.
Then why they could overtaken competitors abandoned even though they've been a leader after a few laps? Then why the company became the market leader company overtaken by competitors who were probably not taken into account?
Answers to two questions were the same. Off guard. Can be several different answers in detail proposed but if you want to be one word in answer, yes just one: the guard.
Negligent of the needs of consumers. Changing consumer needs, leading to product quality and service standards are also to be changed. So when a consumer needs change, the company also needs to be changed. Quality standards are often set by the consumer. No matter you are a black belt in Six Sigma concepts, but when you do not change the standards of quality, then you are not getting 3.4 errors per million products (defects per million opportunities) but you might get an error 690 000 per millions of products (DPMO) or 1 sigma alone. And that's still lucky compared to none of the products or services of the company you work in an acceptable quality level of the consumer.
You and many writers of books will have a long list of inadvertence what can happen to the market leader so they can be overtaken by its competitors. Just like the overtake Gudang Garam, Sampoerna, and a long list of salip because of careless overtaking.
've Never read The Next Global Stage Kenichi Ohmae was not it? Have you seen how the most recent 3 C Ohmae acknowledges that its no longer be made the list for sure which ones to competitors and which can be said as a consumer?
So for every market leader of the most important thing is not negligent. Look carefully at the consumer voice. Consumers can change the direction of the company. Even now the company is no longer easy to define what Business Are We in. What Sony's business? Radio, Tape, TV? They had long sold the playstation right? Electronic? They even invited Ericsson to sell mobile phones. So what are Sony's business in?
What are Toshiba's business in? They sell televisions, refrigerators but also sell laptops. So what?
If the company is no longer able to easily define what Are We in business, according to Ohmae, just as hard when companies were asked who their customers, as well as hard to ask who their competitors (please check out my article titled "Competition No Longer Straight" - in the book business "Horse Eye").
So the most important challenge for all companies is not complacent. The company remains an institution that multiplying wealth. What's changed now is that consumers who decide what Are We in business, and also consumers who set the standard calculation of six sigma quality so we even have adaptable.
So, yes there are no other words: do not be careless!
Most people have started to suggest that sell products and or services that are not in the market so that we can control the market since the beginning and not have to bother to face the challenges of entrepreneurs who have started first. But it can not be enough to guarantee, because not necessarily also be the first to enter the market, we will automatically become the market leader.
But let's say that by all means, either normally or because there are regulations that provide the opportunity for your company to a monopoly, the company that later became the market leader. Is it true that you will be safe?
Depending on how you think. If your employer is already a market leader in more than 20 years and has become incumbent company then maybe you'll feel safe. Because such companies are still be long until the company went bankrupt. Especially if this is the place you work is the incumbent company, in this country not just the state that will be maintained to stay alive, even private companies have long operated even when it can be considered a state asset.
But is it true you want your company does more than stay alive than be able to support you with pretty decent? Indeed, to say thanks and that the company can stay alive only and can support you with a minimum standard of living standard of course everyone has to be grateful.
But to my knowledge has been much written that states that a company created to multiplying wealth is not only creating wealth. That means all those involved in the company should obtain welfare and whenever time passes then welfare must be doubled.
Then what is the cause of an incumbent company could lose their market share even lose a lot of income that has been successfully they achieve? Not much cause except one thing: be a leader.
So, that is be a leader is a mistake?
Depending on your point of view only. But for me, be a leader is a fire. When we can control the fire to keep warm and encouraging the fire to be very useful. But no one would dare leave the fire unattended. When you are camping and make the bed, always have to remember to not let the fire burn itself when you go to bed.
Similarly, be a market leader. Your company's position as market leader is very interesting to pursue. If the business you are running does not have competitors it is rather difficult to set targets or target company. But when the business already has many competitors, it became the market leader is a very exciting target.
Even when one of your company's competitors has become the market leader, then all firms in the same field would make the achievement of the company as a target. Still remember my article titled "Competition Formula One"?
In these writings I stated that it would be better if every company is trying to be better than their competitors, when tried to snatch the leader position. Get more customers and gain more revenue because it provides the quality product or service better.
So, let's say one day the entire enterprise in this beloved country, while vying for the position of leader, made efforts to be better than competitors, so what?
That is precisely the problem for me and you who own or work at a company. That our company that may have become a leader will lose market share. Just like when the F1 driver was overtaken by their opponents.
But, does that risk become a leader?
Oops, you ask questions that are very precise. Indeed so. Michael Schumacher is also aware of it. Raikonen, Montoya, Alonso, Massa, Barichello aware of it. All had been a most unlikely leader for a lap or at the time of pool position. And all also been overtaken by competitors even when they become leaders. Not only that, even some of them later defeated by a competitor who overtook them earlier.
Then why they could overtaken competitors abandoned even though they've been a leader after a few laps? Then why the company became the market leader company overtaken by competitors who were probably not taken into account?
Answers to two questions were the same. Off guard. Can be several different answers in detail proposed but if you want to be one word in answer, yes just one: the guard.
Negligent of the needs of consumers. Changing consumer needs, leading to product quality and service standards are also to be changed. So when a consumer needs change, the company also needs to be changed. Quality standards are often set by the consumer. No matter you are a black belt in Six Sigma concepts, but when you do not change the standards of quality, then you are not getting 3.4 errors per million products (defects per million opportunities) but you might get an error 690 000 per millions of products (DPMO) or 1 sigma alone. And that's still lucky compared to none of the products or services of the company you work in an acceptable quality level of the consumer.
You and many writers of books will have a long list of inadvertence what can happen to the market leader so they can be overtaken by its competitors. Just like the overtake Gudang Garam, Sampoerna, and a long list of salip because of careless overtaking.
've Never read The Next Global Stage Kenichi Ohmae was not it? Have you seen how the most recent 3 C Ohmae acknowledges that its no longer be made the list for sure which ones to competitors and which can be said as a consumer?
So for every market leader of the most important thing is not negligent. Look carefully at the consumer voice. Consumers can change the direction of the company. Even now the company is no longer easy to define what Business Are We in. What Sony's business? Radio, Tape, TV? They had long sold the playstation right? Electronic? They even invited Ericsson to sell mobile phones. So what are Sony's business in?
What are Toshiba's business in? They sell televisions, refrigerators but also sell laptops. So what?
If the company is no longer able to easily define what Are We in business, according to Ohmae, just as hard when companies were asked who their customers, as well as hard to ask who their competitors (please check out my article titled "Competition No Longer Straight" - in the book business "Horse Eye").
So the most important challenge for all companies is not complacent. The company remains an institution that multiplying wealth. What's changed now is that consumers who decide what Are We in business, and also consumers who set the standard calculation of six sigma quality so we even have adaptable.
So, yes there are no other words: do not be careless!
Keyword Search for this article
motivation, motivational quotes, motivational quotes quotes, quotes motivational, motivational quotes for, quotes motivational quotes, motivational quotes, motivational quotes, quote motivational, quotes motivation, quotes of motivation, quotes about motivation, quotes for motivation, motivational quotes, positive quotes, quote of motivation, quote for motivation, quote motivation, business quotes, motivational speaker, motivational speakers, what is job motivation, job motivation, motivational stories, employee motivation, motivational speeches, business quotations, staff motivation, what is staff motivation, motivational sayings
0 comments:
Post a Comment