The Apparent Competition. The Invisible Hand of Smith and the Natural Selection of Darwin.

Comments (0) Art & Culture

The apparent competition article seems tough and presumptuous in appearance, in fact wants to be a means to see the market in a different light and to take full responsibility of what happens to our companies.
In recent years as entrepreneurs everybody us I think we have understood some important things not only on the companies, but we can say about the life. One of these is the dysfunction in which you tend to read the market that seems very similar to the dysfunction of the reading that is done of the nature by Darwinian natural selection.
What does the market with Darwin are you asking? The basis of the speech is very simple, we start from the theory of Smith’s Invisible Hand, which essentially explain that the market, if left to act independently, produces by itself the necessary improvements to the community taking advantage of the personal search of profit. Now imagine the nature where the unique research of profit (food, territory and reproduction possibilities) lead to a competition that through natural selection (the correspondent of the Invisible Hand) will produce those improvements which render the species more and more strong, which is the collective improvement. It goes without saying that the competition high that derives produces an environment in balance because in continuous evolution, just like the Hand of Smith produces a balance in continuous innovation (the corrispondent of the evolution in a sense).
Whether in a case than in the other, what happens at the expense of those less strong that inevitably are left behind until they disappeared.
The vision of life and the market from this view, however, is really cruel and contemptuous of any form of solidarity and also of happiness. The problem is that you look at the selection, whether in nature or in the market, as the only thing that exists, the only governing law, while it although exists, is not the only one aspect of the natural life and of the market.
In fact the different individuals of a species and the species among them are actually much more in communion than in fighting and are also in crucial partnership in the lives of each other, who have created environments balanced of self-help. The same applies also for the companies, and not only for those in a vertical relationship from the same sector, that you could see how different organs of an unique biggest organism, but this also applies to those that compete horizontally on a same sector of the market.
The reasoning starts from an article that I read in 2003, about the opening of the Outlet Fidenza Village where just about the competition that could appear unbalanced between the outlet and the other stores, because of the prices exercised by the outlet, the Value Retail President (the holding company owner of the Outlet Villages International), Scott Makin, expressed as actually in Bicester, UK, where they built their first Outlet Village, downtown stores that sell the products at full price, after the opening of the Outlet had increased their turnover by 10% despite the Outlet sales were also good.
Why this had happened? Although customers may be for the biggest part of two different targets, it had to happen, at best a stalemate, but certainly not an increase in sales in the downtown shops .
What happened was that the two subjects together (the Outlet and the downtown shops) together they had more strength to pry the public, encouraging people to buy more than they could make alone. Together they managed to attract the attention of all who had never been interested in fashion. Outlets and traditional shops are a great example of apparent competition, because it really does not compete at all, but rather build an environment that pushes the same values (those of fashion brands) helping each other and thus being complementary.
This environment, however, can also occur for ones non-complementary.
Working on branding for companies from different sectors and recently also in the world the start-up, this idea of apparent competition appear to me increasingly strengthened.
What appear is that, when a company tries to push through its own products and its own marketing operations, a certain concept, who does the same in the same sector or into different ones, it seems competition, but really it is a beneficial.
From many years, at least fifteen, it started to talking about sustainability in the design and if apparently the companies seeking to sell their products exploiting this value added appear in competition, the reality is that together they built a market and a strong push towards to the consumer, stimulating him to the request for these products. They have created an environment balanced for what concern the relationship among supply-demand that a company with its own forces would not be able to create.
In the world of luxury this is always true and proves it the location strategy of the big names in fashion. These brands decide to have their store all in the same area of a city and all in the same city. Why? If we think only about the direct competition, which looks very similar in the results to what result from the natural selection, they should try to stay away because they would have less chance of “stealing customers from each other”. Why then they are so close? Because as mentioned before, they are stronger together and together they create an environment, a system that alone would not have the strength to create. The idea of luxury, of high fashion, of the new trend, whether conveyed by a single brand would not have the same social value that instead has if said by many, of course each with its own methods and its own jargon. The set of these brands creates a market niche so wide that the percentage of consumers that each of these manages to have is greater than that which would be able to have if it were alone to convey these values on the market.
So we can see in this desire to live together in the same spaces an example of how the competition are not the law that regulates the life of and between subjects, but is more than other an incentive to improve, the so-called push to innovation.
We note that often we lost energies, especially mental, trying to manage the competition as if we were at the helm of a boat that has to fight in a sea crowded with other boats that are trying to overcome us, to the same goal: profit.
There are concerns both about competitors than on the goals, then you do not notice that maybe the profit is not a goal, but the fuel and that competitors are others who want exactly what we want and that they often make advertising free for us when convey our values.
It is clear that if us we do not appear at the public eyes ever as feeders of these values, we will be forgotten as it should be because we are not doing our part. What I learned is that it is never the competition between individuals to ruin a company, that should never be attributed to the competitive environment a failure, but only to the not adaptability internal required by the evolution.
Finally, competitors are subjects apparently hostile that want what we want for us, but they are subject in reality allies that want what we want for us. Competitors are ideal subjects to help us create the environment we want. The important thing is to never give to the competition the authorship of our failures, because they depend solely of our inability to adapt to the evolution … sorry, to the innovation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.

Skip to toolbar