Move guide
Name the advantage and where you can win
Your report suggested a move on at least one of these four practices:
- whether the source of advantage is named;
- honesty about where you can win;
- where the strategy's insight comes from;
- whether competitors' moves are anticipated.
This move guide makes you finish the sentence "customers choose us because…" with evidence. It scores where you can win, finds one insight competitors cannot download, and thinks through what rivals will do when you move.
1. When it applies
Use this move guide if your report placed any of these four practices in the lowest two stages.
| Practice | Where it may sit today | Where this move guide aims |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the source of advantage is named | Lagging: "No source of advantage is named, or the answer is 'service and relationships', like everyone else." Basic: "Claimed advantages exist but no evidence distinguishes them from industry table stakes." |
Competent: "The advantage is named and supported by evidence and share, margins, retention or win rates prove it." |
| Honesty about where you can win | Lagging: "The business believes it can win everywhere it chooses to show up." Basic: "Ability to win is asserted per market, not assessed." |
Competent: "Attractiveness and ability-to-win are scored honestly by segment, and the weak quadrants are named." |
| Where the strategy's insight comes from | Lagging: "The strategy contains no fact a competitor doesn't also have." Basic: "Insight comes from the same industry commentary and conference circuit as everyone else's." |
Competent: "Primary research and analysis work (e.g. customer conversations, front-line data, proprietary own analysis) contributes real input." |
| Whether competitors' moves are anticipated | Lagging: "Competitors appear in the strategy only as a market-share pie chart." Basic: "Competitor moves are discussed after they happen." |
Competent: "For each major move, the likely competitive response has been thought through." |
If all four already sit at the middle stage or higher, skip this move guide.
It needs knowing your own numbers and your market first. The segment scoring uses that market page.
2. What to do
Four steps. They take four to six weeks.
- Finish the sentence "customers choose us because…" with evidence, such as retention, win rates or a price premium. If you cannot, the blank is your first priority. The source-of-advantage worksheet does this.
- Score each segment on how attractive it is and on your ability to win it. The segments that score low on both are your exit shortlist. The ability-to-win worksheet does this.
- Commission one piece of primary insight this quarter, such as customer research or front-line data that competitors cannot download. The privileged-insight worksheet does this.
- Before your next major move, run a war game. Play out each main competitor's response from its own economics. The competitor-response worksheet does this.
The four free worksheets do the recording:
- /worksheets/strategy/source-of-advantage for the sentence and its evidence;
- /worksheets/strategy/ability-to-win for the segment scores;
- /worksheets/strategy/privileged-insight for the insight;
- /worksheets/strategy/competitor-response for the war game.
3. What to produce
One table, plus the four worksheets above.
Table A. The advantage test
| What we say sets us apart | The evidence (retention, win rate, price premium) | Do our rivals say the same? | Verdict: proven, claimed or none |
|---|---|---|---|
A claim every rival makes is no advantage. A claim with no evidence is a hope.
4. A worked example
Illustrative. Written for this move guide. It describes no client.
A software company sells payroll systems to mid-sized employers.
The sentence.
- The leadership's first answer was "our service and our people". Each of three rivals said the same on its website.
- The renewal data said something sharper. Customers with more than one site renewed far more often than single-site customers, because the system handled several awards at once.
The segments.
- Multi-site employers scored high on attractiveness and on ability to win.
- Small single-site employers scored low on both, and went on the exit shortlist.
The insight and the war game.
- Twenty interviews with lost customers showed the main rival won on price, never on features.
- Before a price rise for multi-site customers, the team worked through the main rival's likely answer from its own economics.
Six weeks on.
- 1 advantage, named with evidence
- 4 segments scored
- 20 lost-customer interviews
On a retake, all four practices could be answered at the middle stage.
What it looked like in our work
From our own work. Figures changed.
An asset finance business set out, for each segment, its main competitors, its own strengths today, and what it said would set it apart. Our reviewer's note on the draft asked the hard question.
| Segment | Main competitors | Our strengths today | What we said would set us apart |
|---|---|---|---|
| Segment A | Four rivals, each with about a tenth of the market | A strong field sales force | Service excellence and operational efficiency |
| Segment B | Four rivals, each with a tenth to an eighth | Relationships, a field presence, local ownership | Service done right first time, and economies of scale |
| Segment C | Two kinds of rival, with comparable products | A broad product range | Online tools and new products |
Our reviewer's note on the draft: service excellence and efficiency are what every rival says. Are the competitors doing the same? Are we in fact catching up? What exactly would we do differently?
The note sent the team back to the evidence. Step 1 above sets the same test.
Your place on the cost curve
Illustrative.
Line up each player's unit cost against the price. In a strong position, your cost sits well below the price and the next entrant's sits above it. In a weak one, everyone's cost sits just under the price.
- Us: Unit cost $60
- Rival A: Unit cost $75
- Rival B: Unit cost $85
- Next entrant: Unit cost $110
- Market price: $100
Unit cost for each player, lowest first, under the market price.
- Rival A: Unit cost $80
- Us: Unit cost $88
- Rival B: Unit cost $90
- Rival C: Unit cost $93
- Next entrant: Unit cost $98
- Market price: $100
Unit cost for each player, lowest first, under the market price.
What customers choose on. Ask customers to weight what they buy on, then to rate each supplier on it.
- Weight (%)
- Us
- Rival A
- Rival B
| Weight (%) | Us: Rating (1 to 5) | Rival A: Rating (1 to 5) | Rival B: Rating (1 to 5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| On-time delivery | 35% | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| Price | 30% | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Technical support | 20% | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Range | 15% | 2 | 4 | 4 |
Each column is the weight customers give that criterion. Each line is one supplier's rating, from 1 to 5.
Play the rival before you move
Illustrative. The payoff logic is standard game theory.
A competitor-response game puts a small team in each rival's seat, working from that rival's economics. Two simple pictures show why it matters.
| Rival holds price | Rival cuts price | |
|---|---|---|
| We hold price | 3, 3 | 1, 4 |
| We cut price | 4, 1 | 2, 2 |
Our profit first, the rival's second, in made-up units. Each does better by cutting whatever the other does, so both end up worse off than if neither had cut.
- We decide how much capacity to build
- Large plant
- Rival enters1, -1
- Rival stays out5, 0
- Small plant
- Rival enters2, 1
- Rival stays out4, 0
- No plant
- Rival enters0, 4
- Large plant
Our payoff first, the rival's second, in made-up units. Start from the rival's replies. For each of our moves, take the reply that is best for the rival, then pick our best move.
| Round | What each team decides | What comes back |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Its opening move: price, capacity or entry | Each player's share, yearly profit and value |
| 2 | Its reply to the others' moves | The same, after the replies |
| 3 | Whether to strike a deal, hold, or change course | The same, and the range of outcomes |
Play the rivals' responses from their economics. Never discuss prices or plans with a competitor.
5. Effort and dependencies
- Head of strategyLeads the work and scores the segments.
- Sales and marketingSupply the evidence: retention, win rates and prices.
- Senior peopleTalk to customers, including the ones you lost.
What you need
- Retention, win rates and prices by segment.
- The market page from knowing your own numbers and your market.
- What you know of each main rival's costs and prices.
How long
- Four to six weeks.
What gets in the way. We have seen these in our own work:
- An advantage everyone claims. An asset finance business gave its selling point as "relationships and value". Every rival said the same.
- Competitors as a chart. Across the past strategies from our own work that we scored against this check, competitors appeared as share charts and a risk-register line. None set out how a rival would respond.
- Honesty mistaken for weakness. A food processor's own answer was that it had no advantage and was catching up. Saying so made the next choices clearer.
6. How will you know it worked?
The test is whether the evidence changes where you compete. Retake the check after the next planning round. Each of these should be true when you answer:
| Practice | You can answer Competent when | A document alone does not count if |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the source of advantage is named | The advantage is named, and retention, win rates, margins or share prove it. | The advantage is named, but nothing measured supports it. |
| Honesty about where you can win | Each segment is scored on attractiveness and ability to win, and the weak quadrants are named. | The scoring was done, but no segment was named as weak. |
| Where the strategy's insight comes from | Primary research or analysis of your own contributes real input to the strategy. | The insight is published market data anyone can buy. |
| Whether competitors' moves are anticipated | For each major move, the likely competitive response has been thought through. | Competitors appear only as share charts. |
The worked example is illustrative.
Think we've used your work without proper credit? Tell us and we'll fix it.