Integrated Strategy: Residual Market and Exchange Imperfections as the Foundation of Sustainable Competitive Advantage

Felix  Oberholzer-Gee; Dennis  Yao

Article | Strategy Science

Integrated Strategy: Residual Market and Exchange Imperfections as the Foundation of Sustainable Competitive Advantage

Abstract

Market imperfections are central to understanding the mechanisms that permit firms to capture value. Many of these imperfections are competed away when firms struggle to attain and defend competitive advantages, making markets more efficient in the process. The remaining imperfections can become a primary impetus for government intervention. Hence, an understanding of residual market imperfections—those imperfections that persist after market competition and regulation are accounted for—must inform any assessment of the long-term attractiveness of firm strategies. Our framework provides an integrated view of competition and government intervention, two of the principal forces that influence variation in firm profitability.

Keywords: integrated strategy; competitive advantage; nonmarket strategy; Market imperfections; Strategy; Competitive Advantage; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, and Dennis Yao. "Integrated Strategy: Residual Market and Exchange Imperfections as the Foundation of Sustainable Competitive Advantage." Special Issue on Strategy and the Institutional Environment edited by Gautam Ahuja, Laurence Capron, Michael Lenox, and Dennis A. Yao. Strategy Science 3, no. 2 (June 2018): 463–480.

Zhejiang Geely Holding Company's acquisition of Volvo cars was widely viewed with skepticism because of the poor track record of cross-border auto industry acquisitons. This case looks at the acquisition and post-acquisition integration from the point of view of Chinese managers at Geely. A companion case, 613-042 Volvo Cars: Acquisition by Geely looks at the acquisition from the point of view of Swedish managers at Volvo.

In 2000, Procter & Gamble Co. introduced Crest Whitestrips, a new, revolutionary product that allowed consumers to whiten their teeth at home. With Whitestrips, P&G created an entire new category in oral care, worth $460 million in 2002. Whitestrips sent P&G's main competitor in oral care, Colgate Palmolive Co., scrambling because several patents protected the strips, making it difficult for Colgate to copy the invention. But in September 2002, the tables turned. Colgate introduced Simply White, a favorably priced whitening product that consumers could simply paint on their teeth. One month after its introduction, Simply White had captured one half of the market, and Crest Whitestrips lost more than 50% of its share. However, P&G's tests of Simply White indicated that Colgate's new product was largely ineffective. Had Colgate just committed a major strategic blunder by introducing a product that did not work? And, if so, how could P&G best take advantage of the situation?

Faculty & Research

Integrated Strategy: Residual Market and Exchange Imperfections as the Foundation of Sustainable Competitive Advantage

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors