In other words, life inside a cost leader looks very different from life inside a differentiator. In a cost leader, managers are forever looking to better understand the drivers of costs and are modifying their operations accordingly. In a differentiator, managers are forever attempting to deepen their holistic understanding of customers to learn how to serve them more distinctively. In a cost leader, cost reduction is relentlessly pursued, while in a differentiator, the brand is relentlessly built. Customers are seen and treated very differently. At a cost leader, nonconforming customers—that is, customers who want something special and different from what the firm currently produces—are sacrificed to ensure standardization of the product or service, all in the pursuit of cost- effectiveness. At a differentiator, customers are jealously guarded. If customers indicate a desire for something different, the firm tries to design a new offering that the customers will adore.

And if a customer leaves, the departure drives a stake in the heart of the firm, indicating a failure of the strategy with that customer. It is as simple as the difference between Southwest Airlines and Apple.

Both cost leadership and differentiation require the pursuit of distinctiveness. You don’t get to be a cost leader by producing your product or service exactly as your competitors do, and you don’t get to be a differentiator by trying to produce a product or service

identical to your competitors’. To succeed in the long run, you must make thoughtful, creative decisions about how to win. In doing so, you enable your organization to sustainably provide a better value equation for consumers than competitors do and create competitive advantage.

At a high level, the choice is whether to be the low-cost player or a differentiator. But the how of each strategy will differ by context. Cost leaders can create advantage at many different points—sourcing, design, production, distribution, and so on. Differentiators can create a strong price premium on brand, on quality, on a particular kind of service, and so forth. Remember that there is no one single how-to-win choice for all companies. Even in a single market, it is possible to compete in many different ways and succeed. Choosing a how-to-win approach is a matter of thinking both broadly and deeply, in the context of the playing fields available to the company.

The horizontal axis determines which entity will capture the industry value—suppliers, producers, or buyers. If the suppliers are larger and more powerful than the producers, the suppliers will appropriate more of the value (think Microsoft and Intel in the PC business). If, on the other hand, the buyers are large and powerful, they will get a greater portion of the

value (think Walmart versus the many small manufacturers whose products fill their shelves). The degree to which there is fierce rivalry affects which group captures value too. If rivalry between competitors is high, the dynamic will facilitate the appropriation of value by suppliers or buyers. A low degree of rivalry will protect profitability for the producers. At P&G, the analysis of segment attractiveness was occasionally a decisive factor in setting the strategy. For Bounty, geographic segmentation, paired with an understanding of consumer preferences, demonstrated that the paper- towel business was only structurally attractive for P&G in North America, due to massive overcapacity and low willingness to pay in the rest of the world. The industry featured high rivalry, high buyer power, and plenty of substitutes. When assessing segment attractiveness for Crest, P&G came to realize that the health segment was not only the largest, but also the most structurally attractive.

Health claims need to be backed by clinical trials, and few companies—really only P&G and Colgate-Palmolive—have the resources and experience to play that game on an ongoing basis. This kind of analysis—crunching the numbers on the size and appeal of different segments—is crucial to determining the range of attractive where-to-play choices.

The other half of an analysis of relative position relates to cost and the degree to which the organization can achieve approximate cost parity with competitors or distinctly lower costs than competitors. These are the key questions to consider on this front: does the organization have a scale, branding, or product development advantage that enables it to deliver a superior value offering at the same cost as the cost incurred by competitors? Or, does it have a scale advantage, a learning-curve advantage, a proprietary process, or a technology that enables it to have a superior cost position? The answers to these questions start to put parameters around the myriad how-to-win options.