The 3 Generic Competitive Strategies And the Secret Behind How Asymmetric Brands Actually Use Them
What do asymmetric brands do differently in practice?
Any company can compete using one of three main strategic frameworks:
Cost leadership
Focus
Differentiation
This is what the books say. Asymmetric brands, too, when entering a market late and going up against the category's established players, use these three generic strategies.
But there's one thing they do differently in practice— And that's what sets them apart from ordinary brands.
The thing asymmetric brands do differently is this: Fanaticism.
They follow the path they've chosen with a fanatic level of discipline. They don't pretend. They passionately devote their entire organizations to one of these three paths. Their execution is intense.
And on top of that, they decorate the path they've chosen with touches that make it even more colorful.
Let's first look at these three competitive strategies— and see just how fanatical asymmetric brands can be.
The 3 Generic Competitive Strategies
Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter, often considered the father of competitive strategy literature, introduced three generic strategies that a company can use to outperform rivals:
Cost leadership
Focus
Differentiation
These are not like buying 100 grams of hazelnuts, 100 grams of pistachios, and 200 grams of salted peanuts. They're not meant to be mixed together.
Can some companies successfully combine them? Sure. It happens. But they are the exception, not the rule.
Let's go through them one by one:
1. Cost Leadership
The goal here is to become the lowest-cost operator in the entire category. The brand itself is built around this obsession.
The textbook example is Southwest Airlines. A solid modern example in retail would be Aldi or Costco—brands that aren't just "low price" but are systemically engineered for low-cost operations.
The entire organization—from top to bottom—is designed to run on minimal costs. Everyone in the company has to be "possessed" by this idea and apply it.
You give up a lot in exchange for reducing costs. No frills. No fluff. But costs drop so low that the company remains operationally profitable in any situation, while the brand—even if it doesn't appeal to everyone—secures a crystal-clear position in the minds of its target audience.
Just like how Aldi is incredibly clear in our minds. We know what to expect from them and what not to expect.
Southwest Airlines is the same way. It simply flies you from point A to point B at the cheapest price possible. That's it. If you want more—meals, service, business class, lounges—you choose another airline. This is very clear.
Both of these brands, when we think about their early days, were asymmetric brands. They applied cost leadership fanatically. That's how they created their difference. This is what separates asymmetric brands from ordinary ones: fanatic application.
Because as we all know, there are also brands that claim to be cheap and high-quality without making cheapness a company policy, without working to be cheap to their core, without creating and demonstrating any rationale for their cheapness. For example, while Kroger claims to be cheap, Target might claim something completely different. Which one is the real face of the brand?
Unless their rationale is clear and obvious, others' cheapness remains cosmetic. With Aldi and Southwest, cheap is structural. The difference is in this fanatic attitude.
2. Focus
Here, the goal is to become an expert in a narrow field and capture a clear slice of the market. Not all of it, just a slice...
There can be different varieties: A business can focus geographically on a specific market, focus on just one product type, or focus on a segment of potential customers.
The company goes deep in its focused area, specializes, and costs decrease. But on the other hand, fortunately, the brand's price can be higher compared to its generalist competitors. Because the brand begins to be perceived as an expert in a specific field in the potential customer's mind.
If you're buying premium canned tuna, you choose Ortiz, not StarKist. If you're shopping for kids' furniture, you go to Pottery Barn Kids, not IKEA. If you're buying a gaming laptop, you buy from Alienware, not Dell. Even if it costs more.
Or take Chime...
It focused only on a small segment of potential banking customers. Those customers immediately bought into the idea.
The critical point on this path is this:
For example, Ortiz...
It spends much less effort than what StarKist spends to produce and distribute dozens of other products and tuna... And it can still sell tuna at a higher price. This is the advantage of focused brands.
The difference of asymmetric brands using the focus strategy is, again, fanatic application.
Alienware doesn't launch budget office laptops for market share. Pottery Barn Kids doesn't produce adult bedroom sets. Ortiz doesn't try to sell juice lines like other generalist brands. Chime doesn't open a branch in Manhattan. At least not yet.
Ordinary brands, however, get tempted the moment they're squeezed or catch a whiff of slightly more revenue in the short term. They start dispersing their focus, expanding their product ranges in impossible ways.
Or like Stanley, which made thermoses for 100 years, they get excited about following trends and start producing backpacks. It rarely ends well.
Asymmetric brands, however, are fanatically committed to their focused area. There's a brand that's been producing nothing but wine glasses for 300 years, for example. Riedel. They only produce wine glasses. This is what fanaticism looks like.
3. Differentiation
Here, the goal is to create the "unique thing" in the category.
In other words, it's the complete opposite of the typical 'copycat strategy' of selling a cheaper copy of what already exists: Making something completely unlike what exists and selling it at a higher price.
Like today's Dyson, IKEA, or the early days of Swatch and Apple...
Is it easy? No.
But when it's mastered, it becomes a golden goose.
Isn't there risk? Yes.
Differentiation will require research, design, and high-quality materials that aren't ordinary. These are all costs...
It's a risky path and the truck might tip over. But the reward is also great.
Asymmetric brands also apply this path fanatically. They're not afraid to be different, they don't give up on innovation, and if necessary, they make themselves obsolete with their own innovations.
Ordinary brands, however, don't approach differentiation fanatically.
Their understanding of being 'different' is about as much as the difference between a Chinese person and a Japanese person. They can't dare to be more different. If their competitor looks Chinese, they can at most look Japanese.
If you're not from the Far East, can you even tell the difference? It's a timid, safe kind of 'difference.
But asymmetric brands are fanatic and bold about differentiation.
This framework isn't a secret. It's not my invention either. It exists in the literature.
Every brand somehow tries to apply one of these three paths.
The difference of asymmetric brands is that they choose one of these paths and apply it fanatically and passionately.
This fanaticism makes them strong and sharp.
Even if you don't want to, even if you're not interested, you're forced to notice them.
Fanaticism shows.
Ordinary brands, however, often just pretend.
And asymmetric brands have one more trick.
While they follow the book fanatically in their applications, they step outside the book from other angles, decorating their applications in impossible ways, making them even more eye-catching.
We'll talk about that in the coming weeks.