Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase

Developing a competitor analysis canvas

model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase: a

qualitative study of approaches, models and

concepts used by innovation-oriented

entrepreneurs, consultants and investors

Master Thesis

submitted at the

IMC Fachhochschule Krems

(University of Applied Sciences)

Master-Programme

“Marketing and Sales”

by

Sebastian GUTH

for the award of the academic degree

Master of Arts in Business (MA)

Thesis Coach: Klaus Kotek, MBA

Submitted on: 24.04.2015

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

„Ich erkläre an Eides statt, dass ich die vorliegende Masterarbeit (Diplomarbeit)

selbstständig verfasst, und in der Bearbeitung und Abfassung keine anderen als die

angegebenen Quellen oder Hilfsmittel benutzt, sowie wörtliche und sinngemäße

Zitate als solche gekennzeichnet habe. Die vorliegende Masterarbeit wurde noch

nicht anderweitig für Prüfungszwecke vorgelegt.“

Datum: 24.04.2015 Unterschrift

Statutory declaration

“I declare in lieu of an oath that I have written this master thesis myself and that I

have not used any sources or resources other than stated for its preparation. I

further declare that I have clearly indicated all direct and indirect quotations. This

master thesis has not been submitted elsewhere for examination purposes.”

Date: 24.04.2015 Signature

I

Preface

Start-ups have always been inspiring to me. The freedom and independence to

follow your own dreams instead of doing a job you get paid for is something I am

striving towards. But it is also the way how you can change things.

An entrepreneur does not accept how things are currently done, because he or she

is convinced that it can be done better.

Yet, there are questions that always need to be addressed. What is the customer

need? What is there on the market? What are competitors offering? How can it be

done better?

This master thesis therefore relates to these questions and how they can be

analysed, by providing a structure that facilitates the way of finding answers to them.

II

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to:

Klaus Kotek, MBA who actively supported me during the composition of my master

thesis and gave me valuable practical insights in the field of marketing in the course

of the master’s programme lectures.

Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Herwig Rollett, President of the Business Angel Institute who offered

me a co-operation partnership with the institute for the publication of the master

thesis and stood aside with scientific advice throughout the whole research process.

The Startup BOOTCAMP#1 of the IMC Founders LAB I participated in during the

period of the writing process, where I got myself confronted with the same questions

young entrepreneurs have to face in the pre-seed and seed phase of a company.

All interview partners who dedicated their time for contributing with their experiences

and ideas to the qualitative empiric part of the thesis.

Cornelia Kunstmann, Patrizia Pogacar and Evelyn Seidler who rendered me

tremendous assistance.

III

Abstract in English

Before founding a start-up, entrepreneurs need to develop an understanding for

their competitive environment. So far, academic literature has not yet specified how

start-ups proceed in this manner. Hence this master thesis investigates if start-ups

thereby use any specific models, tools, concepts or approaches. For this purpose,

an empirical study in the form of qualitative in-depth expert interviews was

conducted in which theories identified in the literature were assessed according to

their practical relevance. The results revealed that start-ups tend to combine

theoretic research with qualitative validation following the lean start-up method, yet

focus more on understanding customer needs than on competition. Regarding

competitive research procedures, start-ups in the pre-seed phase more often chose

to address strategic questions whereby models and concepts were used according

to their answering process. In order to structure these questions and models, the

author created a canvas model that provides a possible procedure in which the

questions are combined with models. The canvas can therefore be understood as

a step-by-step framework that can be applied by entrepreneurs to assess their

competitive environment.

Keywords: Strategic Marketing, Competitor Analysis, Start-ups

IV

Abstract in German

Vor der Gründung ihres Unternehmens müssen sich Startups ein Bild ihres

Wettbewerbsumfeldes machen. Bis dato hat sich die wissenschaftliche Literatur im

Speziellen nicht damit beschäftigt, wie Startups diesbezüglich vorgehen. Deshalb

wird in dieser Masterarbeit untersucht, ob Startups dabei irgendwelche spezifische

Modelle, Tools, Konzepte oder Vorgehensweisen verwenden. Zu diesem Zweck

wurde eine empirische Studie in Form qualitativer Tiefeninterviews mit Experten

durchgeführt, wo im Zuge der Literaturrecherche identifizierte Theorien hinsichtlich

ihrer praktischen Relevanz bewertet wurden. Die Ergebnisse legten nahe, dass

Startups prinzipiell theoretische Recherchen mit qualitativer Validierung in

Anlehnung an die Lean Startup Methode kombinierten, allerdings wurde der Fokus

mehr auf ein Verständnis des Kundenbedürfnisses, als auf den Wettbewerb gesetzt.

Hinsichtlich der Vorgehensweisen bei Wettbewerbsanalysen formulierten Startups

eher strategische Fragestellungen, bei denen Modelle oder Konzepte im Zuge der

Antwortfindungen verwendet wurden. Um diesen Fragestellungen und Modellen,

eine Struktur zu geben, entwickelte der Verfasser ein Canvas-Modell, wo die Fragen

mit den Modellen kombiniert werden. Das vorgestellte Modell versteht sich dabei

als schrittweise Handlungsempfehlung zur Analyse des Wettbewerbsumfelds,

welche von Gründern verwendet werden kann.

Schlüsselwörter: Strategisches Marketing, Wettbewerbsanalyse, Startups

V

Table of Contents

Preface ..................................................................................................................... I

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. II

Abstract in English ................................................................................................. III

Abstract in German ............................................................................................... IV

Table of Contents ................................................................................................... V

Table of Figures & Illustrations ............................................................................ VIII

List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................. IX

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introductory Words on the World of Start-ups ............................................ 1

1.2 Problem Statement and Definition of the Research Gap............................ 7

1.3 Research Question and Objectives .......................................................... 10

1.4 Chapter Outline ........................................................................................ 12

2 Definitions ....................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Description of a Start-up and its Traits ..................................................... 15

2.2 Company Stages and the Financing Lifecycle ......................................... 16

2.3 Definition of ICT and High-Tech Sectors .................................................. 17

3 Literature Review ............................................................................................ 19

3.1 Introductory Words about Competitor Analysis ........................................ 19

3.2 “Traditional” Models for Conducting a Competitor Analysis ..................... 22

3.2.1 A Step-by-Step Approach .................................................................. 22

3.2.1.1 Industry Analysis ......................................................................... 24

3.2.1.2 Industry Mapping ........................................................................ 28

3.2.1.3 Critical Success Factors ............................................................. 30

3.2.1.4 Competitor Profiling .................................................................... 31

3.2.1.5 Special Competitor Analysis ....................................................... 33

VI

3.2.1.6 Value Chain Analysis .................................................................. 34

3.2.1.7 Benchmarking ............................................................................. 36

3.2.1.8 Building a Competitive Advantage .............................................. 37

3.3 Entrepreneurial Approaches to Competitor Analysis ................................ 41

3.3.1 The Four Start-up Market Types According to Steve Blank ............... 42

3.3.1.1 Entering in an Existing Market .................................................... 42

3.3.1.2 Entering in a New Market ............................................................ 43

3.3.1.3 Re-segmenting an Existing Market ............................................. 44

3.3.2 Steve Blank’s View on Competitive Analysis ..................................... 45

3.3.3 Kim’s and Mauborgne’s Blue Ocean Strategy ................................... 48

3.3.4 Frameworks for the Creation of Blue Oceans .................................... 50

3.3.4.1 The Strategy Canvas .................................................................. 51

3.3.4.2 The Four Actions Framework and the ERRC Grid ...................... 53

3.3.5 Summary of the Blue Ocean Strategy ............................................... 54

4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 56

4.1 Method of Qualitative Data Collection ...................................................... 56

4.2 Methodology of Qualitative Research ...................................................... 57

4.3 Methodology of Qualitative Data Evaluation ............................................ 58

5 Empirical Part of the Thesis ............................................................................ 60

5.1 Analysis and Results of Qualitative Data ................................................. 60

5.1.1 General Comments on Competition and Competitor Analysis ........... 60

5.1.2 Comments on Market Understanding, Strategy and Differentiation ... 62

5.1.3 General Practices Regarding the Usage and Application of Models . 66

5.1.4 Findings on Hussey’s Step-by-Step Competitor Analysis Approach.. 67

5.1.5 Customer Need and Idea Verification ................................................ 68

5.1.6 How Markets are Analysed ................................................................ 70

VII

5.1.6.1 Applicability of Porter’s Five Forces to the Start-up Level ........... 71

5.1.6.2 Market Mapping as Inevitable Part of Market Analysis ............... 72

5.1.6.3 Critical Success Factor Definition ............................................... 74

5.1.7 Business Model Verification .............................................................. 76

5.1.8 Competitor Analysis Techniques and Graphic Depiction for Pitches . 78

5.1.8.1 Competitor Profiling .................................................................... 78

5.1.8.2 Competitor Matrix and Checklist ................................................. 79

5.1.8.3 Strategy Canvas ......................................................................... 81

5.1.8.4 Petal Diagram ............................................................................. 81

5.1.9 Benchmarking.................................................................................... 82

5.1.10 The Attainment of Competitive Advantages ................................... 83

5.2 Discussion of Qualitative Data ................................................................. 86

5.2.1 Comments on Differences between Theory and Empiric Results ...... 86

5.2.2 Presentation of the Competitor Analysis Canvas Model .................... 90

6 Limitations and Further Research ................................................................... 96

7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 98

References .......................................................................................................... 101

Appendix ............................................................................................................. 113

VIII

Table of Figures & Illustrations

Table 1: Top 13 Reasons why Start-ups fail............................................................ 3

Table 2: Summary of typical Components of a Business Plan ................................ 5

Table 3: Excerpt from a Model Example for CPM ................................................. 32

Table 4: The VRIO Model...................................................................................... 39

Table 5: Comparison of Blue and Red Ocean Strategies ...................................... 50

Table 6: Author's Example of a Competitor Checklist ........................................... 80

Table 7: Author's suggested Competitor Analysis Canvas Model ......................... 92

Graph 1: Company Stages and Financing Lifecycle ............................................. 16

Graph 2: Step-by-Step Approach .......................................................................... 23

Graph 3: Porter’s Five Forces ............................................................................... 25

Graph 4: Porter's Generic Strategies .................................................................... 26

Graph 5: Example Market Map ............................................................................. 30

Graph 6: Perceptual Mapping Example ................................................................ 34

Graph 7: Value Chain Analysis ............................................................................. 35

Graph 8: Summary of Competitive Advantage ...................................................... 40

Graph 9: Four Types of Start-up Markets .............................................................. 45

Graph 10: Blank's Petal Diagram .......................................................................... 47

Graph 11: Structure of a Strategy Canvas ............................................................ 51

Graph 12: An exemplary Strategy Canvas analysing the transportation industry.. 52

Graph 13: Structure of the Four Actions Framework ............................................. 53

Graph 14: The Step-by-Step Model of Summarising Content Analysis ................. 59

Graph 15: Steps of Idea and Customer Need Verification .................................... 69

Graph 16: Summary of Sequential Critical Success Factors ................................. 75

Graph 17: Exemplary Radar Chart ........................................................................ 80

IX

List of Abbreviations

ATL Above the Line

B2B Business to business

B2C Business to consumer

CSF Critical Success Factor

CPM Competitor Profiling Matrix

DACH Germany, Austria, Switzerland

ERRC Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, Create

FFF Family, Fools and Friends

FMCG Fast moving consumer goods

Four Ps Product, Price, Promotion, Place

GDP Gross Domestic Product

ICT Information and communications technology

IKT Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie

IP Intellectual Property

IPO Initial Public Offering

IT Information technology

KPI Key performance indicator

MBI Management Buy In

MBO Management Buy Out

MNC Multinational company

MVP Minimum viable product

OECD Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development

OCR Optical Character Recognition

OEM Original equipment manufacturer

X

PEST Political, economic, social and technological

ROI Return on investment

SME Small and medium-sized company

STP Segment, target, position

SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

US United States

USP Unique selling proposition

VC Venture capital

VRIO Valuable, Rare, Imitable, Organised

1

1 Introduction

This first chapter is intended to provide the reader with an introduction to the world

of start-ups. Furthermore, it describes the research problem and defines the

according research question. Apart from this, it outlines the thesis’ structure.

1.1 Introductory Words on the World of Start-ups

The rise of the so-called “new economy” has brought a paradigm shift in the design

of value generation processes across various industries, since the term is broadly

associated with the age of modern information society. Stuhr (2014, p.24) thereby

applies the new economy concept to three different levels of definitions. The first

one relates to the informational level which supports the seminal importance new

information and communication means such as the internet have brought in terms

of value creation. In its second meaning, the term describes industries that are

established in the ICT sector (information and communications technology). These

industries are typically comprised of IT companies that are engaged in computer,

software or internet related services. The third level relates to the world of start-ups

that embodies the essence of the new economy, namely innovating existing market

patterns and developing new industrial concepts.

Start-ups considerably challenge existing market conditions by constantly

innovating and consequently foster economic growth. According to Kane (2010,

p.2), who conducted a study on the contribution of start-ups to increased US-

employment, newly founded ventures generated an average of three million newly

created jobs annually between 1977 and 2005. The numbers show that start-ups

accounted for all net job creation whereas existing companies rather downsized

employees. Similarly, interned-driven markets in developed countries of the G-20

have been projected to grow at annual rate of 8 percent, which underlines how

significantly start-ups are engaged in the new economy (Dean, Digrande, Field,

Lundmark, O'Day, Pineda & Zwillenberg, 2012, p.6).

2

Given that numerous initiatives across the European Union have been initiated to

fund and support newly founded ventures, it appears that the European institutions

and governments have begun to realise the potential of start-ups to contribute to the

alleviation of the currently precarious economic situation (Varza, 2013). In the case

of Austria, start-ups together with newly founded companies created up to 200.000

jobs with a value added of 2,8% of the GDP in 2014 (Austrian Startups, 2013 p.12).

Therefore, one can conclude that the success of start-ups is in the interest of

economies.

However, the overwhelming majority of start-ups does not survive the first year or

even first months after foundation. About 90% of tech start-ups are not successful

and US venture capitalists apply a rule of thumb that 3 out of 4 start-ups will go out

of business (Dalakian, 2013). Yet, roughly only about 25% to 30% of venture capital

funded start-up companies fail (Gage, 2012). Moreover, it should be mentioned that

according to OECD data of member states, bankruptcy rates are less comparable

across countries, because they can be highly affected by national legislation as well

as the consequences of economic crisis (Organisation of Economic Co-Operation

and Development [OECD], 2012). In summary, it can be stated that establishing a

successful start-up involves overcoming major hurdles of all different kinds and

severe mistakes in the early stage may imply that a start-up company fails.

In addition to external obstacles such as regulative or legislative changes, a number

of internal factors could lead to failure. Several experts have a similar tenor

regarding the top reasons why start-up companies fail (Tobak, 2014; Deeb, 2013;

Skok, 2015; Vals, 2014; CB Insights, 2014; Griffith, 2014).

3

Source: Deeb, 2013

Primarily, entrepreneurs fail to recognize that their idea does not serve a relevant

customer need. In other words, the start-up's idea does not provide a unique solution

to a problem the customers face. Therefore, a potential product solution will often

not be scalable due to a lack of market that could be entered or developed. Other

top reasons indicate that start-ups either use a poorly developed strategy or

business model. As a result, they often run out of cash too early. The reason

therefore could be that revenues, which are generated by customers, cannot be

monetised timely or customer acquisition costs outweigh the actual customer life

time value.

Next to soft skills related issues, such as lack of leadership, failure in management

or team performance, one source of error leading to start-ups going out of business

concerns competition. Deeb (2013) even lists false market positioning caused by no

competitive research as the second most frequent diagnosis of business failure.

This means that entrepreneurs easily underestimate competition or even refrain

from analysing the competitive environment, because they are convinced of the

uniqueness of their idea. As competitors can stem from various industries they may

not immediately be detected as a direct threat. Start-ups typically forget to address

Table 1: Top 13 Reasons why Start-ups fail

1. Small or un-scalable idea

2. No competitive research – wrong market positioning

3. No go-to-market strategy

4. No focus

5. No flexibility – know when to cut losses

6. No passion or persistence

7. Wrong or incomplete leadership

8. Unincentivised or unmotivated team

9. No mentors or advisors

10. No revenue model

11. Less capital than needed – no venture capital experience

12. No long term roadmap to ROI

13. Bad luck or timing

4

strategic questions such as how to differentiate themselves and neglect the

importance of developing a USP or defining the value-added of the product or

service they offer. Similarly, entrepreneurs hardly elaborate concepts of how to react

to new market entrants or other developments such as technologic trends.

Misguided by an often unrepentant belief that their product or service will be the

“next big thing”, with which an inefficient market will be disrupted, start-ups often

assume that existing competitors will not fight back to retain their market share.

All these circumstances sketch a picture of a technician that invents an innovative

or even revolutionary product, which, however, does not meet the consumers’

needs, because competitors better communicate the value-added of their solutions.

Thus, having conducted a competitor analysis will have a significantly positive

impact on a start-up’s performance and consequently on the economy because

more start-ups will succeed.

Certainly, it needs more than knowing your competition in order to turn an idea into

a compelling product and then a viable start-up company. Prior to the stage where

a competitor analysis could be useful, several other strategic questions should be

first answered by the entrepreneur. For instance, these questions should deal with

the benefits of the potential product or service that will be provided to the customer.

Furthermore, entrepreneurs need to analyse how customers behave and what their

typical characteristics are. Similarly, the market that is intended to be entered by the

start-up as well as the product’s potential on the market ought to be clearly

researched (Spaeder, 2015).

Boué, Kehlbeck & Leonhartsberger-Heilig (2012, p.106) underline the importance

of start-ups considering these issues for the funding process. A strategy, measures

as well as an analysis of the market and competition should be therefore clearly

defined in a written business plan. The subsequent table shows typical components

that the business plan of a company should contain. Especially for start-ups that are

looking for funding such a business plan can serve as an indicator to potential

investors whether the entrepreneurs have conducted sufficient research about their

idea and the feasibility of its implementation. Business goals should be attainable

and realistic (Pinson, 2008, p.2.).

5

Source: Boué et al. (2012, p.169)

Table 2: Summary of typical Components of a Business Plan

Executive Summary Marketing and sales concept

Core messages and most relevant information

Target group characteristics

Customer touch point journey

Market entry strategy, timing and four Ps

The basic idea and type of business Prospective company development and

SWOT analysis

Description of problem solution

Description of customer need that is satisfied

USP

Stages of development of the product

Legal conditions

Production process and costs or entry barriers for

prospective competitors

Prospective company strategies

Trends and influencing factors on the

market

Sales planning on the strategic level

Innovation planning

SWOT Analysis

Company profile, organisation and management Risk analysis

Type of legal entity

Capital and shareholder structures

Management and employee competences

Implications about strategy and corporate culture

Measures for risk identification, tracking and

controlling

Technologic and capacity risks

Management and employee risks

Market and external risks

Market and competitor analysis Budgeting and cash flow-forecast

Market potential and sales volume

Market segments and strategies (for respective

regions, customer groups etc.)

Structure and market shares of competitors

Product range, strategies and competitive

advantages of competitors

Customer analysis (consumer behaviour, customer

need, demographic and psychographic details)

Political and legal influencing factors

Technologic influencing factors (e.g. product

innovation, substitution products)

Economic influencing factors (e.g. supply and

demand for a product, customer purchasing power,

degree of satisfaction in the market, influence of

currency fluctuations)

Sales turnover and cost forecasts

Investment planning and planning of

prospective capital requirements

Profit and loss forecasts

Balance and liquidity planning

KPI figures

Scheduling and milestone plan

Activity plan per employee

Milestone plan (revenue parameters

that need be achieved etc.)

Annex

6

Yet, a business plan is just a formally written document that should serve as a guide

for the intended business. Opinions about the sense of a business plan as

motivating factor for the founders to deal with internal and external implications of

the business idea diverge. Ultimately not everything can be planned or researched

and unexpected developments in the market cannot be anticipated (Brown, 2013).

As a result extensive planning does not necessarily imply guaranteed success

(Spors, 2007).

An alternative approach how to minimise this pre-programmed uncertainty of

success is the so-called lean startup concept of Steve Blank. The concept which

was popularised by Eric Ries (2011) is becoming more and more accepted among

start-ups worldwide (The Lean Startup, 2015). Instead of following the traditional

way of researching the market, writing a business plan, then developing the product,

setting up a team and hoping that the customer would buy it, some entrepreneurs

rather work with untested hypotheses. Instead of researching their validity, these

entrepreneurs prefer to test them empirically. As soon a hypothesis is accepted,

new hypotheses have to be assumed again and again, which will then be tested in

practice. In other words, instead of writing extensive business plans entrepreneurs

summarise their hypotheses in a framework named business model canvas, which

depicts how the company creates value for itself and its customers. Furthermore,

they interview potential business partners, customers and investors about the

elements of their business model, such as distribution channels, pricing or USP and

present them a minimum prototype in order to ask for product feedback. By following

this approach start-ups can avoid developing and marketing a product that the

customer does not need and which would therefore not get established on the

market. Alike, only relevant information can be quickly gathered. This iterative

approach motivates companies to elaborate a business model rather than to plan it

(Blank, 2013a, p.5).

To summarise, it can be stated that in the very beginning of a start-up there are a

number of strategic questions that should be addressed first, irrespective of whether

they are being researched or learned by receiving feedback. Acquiring some

understanding of the competitive environment and dynamics of a market is an

inevitable step for a start-up when developing a business model and strategy.

7

Thereby, it is reasonable that market, competitor, customer and other types of

analysis can go hand in hand. It is crucial that entrepreneurs conduct the

abovementioned analysis, because start-ups tend to make themselves believe

“there is no competition” too often. In fact, competition on a market does not

necessarily have a negative connotation. Rather, competition is proof of a market’s

existence where the best ideas succeed. Thus, start-ups need to find an answer to

how to differentiate themselves and make their ideas unique (Warrillow, 2011).

This thesis approaches the question of how start-ups conduct their competitor

analysis in the pre-seed phase. In addition to the scientific community, the

researcher intends to address with this thesis prospective entrepreneurs that would

like to found a start-up company as well. On the one hand the thesis summarises

concepts and approaches to competitor analysis found in academic literature. On

the other hand, qualitative empirical interviews with entrepreneurs, business angels,

venture capitalists and representatives of incubators have been conducted.

Thereby, the researcher investigated how these respondents approached

competitor analysis during the foundation of their own start-up companies and how

they would recommend to proceed in this matter. Hence, this research work should

not only be understood as master thesis comparing theories with empirical data. By

having asked successful founders and experts in the field of entrepreneurship about

their reflections on the subject, the reader, who might be an upcoming founder, will

be provided with practical information on what implications regarding competition

need to be taken into account.

1.2 Problem Statement and Definition of the Research Gap

In today’s fast-moving world of business, competition has become an evident

consequence of aspects such as globalisation, industrialisation, commercialisation

and modern communication means caused by technologic advance. Especially for

start-up companies the rise of the internet has brought tremendous opportunities to

quickly execute a business idea and to market a product or service. This change is

due to factors such as costs or duration of setting-up a business and the conduction

8

of market research that have been dramatically reduced and facilitated (O’Farrell,

2015). However, the almost infinite scope of information that the internet has given

everyone, allows customers to easily compare prices. Thus, the competitive

environment has heavily intensified (Schifferes, 2006). Hence, in order to enter

existing markets or to create new ones, it appears to be inevitable for start-up

companies to know about their competitive environment and to understand the

dynamics that drive the market.

The term competitor analysis covers a broad spectrum in the field of marketing and

strategic management, which is also where the most extensive literature on the topic

can be found. Just to name a few aspects relevant to competitor analysis, the

researcher has encountered in the course of his literature review the following

topics. So far, extensive research has been conducted on general aspects of

competitive strategies and scenarios (Fahey, 2003), competitor analysis

methodologies (Wilson, 1994) and theoretical constructs such as resource similarity

based on the Resourced-Based View (Chen, 1996). Furthermore, studies about

common competitor analysis practices of well-established companies (IsHak &

Subramanian, 1998), or firm resources and competitive advantage (Barney, 1991)

exist. Standard marketing or strategy literature on competitor analysis includes

comprehensive books, such as Porter’s “Competitive Strategy” (1980), “Strategic

management: from theory to implementation” by Hussey (2007), “Marketing-

Management” by Kotler & Bliemel (2001), “Marketing Concepts & Strategies” by

Dibb, Simkin, Pride & Ferrell. (2012) or Grant’s “Contemporary Strategy Analysis”

(2013) which prevalently approach the topic from the point of view of a well-

established company in the market or even of a MNC. Yet, the perspective of a start-

up company, not to mention one that is in the pre-seed phase, is not yet addressed

by literature. Even if basic principles of competition might remain similar

independent of company size, certain patterns, approaches or behaviours of large

companies cannot be broken down and applied to the start-up level.

Steve Blank (2014a), a renowned serial entrepreneur and academician explains the

difference by stating that a startup-company represents a temporary organisation

9

as it is searching for a repeatable and scalable business model, whereas an

established company is considered a permanent organisation that needs to execute

a proven business model. Since existing companies are focused on the execution

they often lack innovation or do not recognise upcoming competitors. By contrast,

due to the obviously smaller company size, start-ups mostly lack formal processes

and structures, while they exhibit far more agility and flexibility regarding

developments on the market. As a result, start-ups also show different needs

regarding the extent of competitive intelligence, since certain steps in the competitor

analysis appear to be irrelevant, or with respect to the venture’s lacking funds,

human resources and time even impossible.

By contrast, literature in the field of entrepreneurship covers the topic of competitor

analysis at the start-up level or provides a different point of view and general

recommendations with respect to market and competition. For instance, Blank

presents in “The Four Steps to the Epiphany” (2007) four types of markets that start-

up companies can typically enter and that consequently influence competitive

patterns. “Business Model Generation” by Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010) as well as

“Blue Ocean Strategy” by Kim & Mauborgne (2005) can be both considered as

standard literature for start-ups and recommend the application of the strategy with

the same name when approaching competition. The abovementioned lean startup

concept from “The Lean Startup” by Ries (2011) suggests a totally different

approach on how to proceed as a start-up, namely by getting early customer

feedback rather than conducting extensive research the perspective on how

competition is perceived will be also affected. Apart from that, literature from the

entrepreneurial field was also found that utilises concepts based on existing

academic sources, such as Cabage & Zhang (2013) or Kim, Nam & Stimpert (2004).

Moreover, extensive information on the start-up level can be found in non-academic

as well as online sources which provide recommendations on what aspects and

factors should be taken into account concerning competitor analysis. These mostly

include entrepreneurial or business magazines (Inc.; Forbes; Entrepreneur; The

Wall Street Journal), specialised start-up media websites (techcrunch.com;

10

thenextweb.com; venturebeat.com), or websites of opinion leaders from the start-

up ecosystem (steveblank.com; tomtunguz.com).

Empirical studies have been conducted in the field of competition or competitor

analysis and focus for instance on the differences between competitive behaviour

of SME and large companies (Chen & Hambrick, 1995), which however are

established in old economy industries. In general, empiric literature does not

address to what extent start-ups in the pre-seed phase conduct their competitor

analysis before setting-up the business model, or how a typical approach towards

the concrete procedure thereby could look like. It is therefore the intention of this

thesis to close the described research gap.

1.3 Research Question and Objectives

In order to close the described research gap the scientific purpose of this master

thesis is to shed lights on how and to what extent start-up companies in the pre-

seed phase conduct competitive analysis of the market they are entering. On the

one hand, this thesis contains a theoretic part in form of a literature review. In this

chapter, eligible concepts, procedures and tools found in academic literature that

could be used as reference models for analysing competition are summarised. On

the other hand, qualitative research in the form of in-depth expert interviews has

been conducted. These interviews provide comprehensive empirical evidence of the

respondents’ experiences as well as recommendations on how to proceed in the

pre-seed phase regarding the analysis of a start-up’s competitive environment. The

respondents have assessed the selected models according to their relevance,

plausibility and applicability for the conduction of a competitor analysis. The results

of the qualitative data are then presented and discussed in the thesis’ empirical part.

Accordingly, the research question reads as follows:

Based on reference models, such as Porter’s Generic Strategies and others,

to what extent are different competitor analysis approaches used by start-ups

in the pre-seed phase and how much benefit do they expect from each?

11

By using existing reference models, which illustrate competitive analysis

approaches in academic literature, the empirical work will be grounded in

established scientific theory and hence their applicability to specific situations of

start-ups in the pre-seed phase will be checked. In other words, an empirical

evaluation of the suitability of alternative competitor analysis approaches will be

simplified by utilising existing theories. The referencing of Porter’s Generic

Strategies should be seen only as an example of an established theory of

competitive behaviour, but in the literature review several other valid and suitable

theories are mentioned.

From a scientific point of view the objective of this master thesis is not only to close

the aforementioned research gap but also to test the practical relevance and the

accuracy of the models in real life, which constitute the theoretical counterpart of the

empirical data. Furthermore, as the respondents of the qualitative interviews have

different industry experiences, differences in factual usage of the presented

reference models or the use of any industry specific tools, patterns will be subject

to research. In addition, models that can be applied independent of industry will be

examined. Last but not least, the difference in usage as well as applicability between

older and newer models will be elaborated.

From a practical point of view, the outcome of the thesis will be a canvas model,

which represents a general research procedure for the conduction of a competitor

analysis in the pre-seed phase. Based on the empirical findings from the

interviewees, the canvas is intended to compactly recapitulate the major results of

the qualitative analysis and discussion in a graphic form. On the one hand,

entrepreneurs seeking to found a company could use this table in order to read off

“how others did it” or how they recommend to proceed with the competitor analysis.

In other words, the planned benefit of the table is to provide prospective

entrepreneurs with a “tool” that facilitates the conduction of a competitive analysis

of which strategic recommendations can be derived. Furthermore, according to the

respondents, the canvas will show to which extent reference models have been or

can be utilised for the individual steps of the analysis and what graphic depiction of

12

the competition could be favourable. On the other hand, the table can also be of

practical interest to investors, such as business angels. They could use the table to

examine the validity of a competitor analysis by a potential portfolio company.

1.4 Chapter Outline

The following section provides the reader with an overview of the study’s structure

and shall clarify alterations or amendments in comparison to the outline projected in

the proposal of the master thesis.

In the introduction (chapter one) the researcher gave insights in the world of start-

ups by contextualising them in the new economy and highlighting their importance

as a major economic factor that drives innovation and creates employment. Next,

the primary reasons why start-ups fail were stated. As a result, it was concluded that

missing awareness in particular and lacking strategies for analysing the competitive

environment were ranked among the top causes of failure. Major strategic questions

start-ups should answer in the competitor analysis were classified with respect to

the overall research process in the form of a business plan. There, the major results

of the research and the defined strategy are presented. By contrast, the increasingly

popular lean startup method which fosters a customer-centric rather than a

research-focused approach was explained in order to show the reader recent

developments in the world of start-ups. In the problem statement the research gap

was described and existing literature in marketing, strategic management and

entrepreneurship was brought in relation to the topic of competitor analysis of start-

up companies. Last but not least, the research question, which aims to investigate

whether start-ups use any models, tools or approaches when conducting the

competitor analysis was stated. Furthermore, the thesis’ theoretical and practical

objectives such as the examination of the reference models’ applicability as well as

the development of the canvas model for a general research procedure regarding

competitor analysis were defined.

The second chapter named “Definitions” encompasses three sections and is

designed in order to narrow down the commonly used terms. In the first section, the

13

term “start-up” will be explained in more detail as well as the typical characteristics

that differentiate it from other types of companies. The second section will then go

into detail of company stages and the associated financing lifecycle. The pre-seed

phase will be highlighted, as it denotes the most relevant stage for this thesis. In

order to provide the reader with a better background understanding of the

interviewees’ industry experiences the terms ICT and high-tech will be clarified in

the third section.

The third chapter will consist of the literature review, which will be divided into three

sections. First, a rough description of the competitor analysis will be provided

including the major strategic issues it addresses. In the second section, “traditional”

tools, models and approaches for the conduction of a competitor analysis that have

been found in the established literature will be shown. By using a step-by-step model

that integrates market and competitor analysis the individual stages of classic

competitor analysis approach will be examined. Thereby, specific tools that could

be applied for the respective stage will be presented. The third section will

demonstrate the point of view from the entrepreneurial world. There, models,

approaches and tools that were suggested by founders and venture capitalists will

be included, setting a focus on Steve Blank’s ideas and the Blue Ocean strategy.

The fourth chapter will outline the methodology that has been used for the qualitative

empiric research, the criteria under which interview partners were chosen and the

composition as well as characteristics of the sample size. Also the in-depth expert

interviews as method of data collection and the summarising qualitative data

analysis according to Mayring (2014) will be illustrated and reasoned.

In the fifth chapter, which denotes the empirical part of this thesis the results of the

qualitative data will be analysed and discussed. In the first section, the identified

categories and summarised statements of the respondents according to the

qualitative data evaluation will be presented. Furthermore, exemplary quotes of the

interviewees will be shown. Subsequently, the qualitative results will be interpreted

and compared with the findings from the literature review. Finally, as a synthesis

14

between theoretic and empirical results the competitor analysis canvas model,

which denotes the thesis’ overall goal, will be depicted and its implications

explained.

The sixth chapter will evaluate the significance of the results and mention the limits

of the research design. Furthermore, an outlook of topics that could be subject to

further research will be given. The “Conclusion” as seventh chapter will reflect the

insights gained by this master thesis and finally answer the research question.

Last but not least, sources that have been used for this thesis will be listed in the

references. The interview transcripts and qualitative data evaluation can be found

in the appendix.

15

2 Definitions

In order to clarify the field of research the following section will set out definitions

regarding the term of a start-up and related aspects that should be mentioned for a

better understanding of the context the topic is embedded in. Apart from that, the

company phases a start-up ideally runs through will be shortly discussed, thereby

focusing on the pre-seed phase. Last but not least, as the qualitative empirical study

was limited to experts’ experiences from high-tech and ICT related sectors, these

terms will be shortly described as well.

2.1 Description of a Start-up and its Traits

Hahn (2014, p.4) associates the term “start-up” both with a company that is currently

in the process of being founded, but also with a young company with high growth

and innovation potential. Insofar, this potential to scale up a start-up’s whole

business model distinguishes it from a conventional SME. Similarly, Baum and

Silverman (2004, p.419) argue that, apart from other factors, a start-up’s

performance critically depends on its innovative capabilities, which is why the

degree of innovation is one of the most salient features that differentiates a start-up

from a conventional founded company.

The possibility to expand, for instance by boosting sales volume or entering new

markets, is not only in the interest of entrepreneurs, but also of investors, such as

venture capital funds. In their definition of private equity, Boué et al. (2012, p.43)

describe the increased shareholder value at the end of the investment period as the

integral objective. Other aims are providing entrepreneurial support to the founders

and the associated control including decision making rights. Therefore, it can be

concluded that equity capital based financing denotes a further trait of start-up

companies.

Moreover, Pendergast (2003, p.3) finds that the entrepreneurial context is especially

marked by uncertainty and resource scarcity. Yet, start-ups typically adapt an

attitude which is oriented towards opportunity recognition and creativity. This seizure

16

of opportunities, such as to enter an existing or new industry, is driven by the

entrepreneurs’ vision and optimism to innovate a market, thereby adding value to

the customer’s life with a better product or service solution.

To sum up, a start-up can be defined as an innovation driven company, which

currently is in the early stage of its development. Due to its scalable business model,

it is typically financed by equity capital. Ideally, a start-up’s entrepreneurs can be

characterised as optimists or even visionaries that show a high orientation towards

creativity and opportunity recognition.

2.2 Company Stages and the Financing Lifecycle

Boué, et al. (2012, p.48) structure companies according to their chronologic

development and their financial needs in the respective stage of the company

lifecycle. Basically, the term start-up thereby relates to an enterprise that has been

recently founded and is therefore in the early stage of this lifecycle. In order to

provide the reader with a basic understanding of the concept of company stages,

the relevant aspects of the following model will be briefly explained.

Source: Author’s graph referring to Boué et al. (2012, p.48)

EARLY STAGE

Seed Stage

(concept and product)

EARLY STAGE

Start-up

(foundation)

EARLY STAGE

First Stage

(product launch)

EXPANSION

Second Stage

(niche leadership)

EXPANSION

Third Stage

(internationalisation)

EXPANSION

Fourth Stage

(pre-IPO)

MBO/MBI

Buyout StagePOST-IPO

PUBLIC-TO-PRIVATE

Take Private Stage

Graph 1: Company Stages and Financing Lifecycle

17

In general, the respective stages involve different entrepreneurial activities, risks,

capital requirements and types of financiers. The company life cycle can be broadly

divided into three major stages beginning with the early and followed then by

expansion stage. In the last phases, a company could be either acquired (buyout),

or could issue shares on a stock exchange (IPO). Rarely, companies that have gone

public are then taken back private. As this thesis concentrates on the pre-seed

phase, the author will limit explanations of this company lifecycle to the early stages.

Hahn and Naumann (2014, p.83) describe the pre-seed phase as the period of time

where entrepreneurs decide to found a company, but still need to research their

business idea. Insofar, the term should be understood as early part of the overall

seed phase. In general, during the seed phase, a company runs through the

foundation process and founders have merely generated an innovative idea.

Consequently, only preliminary market analysis have been undertaken, which,

however, seem to be promising for the success of the venture (Boué et al., 2012,

p.49). In the next step, from which the term start-up can be derived, the company

has been already founded and comprehensive analysis have been conducted.

Likewise, a product or service solution has already reached market readiness (Boué

et al., 2012, p.50). The last step, the so-called first stage is characterised by the

company’s market entry, which is why first sales of the product or service are

generated. All in all, it should be mentioned that the development process of early

stage companies typically is not linear and certain entrepreneurial activities such as

market or competitive analysis might be conducted rather in an iterative manner.

2.3 Definition of ICT and High-Tech Sectors

As the qualitative empiric part of this thesis will reveal results, which were obtained

from expert interviewees with ICT or high-tech oriented industry backgrounds, this

section is intended to provide the reader with a basic understanding of the two

broadly defined fields.

The industrial sectors related to information and communications technology (ICT)

will be subject to further research of this thesis. This term can be understood as

18

collective term that comprises on the one hand information technology, such as

computer and software related technologies. On the other hand, it includes for

instance internet, telephone, mobile or application based telecommunication

services. Yet, the term emphasizes that these two industrial fields are increasingly

becoming integrated and unified (Böcker & Klein, 2012, p.12)

The second industrial focus of this master thesis will be set on the so-called high-

tech sector. High-tech is a term that indicates that products relating to this

technology are based on know-how intensive research and development. As a

result, these products are considered as most advanced technology that is currently

available on a market. In general, broadly four categories of technology industries

can be identified, which are classified as either low-technology, medium-low,

medium-high or high-technology according to their intensity of research and

development. For instance, radio, television and communications equipment or

office, accounting and computing machinery can be classified as high-tech products

(OECD, 2011).

19

3 Literature Review

This chapter serves as a theoretical basis for the empirical part of this thesis and is

structured as follows. The first section provides a brief introduction of the context of

competitor analysis. The second section presents “traditional” tools, models and

approaches that were identified as eligible for the conduction of a competitor

analysis. The third section outlines how the entrepreneurial world approaches the

topic of competitor analysis.

3.1 Introductory Words about Competitor Analysis

This initial section of the literature review part is intended to provide the reader with

a basic understanding regarding the context of competition and its strategic

implications. Reasons why a competitive analysis might not only be useful but even

necessary in order to establish or maintain business operations will be evaluated.

Also, the major strategic questions the outcome of a competitor analysis should give

answer to will be described.

Dibb et al. (2012, p.40) point out the indispensability of a competitor analysis in

scope of the development of a marketing strategy. By elaborating a marketing

strategy companies ought to define their target markets and competitive

advantages. Therefore, an “awareness of the external trading environment and

market trends, an appreciation of the organisation’s capabilities and resource base,

an understanding of changing customer behaviours and expectations, and

knowledge of competitor’s intentions and proposition” is necessary.

Given the seriousness of competitive threats, Fahey (2003, p.32) refers to the

historic case of Amazon.com with its revolutionary internet-based business model,

causing a shake-up in the book-retailing industry. Due to inattention or negligence,

the book-retailing chains had missed out on the upcoming internet trend. As a

consequence, he concludes that “managers need to be familiar with scenarios of

future markets that are not merely extrapolations of current trends. This is because

20

history teaches that the most potent competitors often emerge unexpectedly – from

surprising sources and under unanticipated circumstances.”

However, even if nowadays competitors emerge overnight there are usually signals

that point out imminent changes in market and industry structures. Therefore, it

definitely pays for companies to continuously monitor the competitive environment.

In their empirical study about competitor analysis practices IsHak & Subramanian

(1998, p.21) support this argument by stating that companies with advanced

monitoring systems are more profitable than those not running such systems.

Moreover, they argue that “the findings of the study indicate that better performing

firms gain a competitive advantage by using advanced monitoring systems”.

Certainly, the enhancement of a competitive advantage represents the overall goal

of a clearly formulated strategy. Regarding its impact on strategic management

Bergen & Peteraf (2002, p.158) endorse this statement by noting that competitor

identification provides a foundation for the analysis of the industry infrastructure,

conditions of rivalry and sources of competitive advantage as well as resulting

occurring threats or opportunities. Furthermore, Barney (1991, p.102) finds that a

company has a competitive advantage “when it is implementing a value creating

strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential

competitors”. The term sustainable competitive advantage adds to the previous

definition that competitors are unable to duplicate the benefits of the strategy.

Likewise, Wilson (1994, p.24) recognises the development of a competitive

advantage as the ultimate objective of a competitor analysis which is based on the

assessment of competitor’s strengths and weaknesses. Apart from that, Wilson lists

several other benefits. Analysing competitors can even indirectly help

understanding purchasing behaviour of customers by identifying target groups that

competitors’ strategies try to appeal to. In return, the gained insights can be used

then as effective mean for positioning. In other words, by understanding a

competitor’s behaviour a company can better anticipate the rival’s next move and

therefore prepare a defensive strategy.

21

Thus, it can be concluded that apart from the overall goal to facilitate the attainment

of a competitive advantage a competitor analysis should find answers to several

strategic issues which are summarised in the following (Wilson, 1994, p.24; Czepiel

& Kerin, 2012, p.41; Kotler & Bliemel, 2001, p.657; Dibb et al., 2012, p.59).

Initially, the focal company, which conducts the analysis, should identify key

competitors and consider whether they represent a direct or indirect threat. Direct

opponents supply a similar product to the target group or make use of similar

technologies. Indirect ones typically offer products or services at least in the same

product category. Likewise, they supply products and services that satisfy the same

basic need. Competition could also stem from indirect competitors that are targeting

customers with the same spending power. Next, the objectives competitors pursue

need to be appraised. Goals of competitors can be very diverse, such as

technological leadership or market share growth. Therefore, understanding the mix

of the objectives a competitor focuses on gives an insight how aggressively or

defensively it could respond to a certain action.

Another major component a competitor analysis should include is the assessment

of competitors’ strategies. Thereby, the focal company especially has to develop an

understanding of competitors’ strengths and weaknesses .Yet, the strategies ought

to be examined separately since a one-size-fits-all analysis would only come up with

a lacking image of potential threats and opportunities stemming from a rival.

Last but not least, in conducting a competitor analysis the opponents’ behaviour

should be investigated, which implies that the focal company needs to develop an

understanding for their role perception. Insofar, the prediction of a competitor’s

behaviour denotes another integral outcome of a competitor analysis. This indicates

that the potential response to a general change on the market or the reaction to a

strategic move of a rival should be investigated. Similarly, the analysis should

estimate the likelihood of an active and aggressive move a competitor might plan.

To sum up, academic literature has broadly agreed that a competitor analysis should

address certain strategic questions in order to pursue the overall goal of developing

a competitive advantage.

22

3.2 “Traditional” Models for Conducting a Competitor Analysis

In the previous section a general outline of the major strategic questions a

competitor analysis should give answer to, such as objectives, positioning or the

assessment of strengths and weaknesses, was given. This upcoming section will

discuss how academic literature suggests to structure the components of the

analysis as well as which models or tools are suitable for use. Thereby, an overall

framework or approach for competitor analysis will be presented. The intention is to

present “traditional” tools and models as part of the respective steps in the analysis

in such a way as it was suggested by academic literature regarding competitive

strategy. In the empirical part of this thesis the tools will be tested with the help of

the results of the qualitative data regarding their factual usage among

entrepreneurs. It should be mentioned, that concrete approaches, models and tools

on how start-up companies conduct a competitor analysis have hardly been found

in academic literature. Therefore, the next but one section will primarily cover

applied concepts and ideas for start-ups by academic as well as non-academic

sources from the internet such as blogs, articles or forums.

3.2.1 A Step-by-Step Approach

As a reference framework that is basically applicable for all stages of company

development Hussey (2007, p.190) suggests a general approach comprising eight

major stages in order to assess the situation of an industry and its competitive

environment. To achieve the overall goal of building a competitive advantage the

ring structure of this framework “follows a logical sequence. It is recommended that

the sequence is maintained, even if some steps are omitted, because each step

provides information which is useful to the steps that follow”.

23

Source: Author’s graph referring to Hussey (2007)

According to Hussey (2007, p.190), the industry analysis as first stage “is a way of

looking at the relative power of all the players in the chain of supply through to

consumer. The purpose is not just diagnosis, but should lead to strategies to

improve the position of the company”. Correspondingly, the industry mapping should

then present the results of the analysis. Similarly, the critical success factors should

be “derived from industry analysis, and used as one element of competitor analysis”.

Following the next step, in the competitor profiling strategic information of each

relevant rival is being depicted in a kind of register. The visualisation of this

information can provide a source of competitive advantage, since potential strategic

weaknesses and response scenarios might become apparent. The special

competitor analysis is then intended to shed lights on particular aspects of a rival’s

strategy, for instance, products and production methods or market presences. In

order to identify opportunities for differentiation relative to the market and

competitors the value chain analysis contributes on the achievement of a

competitive advantage. However, goals should be formulated in a clear or

Industry Analysis

Industry mapping

Critical success factors

Competitor profiling

Special competitor analysis

Value chain analysis

Benchmarking

Building competitive advantage

Graph 2: Step-by-Step Approach

24

measurable way. Therefore, the use of benchmarking could lead to improved

performance regarding a specific aspect of the business. Lastly, a sustainable

competitive advantage will only exist if a company’s business model is being

continuously adapted in order to maintain or strengthen its position in the market. In

the following subsections, the stages will be shortly described and subsequently

practical tools will be presented according to their feasibility for the respective

research steps.

3.2.1.1 Industry Analysis

In their chapter on competition and positioning Cabage & Zhang (2013, p.65)

highlight the importance of entrepreneurs’ understanding of the fundamentals of

competitive analysis and positioning. They argue that “an inexperienced

entrepreneur focuses exclusively on building a great product, finding product-market

fit, and improving user experience. While these are excellent goals, they assume

that entrepreneurship occurs in a vacuum, without the effects of any competition”.

Michael E. Porter’s Five Forces model denotes the probably best known tool for

analysing the attractiveness of an industry. In his first chapter about the structural

analysis of industries, Porter (1980, p.3) approaches his model by stating that

“competition in an industry is rooted in its underlying economic structure and goes

well beyond the behaviour of current competitors. The state of competition in an

industry depends on five basic competitive forces…the goal of competitive strategy

for a business unit in an industry is to find a position in the industry where the

company can best defend itself against these competitive forces or can influence

them in its favour”. Porter (1991, p.100) adds that “the industry structure framework

can be applied at the level of the industry, the strategic group (or group of firms with

similar strategies) or even the individual firm. Its ultimate function is to explain the

sustainability of profits against bargaining and against direct and indirect

competition.” As the Five Forces model represents a commonly known tool for

industry analysis, the researcher indents to rather explain implications relevant for

online oriented start-ups, which relate to aspects of modern communication

technologies (Cabage & Zhang, 2013, p.66).

25

Source: Author’s graph referring to Porter (1980, p.4)

Profitable and emerging markets (e.g. online business models) will naturally attract

new competitors, who could copy the business model of existing market

participants. Therefore, creating barriers to entry can become a source of

competitive advantage. Regarding the threat of substitute products, Cabage &

Zhang argue that not only competitors with equal products, but rather those

satisfying same needs with different ones denote a major threat. On the bargaining

side, customers in many cases have gained power due to present day digital access

to information. For instance, via online comparison portals they can easily search

for product categories and compare offerings among suppliers. Unlike to customers,

suppliers’ power shows a different dynamic. Increasing switching costs for

customers or the dependence on the supplier can be therefore an effective strategy.

Last but not least, the competition within the industry represents the ultimate

decision factor which determines if a company should enter a market. Hence, the

industry structure, such as a monopolistic, oligopolistic but also fragmented markets

needs to be clearly analysed. Similarly, opportunities for differentiation and

innovation should be taken into account, in order to achieve a competitive

advantage. The Five Forces model is not a tool perfectly eligible for analysing an

Rivalry among the

industy

Bargaining power of suppliers

Bargaining power of buyers

Threat of new entrants

Threat of substitute products

Graph 3: Porter’s Five Forces

26

industry, since markets are not static and competitive behaviour is also affected by

many other factors.

Hussey (2007, p.194) mentions several other generally relevant factors that newly

entering companies should observe in particular.

Especially in new industries high growth rates usually attract new entrants, thereby

causing fierce competition. By contrast, industries that show lacking profits among

market participants will become less predictable and probably could cause

aggressive competitive behaviour. Alike, competition will be likely to intensify if

market participants follow an economies of scale strategy. As a result, others need

to start following a low-cost approach as well. Thus, the easier it is to differentiate

one’s product, the less fierce competition will be generated. Yet, if industries are

very fragmented, the competition is still high, even if there is no clear market leader.

As a result, if market entry barriers are low, this typically indicates that a market is

fragmented.

Based on the results and implications of the Five Forces model, Porter derived that

there are three consequent general strategic approaches that can be applied across

market segments. In the following paragraph, the core ideas of the so-called Generic

Strategies will be presented. (Porter, 1980, p.39; Cabage & Zhang, 2013, p.68).

Source: Author’s graph referring to Porter (1980, p.39)

Low CostUniqueness of

Product/Service

IndustrywideOverall Cost Leadership

Differentiation

Particular Market

Segment

Focus Strategy (low cost)

Focus Strategy (differentiation)

Graph 4: Porter's Generic Strategies

27

The first strategy, which follows a low-cost approach, can be mainly achieved by

fostering economies of scales. Therefore, it may require high capital investments

and aggressive pricing strategies in order to increase the market share.

Consequently, this strategy leads to a valuable defensible and profitable position, if

no competitor can compete on the price anymore. Despite of the high financial

requirements, Kim et al. (2004, p.574) interpret this strategy differently in the context

of the digital age and argue that the cost leadership strategy can denote a choice

for companies engaged in the e-business. From the customer point of view the

strategy “may be particularly appealing to online buyers who are price sensitive”.

Given the possibilities of comparing prices and seeking information on products via

the internet the buyers’ bargaining power has significantly risen. Consequently, firms

“conclude that they have no other choice but to pursue a strategy of cost leadership”.

This relates to the fact that the digital age has significantly undermined the idea of

differentiation due to a lacking tangibility of virtual business.

The goal of differentiating a product, which is the essence of the second major

strategy, is to be not in the same category as the cost leader. Porter finds that

differentiating a product means “creating something that is perceived industrywide

as being unique…ideally, the firm differentiates itself along several dimensions”

(Porter, 1980, p.38). Not only the product itself but also any other aspect of the

business model such as brand image, reputation, technology, product features,

networks, and customer service can serve as a source of differentiation (Kim et.al

(2004, p.575). This in turn, can create viable entry barriers that are difficult to imitate

and provides “insulation against competitive rivalry because of brand loyalty by

customers and resulting lower sensitivity to price.” (Porter, 1980, p.38). Similarly,

thanks to increased customer loyalty the threat of substitute products might be

mitigated. However, differentiation demands higher costs due to necessary

research, product design, high quality materials, customer support or other factors.

Insofar, customers might not always be willing to pay the required higher product

prices. Kim, et.al (2004, p.575) find that e-businesses should follow differentiation

strategies due to the internet’s lower switching costs. By product differentiation

customers will be less encouraged to switch suppliers despite perfect information.

Given the emergence of the internet, sources of differentiation have also developed

28

aspects such as speed of delivery, transaction security or online shopping

experience that can contribute to locking in customers.

By focusing on a specific niche target segment, product line or geographic region,

instead of the industrywide low-cost or differentiation approach, Cabage & Zhang

(2013, p.68) argue that this strategy should represent the preferred one for startup

companies which enter an industry where primary and secondary competitors

already exist. In this context, the focus strategy indicates to concentrate on the

“narrow strategic target more effectively or efficiently than competitors who are

competing more broadly. As a result, the firm achieves either differentiation from

better meeting the needs of the particular target, or lower costs in serving this target,

or both” (Porter, 1980, p.38). However, if the target group is too narrowly defined

the major trade-offs are lower profitability and sales volume, which can seriously

affect the survival of a newly founded start-up company. Nevertheless, referring to

Kim, et.al (2004, p.576) “the lower levels of investment required by many online

businesses means that they enjoy lower break-even points than competitors with

higher levels of fixed costs. Thus, targeting even small market segments might be

viable, and consumers may be easily connected with companies that focus on niche

markets due to the internet’s search advantages“. Especially the possibilities of the

internet to micro-segment and fragment markets facilitate the process for online

businesses to match specific buyer needs with their highly differentiated products,

thereby charging higher prices. Kim, et al. even further comment that online

businesses need to follow the focus strategy, since its fragmentation capabilities

exhibits a source of competitive advantage. Consequently, they conclude that

“…scalability and market scope flexibility – the ability to serve simultaneously (or in

quick succession) broad markets and very small market niches – are hallmarks of

internet technologies” (2004, p.577).

3.2.1.2 Industry Mapping

Having conducted an industry analysis as first major step toward developing

competitive intelligence, the forces and principles that characterise an industry have

been identified. Yet, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the interconnections

29

within an industry Hussey (2007, p. 201) suggests to develop a so-called industry

map. “In industry mapping an attempt is made to plot the whole chain from first

supplier through to final consumer, examining the relationships of each link in the

chain”. Compared to academic literature, consulting and intelligence companies

also recognise the importance of industry mapping, which serves as a valuable tool

for developing strategies and understanding the competitive environment (The

Knowledge Agency [TKA], 2015). Similarly, the so-called market map concept

“defines the distribution and value added chain between final users and suppliers,

which takes into account the various buying mechanisms found in a market,

including the part played by influencers” (McDonald, p.127, 2009). In his approach

to industry mapping, Hussey begins to define the industry structure in form of a

diagram by “thinking of the logical ways in which business might flow through the

channels” (2007, p.201). Next, the diagram is related to available market research

information which will then be integrated into the drafted blocks that depict the

industry participants. In other words, the factors of the industry analysis according

to Porter’s Five Forces are integrated into the map. As a result, the map provides

an overview from the forces which affect competitive behaviour among the players.

Especially for the competitor profiling and following steps in the general competitor

analysis approach industry mapping allows to derive valuable strategic implications.

Furthermore, Hussey argues that by mapping the industry, many misperceptions

about the industry forces and structures can be clarified. Consulting companies refer

to its benefits for market segmentation and to consequently correctly identify the

target group. Similarly, changes in the value generation processes can be better

displayed through the channels in a market (Market Segmentation Company, 2014).

30

Source: Market Segmentation Company (2014)

From the point of view of a start-up company, the market mapping step, as part of

the competitive analysis, proves to be useful especially regarding those factors that

generate value. Likewise, start-ups can develop a first understanding of the market

size as well as segments, thereby quantifying assumptions about their own

projected market share (Haden, 2013).

3.2.1.3 Critical Success Factors

According to Benjamin & McDowall (2010, p.20) “a critical success factor (CSF) is

defined as an operational business or corporate function, or competency, that a

company must possess in order for it to be sustainable and profitable”. Hussey

(2007, p.208) argues that critical success factors mark the essential aspects of a

certain industry that companies have to deal with in order to stay competitive. As

these core factors apply to all competitors of a respective industry they “provide a

useful standard for measuring both one’s own performance against them and that

of key competitors”. However, as industries can be broken down into various sectors

and segments due to differentiation of market participants CSFs can also differ.

Alternative sources from the internet (Strategic Management Insight [SMI], 2015)

also comment that CSFs usually vary among different strategic groups. Thus, it is

clear that CSFs depend on the individual structure of a particular industry and that

Graph 5: Example Market Map

31

not all key areas a company has to deal with are of equal importance. SMI (2015)

lists various typical CSFs such as market share, product range or distribution

network. Regarding the overall approach of the competitive analysis the assessment

of CSFs denotes an integral part. Next, these will be matched against the key

competitors in the competitor profiling to assess their strengths and weaknesses.

3.2.1.4 Competitor Profiling

Referring to Hussey (2007, p.210) industry analysis and mapping intend to clarify

which forces are involved in a certain market and how these affect competitive

behaviour. Consequently, the most relevant competitors should be identified, which

are then subject to an individual analysis. Therefore, this upcoming stage of

competitor analysis in the overall approach should contribute to several strategic

aspects depending on the respective position of the focal company. Apart from the

identification of competitors, an appropriate strategy should be formulated in order

to retain the respective position as well as to find sources of competitive advantage.

Likewise, this step should prepare the company for potential competitive reactions.

O’Connor (2010, p.48) highlights the competitor profiling matrix (CPM) as a first

major step (“knowing your enemy”) in his overall approach to competitor analysis.

This matrix compares the focal firm in broad categories to key competitors in order

to provide “an informed basis for developing positioning strategies to achieve a

competitive advantage”. Therefore, comprehensive information about competitors

should be gathered first (O’Connor, 2010, p.49; Hussey, 2007, p.211). To name just

a few, typically KPI data about marketing, or financial sales figures, but also general

information about products, company structure, target markets or others need to be

collected.

Having compared the different sources it can be stated that a competitor profiling

can be depicted in multiple ways. O’Connor (2010, p.49) suggests to design a two-

dimensional matrix with the focal firm and competitors along the top and critical

success factors on the side.

32

Source: Author’s table referring to Strategic Management Insight (2015)

Referring to SMI (2015), the critical success factors should be assigned additionally

to a weight framing according to their importance as well as to a rating for the

competitor’s factual performance in the respective field. As a result of the weight

multiplied by the rating, each factor has an individual score, which can be then

summarised in a total one. The CPM represents a viable tool to quantify a key

competitor’s performance as well as to recognise the strongest industry participant.

Thereby, its relative strengths or weaknesses regarding a certain factor can be

identified. Thus, the CPM denotes a simple but effective way to quantify competitive

intelligence data, which provides a valid base for deriving strategic conclusions.

Table 3: Excerpt from a Model Example for CPM

Company A Company B

Critical Success Factor Weight (0-1) Rating (1-5) Score Rating (1-5) Score

Brand reputation 0,13 2 0,26 3 0,39

Market share 0,14 2 0,28 4 0,56

Product range 0,05 3 0,15 1 0,05

Distribution channels 0,07 4 0,28 2 0,14

… … … … … …

TOTAL SCORE … … … … …

33

3.2.1.5 Special Competitor Analysis

According to Hussey (2007, p.217) the profiling steps are the most time-intensive

within the overall competitor analysis. Still, studying specific aspects of competitors

in detail, such as a certain behaviour, competence or functional area, represents a

useful approach to creating competitive advantage. At this point, O’Connor’s four-

step concept can be mentioned (2010, p.48), which mainly corresponds to the tasks

that have been so far fulfilled in the overall step-by-step approach. After having

identified the key competitors (“know your enemy”), their performance regarding

specific critical success factors was depicted in the CPM (“rate your enemy”). These

results indicated the individual and overall scores of the competitors. Hence,

competitors can be ranked according to their strengths and weaknesses. Next,

O’Connor (2010, p.52) proposes to conduct a competitor positioning strategy

(“position your enemy”), which defines how the focal firm can differentiate its

products or services from its rivals. Elaborating a competitor positioning strategy

should, on the one hand, incorporate the development of a defensive positioning, in

order to discourage an opponent from taking a competitive action. On the other

hand, an offensive strategy should be formulated for the attainment of a competitive

advantage as well. Finally, in his last step (“defeat your enemies”) O’Connor

proposes to develop a positioning strategy with current and target activities, such as

the improvement of a unique value proposition that cannot be easily imitated.

Dibb et al. (2012, p.251) consider positioning as the final component of the so-called

STP process (segment, target, position) of market segmentation. “Positioning is not

what is done to the product, it is what image is created in the minds of the targeted

consumers or business customers. The product is positioned in the minds of these

customers and is given an image”. Therefore, the so-called perceptual mapping

denotes a commonly used tool for the graphic depiction of consumers’ perceptions

as well as their prioritisation of brands and their perceived attributes. After having

defined the segments of a particular market, the focal company needs to understand

the respective customers’ perceptions, needs and expectations regarding the

product. Consequently, competing products need to be evaluated according to their

positioning and images perceived by the target customers.

34

An image for the product of the focal firm should be selected, which clearly and

credibly differentiates it from competing ones.

Source: Author’s graph referring to Dibb et. al (2012, p.252)

The same principle of product positioning can be applied to companies as well. The

attached graph shows a hypothetic example, whereby the two axes denote key

characteristics of the market. To sum up, in conducting a specific analysis of

competitors, it is essential to define the rival’s position in the market. As a result, the

finding of one’s own strategic position should be facilitated and valuable criteria for

differentiation can be developed.

3.2.1.6 Value Chain Analysis

In Hussey’s next step, he refers to Michael E. Porter’s value chain analysis as a

popular method for separating the value-creating activities of a firm as part of the

overall industry value chain in order to “identify underlying areas of competitive

advantage” (2007, p.217). Price (2011) comments on to the concept that companies

entering an industry perform value-creating activities which are interconnected with

those of other industry participants such as suppliers or end-users.

Graph 6: Perceptual Mapping Example

35

Thereby, the profit margin as a mark-up of the final result of the activities should be

covering costs that accrue from the value-creation process. In other words,

organisations add value to a product or service of an industry value chain by carrying

out activities that convert inputs into outputs.

Source: Author’s graph referring to Porter (1980)

The value chain analysis model according to Porter differentiates between primary

and support business activities (Grant, 2013, p.112; Price, 2011). Primary activities

include inbound and outbound logistics, operations, marketing and sales as well as

service. By contrast, firm infrastructure, human resource management, technology

development and procurement indicate support activities. As details about the

typical activities are shown in the attached graph, the implications and conclusions

that can be derived for entrepreneurs will be subject to further analysis in the

following paragraph.

The goal of a value chain analysis is to identify the most valuable activities of a

company which could provide a competitive advantage in form of a cost or

differentiation advantage. Although only primary activities directly add value, both

types of activities denote equally important steps in the value creation process. It is

argued that support activities typically denote a source of differentiation advantage,

while cost advantages can be easier achieved by optimising primary activities (SMI,

Support Activities

Firm infrastructure

General Management, Legal, Accounting etc.

Human Resources Management

Recruitment, Training etc.

Technology Development

R&D, Process and Product Design etc.

Procurement

Purchase of raw materials etc.

Primary activities

Inbound Logistics

Warehousing, storage, inventory control,

transportation planning etc.

Operations

Conversion, assembly, packaging,

maintenance etc.

Outbound Logistics

Order processing,

delivery, shipment etc.

Marketing and Sales

Sales channels, 4

Ps, customer value, sales

force etc.

Service

Customer support, training,

installation etc.

Graph 7: Value Chain Analysis

36

2015). As a first step those activities that contribute the most to the creation of

customer value should be identified. Next, differentiation strategies that improve

customer value should be evaluated such as adding more product features, focusing

on customer service, customisation or complementary products. It is the

combination of interrelated activities and differentiation strategies that will provide

the most sustainable source of competitive advantage by improving customer value.

Grant (2013, p.181) supports the applicability of the value chain by indicating that

“the key to successful differentiation is matching the firm’s capacity for creating

differentiation to the attributes that customers value most. For this purpose, the

value chain provides a particularly useful framework”.

Price (2011) recommends the value chain analysis as a valuable tool to help start-

ups analysing their ecosystem and thus the network of all its stakeholders including

competitors, partners, suppliers, customers, investors and so on. After having

identified the players in an industry, business models and therefore value chains of

the participants should be broken down in order to determine their core

competences. By disaggregating the value chains entrepreneurs can not only

develop a better understanding of cost structures but also of inefficiencies in the

value generation process. As markets constantly develop, so-called value gaps

provide the ideal foundation for a new venture. If exploited properly, value gaps have

the potential to disrupt markets.

To summarize, the value chain concept provides a valuable tool for analysing the

value generation process of an industry, competitors and the focal firm itself,

wherefore potential value gaps in the ecosystem can be detected. These gaps can

provide a source of disruption of long-established and inefficient industry concepts.

3.2.1.7 Benchmarking

As a subsequent step Hussey (2007, p.192) lists benchmarking, which aims to

compare certain business processes or performance metrics such as KPIs with

competitors inside and outside of an industry. Measuring benchmark indicators

represents a quantitative tool that can optimise one’s performance in a certain area

of business. Otherwise one would not know how much better or worse a task is

37

performed. Apart from improving company performance, SMI (2015) adds that

further benefits of benchmarking may include the discovery of successful business

processes, which can be observed in competitors and then applied. Similarly,

relevant information about sources of competitive advantage can be gained by

applying best practices from other industries.

As start-up companies usually work under uncertainty and a lack of historic data,

tracking or obtaining relevant competitive intelligence is not an easy task. However,

opportunities to gather data have increased, due to new web-based performance

tracking technologies. Nowadays, new software technologies even offer

benchmarking tools that provide automated data collection, thereby channelling the

information into dashboards. As a result, KPIs and benchmarks across several

categories can be viewed (Empson, 2013). Thus, based on algorithms using big

data, start-up companies can assess their performance according to the analysis of

comparable figures from competitors. However, even if benchmarking represents a

tool that can be used to follow a strategic plan, purely focusing on the meeting of

performance indicators should be avoided (Lesonsky, 2012).

3.2.1.8 Building a Competitive Advantage

Following Hussey’s (2007) framework for competitor analysis, the last step is the

development of a competitive advantage. In fact, academic literature, as mentioned

in previous subsections, has broadly agreed on the overall goal of a competitor

analysis to derive knowledge for the establishment of a competitive advantage.

Repeating Barney’s (1991, p.102) associated definition of value creating strategies

as means of ensuring that products cannot be easily and immediately imitated by

competitors, Grant (2013, p.156) comments that competitive advantage can be

considered the result of matching internal strengths to external success factors.

Nevertheless, as “it is created by change, once established, it sets in motion the

competitive process that leads to its destruction”. Consequently, a sustainable

competitive advantage needs a continuous improvement as rivals will try to emulate

it (Hussey, 2007, p.192). Grant (2013, p.157) moreover indicates that competitive

advantage emerges by changes resulting either from external or internal sources.

38

On the one hand, external sources of change can be events such as switching

customer demands, upcoming market trends or new technologies (changes among

the PEST factors). Since external changes create entrepreneurial opportunities,

companies that seek to be responsive should be able to anticipate changes in the

market environment. Likewise, they should quickly adapt to trends or other

disruptive events, in order to best exploit these sources of competitive advantage.

On the other hand, competitive advantage may be generated by internal innovation,

such as the development of new products or processes that involve modern

technologies as well as new business models. These strategic innovations imply

“pioneering along one or more dimensions of strategies” (Grant, 2013, p.158).

Firstly, companies could develop products or services that create whole new

markets (cf. Blue Ocean strategy in subsection 3.3.3). Secondly, they could adapt

existing product concepts to attract new customer segments. Thirdly, by introducing

modern approaches in existing industries, they could create customer value, which

can then establish new sources of competitive advantage.

SMI (2015) complements that the internal generation of competitive advantage of

the aforementioned sources should be developed according to the so-called VRIO

model. Companies that develop their resources based on the VRIO factors

(valuable, rare, hard to imitate and organised) will have at least a temporary

competitive advantage as their emulation will require significant amount of time. The

VRIO framework represents a tool that analyses a firm’s internal resources and

capabilities, thereby investigating whether they would qualify as sustainable

competitive advantage. The following graph depicts the principles of the model

according to Barney (1991, p.112) who first introduced it.

39

Table 4: The VRIO Model

Valuable? Rare? Costly to

imitate?

Company organised enough

to capture the value?

Competitive implication

No Competitive disadvantage

Yes No Competitive parity

Yes Yes No Temporary competitive

advantage

Yes Yes Yes No Unexploited competitive

advantage

Yes Yes Yes Yes Sustained competitive

advantage

Source: Author’s table referring to Barney (1991)

A resource is considered valuable, if it provides opportunities to companies that they

can exploit, or provides protection against competitive threats, as well as if it

increases differentiation. Resources that do not deliver any value lead to competitive

disadvantage. Resources are considered as rare, if only very few companies are

able to acquire them. Therefore, rare and valuable resources denote at least a

temporary competitive advantage. By contrast, valuable but commonly accessible

resources lead to competitive parity, due to the development of similar strategies

among competitors. As soon as a resource is costly to imitate, expensive to buy or

difficult to substitute, the company can achieve a sustained competitive advantage

with it. Yet, the resource itself does not necessarily result in a competitive

advantage, as long as the company is not organised enough to capture the value

originating from the resource. Insofar, organisational structures such as processes,

management systems and policies need to be implemented in order to obtain a

sustainable competitive advantage. SMI (2015) lists intellectual property, patents,

brand equity, know-how or reputation as typical resources that have VRIO attributes

and therefore exhibit the potential of sustainable competitive advantage. Especially

when conducting a value chain analysis VRIO resources can be often detected.

40

Referring to Porter’s Generic Strategies, Grant (2013, p.163) concludes that

differentiation or cost advantages form the two basic types of competitive

advantage. “A firm can achieve a higher rate of profit (or potential profit) over a rival

in one of two ways: either it can supply an identical product or service at a lower

cost or it can supply a product or service that is differentiated in such a way that the

customer is willing to pay a price premium that exceeds the additional cost of the

differentiation. In the former case, the firm possesses a cost advantage; in the latter,

a differentiation advantage.”

The following graph summarises the aforementioned findings.

Source: Author’s graph referring to Barney (1991); Grant (2013); SMI (2015)

How to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage?

Through external changes

Changes in the market (PEST factors):

switching customer demands, market trends,

new technologies, disruptive events etc.

Depends on firm's abilty to anticipate

environmental changes and to quickly repsond to

it

Through internal innovation

Development of new products, processes or

business models

Innovations could qualify as VRIO resources

Innovations can be implemented in new

industries, new customer segments or new sources of competitive advantage

can be found

Basic types of competitive advantages

Differentiation advantage

Cost advantage

Graph 8: Summary of Competitive Advantage

41

3.3 Entrepreneurial Approaches to Competitor Analysis

In the previous section, the traditional point of view on the topic of competitor

analysis was given. Based on academic literature, tools, models and an overall

framework on how to approach the topic of competitor analysis were presented in

order to address the associated major strategic questions. Yet, this perspective

rather concentrated on competitive situations that established companies deal with.

Hence, the upcoming section focuses especially on newly founded ventures,

thereby taking into account the differing circumstances start-up companies have to

face. Insofar, attention was also given to the preconditions such as that start-ups

usually lack resources (time, funds, personnel etc.) for the conduction of a serious

competitive analysis. Similarly, start-ups consequently exhibit altering needs

regarding their competitive knowledge. It seems obvious that newly founded

ventures do not need to conduct a profound and costly competitor analysis

comparable to an MNC that has to defend its market position. Instead entrepreneurs

should conduct competitive analysis so that the market gap has been clearly

identified and ways how to differentiate their products from big players or other

similar market entrants have been found. Furthermore, as founders often need to

proof their company concepts to investors such as venture capitalists the

“competitive justification” should be easy to be illustrated for pitching presentations.

The following section will present easy-to-use frameworks and tools for competitive

analysis at the entrepreneurial level. As already previously mentioned, academic

literature hardly focuses on the start-up level for competitive information gathering,

thus alternative online sources had to be utilised as well. Thereby, especially the

ideas of opinion leaders in the entrepreneurial world such as Steve Blank, venture

capitalists or common practices among start-ups like the use of the Strategy Canvas

and Blue Ocean strategy will be presented.

42

3.3.1 The Four Start-up Market Types According to Steve Blank

Just because of their origin, start-up companies do not necessarily resemble each

other. Apart from the different products and services offered, start-ups should be

differentiated according to the market which they aspire to enter. Steve Blank finds

that start-ups exhibit four basic options of market entry, with each of them having

different requirements for success. Whereas the first one represents the classic

entry into an existing market, the second one refers to the creation of a new market

or market disruption (Blue Ocean strategy). The third type of market entry can be

divided up in to a re-segmentation strategy of an existing market either following a

low-cost, or a niche approach.

Blank (2007, p.23) comments that “it is a fallacy to believe the strategy and tactics

that worked for one start-up should be appropriate in another. That is because

market type changes everything a company does“. Subsequently, he concludes that

several associated factors, such as customer needs and feedback, adoption rates,

product features, positioning, launch strategies or channels and activities depend

on the market type (Blank, 2014). Many start-up forums, journals and blogs across

the internet utilise Blank’s four market types (MaRS, 2011; Blank, 2012). Therefore,

the implications of the four different market types will be discussed in the following

subsections.

3.3.1.1 Entering in an Existing Market

Existing markets provide the advantage that customers know the product and do

not need to be educated anymore about their attributes. They “describe the market

and the attributes that matter most to them” (Blank & Dorf, 2012, p.39). However, it

is therefore particularly difficult to market a product since features for differentiation

are reduced to better performance. This means that competitors are widely known

wherefore competition is based on marketing the right product features (Blank,

2007, p.24). “The idea is that in entering an existing market, positioning is all about

the product and specifically the value customers place on its new features” (Blank,

2007, p.55). At this point, Blank suggests to ask the typical questions that have been

already posed in this thesis: who are the competitors, what are their market shares,

43

what product attributes are the most important and so on. Furthermore, in order to

best depict the competitive situation in existing markets, Blank proposes to use the

aforementioned perceptual mapping (cf. subsection 3.2.1.5) tool, which he names

as competitive diagram.

3.3.1.2 Entering in a New Market

Introducing a new product or a product with significantly altered features into a new

market could include the following (Blank, 2007, p.24). Either it involves offering a

product that was until then non-existent, or offering it at considerably lower cost thus

attracting new customer segments. Similarly, it could be a product that features

specific problem solutions, such as offering permanent availability, new skills or

bringing convenience to the customer.

Thus, creating a new market does not necessarily mean to be a first mover, rather,

the company’s ubiquity is associated with the market. Yet, the target group and

market that the new product wants to attract are difficult to define. This is due to the

fact, that even if competitors not yet exist, creating or shaping a market includes

convincing and educating customers about the product and its solution it provides

to certain unsatisfied problems. Also, Blank (2007, p.56) finds that despite the

attractiveness of no competitors and the therewith associated freedom in pricing

schemes, considerable risks of market failure exist. Consequently, typical strategic

questions should be asked. Firstly, the potential market size, related markets

customers could stem from, as well as the addressed need, which could convince

the customer have to be investigated. Also, it should be clarified what specific

feature of the product or service could best address the need. Last but not least, a

strategy on how potential competitors can be hindered to take over the market

should be elaborated.

In conclusion, Blank & Dorf (2012, p.40) find that the appraisal of the market

potential and its customer base, as well as the likeability to convince the target group

to buy the product denote key factors when creating a new market.

44

3.3.1.3 Re-segmenting an Existing Market

According to Blank (2007, p.25), the majority of start-up companies follows the

strategy of re-segmenting an existing market by introducing a new product. Re-

segmenting a market is particularly useful when it is too difficult to directly attack

established market participants. Therefore, start-up companies should identify a

value-creating market opportunity existing players ignore or have not yet realised

(Blank & Dorf, 2012, p.40). Similarly to Porter’s Generic Strategies (cf. subsection

3.2.1.1), Blank recognises a low cost or a niche strategy as an approach that can

achieve the re-segmentation of existing markets. On the one hand, low cost re-

segmentation implies that customers of a certain market segment are willing to buy

a product, whose features perform only “good enough” but at a significantly lower

price. This strategy entails the advantage that established companies avoid these

segments due to low margins. On the other hand, niche re-segmentation tries to

provide a specialised solution for a certain customer need, which creates higher

value to a particular market segment than existing product solutions. Ideally, a

particular product feature redefines the whole market, thus bringing a competitive

advantage to the company that introduces the new product. However, customers of

the existing products first need to get convinced of the added value provided by the

new solution causing a higher product price (MaRS, 2011). Blank explains the two

approaches by stating that “niche re-segmentation attempts to convince customers

some characteristic of the new product is radical enough to change the rules and

shape of an existing market. Unlike low-cost re-segmentation, niche goes after the

core of an existing market's profitable business. Both cases of re-segmenting a

market reframe how people think about the products within an existing market”

(Blank, 2007, p.25). Subsequently, Blank names typical issues that should be

addressed when following a re-segmentation strategy (2007, p.55). Initially, the

existing markets and their customers should be defined as well as customer

characteristics and needs that are not met by existing suppliers. Next, those

compelling product features which convince customers to abandon the current

products should be described. Last but not least, the duration of “customer

education” until a certain market size and a respective market share have been

achieved has to be estimated.

45

Furthermore, when pursuing a re-segmentation strategy, Blank suggests to depict

the competitive environment by using a competitive diagram (also named perceptual

mapping; cf. subsection 3.2.1.5) as well as a so-called petal diagram, which

illustrates the newly created market by re-segmenting existing ones (cf. next

subsection). The attached graph summarises Steve Blank’s four market types

implying different strategies start-up companies can pursue.

Source: Author’s graph referring to Blank (2007, p.23)

3.3.2 Steve Blank’s View on Competitive Analysis

In his blog entry “Death by Competitive Analysis” Blank (2010) criticises

entrepreneurs’ misuse of competitive analysis, which often merely serves as sales

document that should convince potential investors of the founders’ assumptions.

However, with the help of competitive analysis the target market should be

understood, competitors should be identified and ways how to differentiate from the

rivals’ products should be found. Yet, analysing opponents in the traditional way

fosters start-ups’ propensity to simply look for features of competitive products that

should be adopted as well. Consequently, the features that matter most to

customers tend to be ignored. Thus, competitive analysis should illustrate how

customers’ real needs are being solved, rather than to compare product features

with those of rivals.

Existing/Non-existing market

New product in existing market

New product in new market

Re-segmenting existing market

Re-segmentation with new product

by low cost strategy

Re-segmentation with new product by niche strategy

Graph 9: Four Types of Start-up Markets

46

In existing markets, customers’ actual needs denote the basis of competition, which

is why start-ups’ competitive analysis should use it as a metrics for the comparison

with opponents. However, the majority of start-ups intends to create new markets or

to re-segment existing ones. When re-segmenting a market the competitive analysis

should highlight the product features which provide a solution to a specific customer

need that established competitors have not identified. If start-ups seek to create new

markets, customers should get educated about the new product features.

Following Blank’s next blog entry “A New Way to Look at Competitors” (2013), he

proposes a new tool for start-ups seeking to create markets. There, he emphasizes

the importance to differentiate between existing and new or re-segmented markets.

Typically, a competitive diagram is used by companies which plan to enter into

existing markets. As previously mentioned, the basis of competition is defined by

customers in the market. However, these metrics focus on showing differentiation

among competitors regarding the most prevalent product features, therefore often

showing some price or performance advantage. As a result, for the creation of new

or re-segmented markets the competitive diagram cannot properly depict the

strategic implications such as intersecting multiple existing markets into a new one

or taking a competitor’s market share away by re-segmenting.

Blank proposes the petal diagram, which places the focal start-up in the centre while

segments of competitors are depicted in petals surrounding it. In the following

paragraph, the tool’s advantages pointed out by Blank and other sources of the

start-up ecosystem are presented (Blank, 2013; Twin Engine Labs, 2013; Pietrzak

2014).

Foremost, the petal diagram received high support due to the way in which it

illustrates adjacent markets and market segments. Thereby, an overlap between

adjacent markets can be detected, which facilitates the definition of a customer that

could exist within that overlap. Insofar, potential customer target groups can be

identified, because the petals indicate from which competitors potential customers

could stem from.

47

Moreover, the named sources state that the petal diagram can be used to analyse

other parts of a start-up’s business model. By comparing business models with

those of related competitors, for instance, industry-standard problem solutions,

value-generation strategies or marketing channels can be identified and scrutinised.

From a graphic point of view, the tool provides an easy-to-show applicability for

indicating an approximation of current and projected markets sizes and resulting

market opportunities for potential investors. Last but not least, the use of the

diagram to visually depict the start-up’s position and growth opportunities was

endorsed.

Source: Blank, 2013

Even if numerous sources related to the start-up ecosystem supported the petal

diagram, literature and online research, however, showed critical comments as well.

Tunguz (2015) finds that Blank’s petal diagram exhibits several flaws. On the one

hand, it manages to communicate the players of the ecosystem and where the start-

up aspires to acquire customers from. On the other hand, it cannot effectively

convey how a start-up plans to differentiate its product or service from competitors,

Graph 10: Blank's Petal Diagram

48

especially compared to other tools such as the competitive diagram or value chain

analysis. King (2013) agrees that the petal diagram is not useful when it comes to

brand positioning, benchmarking and value proposition design and accordingly

suggests to combine it with a competitive diagram.

Summing up, the petal diagram denotes a hands-on tool for start-up companies

seeking to enter a new market or to re-segment one. Since newly founded ventures

usually work under uncertainty the petal diagram provides appropriate means for

start-ups to hypothesise about their customer base and what potential market their

target group could stem from (Twin Engine Labs, 2013). Likewise, it represents an

application that can easily show investors what the potential market size and

opportunity could be. Yet, the tool hardly communicates how differentiation can be

achieved, which is required in order to win customers from adjacent competitors.

3.3.3 Kim’s and Mauborgne’s Blue Ocean Strategy

In the course of the literature reviewing process, the Blue Ocean strategy concept

repeatedly recurred. Numerous academic sources and opinions from the start-up

community that were found recommend the framework not only as a valuable tool

for analysing competitors, but also for questioning existing business models in order

to develop new industries (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p.226; Grant, 2013, p.158;

Blank & Dorf, 2012, p.40; Kim & Mauborgne, 2004, p.69; Kim & Mauborgne, 2005a;

Metayer 2013; Blue Ocean Strategy, 2015, Murray 2010).

The concept argues that businesses can better succeed by creating new markets

instead of fiercely fighting with competitors in existing industries. Therefore, the

concept suggests that companies should look for ways to create uncontested

market space. The strategy differentiates between two kinds of market space,

namely red and blue oceans. Red oceans represent all existing industries and

today’s known market spaces. This means that “industry boundaries are defined

and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are well understood. Here,

companies try to outperform their rivals in order to grab a greater share of existing

demand. As the space gets more and more crowded, prospects for profits and

growth are reduced. Products turn into commodities, and increasing competition

49

turns the water bloody. Blue oceans denote all the industries not in existence today

- the unknown market space, untainted by competition. In blue oceans, demand is

created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both

profitable and rapid (Kim & Mauborgne, 2004, p.72).” Referring to blue oceans,

“competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set. The

term blue ocean is an analogy to describe the wider potential of market space that

is vast, deep, and not yet explored” (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005a, p.116).

The red ocean strategy implies that due to competition, companies are limited to

choose between a higher product value associated with higher costs and vice versa.

In other words, companies need to decide between differentiation and low cost

strategies. It can be derived that Porter’s three Generic Strategies denotes a model

which assumes that only red oceans industries exist. The Blue Ocean strategy, by

contrast, suggests to stop following these guidelines and to rather “create new rules

of the game by breaking the existing value/cost trade-off…” (Kim & Mauborgne

2005a, p.109). Similarly, it aims to simultaneously pursue the advantages of

differentiation and low-cost strategies. While cost savings can be achieved through

the elimination or reduction of unnecessary factors, customer value can be

augmented by introducing elements that the industry has not offered so far (Kim &

Mauborgne, 2004, p.77).

Generating blue oceans can either be effected by factually creating a new industry,

or in most cases “…from within a red ocean when a company alters the boundaries

of an existing industry” (Kim & Mauborgne, 2004, p.72). Grant adds to the latter

approach that “…most successful blue ocean strategies do not launch whole new

industries − they introduce novel approaches to creating customer value” (2013,

p.158). Furthermore, apart from technology oriented industries, the generation of

blue ocean markets is not necessarily limited to technological innovation. Rather, it

is about a company’s strategic mind-set as “creators of blue oceans, in sharp

contrast to companies playing by traditional rules, never use the competition as a

benchmark. Instead they make it irrelevant by creating a leap in value for both

buyers and the company itself” (Kim & Mauborgne, 2004, p.75). In conclusion, it can

be stated that Kim & Mauborgne consider this kind of value innovation as the

50

cornerstone of the Blue Ocean strategy, which intends to equally emphasise value

and innovation.

The attached table summarises and compares the aforementioned implications

regarding the blue and red ocean strategies.

Table 5: Comparison of Blue and Red Ocean Strategies

Source: Author’s table referring to Kim & Mauborgne (2004, p.76)

As previously mentioned, the Blue Ocean theory opposes the traditional competitive

strategy mind-set of Michael Porter’s models, which are based on the assumption

that companies are bound to enter only existing industries and are therefore limited

to follow either low-cost or differentiation approaches (Arline, 2015).

3.3.4 Frameworks for the Creation of Blue Oceans

Based on their studies, Kim & Mauborgne offer companies and entrepreneurs an

array of tools in order to create blue oceans or to move from red to blue oceans.

Referring to the book’s official homepage (Blue Ocean Strategy, 2015) the authors

have developed fifteen foundational frameworks which should not only facilitate the

factual strategy execution, but also communicate the implications in a visual way. In

Red Ocean Strategy Blue Ocean Strategy

Competition in existing markets Creation of new markets

Outperforming of competitors Making competition irrelevant

Exploitation of existing demand Generation of new demand

Direct relation between value and

cost

Breaking up the direct relation

between value and cost

Decide between differentiation or low

cost strategy

Breaking the differentiation vs. low

cost regime and pursue both

strategies

51

the course of the literature review, academic sources as well as opinions from the

start-up community mostly commented and cited the so-called Strategy Canvas,

Four Actions and the ERRC frameworks (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p.226; Kim

& Mauborgne, 2005a, p.110; Arline, 2015). Hence, these three frameworks, which

sequentially build on one another, will be presented in the following subsection.

3.3.4.1 The Strategy Canvas

The strategy canvas represents both a diagnostic and an action framework that is

designed for mainly two purposes. Firstly, the current status quo of a respective

market space is captured. The most relevant factors incumbent industry participants

are currently competing on, as well as what customers actually receive from the

existing offering are depicted. Examples of these competing factors include product

features (price, quality, etc.), service, delivery, image or marketing. The factors are

shown across the horizontal axis of the canvas, which therefore represents the

underlying structure of an industry from a market perspective (Kim & Mauborgne,

2005, p.26). On the vertical axis, ranging from low to high, the factual offering level

customers receive across all relevant key competing factors is displayed. Thereby,

a high score of a factor indicates that a company offers more, such as in the case

of the factor product quality a high score would indicate a high level of quality.

Source: Blue Ocean Strategy (2015)

Graph 11: Structure of a Strategy Canvas

52

Plotting the total offering of an industry participant across all relevant factors creates

a so-called value curve or strategic profile, which visually depicts a company’s

relative performance according to the factors determined (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005a,

p.111). The value curve marks the core element of the Strategy Canvas. Combining

all value curves of competitors can summarise a whole industry. Moreover, the

Strategy Canvas intends to reorient the “strategic focus from competitors to

alternatives and from customer to non-customers of the industry” (Kim &

Mauborgne, 2005a, p.112). This in turn facilitates the redefinition of key problems

an industry is concentrating on and scrutinises existing concepts of customer value

elements that are determined by industry boundaries. From a start-up point of view,

it can be concluded that the Strategy Canvas represents a framework that can be

used for the comparison of competitors’ value curves within industries. Similarly, the

possibility to compare related as well as unrelated industries according to their value

curves provides considerable potentialities for the creation of blue ocean market

spaces to adapt the offering level of solutions to respective customer needs. The

subsequent graph represents an illustrative example.

Source: Author’s graph referring to Blue Ocean Strategy (2015)

Graph 12: An exemplary Strategy Canvas analysing the transportation industry

53

3.3.4.2 The Four Actions Framework and the ERRC Grid

Having applied the Strategy Canvas, a company has now gained insights of an

industry’s strategic profile, which is the mixture of its current offering and factors of

competition. In order to create a blue ocean Kim & Mauborgne provide the Four

Actions framework which can be utilised to redefine buyer value elements, thereby

designing a new value curve (Arline, 2015; Blue Ocean Strategy, 2015). “When a

company applies the four actions framework to the strategy canvas of an industry,

it gets a revealing new look at old perceived truths” (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005a,

p.114). Rejecting the trade-off between differentiation and low cost, four questions

are raised by this model, “which challenge an industry’s strategic logic and

established business model” (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, p.226). The first

question asks which factors could be eliminated that an industry has long been

competing on, but customers no longer value. The next question aims to investigate

which factors could be reduced below industry standards, as they have been over-

designed or over-served and thus bringing no gain but increasing cost structures.

By contrast, it should also be examined which factors could be raised above industry

standard, in order to uncover compromises customers are used to, given the

industry structure. For the discovery of new sources of customer value, thereby

creating new demand, the final question addresses the creation of new factors that

have never been introduced before.

Source: Author’s graph referring to Blue Ocean Strategy (2015)

New Value Curve

Eliminate:

Which industry factors are

unncessary?

Reduce:

Which industry factors are overstated?

Raise:

Which industry factors are

understated?

Create:

Which factors could be offered

to create new demand?

Graph 13: Structure of the Four Actions Framework

54

Kim & Mauborgne (2005a, p.113) argue that the first two questions, which challenge

a company’s current cost structure, should encourage managers to scrutinise given

industry factors regarding their necessity. By contrast, the latter ask how and by

which means customer value could be redefined.

The third tool, which is called ERRC grid (eliminate, reduce, raise, create)

complements the Four Actions framework. Whereas the latter one asks the

questions, the ERRC grid invites companies to suggest concrete actions in

response. When applying the grid, Kim & Mauborgne argue that companies benefit

in multiple ways. They are engaged in breaking the value-cost trade-off, thus

simultaneously pursuing differentiation and low cost approaches.

Similarly, the grid scrutinises the viability of typical managerial mind-sets, such as

companies’ propensity to over-engineer products and services, thus lifting cost

structures without facing according demand. Once the necessary actions have been

completed, the value curve on the Strategy Canvas can be recreated in order to

develop a blue ocean market space (Kim & Mauborgne 2005a, p.117; Blue Ocean

Strategy, 2015).

3.3.5 Summary of the Blue Ocean Strategy

In conclusion, from an entrepreneurial point of view, the Blue Ocean strategy

provides a new approach to the creation of uncontested market spaces. It

encourages start-ups to scrutinise every factor an established industry competes on

and consequently helps discovering the obsolescence of implicit industry

assumptions that incumbents are coping with. Furthermore, the concept is based

on a mutual compatibility of differentiation with low-cost approaches in order to

break the value-cost trade-off. This stands in stark contrast to Porter’s theory, which

limits an entrepreneur’s opportunities to enter only existing industries by following

either one of the two aforementioned options (Arline, 2015).

An effective Blue Ocean strategy should exhibit three characteristics. Firstly, a

company’s value curve should have focus, meaning that the company concentrates

55

its efforts on carefully selected competition factors and thereby also controlling

costs. Second, a company should not benchmark existing competitors (unlike

traditional competitive analysis approaches), but rather look for alternatives, such

as other industries, strategic groups and complementary product or service

offerings. Consequently, the shape of its value curve will diverge from those of other

players, thus showing new sources of customer value and opportunities how to

satisfy customers’ needs. Third, the value curve should have a compelling tagline

which clearly supports the message of a convincing cost-value offering in order to

generate interest among buyers (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005a, p.118; Blue Ocean

Strategy, 2015).

56

4 Methodology

The theoretic part of this thesis is based on secondary data in the form of a

comprehensive literature review. On the one hand, academic sources such as

books, journals, or articles were used. On the other hand, information such as from

magazines or webpages had to be added as supplementary source due to lack of

specific literature on the topic of competitor analysis for start-ups. By conducting an

extensive research on existing literature not only the current state of scientific

research can be evaluated but multilateral perspectives can also be synthesized.

Furthermore, important variables regarding the topic can be discovered (Hart, 1999,

p.27). Moreover, this master thesis is a qualitative empirical study with an

exploratory research design that included the conduction of in-depth expert

interviews. An exploratory research design was chosen because it supports the

discovery of ideas and allows for a better insight into the problem to develop an

understanding of how to approach the issue (Malhotra, 2010, p.104). In the following

section, the method and methodology of the data collection as well as the process

of data evaluation will be described in detail.

4.1 Method of Qualitative Data Collection

The qualitative data were collected using in-depth interviews with experts. The

objective of in-depth interviewing is to discover the respondent’s “underlying

motivations, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings on a topic” (Malhotra, 2010, p.185).

According to Veal (2006, p.197) in-depth interviews are conducted on a one-by-one

basis where the interviewer “typically encourages respondents to talk, asks

supplementary questions and asks respondents to explain their answers. The in-

depth interview is therefore less structured than a questionnaire-based interview –

every interview in a study, although dealing with the same issues, will be different”.

Instead of a formalised questionnaire the interviews are guided by a checklist of

topics. Similarly, the expert interview as a type of in-depth interview is supported

with a non-standardised guideline of open questions and related issues. The reason

there is to provide a flexible base that intends to promote the flow of conversation

(Gläser & Laudel, 2006, p.107). Experts are considered representatives of a certain

57

field who have a specific expertise relating to the topic. The experts are therefore

perceived as a medium through which knowledge can be acquired that contributes

to the clarification of a research problem (Gläser & Laudel, 2006, p.10). Thus, the

gained knowledge needs to be summarised according to an applicable qualitative

content analysis so that the right conclusions can be drawn from the experts’

statements.

4.2 Methodology of Qualitative Research

The qualitative in-depth expert interviews primarily aimed to investigate how start-

ups in the pre-seed phase conduct a competitor analysis and whether any specific

patterns, models or concepts where used by the entrepreneurs to facilitate and

depict the research process. Furthermore, advices on how to conduct a competitor

analysis for a certain industry or market circumstances were sought.

In total, eleven respondents were interviewed. These can be classified according to

their industry background as well as to their professional experience. Five

interviewees had an entrepreneurial expertise, either as founder or key employee

of a start-up company, whereas the six interviewees represented the investors’

perspective. The latter group consisted of private and public investors as well as

start-up consultants from private or academic incubators. From an industry point of

view, the focus was set on seeking opinions from experts engaged in technology or

innovation-driven businesses. Insofar, a group of three experts had exclusively high-

tech sector knowledge, four were familiar with the ICT sector and two had mixed

experiences. One participant with a pure FMCG background was on purpose

chosen as representative of a non-technology or innovation related industry in order

to obtain alternative results as crosscheck. To increase the potential validity and

relevance of the statements, an interview guideline which comprised the major

topics, concepts and models relevant to the discussion was elaborated in advance

and pre-tested.

The eleven interviews lasted between 40 and 70 minutes, usually beginning with an

introduction of the interviewees’ personal experience and approach to the topic of

58

competitor analysis at the start-up level. Subsequently, the respondents’ opinions

about the models identified in the literature review and the expected benefit of their

usage were voiced. Furthermore, relevant models or concepts suggested by the

experts were discussed and related to the topic.

While seven out of eleven experts were called via Skype software, the other four

interviews were conducted in person. All conversations were recorded with the

respondents’ permission and thereafter transcribed with the oTranscribe software.

The names of interviewees were made anonymous for reasons of personal data

protection. All transcripts include basic background information on the respective

expert’s professional experience and industry focus at the beginning. Both the

transcripts and the interview guideline can be found in the appendix.

4.3 Methodology of Qualitative Data Evaluation

Following the transcription of the expert interviews the qualitative data were

analysed and evaluated by using the QCAmap software for systematic text analysis

which refers to the techniques of qualitative content analysis according to Mayring

(2010; 2014). The summary method was chosen with the objective “to reduce the

material in such a way that the essential contents remain, in order to create through

abstraction a comprehensive overview of the base material which is nevertheless

still an image of it” (Mayring, 2014, p.64).

Based on the theoretic part as well as the research question of this thesis, the result

was the development of eleven final category systems comprised of essential

statements of the transcripts. The major steps which were conducted according to

Mayring (2010, p.67; 2014, p.65) are subsequently described. Beginning with the

first step of the analysis, relevant material was selected for the summary and the

analysis units were determined. During the first interpretation step (paraphrasing)

content-bearing parts of the text were transformed into a uniform stylistic level.

These parts were also grammatically abbreviated, so that unsubstantial, repetitive

or explanatory expressions were omitted. Consequently, the paraphrases were

assigned to the respective analysis units. In the next step (generalisation), the

59

abstraction level for the first reduction was defined. Therefore, all paraphrases

standing below the intended level were generalised, whereas those above were

omitted. In the final interpretation step (reduction) generalised paraphrases with

identical meaning were cut and those referring to one another were summarised in

a new statement. According to their content, the statements were grouped into

respective categories. At the end of the first reduction step the core messages of

the statements were compared with the base material. In a second reduction

process the abstraction level was raised once more and the subsequent

interpretation steps reapplied (Mayring, 2014, p. 67). Finally, a more general and

downsized category system was produced, which forms the underlying base of the

analysis, the results and the discussion of the qualitative data in the upcoming

empirical chapter of this thesis.

Source: Author’s graph referring to Mayring (2014, p.66)

As a second qualitative data evaluation, all respondents’ concrete statements

concerning the relevance of discussed concepts, approaches, tools and models

during the interviews are summarised in an Excel spreadsheet. Similarly, reasons

and prerequisites for their respective recommendations are listed. Both the

spreadsheet with the summary of recommendations and the summarising content

analysis according to Mayring (2014) can be found in the appendix.

Step 1

Determination of the units of analysis

Step 2

Paraphrasing of content-bearing text

passages

Step 3

Determining the envisaged level of

abstraction, generalisation of

paraphrases below this level of abstraction

Step 4

Reduction through selection, erasure,

binding, construction, integration of

paraphrases on the envisaged level of

abstraction

Step 5

Further reduction possible on a more

abstract level

Step 6

Collation of the new statements as a category system

Step 7

Re-testing of the new statements as a category system

Graph 14: The Step-by-Step Model of Summarising Content Analysis

60

5 Empirical Part of the Thesis

On the one hand, the theoretic part of this thesis provided the reader with a general

understanding of the start-up environment and its related issues and definitions. On

the other hand, the literature review covered major aspects of competitor analysis

in general and at the entrepreneurial level. Thereby, academic concepts,

approaches, tools as well as models that could facilitate the competitor research

process of start-ups were presented.

This chapter of the thesis will shed lights on the empirical results of the qualitative

data. The results will be first presented as well as analysed. Next, the findings will

be discussed by comparing theoretical and empirical implications. Finally, the

canvas model as synthesis of the insights gained from theoretic and qualitative

research will be illustrated and reasoned.

5.1 Analysis and Results of Qualitative Data

The following subsections broadly correspond to the category systems that were

generated according to the summarising qualitative content analysis and the content

matrix. Consequently, the initial subsections deal with the respondents’ general

understanding of the market and competitive environment at the start-up level as

well as with the usage of models, frameworks, tools, concepts or approaches.

Furthermore, findings about the general step-by-step approach are presented. The

next subsections then follow start-ups’ typical structure of research steps which

were identified in the course of the qualitative data evaluation. The final subsection

sheds lights on the models eligible for graphic depiction when presenting or pitching.

5.1.1 General Comments on Competition and Competitor Analysis

Referring to the qualitative data evaluation, the results indicated that start-ups

initially tend to overlook or underestimate their competitive environment. Among the

reasons for this behaviour the entrepreneurs’ focus on product development and the

resulting conviction of the idea’s uniqueness were named.

61

“What I see is that most of the founders do not really conduct a competitor analysis

or at least underestimate its importance. I often see phrases like there is no

competition on the market, because we are the one who have this and that

technology” (Interviewee No.1, 2015).

The interviewees stated that those start-up companies that had detected that direct

or indirect competitors could supply the same need with a similar product or service

solution do not necessarily perform a competitor analysis in a systematic way.

Typically, entrepreneurs in the pre-seed phase lack funds and in particular time to

conduct elaborate research about the idea’s market potential. Start-ups that have

managed to anticipate a trend need to quickly push the market launch of their

technology and innovation in order to stay ahead of imitators. As a result, start-ups

do not place an emphasis on analysing their competitors. The following statement

of a respondent supports this finding.

“Many start-ups say, we have a new idea, so we don't want to see any competition

out there, because this is a new idea, we want to do that. So what I have seen is

that they did not really use time to analyse which competition is there on the market,

so most of them just deploy a product and then they realise, that there is something

on the market similar to them” (Interviewee No.2, 2015).

The interviewees remarked that competitors could emerge any time and therefore

the initial examination of the competitive environment during the pre-seed phase

would be not sufficient by far. Industrial fields oriented towards innovation and

technology are marked by short product cycles and intensive competitive patterns.

Consequently, a continuous analysis which goes beyond the pre-seed or seed

phase as well as an adaption of competitive knowledge to changing market

conditions was considered as inevitable. Especially competitors stemming from

indirectly related markets that could serve a similar need with their products or

services are often overlooked by the focal start-up. Therefore, the coverage level of

the identified need by alternative solutions ought to be investigated already in the

initial phase of a start-up.

62

“Let us assume you are in the pre-seed phase and you have realised the potential

of a new innovation, you start and as soon as you enter the market, there are already

50 copy cats of your software surrounding you. Three years later, there are 300

copy cats. You do not even know how many there are out there, so conditions can

rapidly change” (Interviewee No.7, 2015).

In spite of the necessity to immediately develop an understanding how to

differentiate from rivals, all of the interviewees agreed that competition should not

be overvalued. Moreover, they advised to follow a customer-centric approach with

the customer need as corner stone of a product’s market potential. Furthermore, it

was argued that start-ups should concentrate on increasing customer value in a

manner that cannot be easily copied or takes a significant amount of time to imitate

in order to build a foundation for competitive advantage.

To conclude, according to the results of the qualitative data analysis, competitor

analysis builds on the verification of customer need. Therefore, it can be used to

identify opportunities for differentiation in the market environment that would then

result in increased customer value. The subsequent quotation by one of the

respondents summarises this start-up point of view regarding competitor analysis.

“You have to know your market but do it only 10 percent of the time and not 90

percent of it. Think more about the product and most important about the customer

and not only about the competition” (Interviewee No.1, 2015).

5.1.2 Comments on Market Understanding, Strategy and Differentiation

The rise of the new economy has brought an enormous change in terms of market

dynamics and economic time patterns such as trends have become very short-lived.

Interviewees pointed out the importance for start-ups to stay agile in unstable market

conditions and to develop a vision in which direction industries are most likely to

move in an effort to anticipate trends. Similarly, a constant validation of a start-up’s

business model and the accuracy with which it matches dynamic customer needs

was considered of utmost importance.

63

“The observation periods have changed which is why we are experiencing extremely

short cycles, therefore we need to act in a much more agile way. I need to consider

new maturities within the scope of my business models. This has totally changed”

(Interviewee No.7, 2015).

As the constant innovation and development of markets has caused a highly

competitive environment a clear strategy that defines the start-up’s objectives and

sets out means of differentiation from competitors is essential. Yet, the feasibility of

the Blue Ocean concept as an alternative strategic approach to even consider the

creation of uncontested markets was largely questioned by the interviewees. Even

if the basic idea was worth being set as the ultimate objective of an entrepreneur,

the respondents pointed out that start-up companies usually re-segment markets by

developing niche products. One of the reasons given for a difficult implementation

of a Blue Ocean strategy is the lack of a risk culture among investors in Europe

because they often do not recognise the market potential of innovations (Interviewee

No.9, 2015). Yet, it was argued that a combination of re-segmentation and blue

ocean thinking facilitates the development of niche markets which could be then

expanded.

“Finding a blue ocean is often purely related to luck, so the differentiation strategy

seems to be logic - or focusing on a special niche. Start-ups often have in the

beginning some kind of niche in their mind, which is often too small. Therefore you

have to broaden it in order to target a larger market” (Interviewee No.1, 2015).

“To combine the blue ocean strategy approach with re-segmentation and to find a

small spot or niche, this would be the right way” (Interviewee No. 5, 2015).

Start-ups typically follow a differentiation strategy in order to develop niche products

that eventually re-segment markets. However, differentiating from existing market

or product patterns requires altering competing factors that incumbent players are

competing on. Referring to the theoretic part of this thesis, the Four Actions

framework which relates to blue ocean strategic thinking was presented as a model

illustrating how the modification of competing factors could be utilised as source for

differentiation from competitors. However, the empiric results showed that the

64

implications of the Four Actions framework relate more to issues such as product

verification and customer value than to competitor analysis. Due to the interviewees’

diverse high-tech or ICT oriented experiences the summarising qualitative data

analysis revealed several approaches of how to modify competing factors in these

industrial fields. Firstly, respondents from high-tech sectors stated that creating

totally new factors was a prevalent pattern in technology oriented start-ups, despite

the involvement of large sums of money due to high research and development

costs. Similarly, raising factors in order to improve efficiency for certain technologic

processes was named as option. Secondly, based on statements relating to ICT

sectors it was concluded, that both directions suggested by the Four Actions

framework were commonly used. On the one hand, the reduction of competing

factors was identified as a significant pattern, with examples such as cost, market

or product complexity reduction. On the other hand, the addition of competing

factors to increase customer convenience was considered by the respective

respondents as common approach. Yet, the addition of new features needs to be

explained to customers which could imply costs of customer education.

Furthermore, one of the respondents added, that start-ups engaged in ICT sectors

initially show a propensity to add competing factors in order to develop points of

differentiation, whereas the reduction or softening of factors in the value curve would

be implemented at a later company stage (Interviewee No.9, 2015).

Porter’s Generic Strategies denotes a further strategic model of how to develop

competitive advantages by either achieving low-cost, differentiation or focus

oriented approaches. The qualitative data analysis, however, indicated the model’s

limited applicability to start-up companies, although some of the strategic

implications were perceived as relevant by respondents. Generally, it was argued

that unlike low-cost approaches, start-ups need to follow differentiation or niche

strategies. Especially for high-tech related products the low-cost idea could cause

problems with the USP development of high-quality products. Similarly, a low-cost

oriented business model based on economies of scales was not perceived as an

option for start-ups. On the other hand, the idea of complexity reduction that could

result in cost efficiency was considered as a potential concept for ICT oriented

business models, such as app solutions that disintermediate costly market

65

participants. Moreover, the focus strategy was broadly endorsed as an essential

approach in a start-up’s early stage for a number of reasons. The focus on a

particular target group was understood as a necessity to obtain early customer

feedback by simultaneously developing and educating customers, such as it is the

case for online market platforms.

“But every kind of market place, B2B or B2C model where you serve both sides you

should always start with focus strategy and with a market segment. Otherwise you

will not get out of the chicken egg dilemma. It means, one side, for example the B2C

side, depends on the B2B side and vice versa. So you cannot build up both sides

simultaneously on a broader scale. So you should narrow down your scale”

(Interviewee No. 4, 2015).

In the case of high-tech products other reasons why the focus strategy was

supported for start-ups in the early stage included the obligatory early cash flow

generation to earn back research and development costs. The focus strategy was

also recommended concerning product testing and the obtaining of a product-

market fit before rolling out the business model to a larger market.

However, it can be stated that the Generic Strategies model was not confirmed as

an explicit tool eligible for strategy development or competitor analysis. The

suggested approaches were regarded as too obvious and as being of little relevance

for start-ups, similar to the low-cost idea. Otherwise, an interviewee stated that the

model’s implications should be at least discussed in the beginning, such as the issue

of pricing (Interviewee No. 9, 2015).

In summary, according to the qualitative data analysis the viability of the Blue Ocean

concept was questioned, even though the strategic concept was supported as a

useful approach to facilitate the implementation of market re-segmentation.

Furthermore, the Generic Strategies model was not confirmed as specific enough

for an adequate applicability in the case of start-ups, although the strategic

implications were considered worth being discussed. Last but not least, the Four

Actions framework showed relevant approaches of how competing factors were

66

modified in the examined industrial fields. Yet, the framework’s usage was rather

associated to product or customer value verification.

5.1.3 General Practices Regarding the Usage and Application of Models

Regarding entrepreneurs’ factual usage and application of models eligible for

competitor analysis the interviews yielded several general results. The statement

that start-ups do not necessarily use models on purpose, but rather ask their implied

strategic questions intuitively represented one basic finding. In other words, start-

ups should rather find answers to strategic questions, than to merely base their

competitor analysis on the usage of models. It was argued that start-ups which apply

strategic models typically adapt them according to their individual needs, meaning

that models are not used one-to-one but modified or individualised. One of the

interviewees added that the actual usage of certain models for competitor analysis

also depends on how the product idea was generated (Interviewee No.10, 2015).

The following statements support the aforementioned conclusions.

“Well, I would like to add that basically every start-up has to find its own model and

approach. The important thing is, just do it and analyse your competition”

(Interviewee, No.1, 2015).

“In practice, I would say that finding answers to questions denotes a wiser approach

than using only particular models” (Interviewee No.11, 2015).

Furthermore, respondents stated that the factual usage of models including any kind

of metrics mostly depends on how accessible data and figures are. Often the

competitors relevant to start-ups do not publish figures that would be essential for a

clear analysis. By contrast, established players in the markets, such as listed

companies, are obliged to publish figures. However, these competitors’ figures do

not qualify for an appropriate comparison with start-ups due to differences in

company size. Consequently, respondents also commented on how useful the

presented models are when start-ups have already researched their ideas and

found useful numbers and wish to depict them for presentation. Thus, when pitching

67

or presenting start-ups rather directly apply these models instead of modifying them

for internal usage.

Summing up, it can be concluded that start-ups do not necessarily need models for

competitor analysis, however they can serve as indicators of whether the relevant

strategic questions have been answered. Models that function with metrics require

sound research before they can be reliably applied.

5.1.4 Findings on Hussey’s Step-by-Step Competitor Analysis Approach

The majority of interviewees agreed that the step-by-step competitor analysis

approach exhibits a comprehensive strategic process. It encompasses relevant

stages of market and competitor analysis in order attain competitive advantages.

However, opinions varied on whether the approach could be applied one-to-one to

start-ups. In general, it was found that the approach is too detailed, therefore start-

ups would use only some of the steps on an individual, intuitive and iterative level.

Moreover, respondents argued that relevant steps are usually applied in

combination with the lean start-up concept in order to obtain validated feedback and

to avoid an overflow of analysis.

“Well, this is a very classical analysis which certainly establishes a valid base how

to approach a competitor analysis. However, I doubt that start-ups conduct their

analysis in such a detailed manner” (Interviewee No.10, 2015).

“It sounds understandable and denotes a strategy process which can be applied to

the case of large medium-sized companies, whereas start-ups would only select

individually relevant steps. That is in principle what I also would do for start-ups and

to combine it with the lean approach or minimum viable product approach, in order

to avoid being obliged to use strategy tools until the end of day” (Interviewee No.8,

2015).

Furthermore, interviewees also added the verification of customer need and

business model as major steps, both of which were missing in the step-by-step

approach. Therefore, in the following subsections, research steps which have been

68

identified as missing as well as those that are part of the step-by-step approach will

be presented in an order similar to the start-ups’ usual research procedure.

5.1.5 Customer Need and Idea Verification

In reference to the qualitative data analysis the interviewees shared the general

opinion that the verification of the identified customer need should be the initial part

in the research process of any start-up. Otherwise a market and competitor analysis

could become irrelevant, due to the lack of market potential. Especially the

motivation of potential customers needs to be investigated and if more of them share

a similar one. One of the interview participants remarked that start-ups should

examine purchase motivations very carefully in order to meet the requirements of a

large customer base, or, in other words the early or late majority of the customer

adoption lifecycle (Interviewee No.9, 2015).

It was argued that the need and idea verification process involves a set of sequential

steps that follow the concept of lean thinking. Initially, there are two approaches on

how to develop an idea. The first one refers to the typical detection of a “pain” or

unsolved problem that could serve as business idea. The latter relates to a market

analysis in which certain patterns in the value generation processes are scrutinized

with regard to inefficiencies, such as in the form of a value chain analysis. As soon

as the idea is generated, it should be checked if it could satisfy a significant customer

need. Next, it should be researched if and to what amount the identified customer

group would be ready to pay for the solution of their problem or need. Last but not

least, the potential profitability of a product solution as well as the access to the

desired target market should be confirmed (Interviewee No. 11, 2015).

69

Source: Author’s graph

As already mentioned, all these steps require that the approach of the lean start-up

concept which was widely endorsed by all of the research participants is to be

followed. In particular, the combination of lean start-up thinking with classic research

approaches was considered a favourable method to verify a business idea.

Generally interviewees recommended to constantly validate the feasibility and

accuracy of a start-up’s product idea and the related business model, independent

of the company phase. Furthermore, it was stated that by applying the lean start-up

method competitors can be already identified at a very early stage. Due to the

conduction of customer interviews, the current coverage of needs and their solutions

by competitors could be investigated, as well as the minimum features that are

decisive for purchase.

Moreover, participants highlighted the importance of developing a USP and value

proposition already in the initial phase of a start-up which should be then constantly

adjusted to changing market conditions and customer needs. This consideration

relates to the aforementioned examination of customers’ purchase motivation. It was

noted, that in the stage of idea and customer need verification start-ups tend to stop

developing their value proposition after first sales to early adopters. Nevertheless,

Detection of a problem/analysis of an ineffiency in a market

Verification of problem/inefficiency as customer need

Readiness of target customer group to buy product solution

Profitability of product solution

Accesibility to the market

Graph 15: Steps of Idea and Customer Need Verification

70

the customer need of average consumers (early and later majority) would be still not

met in that case.

“Most of the start-ups stop developing their value proposition as soon as early

adopters buy their products. However, they are the wrong customer group, since

there are not many of them existing. This means, you absolutely need to go from

early adopters to the average customers which denote the large crowd. They really

ask whether the product is useful and whether they could need it or not. The

customer need of the crowd must be therefore fulfilled” (Interviewee No. 9, 2015).

The interviewees also found that a clear USP and value proposition are necessary

to develop at the stage of idea and customer need verification in order to later

convince uneducated customers, even if it takes time and is costly. Thereby, a new

business model, technology, market or usage situation of the product could serve

as source for the development of a USP. Additionally, it was also suggested to test

competitive products in order to find sources of differentiation (Interviewee No. 8,

2015).

In conclusion, the qualitative results showed that a validation of the idea and

customer need as a combination of lean thinking with classical research exhibits a

necessary first step. Similarly, the development of an USP and value proposition

denotes a prerequisite at this stage in order to fulfil the customer needs of the early

or late majority.

5.1.6 How Markets are Analysed

In the course of the qualitative data analysis, the Five Forces model and the

concepts of market mapping as well as critical success factors were assigned to the

category of market analysis. Such an allocation was done due to their basic

suitability to analyse market conditions, behaviour or similar implications relevant for

start-ups’ market understanding.

71

5.1.6.1 Applicability of Porter’s Five Forces to the Start-up Level

Regarding the Five Forces, the qualitative results showed mixed opinions on the

model’s applicability and usability for start-ups. Based on their personal

experiences, the model’s opponents argued that entrepreneurs and in particular

those with technical backgrounds would not understand its meaning.

“My experience is that founders often look up the Five Forces in web and books and

there is the definition of suppliers, buyers, and substitute products and so on. So

they just focus on what bullet points need to be filled in instead of thinking about the

market. Also, in most of the cases it is not clear who the buyers are in a market and

what are really the power of suppliers” (Interviewee No.1 2015).

Moreover, this group of respondents considered the model as useless as soon as

figures or other market intelligence are difficult to obtain, which applies to the

situation of new markets or products. Especially in the situation of new technologic

or innovative product launches rivalry among competitors can only be assessed

after the market entry of new competitors. Insofar, the model was found more

eligible for existing markets.

The other group of the respondents, namely the supporters, stated that the model’s

implications should be in a start-up’s pre-seed phase both considered for existing

and new markets for the purpose of strategy development. They were of the opinion

that in most cases all forces could be investigated even if figures or market

intelligence was hardly available. In the case of new markets, it was suggested to

ask industry experts and potential customers about bargaining powers. On the one

hand, threats could be estimated by assessing which substitute products could fulfil

a similar need. On the other hand, the ease of the business model’s replicability

could exhibit an indicator how long it would take potential competitors to develop a

similar technology in order to enter the market (Interviewee No.11, 2015). Since the

forces can be mostly investigated, the strategic implications were perceived as

relevant for existing and new markets. However, the supporters mainly

recommended to use the model internally and not for pitching, even if the competitor

analysis of start-ups’ business plans are often presented by applying it.

72

5.1.6.2 Market Mapping as Inevitable Part of Market Analysis

The concept of industry or market mapping was confirmed unanimously by all

participants as an essential part of the market research step. It was referred to its

inevitable importance for business planning and to investors, as they require figures

such as market size and growth to accurately estimate the feasibility, risk and

chances of a start-up’s success.

“Certainly, it is interesting and relevant for pitching. It always sounds great for an

investor to tell him or her, that the start-up participates in a multimillion Euro market

which is annually growing by five to ten percent” (Interviewee No.8, 2015).

Additionally, interviewees emphasised that a quantification of market figures is

always necessary. Even in the case of non-existing markets where figures and

intelligence are not yet available, the quantification is possible. According to the

summary of the qualitative data analysis, there are three major approaches to

mapping a market.

The first approach, namely mapping a market top-down was considered as typical

method. The first step is the critical task of defining which potential market the

product or service innovation can be assigned to at all. Start-ups are then required

to analyse the overall size and growth of the market as well as customer target

groups. Thereby, the market should be broken down according to relevant product

or geographical segments, sales volumes and turnover. In doing so, competitors

and their respective positioning in the market can be quickly identified. The start-up

company then needs to make an assumption of the captured market share as well

as of the generated sales volumes that could be expected after market entry. This

approach of quantitative extrapolation was suggested especially for existing

markets. However, since the calculation is mainly based on assumptions, there is a

lack of validation.

“Top-down is considered among investors rather as a nice exercise lacking veracity.

Primarily, the overall market potential should be presented. How many competitors

are there, how many percent of the target group would initially show an affinity for

the product? These are the important questions, however the rest should be

73

validated bottom-up and for example depicted in an Excel spreadsheet” (Interviewee

No. 9, 2015).

Secondly, the bottom-up approach was recommended. For this method the mapping

process starts from the micro and then continues up to the macro level. Ideally this

approach is combined with the lean start-up method, thereby often delivering more

reliable results than by using the top-down approach. Insofar, the potential market

volume can be evaluated by conducting customer interviews. Thus, the target group

size can be estimated and sales volumes can be derived. Bottom-up implies that

the assumptions are validated by any feedback. Launching a beta version of an app,

for instance, in order to estimate a conversion rate can indicate a validation of a

start-ups’ projected market potential (Interviewee No.9, 2015). Interviewees

highlighted the significance of the bottom-up approach for new markets and

confirmed that investors require such a validation of start-ups’ assumptions. It was

argued that ideally both the top-down and bottom-up approach should be combined.

“For sure, the quantitative way should be used, in order to estimate the potential

market size and sometimes as well qualitative, for the early generation of test

customers” (Interviewee No.10, 2015).

The third approach to market mapping is taking comparable markets as point of

reference. This method was also suggested by interviewees in the case of new

markets. It is based on the one hand on the market structure of similar or identical

markets from foreign countries and on the other hand on “analogue” markets with

the same or equivalent products but different value generation.

“There were some peers with similar models in other countries, foremost in the US

and France. There was one thing when we looked at these peer companies, we

tried to find out whether our market was similar enough to their markets, in order to

adapt their model in a successful way” (Interviewee No.4, 2015).

To sum up, all participants recommended market mapping in the pre-seed as well

as in later company phases in order to develop an understanding of relevant market

figures. Interviewees argued that the combination of the top-down with bottom-up

74

approach could produce valuable results because then the qualitative feedback can

validate quantitative assumptions. Furthermore, taking a comparable market as

reference point for mapping was identified as an option.

5.1.6.3 Critical Success Factor Definition

Despite the interviewees’ background in the ICT and high-tech sectors, the

qualitative data analysis also revealed general results regarding the assessment of

CSF. The interviewees confirmed that the definition of critical success factors is a

vital part of the market analysis process, wherefore start-ups need to develop an

understanding of which of them are especially relevant to their respective industry.

One of the participants compared the concept of CSF to the hygiene factors of

Herzberg’s two-factor theory.

“I would consider them, so to say, as Herzberg’s hygiene factors, if the requirements

of these factors are not fulfilled, it cannot work. However, this does not imply, that

their fulfilment certainly leads to success” (Interviewee No.7, 2015).

Furthermore, some of the CSF should be assessed in a sequential way, meaning

that it would not make sense to deal with a subsequent factor as long as the

requirements of the first one could not be fulfilled. Regarding the sequence of the

general critical success factors, the first one relates to the legal or regulative aspect,

meaning that start-ups should for instance identify legal barriers that could hinder

the market entry. Next, the customer need should be clearly assessed and the

product adjusted accordingly. As already mentioned in the previous subsection, the

targeted customer need and value proposition should exactly fit to the group of the

early or late majority of customers, since early adopters exhibit different purchase

motivations.

“The most important thing is, that the customer would buy the product! The customer

would only buy it if his or her need can be satisfied and the value proposition fits

one hundred percent. That is the only criterion, which really needs to match”

(Interviewee No.9, 2015).

75

Following this quotation, interviewees argued that the business model should reflect

the customer need, wherefore its verification is necessary. Last but not least, it was

the business model’s execution which was identified as subsequent critical success

factor.

Source: Author’s graph

Regarding the CSF that relate to the analysed industrial fields, the statements of the

respondents indicated that many specific factors can be derived from general ones.

Several implications for ICT related business models were based on the generally

accepted CSF, such as data protection which represents a potential legal barrier.

Similarly the match between customer need and value proposition was related to

the topic of complexity reduction, which could augment customer value. In the case

of market platforms or comparable online business models, achieving the critical

mass and traction was considered to be a positive consequence of customer need

and value proposition fit. The harmonisation of the critical mass with operative profit

and issues, such as that customer lifetime value should exceed customer acquisition

costs was therefore attributed to business model verification. One of the

interviewees particularly highlighted the execution’s importance, since start-ups

tend to merely focus on product development.

4. Execution

3.Verification of business model

2. Match with customer need

1. Legal barriers

Graph 16: Summary of Sequential Critical Success Factors

76

“It is cool to work on one’s own product, but you will not receive feedback by that,

compared to sales or marketing, were you immediately notice if something with the

company is not working” (Interviewee No.11, 2015).

The interviewees also mentioned that factors such as scaling and network effects,

the understanding for industry relationships and co-operations with external

partners can be assigned to the general CSF of execution. One of the respondents

also referred to time-related factors such as time-to-market or first mover advantage

and concluded that these factors would not denote a CSF. First movers would need

to educate customers which is costly and timely.

The high-tech oriented group of respondents noted that technologic differentiation,

USP as well as high quality mark an extremely important critical success factor. In

these industrial fields potential customers would first need to be educated about the

technology’s advantages compared to existing ones. These factors can also be

related to the general CSF of customer need. Likewise, the anticipation of market

developments and their implementation into the start-up’s strategy as well as

business model was identified as CSF. This was based on the grounds that the

development of technologies typically requires long-lead times, while markets on

the other hand constantly change. As a result, this statement can be related to the

general business model factor. Last but not least, the transition of the start-up’s team

from technicians to entrepreneurs, which corresponds to the execution stage, was

considered as critical. Thereby, the aforementioned focus on the product should not

overshadow the customer need.

Summarising, most of the aforementioned aspects could be related to the identified

general critical success factors, which should be assessed by start-ups in a

sequential way.

5.1.7 Business Model Verification

Following the qualitative data analysis, the verification of a start-up’s business model

was identified as a consecutive step after the initial need and idea verification as

well as market analysis. Even if the business model does not directly relate to the

77

topic of competitor analysis, interviewees argued that its verification still is an

essential step in the overall research process. Indirect implications could be derived

for the understanding of the competitive environment. According to lean-thinking, a

typical procedure at this step is the qualitative validation of hypothesis such as the

business model’s profitability or the adequacy of the model’s structure to pass the

product on to the consumer. How the business model can be verified, however,

depends on the industry.

“Prior to the development of its business model and product, a start-up first needs

to understand the industry. This means, you have to know the players, you need to

be able to speak the industry’s language and you need to know how the various

business models work” (Interviewee No.11, 2015).

Moreover, referring to the results of the qualitative data analysis, most respondents

considered the value chain analysis as a useful tool to analyse value generation

processes of an industry. Furthermore, they assigned the model to the step of

business model verification, instead of primarily using it for competitor analysis. The

respondents’ prevailing argument was that the value chain analysis should be used

in the business modelling process, because market inefficiencies can be identified,

which could lead to a business idea. It was also stated that by conducting the

analysis better sources of differentiation for the development of a USP can be found.

“I would recommend it anyway, because I am of the opinion that we are now facing

a shift of paradigms. Currently many parts of the value chains are eliminated,

because they are unnecessary, this is so to say the switch from analogue to the

digital world. Hence, new business options emerge, which can be especially

identified by a value chain analysis” (Interviewee No.7, 2015).

To sum up, even if the business model verification step does not necessarily relate

to competitor analysis, it is an essential part of a start-up’s overall research process.

Interviewees associated the value chain analysis with this step, since the model

facilitates the identification of market gaps and inefficiencies that could denote a

source for a business idea. Likewise, the model fosters the development of a USP.

78

5.1.8 Competitor Analysis Techniques and Graphic Depiction for Pitches

The qualitative results of the following models are summarised in this subsection

due to their direct relation to competitor analysis. Some of them could be also

applied to other steps during start-ups’ research process in the pre-seed phase. At

this point, it should be noted that the interviewees generally agreed that start-ups

show a propensity to use the subsequent depictions in order to position themselves

favourably. Some argued that presenting, such as in front of investors, typically

promotes this behaviour. The contribution to the development of an USP and

positioning strategy were perceived to be especially internal benefits for start-ups.

5.1.8.1 Competitor Profiling

The vast majority of respondents declined the use of competitor profiling under

certain conditions, which mostly apply to the situation of start-ups. One of the

arguments was that profiling a competitor on a quantitative base would only make

sense in case of access to numbers and figures of direct competitors. However,

usually these aforementioned preconditions are not met. Given that start-ups intend

to launch an innovation there are often no direct competitors yet.

By contrast, if competitors already exist, they often do not publish figures. Those

who need to disclose information, such as stock exchange listed companies, are not

eligible for comparison.

A few respondents noted that models or approaches based on the principle of

competitor profiling are sometimes used to better understand the competitors’

situation. Adaptions for technology, product, business model, pricing or partnership

network profiling were named. It should be added, that these types of profiling could

be generally relevant for the overall research process.

79

5.1.8.2 Competitor Matrix and Checklist

Unlike the profiling model, the competitor matrix or perceptual mapping (as it was

presented in the theoretic part) received broad support from the participants. The

positive response was primarily due to its simple but informative graphic depiction

of a start-up’s positioning vis-à-vis competitors regarding certain factors of

competition. Yet, it was pointed out that the numbers about the performance on the

respective competing factors should be validated on an objective base. The

interviewees referred to the diagram’s eligibility for presenting a start-up’s

positioning for pitching and also recommended it for internal usage.

“We use the competitor matrix, it makes sense, because it is simple. I would not

totally count on this, but it clearly visualises trends. Even if start-ups sometimes tend

to be not that objective by positioning themselves in the upper right corner, I can

see the relation to the competition” (Interviewee No.9, 2015).

“It serves as a graphic depiction where you can detect the competitors with a single

glance, you see in which quadrants competitors are and you see market size. I

personally like this depiction of the competition, because it has the effect that start-

ups in fact scrutinise their market positioning” (Interviewee No.8, 2015).

Furthermore, the qualitative results showed that by using aspects such as customer

value start-ups adapt the factors of competition according to their needs.

One of the interviewees noted that even more competing factors could be added,

whereby the form would change to a radar chart. As a result, start-ups could then

analyse which “areas” of position they occupy (Interviewee No.9, 2015).

80

Source: Author’s graph

As an alternative to a competitor matrix or radar chart, some interviewees suggested

using a checklist, where competitors and the focal start-up are listed and compared

based on their performance on a set of any competing factors. The respective

performance could be then assessed by using red and green or plus and minus

signs. Respondents referred to the advantages of having a clear representation of

the identified main competitors as well as the start-up’s positioning. Furthermore, it

was mentioned that that the performance signs indicate where the focal start-ups

could exhibit a USP.

“That is the easiest way how to pitch in front of investors. Due to the depiction of the

red and green signs you can easily realise my USP over the competition”

(Interviewee No.8, 2015).

Table 6: Author's Example of a Competitor Checklist

Source: Author’s table

Focal Start-up Competitor A Competitor B

Price

Performance

Ease of Use

Applicability

0

10

20

30

40Price

Performance

Ease of UseCustomisation

Applicability

Focal Start-up Competitor A

Graph 17: Exemplary Radar Chart

81

5.1.8.3 Strategy Canvas

Interviewees generally recommended the usage of the strategy canvas. In addition

to the canvas’ ability to show the serving level of competing factors, the model’s

eligibility for finding market gaps, uncovered needs and spots for positioning that

could serve as USP, was pointed out. Consequently, start-ups can compare

themselves with competitors’ strengths and weaknesses.

“If a start-up uses this strategy canvas model it is forced to ask itself questions about

the relation between need and market, how to get into the market and so on”

(Interviewee No.5, 2015).

Another benefit that was identified by the respondents relates to the model’s

potential implications on the whole market level. By summarising competitors in a

single value curve the average market offering level can be compared to a start-up’s

individual one. Alike, old economy with new economy value curves can be

compared. This indicates that the strategy canvas could be also applied for market

as well as value chain analysis.

Yet, it was argued that due to the model’s comparably higher complexity several

respondents suggested an internal usage and to not use it for very short pitch

presentations where an explanation of the serving level of the competing factors

would not be possible.

5.1.8.4 Petal Diagram

The petal diagram received relatively positive feedback by the respondents due to

its suitability for visual representation of the competitive environment a start-up is

embedded in. Yet, the diagram’s implications and usage for presentations also led

to discussions. On the one hand, experts endorsed its use due to the extended

understanding of direct or lateral markets and competitors that could be relevant for

the focal company. Furthermore, interviewees viewed the visualisation of

competitors into divided strategic groups positively.

82

As a result, the diagram shows two out of the Five Forces, meaning that indirect

competitors which represent a potential threat by entering the market and the overall

intensity of competition can be derived. On the other hand, some interviewees

indicated that the depiction of too many competitors would not lead to a favourable

positioning for start-ups when presenting. Apart from that, it was argued that the

diagram cannot provide extensive information on the identified companies’ products

and thus points of differentiation regarding product features.

“Well, I find the petal diagram quite appealing, because it puts your company in the

centre just visually. On the other hand it is not digging very deeply honestly. You

have a few different areas of peers, you just show them and segment them, but

that's it. But fundraising is about showing off and impressing people, not so much

about the content” (Interviewee No.4, 2015).

Here, respondents stated again that the diagram’s eligibility for pitching would

depend on the time available for presenting regarding the model’s complexity.

5.1.9 Benchmarking

KPI-based benchmarking, which was identified as relevant part in the overall step-

by-step approach for competitor analysis, was considered as useless in a start-up’s

pre-seed or early stage by almost all respondents. Mostly, interviewees emphasised

that even in existing markets figures of relevant competitors are barely available. In

other words, benchmarking with established companies that are obliged to publish

performance data will not deliver the expected benefit, neither will this be the case

for small and comparable market participants that hardly disclose any figures.

Accordingly, interviewees stated that especially for innovation or technology

oriented start-ups that intend to follow a first mover strategy, numbers would not be

obtainable at all due to the lack of an existing market. Furthermore, interviewees

indicated that a start-up would even need an established cost and revenue structure

suitable for benchmarking at this phase. The second major argument was that by

using benchmarking start-ups try to derive from the success of a competitor that the

identified behaviour will lead to success.

83

“If I look at another start-up and think, because they did it like that I will also become

successful, that is wrong. It will not work but is often done this way” (Interviewee

No.7, 2015).

The third general statement opposing to benchmarking referred to its negative

influence on a start-up’s vision and strategy development.

"So what I want to say, you can do what the others are doing or you do it your way

and don't care, and that's the thing with benchmarking and competition” (Interviewee

No.2, 2015).

By contrast, a few interviewees responded to the aforementioned argument, that

even if the strategy should not be oriented completely towards benchmarks, start-

ups could still benefit from knowing KPIs, thereby developing an understanding

about industry-standard figures. Unlike to performance-based benchmarking

towards KPIs such as revenue or cost, some of the experts explained that start-ups

still use benchmarking on an individual level, where the respective analysis are less

based on figures that are difficult to obtain, but rather on information. For instance,

respondents mentioned that start-ups benchmark against competitor’s product

features, customer behaviour or USP strategies. Regarding the online sector,

conversion rates or unique visitors were highlighted as relevant points of reference.

To sum up, interviewees generally agreed that benchmarking oriented towards

business performance might be useless for the case of start-ups, since reliable and

relevant figures are difficult to obtain. Yet, it was argued that start-ups occasionally

conduct benchmarking on an individual level. However, it was suggested that a

start-up’s strategy should not be entirely oriented towards a benchmark, as it should

be rather used in order to develop an overall market understanding.

5.1.10 The Attainment of Competitive Advantages

Despite the interviewees’ diverse backgrounds the qualitative data analysis

revealed several general statements about the topic of competitive advantage on

the start-up level. Primarily, it was found that start-ups in the pre-seed phase are

84

well aware of the importance of attaining a competitive advantage. Respondents

therefore pointed out that even if entrepreneurs do not actively utilise the VRIO

model, they address the same strategic questions regarding the implications of their

business idea, such as time and costs needed for a competitor to catch up with the

development of a product and business model. Furthermore, understanding

customer value and thereby fulfilling customer need was considered a key

competitive advantage in comparison to technology and innovation. Constant

product development therefore grants only a temporary advantage, whose

replication is just a matter of time. In other words, by applying the lean start-up

method and thereby “approximating” customer value so that it virtually meets the

customer need, start-ups can develop a competitive advantage since competitors

will catch up in terms of technology anyway.

“If they are able to build an advantage for the customer, they also build a competitive

advantage. You have to be sure that the built customer value is difficult to be imitated

by competitors. But in general, I would say you have to rethink this whole Porter

perspective from competitor to customer” (Interviewee No.1, 2015).

The interviewees considered the execution of the start-up’s business model as a

major source of competitive advantage and argued that especially the development

of co-operations with outside partners of any kind complicates its imitation because

it will take time to replicate these structures.

“The advantage of co-operations is that they have very often some kind of

exclusivity. So once you locked someone in, not necessarily a target customer but

also an agency that can help you find customers and so on, and your competitor

then cannot work with this particular player, that is an entry barrier” (Interviewee

No.4, 2015).

Moreover, one of the participants highlighted that customer loyalty shows a

difference between old and new economy thinking. While it was argued that brand

awareness or loyalty could denote a source of competitive advantage for tangible

products, such as in the FMCG sector, this would not apply to online based business

85

models. Apart from that, it was reasoned that brand loyalty actually denotes a result

of competitive advantage (Interviewee No.7, 2015).

In general, the question if time, such as the first mover advantage, could be a source

of competitive advantage, prompted discussions among experts.

On the one hand, proponents indicated that if a business idea had proven successful

on the market, imitators would quickly emerge. Therefore, speed in combination with

constant product innovation, such as software development, could represent a

crucial advantage as it aggravates the business model’s replicability. On the other

hand, opponents argued that even first movers need to educate customers and it

would then not be guaranteed that they are top-of-mind for customers. Insofar, a

good execution could even out the temporal advantage.

“Only the first player earns money, but this does not necessarily mean, that it was

the first on the market. A good execution can be a source of market power which

pays on a long-term base” (Interviewee No.11, 2015).

Regarding industry specific findings, results showed that for ICT oriented sectors

complexity reduction in the form of a smart and easy-to-use product was a

reoccurring topic. This can be attributed to the understanding of the customer need.

By contrast, statements on high-tech related competitive advantages related to

typical sources, such as IPs and know-how or the development of new technologic

approaches, which could lead to cost efficiency. Besides, it was also argued that co-

operations with opinion leaders are of essential importance because they can

recommend and promote the product. Yet, they also need to be educated about the

new technology's benefits first.

To conclude, the development of a good understanding for the customer need in

combination with a good execution were broadly recognised as significant source of

competitive advantage. Furthermore, co-operations or partnerships were accepted

as decrease in the replicability of a start-up’s business model. Experts showed

mixed opinions on whether being a first mover represents a real source for

competitive advantage.

86

5.2 Discussion of Qualitative Data

In the theoretic part of this thesis an extensive step-by-step procedure of how to

approach the topic of competitor analysis was presented. Thereby, corresponding

to the respective steps, the researcher also included academic models and

concepts as well as practical tools. The previous analysis of qualitative data

revealed results about their factual usage and expected benefits according to the

interviewees. The following section does not only intend to interpret the

aforementioned results, but also to combine them with theoretic implications

mentioned in the literature review. Consequential differences that were especially

found in the step-by-step approach will then be discussed by the author. Finally, all

implications that could be derived from the interpretation of the results will be

included in a canvas model that summarises all strategic questions and research

steps identified as relevant for start-ups’ competitor analysis in the pre-seed phase.

5.2.1 Comments on Differences between Theory and Empiric Results

In general, the findings of the qualitative data analysis showed that start-ups apply

the presented models on an occasional basis, thereby adapting them to their

individual needs. By contrast, some of the theoretical concepts proved to be of less

or very limited use for start-ups. Although several reasons for these circumstances

were named, most of them moved in a similar direction. One of the main differences

that can be identified relate to the fact that start-ups usually proceed in a less

structured manner than it was suggested in theory, such as in the step-by-step

approach by Hussey (2007). On the one hand, entrepreneurs often lack specific

information such as market data that they would need for the conduction of the

presented analysis, on the other hand, they need to allocate scarce time resources

to other important issues, such as product development.

Typically, entrepreneurs in the pre-seed phase experience a conception period

where many questions need to be addressed. Referring to the first subsection of the

analysis of qualitative data, start-ups that follow an idea especially in innovation

oriented sectors typically face time pressure in order to stay ahead of competitors

87

or even imitators. This is due to the fact that, on the one hand product life cycles

have considerably become shorter, on the other hand the replication of business

models has increasingly become easier. As a result, start-ups need to keep a

lookout for their competitive environment by quickly finding sources of

differentiation. However, it was argued that this is often not the case, since start-ups

are convinced of the uniqueness of their idea, until they realise that there are already

alternative solutions for their addressed problem. Therefore, it can be derived, that

start-ups need to follow a certain research procedure where all relevant strategic

aspects are addressed, instead of concentrating on one concrete analysis.

The majority of respondents emphasised that start-ups should not purely focus on

competition but rather develop an understanding of the customer need. Therefore,

it can be concluded that the competitor analysis plays a minor part at least in the

pre-seed phase, compared to the inevitable questions regarding the customer.

Insofar, at the beginning of a start-up’s research procedure the customer need and

value should be first defined. This basically corresponds with the frequently

mentioned lean start-up method that places the customer in the foreground. By

contrast, none of the presented theories or models in the literature part closely

associated the competitor analysis to the question of the customer need. Instead,

most of the classic models investigated which implications could be derived for the

attainment of a competitive advantage, such as the step-by-step approach

according to Hussey (2007).

Another result which indicates that at least in the pre-seed phase the understanding

of customer needs is more important than a clear competitive strategy relates to the

qualitative results about the Generic Strategies as well as the Blue Ocean strategy.

The Generic Strategies of Porter (1980) were not per se considered as wrong, since

all three strategic approaches were basically perceived as an option. Interviewees

broadly agreed that a focus in the beginning, followed by a differentiation strategy

is considered as typical strategic pattern for a start-up that is first testing its product.

However, these strategic conclusions were mostly perceived as logic, since a start-

up typically seeks to develop a niche product. Likewise, apart from the widely

88

accepted practical usage of the Strategy Canvas, the Blue Ocean strategy by Kim

& Mauborgne (2005) received muted response as an overall approach to tackle

competition due to its difficult implementation. Here again, interviewees noted that

start-ups follow the typical re-segmentation or differentiation approach.

Thus, it can also be derived that entrepreneurs in the initial phase do not necessarily

need a concrete strategic model on which they can rely when developing an

approach how to follow the classic differentiation strategy. Rather, several experts

indicated that start-ups should ask strategic questions that have to be addressed.

Thereby, models or concepts can be used and adapted which involve strategically

relevant implications that can be subject to further analysis. Apart from that, they

serve as visual point of reference that should create awareness among

entrepreneurs with respect to current and prospective developments.

One of the reasons why models were often adapted or not at all used was repeatedly

attributed to the fact that start-ups were simply not able to obtain relevant

information and figures, such as market data or competitive intelligence. Insofar, it

seems to be understandable that the process of market analysis resembles a

process of assembling information. Unlike to the case of existing markets where

market data or other information usually can be accessed, start-ups in innovation

and technology oriented sectors need to get their own idea of what the “market”

could be. It was often argued how the market should be defined at all. Although the

Five Forces model by Porter (1980) turned out to be particularly applicable in certain

cases, the petal diagram by Blank (2013) was often endorsed due to its extended

point of view on direct and lateral markets as well as competitors. Furthermore,

respondents referred to a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches for

the evaluation of market size and growth, which do not follow a specific model. All

in all, it can be stated that start-ups in the pre-seed phase should develop an

understanding about industry standards, relevant competitors, or critical success

factors, rather by finding answers to questions of addressed issues such as market

size or growth than by following one clearly structured model. Thereby, they should

get a clear impression whether their product idea would fit to the respective market,

89

given the existing product solutions that currently satisfy the customer need in a

similar way.

On the special competitor level, qualitative results revealed and confirmed even

more that figures or information about a specific competitor are typically difficult to

obtain. Especially models and concepts such as competitor profiling or

benchmarking proved to be of little use in its original application area. On the one

hand, respondents rejected the classic use of competitor profiling such as

suggested in the literature review in order to measure a key competitor’s

performance regarding certain identified critical success factors. On the other hand,

they mentioned that the basic idea of profiling was adopted by start-ups in terms of

analysing a specific aspect of a competitor in order to receive an indication about

market standards. Other than profiling, benchmarking in general received little

support. Besides lacking figures about competitors’ performance, a major argument

was that start-ups should not deduct from others’ success. Overall, it can be

concluded, that both models in the original sense cannot be applied to the case of

start-ups. Hence, these two explicit steps of Hussey’s (2007) step-by-step

competitor analysis approach can be considered as redundant from the start-ups’

point of view. By contrast, the positioning analysis models and techniques generally

were broadly accepted due to their relevant strategic implications for USP

development and positioning. Especially in the case of presenting and pitching, it

was argued that start-ups typically try to position themselves in all relevant models

subjectively, thereby, for instance leaving unfavourable competing factors out.

Therefore, they should always be critically scrutinized and checked against the

factual market situation. Nevertheless, it can be derived that the according step of

special competitor analysis in the step-by-step approach, which relates to

positioning, is of also of high relevance to start-ups.

What was clearly missing in Hussey’s (2007) step-by-step approach regarding the

case of start-ups is the relation between competitor analysis and business models.

On a general level, the process of business modelling, which denotes an integral

part during the pre-seed and seed phase of a start-up, is not explicitly relevant to

90

the analysis of the overall competitive environment. However, on a specific

competitor analysis level, it was definitely perceived as a significant aspect. Insofar,

some of the respondents used the competitor profiling idea in order to analyse

business models of major competitors in order to gain knowledge about industry

standards in this matter. Likewise profiling was also conducted regarding various

aspects of competitors’ execution, such as partner or distribution networks. It can

be therefore concluded, that the competitor analysis plays not only an active role on

the product level of start-ups, in order to find sources of differentiation, but also on

the overall business model perspective.

Last but not least, the suggested step of value chain analysis was broadly

considered as irrelevant, at least for the overall analysis of competition. Yet, the

majority of interviewees assigned it to topic of business modelling. As a result, it can

be similarly concluded that the value chain analysis as part of the step-by-step

approach must be realigned for the start-up level towards business models.

5.2.2 Presentation of the Competitor Analysis Canvas Model

The following canvas model suggested by the author denotes a summary of both

theoretic knowledge that was gained in the literature review and recommendations

of experts interviewees that were made in the course of the qualitative data

collection. Taking into account the presented competitor analysis step-by-step

approach, it can be understood as an adaption for the specific case of start-ups that

are in the pre-seed phase. Furthermore, based on the findings, it represents a set

of generally relevant research procedures in the pre-seed phase, thereby focusing

on steps that are relevant to competitor analysis. Competitor analysis is strongly

interwoven with market and customer target group analysis, wherefore for start-ups

a clear separation among the individual research is often difficult. In a practical

sense, start-ups could use this canvas as a kind of “instruction manual” when

researching about the feasibility and relevance of their idea in the pre-seed phase.

This is why it was not the author’s intention to limit the canvas to the topic of

competitor analysis.

91

The structure of the canvas is divided into four basic phases relevant to the pre-

seed phase that have been identified in the course of the whole research of this

thesis. In general, it should be mentioned that these phases do not follow a

structured flow, meaning that they are often conducted in an iterative way or even

in a different sequence. Therefore, the suggested structure of phases is merely

intended to illustrate a possible procedure that can be adapted to a start-up’s

respective starting position regarding the research steps.

The phases themselves encompass three components that were identified as

important aspects of the research procedure. Minor analysis steps relevant for a

respective phase are listed, whereas associated questions that are attached

illustrate their essence and address which conclusions should be derived from their

conduction. Apart from that, models, tools, approaches or concepts that were used

or recommended for a specific step are presented.

92

Source: Author’s table

Source: Author’s table

Table 7: Author's suggested Competitor Analysis Canvas Model

1. Idea and Customer Need Verification 2. Product or Service Verification

Step Questions/Issues to address

Model, tool or approach

Step Questions/Issues to address

Model, tool or approach

Need identification

Is there a need? Do customers know that they have a need?

Lean start-up method, Value chain analysis

Minimum viable product

Minimum set of features that are decisive for purchase?

Lean Start-up

Problem identification, alternative solutions

Why is there a need? Are customers looking actively for a solution? What are existing solutions?

Lean Start-up, market research

Value proposition development

What value can I deliver?

Four action framework

Existence of a market, customer definition

If somebody needs it, can he/she pay for it? Who is the customer?

USP development

What could be sources of differentiation?

Strategy canvas, competitor matrix, radar chart, checklist

Estimation of profitability

Roughly speaking, could I sell a product for more than its productions costs?

Competitor product analysis

What quality and functionalities can the competitor's product deliver?

Competitor product profiling, product testing

Market accessibility

Do I have or can I find access to the customer?

Product positioning analysis

How do I position the product vis-à-vis the competition?

Strategy canvas, competitor matrix, radar chart, checklist

Is there a need I can make a business out of? Are customers already looking for solutions?

From the current perspective, how should I position my product or service?

3. Market and Competition Analysis 4. Business Model Verification

Step Questions/Issues to address

Model, tool or approach

Step Questions/Issues to address

Model, tool or approach

Market and competition definition

What is the market structure? Which direct and indirect players are there? Are there substitute products?

Five Forces, Petal diagram

Value creation process

How do I create value with my business model?

Value chain analysis, left side of business model canvas

Market mapping

How big is the market? How much is it growing? Size of the target group?

Top-down, bottom-up peer market mapping

Identification of business models

How do typical industry-standard business models look like?

Competitor business model profiling

Critical success factor evaluation

Which general industry specific minimum conditions must be fulfilled, so that the business idea is worth to be followed?

1) Legal Barriers 2) Match with customer need 3) Verification of business model 4) Execution

Special competitor execution analysis

Implementation of competitors’ business models? (Marketing Mix, Sales, Processes, Partnerships etc.)

Profiling of individual aspects of execution

Evaluation of profitability

Can the business model become profitable?

Individual cost calculation

Understanding of market figures

What are industry standard market figures?

Individual KPI definition

Identification of sources for competitive advantage

Which aspects of my execution could denote competitive advantage?

Competitive advantage, VRIO model

How is the market working, is my idea attractive and relevant for it?

Could the business model really become profitable?

93

Referring to the previous section, steps that were considered as redundant are

intentionally left out, whereas models or concepts that turned out to be modified for

a different use have been assigned here to the respective situation where they can

be rather applied. At this point, it should be again mentioned that the sequence of

analysis steps in the respective phases is certainly not fixed, wherefore it rather

denotes a possible procedure.

The first identified phase named “Idea and Customer Verification” reflects several

comments of interviewees stating that the evaluation of customer need exhibits the

initial point of researching any business idea. Experts argued that in the first step it

should be evaluated whether a need is there at all. Whereas for the whole phase

the lean start-up concept was considered applicable to derive qualitative information

from interviewing customers, it was also pointed out that the value chain denotes a

second approach of identifying a need. By analysing the value generation process

of a market, inefficiencies and redundancies, which could exhibit a source for a

business idea, could be detected. The next analysis steps then suggest to assess

whether the identified need is currently being satisfied by any alternative solutions.

Therewith the process of competitor analysis already starts. Then, the existence of

a market with customers that would be ready to pay for a respective problem solution

should be checked. As the need, customer and market are now roughly described,

interviewees then suggested to conduct a preliminary assessment whether a

specific product or service solution could be profitably sold to the relevant target

group at all. Last but not least, also the question whether the target customer or

market in general could be basically accessed should be addressed as well. Hereby,

typical situations such as market entry barriers or a too much fragmented market

which cannot be targeted as a whole were brought up. In conclusion, after the first

phase entrepreneurs should at least know, whether the identified need represents

a basically feasible business idea and if customers are already aware of the need

of satisfying it with existing alternative solutions.

The second phase, which is called “Product or Service Verification”, relates to the

issues of positioning and differentiation. In the beginning, the customer interviews

should provide information what product or service features are decisive for

94

purchase. Consequently entrepreneurs should reflect which value they actually

want to create. This could involve that a competing factor needs to be altered, which

is why interviewees referred to the applicability of the Four Actions framework. In

comparison to the value proposition, the development of a USP and positioning

strategy could denote an integral next step, where competitors’ strategy can be

analysed by applying typical models, such as a Strategy Canvas, or competitor

matrix. Apart from the market position of a competitor, respondents also highlighted

the importance to analyse the product as a whole, for instance by profiling its

functionalities and qualities. The result of the second phase should indicate how

entrepreneurs can position their product or service and develop a USP with the

given information.

Following the product or service verification phase, the product itself has been

sufficiently predefined in order to relate a potential target market to it, where the

entrepreneurs think, that it could attract customers. Beginning with the typical

analysis of the market structure, models, such as the Five Forces or petal diagram,

can facilitate the depiction of the competitive environment. Thereby also strategic

implications of related markets and competitors can be derived. As soon as its

structure has been roughly identified concrete numbers should be assigned to it.

According to the empiric results a combination of top-down and bottom-up

approaches were suggested in order to adequately map the market and to define a

realistic growth scenario. Similar to the step-by-step approach, an evaluation of

critical success factors on a general and industry specific level could be essential.

Experts often stated that start-ups necessarily need to be aware of certain hygiene

factors that must be taken into consideration as otherwise the business idea cannot

succeed on a long-term base. From a general perspective, the identified factors

include in a subsequent manner legal barriers, match with the customer need,

verification of business model and its execution. Also, from the industry specific

perspective, start-ups need to assess which minimum conditions must be fulfilled so

that the business idea has a chance to succeed at all. The last analysis step of this

phase was named individual KPI definition. Thereby, entrepreneurs should not focus

their strategy on specific indicators considered relevant, but rather develop a

general feeling for market figures.

95

Having gained major insights how the relevant market functions, entrepreneurs

should continue with the generation of a business model. Similarly to the product

level, it should be asked how a business model can deliver value. At this point,

several interview participants recommended to conduct a value chain analysis

whose results should then be incorporated in a business model canvas, which has

been mentioned during the introduction of this thesis. It was suggested that

entrepreneurs should profile comparable business models as a whole. Furthermore,

the profiling of individual aspects of a business model’s execution was considered

as useful. Apart from the evaluation of the business model’s structure, certainly its

overall profitability needs to be verified. Typically, experts hereby brought up the

example of the overall customer lifetime value versus costumer acquisition costs.

Even if the following issue rather relates to later company stages, the concept of

competitive advantages is attached as last point of the business model verification

phase. According to the interviews, start-ups indeed deal with the attainment of a

competitive advantage, yet they do not immediately focus on the topic. Even if only

a few experts knew about the model, they recommended the VRIO concept as a

potential approach how to structure the according questions. All further aspects

were intentionally omitted in order to avoid extending the scope of the pre-seed

phase.

In summary, it should be once more underlined that the sequence of the phases

certainly can vary. Also some of the analysis steps probably are redundant,

complementary or even conducted in another phase. Therefore, the author refers to

the empirical and theoretical findings. For instance, one explanation for the phases’

sequence obtained from an interviewee was that without verification of a need all

other research procedures would be obsolete or irrelevant. Out of the identified

need, it was argued to develop a preliminary product that could be compared with

existing solutions on the market in order to develop a positioning strategy. However,

as long as the rough features of the product are not yet defined, it is useless to look

for a potential target market, which does not adequately reflect it. Last but not least,

it was stated that according to the structure and situation on the identified market, a

business model that can be differentiated from existing ones should be elaborated.

96

6 Limitations and Further Research

Due to its explorative character, this master thesis includes some limitations. Yet,

this research design was purposely selected, because relatively little academic

literature could be found on the specific topic of competitor analysis at the start-up

level. It was the author’s intention to not only close the identified research gap, but

to also shed lights on this topic, by collecting as much information as possible.

Academic sources and entrepreneurship literature rarely focuses on the competitor

analysis perspective of start-ups. As a consequence, the researcher had to also

refer to several alternative resources obtained from the internet, such as articles

from magazines. This means that the explanatory power of the thesis is limited,

wherefore definitive conclusions should be derived only with caution.

Moreover, the qualitative empirical methodology may represent another source of

limitation. Due to the exploratory concept of this thesis, a qualitative approach was

chosen in order to gather extensive amounts of information. Given that the

qualitative results were obtained from a rather small sample size of eleven expert

interview participants, a quantitative confirmation could be beneficial. Furthermore,

the inhomogeneous composition of the qualitative sample, encompassing different

industry backgrounds and experiences, could also constitute a limitation. Yet, this

the sample structure was purposefully selected in order to provide different point of

views on the topic of competitor analysis for start-ups.

The focus on the pre-seed phase should define the limits of the intended research,

although start-ups will eventually gather competitive intelligence on a revolving base

as well. Similarly, it can be argued that the pre-seed phase of a start-up differs from

the process of conventional company formations. Therefore, the suggested

implications for competitor analysis may not apply to the case of SMEs.

While there are numerous models, tools, approaches and concepts that deal with

the subject of competitor analysis from different perspectives, only those that were

97

identified as relevant for the start-up level were tested in the course of the empirical

research. Also, the scope of this thesis put a limit to the amount of evaluated models.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the acquired knowledge was applied to the

canvas model for competitor analysis of start-ups in the pre-seed phase.

Consequently, it can only be used in a limited number of cases.

Resulting from the limitations of this qualitative empirical study it would certainly be

beneficial to confirm the knowledge gained from the in-depth expert interviews on a

quantitative level. It could be therefore of scientific interest to conduct a subsequent

quantitative study on start-ups’ behaviour regarding competitor analysis in the pre-

seed phase. Thereby, only one of the broad industrial fields that were part of this

thesis could be taken into account and the focus could lay on one specific business

model. Furthermore, it could be scientifically relevant to investigate how start-ups

that have left the pre-seed or seed phase continue to analyse their competition.

Regarding the suggested competitor analysis canvas, based on the model a

quantitative survey could be developed, which examines the strategic relevance of

the derived implications among start-ups. From a practical point of view, the canvas

model could be given to prospective entrepreneurs that intend to research a

business idea with the help of an “instruction manual”. Afterwards, feedback about

its accuracy and usability could be gathered in the form of focus group or quantitative

interviews in order to adapt the model according to the requested changes of the

research participants.

98

7 Conclusion

The research question of this master thesis as stated in the introductory section 1.3

reads as follows:

Based on reference models, such as Porter’s Generic Strategies and others, to what

extent are different competitor analysis approaches used by start-ups in the pre-

seed phase and how much benefit do they expect from each?

The findings revealed that the competitor analysis can hardly be considered an

isolated research procedure that is independent from other typical investigations in

the course of a start-up’s foundation. Thus, it is typically closely related to customer

target group as well as market analysis. Therefore, findings suggested, that

competition should be analysed from a more general point of view, given that it can

originate from several different perspectives. On the one hand, it was argued that

competition could originate at the product or business model level, on the other hand

it could also stem from indirectly related markets whose product or service solutions

satisfy a similar need. Consequently, it was emphasised that start-ups should focus

on understanding the customer need than simply analysing competition.

Entrepreneurs in the pre-seed phase typically have to deal with a set of issues more

or less simultaneously, which is why a separation or division of the respective

research steps is difficult. Apart from that, starting conditions in the pre-seed phase

are often unfavourable. Innovation and technology oriented start-ups typically have

to work under extreme uncertainty, since relevant market data and competitive

intelligence can barely be accessed. Similarly, start-ups often lack time and need to

continue innovating their products in order to stay ahead from competitors.

Accordingly, results showed that start-ups ask a set of strategic questions that need

to be addressed in the course of research instead of using one single strategy. This

is also why the Generic strategies or Blue Ocean strategy were broadly rejected as

reference strategy.

99

In general, models, tools, approaches or concepts turned out to play a supportive

role that should capture and depict the gained knowledge. However, they were also

considered a stimulating source from which strategic implications can be derived

from. Thus, they facilitate the process of answering the initial questions.

The findings on the use of the examined models support this statement. These

models and concepts are typically used on an individual level, where they are

applied due to their effectiveness in answering strategic questions. By contrast,

some of the models were not used because they cannot address specific questions.

Typically, those models that were not used required concrete competitive data or

figures, such as competitor profiling or benchmarking. Without that information, no

objective conclusions could be derived that address a specific question.

Furthermore, it can be derived that start-ups in the pre-seed phase combine

theoretic research with the lean start-up concept. On the one hand, questions are

theoretically evaluated by a set of models and concepts, on the other hand they are

empirically validated, for example by conducting test customer or expert interviews.

Thus, one can conclude that a concrete response to a strategic question cannot be

provided by the application of a single model. Rather, the response needs to be

elaborated on an iterative base.

For that reason, there is also no uniform procedure on how to approach a competitor

analysis. Findings on the presented step-by-step approach of Hussey (2007)

confirmed that start-ups rather adapt some of the suggested steps on an individual

base than follow the concept in a structured manner. Yet, it can be argued that most

of the strategic questions, which need to be addressed, remain the same or at least

similar for any specific market or competitive situation a start-up is embedded in.

For instance, a start-up always needs to ask, whether there are customer need and

value, since markets and competitors change constantly.

100

The answer of the research question is therefore the following:

Models and concepts relevant for competitor analysis are only used if they represent

an eligible source from which strategic implications can be derived, in order to

support the answering process of the initial questions that start-ups in the pre-seed

phase have to address. As starting positions in the pre-seed phase always vary,

there is no uniformly applicable competitor analysis approach. However, start-ups

use models and concepts according to the answering process of these initial

questions. For this purpose models and concepts are often combined, since each

provides certain elements of information that contribute to the overall response.

101

References

Arline, K. (2015, 04 01). Blue Ocean Strategy: Creating Your Own Market.

Business News Daily. Retrieved 04 12, 2015, from

http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/5647-blue-ocean-strategy.html

Austrian Startups. (2013). Visionen für Startups in Österreich. Retrieved 03 19,

2015, from

http://www.austrianstartups.com/VisionenFuerStartupsInOesterreich.pdf

Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal

of Management, 17(1), pp. 99-120.

Baum, J. A., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance,

intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and

performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19,

pp. 411-436.

Benjamin, W. A., & McDowall, J. R. (2010). Successful Startups: An Essential

Guide to Business Venture Analysis and Development. TBG Publishing.

Retrieved 12 13, 2014, from

https://books.google.at/books?id=nEEvevPad40C&printsec=frontcover&dq=

inauthor:%22William+A.+Benjamin+and+Jason+R.+McDowall%22&hl=de&

sa=X&ei=9JUWVYbcLcfPaI2LgOAN&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q

&f=false

Bergen, M., & Peteraf, M. (2002). Competitor Identification and Competitor

Analysis: A Broad-Based Managerial Approach. MANAGERIAL AND

DECISION ECONOMICS, 23, pp. 157-169.

Blank, S. (2007). The Four Steps to the Epiphany (Vol. 3).

Blank, S. (2010, 03 01). steveblank.com. Retrieved 01 12, 2015, from Death By

Competitive Analysis: http://steveblank.com/2010/03/01/death-by-analysis/

102

Blank, S. (2012, 12 04). 4 Types of Markets, 4 Ways to Gauge Them. The Wall

Street Journal. Retrieved 01 22, 2015, from

http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2012/12/04/4-types-of-markets-4-ways-to-

gauge-them/

Blank, S. (2013, 11 08). steveblank.com. Retrieved 01 10, 2015, from A New Way

to Look at Competitors: http://steveblank.com/2013/11/08/a-new-way-to-

look-at-competitors/

Blank, S. (2013a). Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything. Harvard Business

Review.

Blank, S. (2014, 07 28). Steve Blank on Defining New Markets: Failing to

understand new markets is the biggest mistake your startup can make. Inc.

Retrieved 01 22, 2015, from http://www.inc.com/steve-blank/defining-new-

markets.html

Blank, S. (2014a, 03 14). Why Companies are Not Startups. steveblank.com.

Retrieved 03 16, 2015, from http://steveblank.com/2014/03/04/why-

companies-are-not-startups/

Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The Startup Owner's Manual: The Step-By-Step

Guide for Building a Great Company . K&S Ranch, Incorporated.

Blue Ocean Strategy. (2015). blueoceanstrategy.com. Retrieved 01 20, 2015, from

www.blueoceanstrategy.com/concepts/bos-tools/

Böcker, J., & Klein, M. (2012). Grundlagen und Hintergründe. In J. Böcker, & M.

Klein, ICT-Innovationen erfolgreich nutzen: Wie Sie Wettbewerbsvorteile für

Ihr Unternehmen sichern (pp. 11-39). Springer Verlag. Retrieved 04 12,

2015, from

https://books.google.at/books?id=ZZuTZFlkKd0C&pg=PA12&dq=definition+

ict&hl=de&sa=X&ei=DNk3VeCLNIKxPe_3geAK&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=o

nepage&q=definition%20ict&f=false

103

Boué, A. R., Kehlbeck, H., & Leonhartsberger-Heilig, W. (2012). Basiswissen

Private Equity: Was Praktiker über externe Eigenkapitalfinanzierungen

wissen müssen. Wien: Linde International.

Brown, P. B. (2013, 08 14). Why Business Plans Are A Waste Of Time. Forbes.

Retrieved 03 16, 2015, from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/actiontrumpseverything/2013/08/14/why-

business-plans-are-a-waste-of-time/

Cabage, N., & Zhang, S. (2013). The Smarter Startup: A Better Approach to

Online Business for Entrepreneurs. New Riders. Retrieved from

https://books.google.at/books?id=TcKv-

yS920MC&pg=PT2&lpg=PT2&dq=%E2%80%A2%09The+Smarter+Startup:

+A+Better+Approach+to+Online+Business+for+Entrepreneurs,++von+Neal

+Cabage,Sonya+Zhang&source=bl&ots=HfZBQmqgMl&sig=zXSIeEfDVwKl

SqQ1WIOuQtMnYKM&hl=de&sa=X&ei=p3

CB Insights. (2014, 10 07). The Top 20 Reasons Startups Fail. Retrieved 03 22,

2015, from cbinsights.com: https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/startup-failure-

reasons-top/

Chen, M. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical

integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), pp. 100-134.

Chen, M. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How

small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of

management journal, 38(2), pp. 453-482.

Czepiel, J. A., & Kerin, R. A. (2012). Competitor Analysis. In V. Shankar, G. S.

Carpenter, & J. Farley, Handbook of Marketing Strategy (pp. 41-57).

Edward Elgar Publishing.

Dalakian, G. (2013, 02 07). 90% of Tech Startups Fail [Infographic]. wamda.com.

Retrieved 03 15, 2015, from http://www.wamda.com/2013/02/90-percent-of-

tech-startups-fail-infographic

104

Dean, D., Digrande, S., Field, D., Lundmark, A., O'Day, J., Pineda, J., &

Zwillenberg, P. (2012). The Internet Economy in the G-20. The Boston

Consulting Group. Retrieved 03 17, 2015, from

https://www.bcg.com/documents/file100409.pdf

Deeb, G. (2013, 09 18). The Unlucky 13 Reasons Startups Fail. Forbes. Retrieved

03 16, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgedeeb/2013/09/18/the-

unlucky-13-reasons-startups-fail/

Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2012). Marketing Concepts &

Strategies. Cengage Learning.

Empson, R. (2013, 12 20). Backed By Steve Blank & More, Startup Genome

Founders Launch Next-Gen Benchmarking Tool For Startups. Retrieved 01

11, 2015, from techcrunch.com: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/20/backed-

by-steve-blank-more-startup-genome-founders-launch-next-gen-

benchmarking-tool-for-startups/

Fahey, L. (2003). Competitor scenarios. Strategy & Leadership, 31, pp. 32-44.

Gage, D. (2012, 09 20). The Venture Capital Secret: 3 Out of 4 Start-Ups Fail. The

Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 03 15, 2015, from

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443720204578004980476

429190

Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2006). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse

als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (2 ed.). Springer Verlag.

Retrieved from

https://books.google.at/books?id=v2FQNKkqUAwC&printsec=frontcover&d

q=Bogner+und+Menz+2005&hl=de&vq=%22Das+Experteninterview%22&s

ource=gbs_citations_module_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

Grant, R. (2013). Contemporary Strategy Analysis (8 ed.). Edinburgh Napier

University.

105

Griffith, E. (2014, 09 25). Why startups fail, according to their founders. Fortune.

Retrieved 03 16, 2015, from http://fortune.com/2014/09/25/why-startups-

fail-according-to-their-founders/

Haden, J. (2013, 10 13). Best Way to Do a Market Analysis? A reader asks which

is better: top down or bottom up analysis? Here's what you need to know

about both. Inc. Retrieved 11 26, 2014, from http://www.inc.com/jeff-

haden/bottom-up-or-top-down-market-analysis-which-should-you-use.html

Hahn, C. (2014). Finanzierung und Besteuerung von Start-up-Unternehmen:

Praxisbuch für erfolgreiche Gründer. Springer Verlag. Retrieved from

https://books.google.at/books?id=TyseBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA7&dq=Finanzier

ung+und+Besteuerung+von+Start-up-

Unternehmen&hl=de&sa=X&ei=vKs3VeyZD-

ac7gbXo4HQAw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pre-seed&f=false

Hahn, C., & Naumann, D. (2014). Finanzierungs-/Gründungsphasen. In C. Hahn,

Finanzierung und Besteuerung von Start-up-Unternehmen: Praxisbuch für

erfolgreiche Gründer (pp. 81-220). Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from

https://books.google.at/books?id=TyseBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA81&dq=hahn+na

umann+2014&hl=de&sa=X&ei=y4VkVZGlGvWNsQSHjYKQBA&ved=0CB4

Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=naumann&f=false

Hart, C. (1999). Reviewing and the research imagination. In C. Hart, Doing a

Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination (pp.

26-43). SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/managementresearch/Easterby-

Smith%20Online%20Reading%20Links/Chapter%203/Hart%20Doing%20th

e%20Literature%20Review%20pp26-43.pdf

Hussey, D. E. (2007). Strategic Management: From Theory to Implementation (4

ed.). Routledge. Retrieved from

https://books.google.at/books?id=SJQYUsv_g4gC&printsec=frontcover&dq

=hussey+2007+strategic+management&hl=de&sa=X&ei=DHoVVZPbCYP8

106

UviwgpAO&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=competitor%20analysis&f

=false

Interviewee No.1. (2015, 02 25). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Skype.

Interviewee No.10. (2015, 03 16). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Skype.

Interviewee No.11. (2015, 03 19). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Skype.

Interviewee No.2. (2015, 02 25). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Vienna.

Interviewee No.3. (2015, 02 25). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Vienna.

Interviewee No.4. (2015, 02 27). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Skype.

Interviewee No.5. (2015, 03 05). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Skype.

Interviewee No.6. (2015, 03 09). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Skype.

Interviewee No.7. (2015, 03 11). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Skype.

Interviewee No.8. (2015, 03 16). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Vienna.

Interviewee No.9. (2015, 03 16). (S. Guth, Interviewer) Vienna.

IsHak, S., & Subramanian, R. (1998). Competitor analysis practices of US

companies: An empirical investigation. Management International Review;

38, pp. 7-23.

Kane, T. (2010). The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction.

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Kauffman Foundation Research

Series: Firm Formation and Economic Growth.

Kim, E., Nam, D.-I., & Stimpert, J. L. (2004). The Applicability of Porter’s Generic

Strategies in the Digital Age: Assumptions, Conjectures, and Suggestions.

Journal of Management, 30(5), pp. 569–589.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue Ocean Strategy. (H. B. Review, Ed.)

Harvard Business Review Article Collection, pp. 69-80. Retrieved 02 04,

107

2015, from

http://www.syv.pt/login/upload/userfiles/image/Reinventing%20Your%20bus

iness%20model%20HBR.pdf#page=71

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create

uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant. Harvard

Business Press. Retrieved from

http://books.google.at/books?id=BmPPAjGaDuQC&pg=PA3&hl=de&source

=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (2005a). Blue Ocean Strategy: from theory to practice.

California Management Review, 47(3), pp. 105-121.

King, R. (2013, 11 18). Steve Blank’s Petal Diagram vs. Rod King’s Trade-off Map:

Visual Tools for Brand Positioning, Market Segmentation, and Competitive

Analysis. Retrieved 01 16, 2015, from businessmodelhub.com:

http://businessmodelhub.com/profiles/blogs/steve-blank-s-petal-diagram-vs-

rod-king-s-trade-off-map-visual

Kotler, P., & Bliemel, F. (2001). Marketing-Management (Vol. 10). Stuttgart:

Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag.

Lesonsky, R. (2012, 09 06). readwrite.com. Retrieved 01 17, 2015, from Do

Startup Benchmarks Really Make A Difference?:

http://readwrite.com/2012/09/06/do-startup-benchmarks-really-make-a-

difference

Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (6 ed.).

Pearson.

Market Segmentation Company. (2014). marketsegmentation.co.uk. Retrieved 11

19, 2014, from

http://www.marketsegmentation.co.uk/mapping_eg_tmsc.htm

MaRS. (2011, 10 26). Four types of market (market maturity): Where does your

startup’s product belong? Retrieved 01 23, 2015, from

108

http://www.marsdd.com: http://www.marsdd.com/mars-library/the-four-

types-of-market-market-maturity-where-does-your-startups-product-belong/

Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (Vol.

11). Beltz.

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic

Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt, Austria. Retrieved 04 08,

2015, from

www.google.at/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDE

QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.qualitative-content-

analysis.aau.at%2F200000075-

82241831d6%2FMayring%25282014%2529QualitativeContentAnalysis.pdf

&ei=qm45VcOVAsbbaraYgegF&usg=AFQjCNHvvIKXy5ylx7d0KE

McDonald, M. (2009). Completing the marketing audit 1: The customer and market

audit. In M. McDonald, Marketing Plans: How to Prepare Them, how to Use

Them (Vol. 7, pp. 11-180). Elsevier. Retrieved from

https://books.google.at/books?id=mtpQBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&d

q=mcdonald+marketing+plans&hl=de&sa=X&ei=uaRkVZyTLontUrrYgZAN&

ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

McDonald, M. (2009). Completing the marketing audit: 1. The customer and

market audit. In M. McDonald, Marketing Plans: How to Prepare Them, how

to Use Them (6 ed.). Elsevier. Retrieved 12 11, 2014, from

https://books.google.at/books?id=mtpQBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA111&dq=market

+mapping+how+to+do+it&hl=de&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=

market%20mapping%20how%20to%20do%20it&f=false

Metayer, E. (2013, 10 07). 50 Competitive Intelligence Analysis Techniques.

Retrieved 02 10, 2015, from competia.com: http://competia.com/50-

competitive-intelligence-analysis-techniques

Murray, A. (2010). The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Management:

Lasting Lessons from the Best Leadership Minds of Our Time. Harper

109

Collins. Retrieved 02 03, 2015, from

http://books.google.at/books/about/The_Wall_Street_Journal_Essential_Gui

de.html?id=iLxklckK4tsC&redir_esc=y

O'Connor, T. (2010). Competitive Profiling Analysis and Positioning. In T.

O'Connor, Strategic Planning for Distributors: Execution Isn't Everything-It's

the Only Thing! (pp. 47-56). National Association of Wholesaler-

Distributors. Retrieved 12 20, 2014, from

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TgmLvRjLtlwC&printsec=frontcover&hl

=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

O'Farrell, R. (2015). Advantages of Internet Businesses. Houston Chronicle.

Retrieved 03 16, 2015, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-

internet-businesses-4060.html

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). ISIC REV. 3

TECHNOLOGY INTENSITY DEFINITION: Classification of manufacturing

industries into categories based on R&D intensities. OECD, Economic

Analysis and Statistics Division. Retrieved 04 15, 2015, from

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/48350231.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2012). Business

start-up rates diverging across OECD economies. OECD, Entrepreneurship

and business statistics. Retrieved 03 15, 2015, from

http://www.oecd.org/std/business-stats/businessstart-

upratesdivergingacrossoecdeconomies.htm

Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Perspective on Blue Ocean

Strategy. In A. Osterwalder, & Y. Pigneur, Business Model Generation: A

Handbook for Visionaires, Game Changers, and Challengers (pp. 226-232).

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Pendergast, W. R. (2003). Entrepreneurial Contexts and Traits of Entrepreneurs.

Engineering Conferences International. ECI Digital Archives. Retrieved 01

14, 2015, from

110

http://dc.engconfintl.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=teaching

&sei-

redir=1&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.at%2Fscholar%3Fq%3D

pendergast%2B2003%2Bentrepreneur%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Dde%26as_

sdt%3D0%252C5#search=%22pendergast%202003%20entrepren

Pietrzak, C. (2014, 01 15). cezary.co. Retrieved 01 18, 2015, from Defining your

market niche: http://www.cezary.co/post/73475577450/defining-your-

market-niche

Pinson, L. (2008). Anatomy of a Business Plan: The Step-by-step Guide to

Building Your Business and Securing Your Company's Future. aka

associates. Retrieved from

http://books.google.at/books/about/Anatomy_of_a_Business_Plan.html?id=

kIOJaF52G7QC&redir_esc=y

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy (1 ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (1991). TOWARDS A DYNAMIC THEORY OF STRATEGY. Strategic

Management Journal, 12, pp. 95-117.

Price, R. W. (2011, 02 14). What is the value chain concept? Retrieved 01 13,

2015, from gcase.org: http://news.gcase.org/2011/02/14/what-is-the-value-

chain-concept/

Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continous

Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. New York: Crown

Business. Retrieved 03 20, 2015, from

http://www.stpia.ir/files/The%20Lean%20Startup%20.pdf

Schifferes, S. (2006, 08 03). How the internet transformed business. BBC News.

Retrieved 03 16, 2015, from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5235332.stm

111

Skok, D. (2015). Why Startups Fail. Retrieved 03 16, 2015, from

forentrepreneurs.com: http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/business-

models/why-startups-fail/#comment-481041418

Spaeder, K. A. (2015). How to Research Your Business Idea. Entrepreneur.

Retrieved 03 21, 2015, from http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/70518

Spors, K. K. (2007, 01 09). Do Start-Ups Really Need Formal Business Plans?

The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 03 16, 2015, from

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116830373855570835

Strategic Management Insight. (2015). strategicmanagementinsight.com.

Retrieved 01 03, 2015, from

http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools

Stuhr, M. (2014). Mythos New Economy: Die Arbeit an der Geschichte der

Informationsgesellschaft. transcript Verlag. Retrieved from

https://books.google.at/books?id=lXvJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&dq=new+econ

omy+startup&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=s

amwer&f=false

The Knowledge Agency. (2014, 12 10). www.knowledgeagency.com. Retrieved

from http://www.knowledgeagency.com/content/enhanced-industry-

mapping

The Lean Startup. (2015, 03 12). Retrieved from theleanstartup.com:

http://theleanstartup.com/

Tobak, S. (2014, 01 31). 9 Reasons Why Most Startups Fail. Entrepreneur.

Retrieved 03 15, 2015, from http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/231129

Tunguz, T. (2015). http://tomtunguz.com. Retrieved 02 01, 2015, from Why the

Petal Diagram Isn't the Best Competition Diagram for Startup's Pitch:

http://tomtunguz.com/ecosystem-vs-competition/

112

Twin Engine Labs. (2013, 11 12). A New Way to Do Competitive Analysis: The

Petal Diagram. Retrieved 01 16, 2015, from twinenginelabs.com:

http://blog.twinenginelabs.com/2013/11/competitive-analysis-petal-

diagram.html#.VOCPEyCggqt

Vals, M. (2014, 09 25). Top 20 reasons why startups fail: Report. The Next Web.

Retrieved 03 15, 2015, from http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/09/25/top-

20-reasons-startups-fail-report/

Varza, R. (2013, 12 19). From Tech City to Tech Continent: what are European

governments doing to support their startups? tech.eu. Retrieved 03 15,

2015, from http://tech.eu/features/190/tech-city-tech-continent-european-

governments-support-startups/

Veal, A. J. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide

(3 ed.). Pearson Education.

Warrillow, J. (2011, 06 10). No Competition? Chances Are, There's No Business

Either. Inc. Retrieved 03 16, 2015, from

http://www.inc.com/articles/201106/no-competition-no-business.html

Wilson, R. (1994). Competitor analysis. Management Accounting, 72, pp. 24-26.

113

Appendix

Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups

in the pre-seed phase: a qualitative study of approaches,

models and concepts used by innovation-oriented

entrepreneurs, consultants and investors

Sebastian Guth

IMC FH Krems

Qualitative Data Analysis according to Mayring (2014)

Reduction 1

Reduction 2

Interview Transcripts

Interview Guideline

Qualitative Content Analysis according to Mayring (201 4)

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P10: Focus strategy important for early customer feedback and customer develop-ment

B-G6: Focus strategy is important for early customer feedback, customer development and to generate early cash flows, because it increases sales performance

B-R1: Generic strategies

B-P72: Focus strategy is important to avoid burning too much cash and to quickly gener-ated revenues

B-G7: after focus strategy market roll-out, at-tracting different target groups or adding more product categories

Focus strategy: early customer feedback and education, equal customer development (e.g. plat-forms)

B-P73: Focus strategy is important for prod-uct testing and for obtaining a product-mar-ket fit

B-G8: Focus strategy is important for prod-uct testing and for obtaining a product-mar-ket fit

generates cash flow and increases sales performance to earn back R&D costs

B-P114: high-tech startups need to follow fo-cus strategy in order to earn back the in-vested R&D expenditures by focusing on a specific niche or segment, otherwise they run out of money

B-G9: focus strategy for high-tech startups very important in order to earn back the in-vested R&D expenditures

product testing and obtaining product-mar-ket fit, roll-out to whole market, new target group/products/categories

B-P145: Focus strategy does is important for start-ups in the high-tech sector, low-cost is no option as customers would associate the product with low quality

B-G10: low-cost is no option for high tech start-ups as customers would associate the product with low quality

Low -cost strategy: fear of association with low quality (high-tech), capital backing necessary, problem for high-quality products with USP develop-ment

B-P86: online market platforms need to first follow a focus strategy within a certain mar-ket segment in order to equally build up both customer parties, following a broad scale from the beginning both sides cannot equally be served

B-G11: online market platforms need to first follow a focus strategy within a certain mar-ket segment in order to equally build up both customer parties, following a broad scale from the beginning both sides cannot equally be served

motivation to follow low-cost strategy not economies of scale but optimising ineffi-ciencies

B-P41: capital backing is necessary for low-cost approach

B-G140: capital backing is necessary for low-cost approach

B-P227: start-ups following a low-cost strat-egy will have problems developing a USP; generic strategies model is not explicitly used but strategic implications are discussed

B-G165: start-ups following a low-cost strat-egy will have problems developing a USP; generic strategies model is not explicitly used but strategic implications are discussed

Generic strategies in general: generic strategies not used explicitly, but implications are discussed; start-ups fear of competitiveness due to high pricing

B-P288: start-ups that follow low-cost strat-egy are not following the idea economies of scale but of optimising inefficiencies

B-G166: start-ups that follow low-cost strat-egy are not following the idea economies of scale but of optimising inefficiencies

B-P228: defining of a strategy relates to de-veloping an adequate pricing strategy; start-ups tend to avoid high pricing and prefer lower pricing in order to remain competitive

B-G174: defining of a strategy relates to de-veloping an adequate pricing strategy; start-ups tend to avoid high pricing and prefer lower pricing in order to remain competitive

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P143: Start-up used some of the steps of the step-by-step approaches and adapted them to their individual needs

B-G12: Start-up use some of the steps of the step-by-step approaches and adapt them to their individual needs, others are skipped be-cause they are too detailed

B-R2: Step-by-step competitor analysis approach

B-P225: the steps of the step-by-step ap-proach conducted iteratively

B-G13: the steps of the step-by-step ap-proach are conducted iteratively by start-ups

steps are individually, intuitively and itera-tively used; too detailed

B-P222: the step-by-step approach makes sense for start-ups looking for an idea in an existing market

B-G14: using the exact step-by-step ap-proach rather makes sense for start-ups looking for an idea in an existing market

approach for development of long-term strategic competitive advantages

B-P193: The step-by-step model is a tradi-tional approach which depicts how strategic competitive advantages can be gained in the long run by analysis of industry and competi-tion; the start-up mindset starts witht the analysis of the need, going to the business model verification but also leads to the at-tainment of a competitive advantage

B-G15: The step-by-step model is a tradi-tional approach which depicts how strategic competitive advantages can be gained in the long run by analysis of industry and competi-tion; the start-up mindset starts witht the analysis of the need, going to the business model verification but also leads to the at-tainment of a competitive advantage

start-ups combine relevant steps with lean start-up method of MVP and etc. to avoid overflow of analysis

B-P196: startup will the step-by-step ap-proach will apply the relevant steps individu-ally and combine it with the lean start-up ap-proach of a minimum viable product in order to avoid an overflow of analysis

B-G16: start-ups will apply the relevant steps of the step-by-step approach individually and combine it with the lean start-up approach of a minimum viable product in order to avoid an overflow of analysis

missing steps: need and business model verification; competitive advantage step rel-evant for start-ups

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P76: Strategy canvas provides a good overview about serving level of competing factors in an industry but for pitching it is not eligible

B-G17: Strategy canvas provides a good overview about serving level of competing factors in an industry

B-R3: Strategy canvas

B-P300: the strategy canvas makes sense for internal usage as the intensity of compet-ing factors can have positive or negative im-plications

B-G18: the strategy canvas makes sense for internal usage as the intensity of competing factors can have positive or negative implica-tions

provides overview about serving level of competing factors

B-P301: in order to search for market gaps or uncovered needs the strategy canvas is useful, but the reason why competing factors are high or low regarding competition should be understood by the start-up

B-G19: in order to search for market gaps or uncovered needs the strategy canvas is use-ful, but the reason why competing factors are high or low regarding competition should be understood by the start-up

eligible for finding market gaps, uncovered needs, spots for positioning and USP de-velopment

B-P98: Strategy canvas denotes a viable tool for comparing old economy with new economy models in terms of competing fac-tors

B-G21: Strategy canvas denotes a viable tool for comparing old economy with new economy models in terms of competing fac-tors

competing factors can be positive or nega-tive, competitors' strenghts or weaknesses can be shown

B-P247: strategy canvas or comparable model is useful for finding an empty spot where to position, USP can be developed by finding the empty spot

B-G27: strategy canvas or comparable model is useful for finding an empty spot where to position, USP can be developed by finding the empty spot

eligible for internal usage and less for pitch-ing

B-P30: strategy canvas is a useful tool for pitching, competitors can be shown and their strengths and weaknesses compared to the focal start-up are presented

B-G125: strategy canvas is a useful tool for pitching, competitors can be shown and their strengths and weaknesses compared to the focal start-up are presented

comparison of old with new economy value curves

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P15: Five forces are often poorly as-sessed due to lack of knowledge about the model

B-G31: Five forces are often poorly as-sessed due to lack of knowledge about the model

B-R4: Five forces

B-P71: In existing markets the five forces model can be easily applied

B-G32: The five forces can be rather applied in existing markets

imlplications should be considered in the pre-seed phase (e.g. subsitute products) for business model development

B-P144: The five forces is not useful for a completely new technologic product on a new market, as the rivalry among the indus-try is not known and threat of new entrants could only be assessed after competitors have entered the market

B-G34: The five forces is not useful for a completely new technologic product on a new market, as the rivalry among the indus-try is not known and threat of new entrants could only be assessed after competitors have entered the market

poor assessment of model due to lack of knowledge and understanding of forces (e.g. bargaining powers)

B-P87: in new markets five forces can be in-vestigated by asking customers about their perceived bargaining power

B-G35: in new markets five forces can be in-vestigated by asking customers about their perceived bargaining power

can be easier applied in existing markets

B-P287: five forces are useful for initial questions in the pre-seed phase even in new markets, threats can be estimated by as-sessing subsitute products and and ease of replicability of business model; bargaining powers can be investigated by asking indus-try experts or customers, eligible for pitching in front of traditional investors

B-G36: five forces are useful for initial ques-tions in the pre-seed phase even in new markets, threats can be estimated by as-sessing subsitute products and and ease of replicability of business model; bargaining powers can be investigated by asking indus-try experts or customers, eligible for pitching in front of traditional investors

in new markets subsitute products and rep-licability of business model can be evalu-ated, experts/customer interviews for as-sessment of bargaining powers

B-P226: technicians do not understand the meaning of the five forces; bargaining power often not clear

B-G37: technicians do not understand the meaning of the five forces; bargaining power often not clear

eligible for pitching in front of traditional in-vestors, include in business plans

B-P136: the implications of the five forces model should be considered in the pre-seed of a start-up

B-G38: the implications of the five forces model should be considered in the pre-seed of a start-up

for new technologic products rivalry among competitors can only be assessed after market entry new competitors

B-P197: The five forces are useful in order to consider the strategic implications of sub-situte products of well-established competi-tors in the ICT sectors.

B-G39: The five forces are useful in order to consider the strategic implications of subsi-tute products of well-established competitors in the ICT sectors.

B-P198: The five forces should be used as an image whose implications should be ana-lysed

B-G40: The five forces should be used as an image whose implications should be ana-lysed in order to facilitate the development of the business model

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P88: when using top-down approach for market mapping, the whole market is broken down into segments, then target segments are analysed in detail according to relevant information like revenue

B-G41: when using top-down approach for market mapping, the whole market is broken down into segments, then target segments are analysed in detail according to relevant information like revenue

B-R5: Market mapping

B-P115: market mapping is important, inves-tors thereby get an impression to which ex-tent founders deal with their market

B-G42: market mapping is important, inves-tors thereby get an impression to which ex-tent founders deal with their market

important for business planning and inves-tors, they need figures to estimate feasabil-ity, risk and chances of success of start-up

B-P157: start-ups in the ICT sector conduct market mapping in order to obtain an idea of the projected market size, defining whether the idea denotes a niche or mass market

B-G43: start-ups in the ICT sector conduct market mapping in order to obtain an idea of the projected market size, defining whether the idea denotes a niche or mass market

market mapping is always necessary and possible, as there are no blue ocean mar-kets

B-P46: defining the market by market map-ping important for business planning and for knowing size of target group

B-G44: market mapping is important for business planning in order to define the mar-ket, size of target group and to reduce risk

combination of both approaches favoura-ble: top-down approach quantitatively and bottom-up qualitatively assessment

B-P80: for non-existing markets market mapping can be conducted by using compa-rable foreign markets as point of reference

B-G45: for non-existing markets market mapping can be conducted by using compa-rable foreign markets as point of reference

bottum-up approach is more important due to qualitative validation and even works in non-existing markets, top-down often lacks veracity

B-P187: If top-down approaches for map-ping do not produce viable results, bottom-up approach is used

B-G46: apart from top-down also bottom-up approaches should be used, especially if market figures cannot be found

market mapping is part of market analysis

B-P201: by market mapping start-ups should be able to define the market, know potential market size and sales volume as well as un-derstand regional differences in sales and turnover

B-G47: by market mapping start-ups should be able to define the market, know potential market size and sales volume as well as un-derstand regional differences in sales and turnover

major issues: market size, growth, target group size, sales volume, regional differ-ences

B-P202: market size and market growth are the most relevant figures for market mapping

B-G48: market size and market growth are the most relevant figures for market mapping

bottom-up conducted accroding to lean method (e.g. beta launch to estimate con-version rate and thereby market volume, customer interviews)

B-P229: bottom-up much more important than top-down; bottom-up market mapping conducted according to lean start-up princi-ple; in ICT sector for B2C products beta launch in order to estimate a conversion rate and thereby a market volume, for B2B prod-ucts estimate according to customer inter-views

B-G49: bottom-up much more important than top-down; bottom-up market mapping conducted according to lean start-up princi-ple; in ICT sector for B2C products beta launch in order to estimate a conversion rate and thereby a market volume, for B2B prod-ucts estimate according to customer inter-views

third method: taking comparable markets or foreign markets as point of reference

B-P230: bottom-up market mapping is more important than top-down due to validation according to customer feedback; top-down is a personal estimate according to research that often lacks veracity

B-G50: bottom-up market mapping is more important than top-down due to validation according to customer feedback; top-down is a personal estimate according to research that often lacks veracity

B-P232: market mapping relates to the question to what extent customers would be ready to buy a product; lean start-up cus-tomer development

B-G51: market mapping relates to the ques-tion to what extent how many potential cus-tomers would be ready to buy a product

B-P258: market mapping can be also con-sidered as part of market or industry analysis

B-G52: market mapping can be also consid-ered as part of market or industry analysis

B-P260: ideally market mapping should be conducted quantatively by researching an idea top-down and qualitatively by interview-ing potential customers bottom-up style

B-G53: ideally market mapping should be conducted quantatively by researching an idea top-down and qualitatively by interview-ing potential customers bottom-up style

B-P282: mapping always makes sense, be-cause there are virtually no blue ocean mar-kets, if there cannot be identified a market, the need is not there

B-G54: mapping always makes sense, be-cause there are virtually no blue ocean mar-kets, if there cannot be identified a market, the need is not there

B-P189: bottom-up approach is useful if there is currently no market existing

B-G159: bottom-up approach is useful if there is currently no market existing

B-P231: an investor can base his investment decision on a valid bottom-up market map, thereby estimating the business model's risk

B-G177: an investor can base his invest-ment decision on a valid bottom-up market map, thereby estimating the business mod-el's risk

B-P203: investors like to hear that a start-up participates in a big market that is steadily growing

B-G180: investors like to hear that a start-up participates in a big market that is steadily growing

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P204: a critical success factor in ICT sec-tor is the harmonisation of the critical mass with the operative profit model business model

B-G55: a critical success factor in ICT sector is the harmonisation of the critical mass with the operative profit model business model

B-R6: Critical success factors

B-P205: the complexity reduction is a critical success factor in the ICT sector

B-G56: the complexity reduction is a critical success factor in the ICT sector

ICT CSF:

B-P223: critical success factors are also as-sessed during the customer interviews

B-G57: critical success factors are also as-sessed during the customer interviews

Harmonisation of critical mass with opera-tive profit Complexity reduction Customer need and value proposition need to fit Critical mass and traction is a result of cus-tomer need and value proposition fit Legal regulations or entry barriers and data protection Scaling and network effects Business model verification CLV>CAC

B-P233: customer need and value proposi-tion need to fit exactly is the first critical suc-cess factor in ICT sector

B-G58: customer need and value proposition need to fit exactly; most important critical success factor in ICT sector

B-P234: critical mass and traction is a con-sequence of customer need and value prop-osition that match

B-G59: critical mass and traction is a conse-quence of customer need and value proposi-tion that match

B-P261: if start-ups do not realise critical success factors they will fail, therefore the in-herent risks should be analysed. By contrast,

B-G60: if start-ups do not realise critical suc-cess factors they will fail, therefore the inher-ent risks should be analysed. By contrast,

strategic success factors can hardly be found

strategic success factors can hardly be found

Execution more important than product de-velopment Understanding industry relationships Critical mass and time-to-market or first mover advantage are no CSF but disad-vantage, customers need to be educated

B-P262: for online sectors data protection and legal regulations are the most prevalent critical success factors.

B-G61: for online sectors data protection and legal regulations are prevalent critical success factors.

B-P283: critical success factors can be added to industry analysis

B-G62: critical success factors can be added to industry analysis

B-P290: critical mass and time to market or first mover advantages are no critical suc-cess factors; first mover advantage is in most industries a disadvantage as custom-ers need to be educated which costs money and time

B-G63: critical mass and time to market or first mover advantages are no critical suc-cess factors; first mover advantage is in most industries a disadvantage as custom-ers need to be educated which costs money and time

High -Tech CSF:

B-P292: a critical success factor is to verify whether the business model is profitable, such as that customer lifetime value is higher than customer acquisition costs

B-G64: business model verification, such as that CLV > CAC is a critical success factor

clear differentiation or USP in technologic advantage

B-P294: execution is the second important critical success factor and is not as important as the product

B-G65: execution is a more important critical success factor than the development of the product

anticipation of market trends and their im-plementation of strategy as start-ups focus only on current market situation

B-P90: understanding industry relationships denotes a critical success factor

B-G66: understanding industry relationships denotes a critical success factor

transition of team from technicians to entre-preneurs

B-P70: Critical success factors in food & beverage industry are more related to brand and shape or taste of the product

B-G67: Critical success factors in the FMCG industry are more related to brand and shape or taste of the product

B-P120: clear differentiation a or USP in technologic advantage over competition is a critical success factor in high-tech sectors

B-G68: clear differentiation a or USP in tech-nologic advantage over competition is a criti-cal success factor in high-tech sectors

FMCG CSF: more related to brand, shape or taste of product

B-P121: anticipate market trends and their implementation them into strategy is a critical success factor in high-tech sectors as start-ups tend to focus only on existing market sit-uations

B-G69: the anticipation of market trends and their implementation into strategy is a critical success factor in high-tech sectors because start-ups tend to focus only on existing mar-ket situations

B-P163: Critical success factors should be considered such as Herzberg's hygiene fac-tors, if one of the factors is not fulfilled the company cannot be successful, yet success is not guaranteed

B-G71: Critical success factors should be considered such as Herzberg's hygiene fac-tors, if one of the factors is not fulfilled the company cannot be successful, yet success is not guaranteed

General: Also assessed during customer interviews CSF are not strategic success factors, there are no strategic success factors CSF can be added to market analysis CSF = Herzberg’s hygiene factors B-P162: barriers of entry or critical success

factors in the ICT sector are typically regula-tive or legal and scaling related market entry barriers.

B-G73: barriers of entry or critical success factors in the ICT sector are typically regula-tive or legal market entry barriers as well as scaling and network effects

B-P167: There are no significant patterns that differentiate between successful and un-successful companies, but there are critical success factors

B-G74: There are no significant patterns that differentiate between successful and unsuc-cessful companies, but there are critical suc-cess factors

B-P17: transition of team from technicians to entrepreneurs most important in high-tech sector

B-G138: transition of team from technicians to entrepreneurs is the most important criti-cal success factor in high-tech sector

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P18: high-tech start-ups conduct competi-tor profilings but adapt it to technology or product profilings

B-G75: high-tech start-ups conduct competi-tor profilings but adapt it to technology or product profilings

B-R7: Competitor profiling

B-P149: competitor profiling and matrix does not make sense with a new product on a new market and no direct competitors

B-G76: competitor profiling and matrix does not make sense with a new product on a new market and no direct competitors

Profiling and matrix is useless with a new product on a new market with no direct competitors

B-P263: only in the case of direct competi-tors and numbers are available a competitor profiling useful for positioning in order to find spots in the vlaue curve where need has not yet been covered by competitors

B-G77: only in the case of direct competitors and numbers are available a competitor pro-filing useful for positioning in order to find spots in the value curve where need has not yet been covered by competitors

Makes only sense in case of access to numbers and figures (P/L statement, bal-ance sheet) and direct competitors

B-P74: Competitor profiling makes sense if you have access to numbers of competitors, looking at balance sheet and P/L statements

B-G78: Competitor profiling makes sense if you have access to numbers and figrues of competitors such as balance sheet and P/L statements

Model is adapted to profiling for technol-ogy, business model, pricing strategies or co-operation partners, less or little KPI per-formance

B-P82: in non-existing market, foreign com-parable competitors can be profiled in order to have a reference point; start-ups do not solely profile peer's performance-based KPIs but also business models, pricing and co-op-erations

B-G191: in non-existing market, foreign comparable competitors can be profiled in order to have a reference point; start-ups do not solely profile peer's performance-based KPIs but also business models, pricing and co-operations

In new markets comparable competitors can be profiled as reference point

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P118: numbers force to start-ups to give a clear quanitfication of their performance on a certain competing factor at competitor check-list or matrix. As numbers change they need to be adapted and the business model ac-cordingly adapted.

B-G79: numbers force start-ups to give a clear quantification of their performance on a certain competing factor at competitor check-list or matrix. As numbers change they need to be adapted and the business model ac-cordingly adjusted

B-R8: Competitor matrix

B-P239: the factors of a competitor matrix di-agrams can be expanded and more parame-ter added if necessary; a radar chart can list more parameters if necessary

B-G81: the factors of a competitor matrix di-agrams can be expanded and more parame-ter added if necessary; a radar chart can list more parameters if necessary

Numbers fore for quantification of perfor-mance on competing factor are important and should be adapted, business model should be adjusted accordingly

B-P264: competitor matrix diagrams are of-ten used in business plans; the figures should not be subjective regarding the start-ups' individual estimate regarding quality perception

B-G82: competitor matrix figures should not be subjective regarding the start-ups' individ-ual estimation of quality

Useful model for fundraising in order to show to investor the focal company's posi-tioning; subjective/favourable positioning to receive better feedback at pitching

B-P93: competitor matrix is eligible for fund-raising in order to show to investor the focal company's positioning

B-G24: competitor matrix is eligible for fund-raising in order to show to investor the focal company's positioning

Factors of competition or parameters can be added to a make a radar chart

B-P208: Start-ups tend to position them-selves favourably in the competitor matrix or checklist in order receive more positive feed-back when pitching

B-G26: Start-ups tend to position them-selves favourably in the competitor matrix or checklist in order receive more positive feed-back when pitching

Figures should not be subjective such as numbers of individual estimation of quality

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P22: understand the value chain in order to improve inefficiencies in the value creation process

B-G83: The value chain should be under-stood in order to improve inefficiencies in the value creation process and customer needs

B-R9: Value Chain

B-P99: mobile apps try to disintermediate existing participants in the value chains

B-G84: mobile apps try to disintermediate existing participants in the value chains

Not part of competitor analysis but relevant for business model development, because

B-P122: high-tech start-ups do not develop a technology or product out of an inefficiency found in the value chain analysis but out of a need that it wants to satisfy

B-G85: high-tech start-ups do not develop a technology or product out of an inefficiency found in the value chain analysis but out of a need that has been identified

the left side of the business model canvas relates to the value chain; Important for transforming of old to new economy value chains (paradigm shift); Viable tool to to check a business idea and to disintermediate an unnecessary partici-pant in the value chain (mobile app), find-ing inefficiency, or market gap that denotes a customer need/USP; High tech start-ups develop products out of a need but not out inefficiency in value chain; Value chain analysis can be also con-ducted for competitors, but rarely done due to comprehensiveness

B-P151: value chain analysis is useful for analysing whether a company's USP fills a market gap

B-G86: the value chain analysis is useful for analysing whether a company's USP fills a market gap

B-P169: the value chain analysis is an im-portant tool due to the paradigm shift from old economy to new economy value chains

B-G87: the value chain analysis is an im-portant tool due to the paradigm shift from old economy to new economy value chains

B-P170: An identified ineffiency that has been identified by a value chain analysis does not necessarily lead to success, it de-pends on the implementation

B-G88: An identified ineffiency that has been identified by a value chain analysis does not necessarily lead to success, it depends on the implementation

B-P168: A value chain analysis is a viable tool to check a business idea and to disinter-mediate an unnecessary participant in the value chain

B-G89: A value chain analysis is a viable tool to check a business idea and to disinter-mediate an unnecessary participant in the value chain, especially in the mobile app in-dustry

B-P190: A value chain analysis can be also conducted for competitors, but the analysis of all competitors' value chains would be too comprehensive

B-G90: A value chain analysis can be also conducted for competitors, but the analysis of all competitors' value chains would be too comprehensive

B-P191: A value chain analysis is not part of the competitor analysis but relevant for the business model development

B-G91: A value chain analysis is not part of the competitor analysis but relevant for the business model development, because the left side of the business model canvas re-lates to the value chain

B-P84: start-ups that want to become new economy-based first movers should look at comparable old-economy business models

B-G201: start-ups that want to become new economy-based first movers should look at comparable old-economy business models

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduct ion B-P51: Benchmarking is for companies with-out a vision

B-G95: Companies with a poor vision will entirely focus their strategy towards bench-marking

B-R10: Benchmarking

B-P67: Due to the small company size in the beginning benchmarking with established companies is useless

B-G96: Due to the small company size in the beginning benchmarking with established companies is useless, after the company has become an established player, then cost and revenue structures can be compared

Companies with no vision focus on bench-marking, should not be used for total orien-tation or strategy development; knowing KPIs of competitors facilitates market un-derstanding; does not necessarily limit cre-ativitiy By benchmarking start-ups try to conclude from the success of a competitor that the identified behaviour will lead to success Benchmarking against product features, communication strategies or USP strate-gies instead of business performance makes sense, can serve as reference point for developing an own USP Useless as first mover Useless in pre-seed phase with established companies; only after start-up is estab-lished cost and revenue structures can be compared Makes sense only if valid figures regularly available, as figures need to be updated; incumbent competitors barely publish rele-vant KPI figures, therefore industry reports, articles, and online statistics or competitive intelligence websites are major sources

B-P83: Benchmarking as first mover does not make sense

B-G97: Benchmarking as first mover does not make sense

B-P126: Benchmarking should not be used for orientation or strategy development but knowing the KPIs of the competitors gives a viable impression about the market situation

B-G98: Benchmarking should not be used for orientation or strategy development but knowing the KPIs of the competitors gives a viable impression about the market situation

B-P150: benchmarking makes no sense in the pre-seed phase, especially comparing with big players, direct competitors would be necessary

B-G99: benchmarking makes no sense in the pre-seed phase, especially comparing with big players, direct competitors would be necessary

B-P166: By benchmarking start-ups try to conclude from the success of a competitor that the identified behaviour will lead to suc-cess

B-G100: By benchmarking start-ups try to conclude from the success of a competitor that the identified behaviour will lead to suc-cess

B-P211: By benchmarking start-ups can de-velop an understanding for market standards

B-G101: By benchmarking start-ups can de-velop an understanding for market standards which does not necessarily limit their creativ-ity

B-P240: Benchmarking can be useful is start-ups do not benchmark against competi-tor's KPIs in business performance but against product features, communication strategies or USP strategies

B-G102: Benchmarking can be useful is start-ups do not benchmark against competi-tor's KPIs in business performance but against product features, communication strategies or USP strategies

B-P267: start-ups do not conduct classic benchmarking such as established compa-nies but take individual KPIs of competitors as reference point for developing an own USP; is does not stand in stark contrast to the limitation of creativity but rather helps to develop a start-up's own goals and vision

B-G103: start-ups do not conduct classic benchmarking such as established compa-nies but take individual KPIs of competitors as reference point for developing an own USP; is does not stand in stark contrast to the limitation of creativity but rather helps to develop a start-up's own goals and vision

B-P285: performance based benchmarking makes only sense if valid figures can be ob-tained and are regularly adapted, it is use-less to benchmark only in the beginning with a figures from a single industry report

B-G104: performance based benchmarking makes only sense if valid figures can be ob-tained and are regularly adapted, it is use-less to benchmark only in the beginning with a figures from a single industry report

B-P274: incumbent competitors barely pub-lish relevant KPI figures, therefore industry reports, articles, and online statistics or com-petitive intelligence websites are major sources

B-G170: incumbent competitors barely pub-lish relevant KPI figures, therefore industry reports, articles, and online statistics or com-petitive intelligence websites are major sources

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P123: IPs, know-how, developing new technologic approaches and methods are typical sources of internal competitive ad-vantage for start-ups in the high-tech sector

B-G105: IPs, know-how, developing new technologic approaches and methods are typical sources of internal competitive ad-vantage for start-ups in the high-tech sector

B-R11: Competitive Advantage

B-P270: start-ups prefer internal sources of competitive advantage such as innovation and uniqueness

B-G106: start-ups prefer internal sources of competitive advantage such as innovation and uniqueness

Generally: Customer value more important than com-petitive advantage Flexibility and lack of formal processes is the biggest competitive advantage for start-ups Thinking about competitive advantage makes sense after having completed the idea verification

B-P94: internal competitive advantages such as technology and innovation in online busi-ness is a common source

B-G107: internal competitive advantages such as technology and innovation in online business is a common source

B-P96: external competitive advantages such as co-operations are the more striking sources, because it takes more time to repli-cate them

B-G108: external competitive advantages such as co-operations are the more striking sources, because it takes more time to repli-cate them

B-P242: a source of external competitive ad-vantage can be co-operations with partners in terms of sales channels, marketing and so on; testimonial for convincing pilot customers

B-G109: a source of external competitive ad-vantage can be co-operations with partners in terms of sales channels, marketing and so on; testimonial for convincing pilot customers

Start-ups prefer internal sources of compet-itive advantage such as innovation and uniqueness Start-ups understand the importance of competitive advantage in the pre-seed and seed phase by analysing the time and cost necessary for a competitor to catch up There are three classic sources of competi-tive advantage: time, quality and price VRIO: Start-ups discuss the strategic implications of the VRIO model even if the model is not actively used; valuation of the answer to the questions can be still subjective; model helps investors to find right spot where an investment or smart money is necessary Typical general sources: Understanding the customer the best is most important source of competitive ad-vantage, iterating customer value so that it meets the customer need is important as competitors will catch up in technology, the competitive advantage in technology is therefore only short Good execution (customer need, imple-mentation, product development and pro-cess management) Customer and brand loyalty are old econ-omy concepts; brand loyalty is not an input

B-P23: understanding the customer the best is most important source of competitive ad-vantage

B-G110: understanding the customer the best is most important source of competitive advantage

B-P24: customer value is more important than competitive advantage

B-G111: customer value is more important than competitive advantage

B-P75: Flexibility and lack of formal pro-cesses is the biggest competitive advantage for start-ups compared to established com-panies

B-G112: Flexibility and lack of formal pro-cesses is the biggest competitive advantage for start-ups compared to established com-panies

B-P297: thinking about competitive ad-vantage makes sense after having com-pleted the idea verification

B-G113: thinking about competitive ad-vantage makes sense after having com-pleted the idea verification

B-P298: Good execution which includes cus-tomer need, implementation, product devel-opment and process management can be a source of long-term competitive advantage

B-G114: Good execution which includes customer need, implementation, product de-velopment and process management can be a source of long-term competitive advantage

B-P269: the VRIO model asks relevant stra-tegic questions how to attain a competitive advantage, but the valuation of the answer to the questions can be still subjective as they depend on the data or criteria that have been chosen for the evaluation of the answer

B-G115: the VRIO model asks relevant stra-tegic questions how to attain a competitive advantage, but the valuation of the answer to the questions can be still subjective as they depend on the data or criteria that have been chosen for the evaluation of the answer

B-P268: start-ups definitely consider at an early stage how to gain competitive ad-vantages; there are three classic sources of competitive advantage: time, quality and price

B-G116: start-ups definitely consider at an early stage how to gain competitive ad-vantages; there are three classic sources of competitive advantage: time, quality and price

B-P251: by iterating the customer value so that it meets the customer need a competi-tive advantage can be obtained as competi-tors will catch up in technology, the competi-tive advantage in technology is therefore only short

B-G117: by iterating the customer value so that it meets the customer need a competi-tive advantage can be obtained as competi-tors will catch up in technology, the competi-tive advantage in technology is therefore only short

but an output factor, it is a result and not a source of a competitive advantage; brand is more important for tangible products than online The first mover advantage is no real source of competitive advantage, First movers are not necessarily top of mind, depends on marketing budget, first movers need to ed-ucate customer Internal: technology and innovation, so that competitor needs time to copy External competitive advantages such as co-operations operations with partners in terms of sales channels, marketing and testimonial for convincing pilot customers are the more striking sources, because it takes more time to replicate them Two ways of developing a business model: MVP + lean method=customer need better understood, or product development (e.g. Algorithm = time advantage) ICT: Smart and easy-to-use product, limited time span of customer’s attention; cus-tomer loyalty cannot be ultimately sus-tained but fostered by providing a smart and easy-to-use product Speed is an important competitive ad-vantage compared to competitors that quickly emerge when a business idea has

B-P213: start-ups understand the im-portance of competitive advantage in the pre-seed and seed phase by analysing the time and cost necessary for a competitor to catch up

B-G118: start-ups understand the im-portance of competitive advantage in the pre-seed and seed phase by analysing the time and cost necessary for a competitor to catch up

B-P172: Another competitive advantage in the ICT sector is a smart and easy-to-use product

B-G119: Another competitive advantage in the ICT sector is a smart and easy-to-use product

B-P174: Brand loyalty is not an input but an output factor, it is a result and not a source of a competitive advantage

B-G120: Brand loyalty is not an input but an output factor, it is a result and not a source of a competitive advantage

B-P175: The ICT sector is extremely fast moving, speed is an important competitive advantage compared to competitors that quickly emerge when a business idea has proved on the market

B-G121: The ICT sector is extremely fast moving, speed is an important competitive advantage compared to competitors that quickly emerge when a business idea has proved on the market

B-P104: When implementing a business model there are two approaches, either start-ing with a MVP the lean way or to first build a internal competitive advantage such as de-veloping a software or algorhythm.

B-G122: When implementing a business model there are two approaches, either start-ing with a MVP the lean way or to first build a internal competitive advantage such as de-veloping a software or algorhythm.

B-P95: technologic innovation brings cost ef-ficiency which can be a source of competi-tive advantage

B-G123: technologic innovation brings cost efficiency which can be a source of competi-tive advantage

B-P241: the first mover advantage is no real source of competitive advantage

B-G124: the first mover advantage is no real source of competitive advantage

B-P214: start-ups discuss the strategic impli-cations of the VRIO model even if the model is not actively used

B-G179: start-ups discuss the strategic im-plications of the VRIO model even if the model is not actively used

proved on the market; the more sophisti-cated software, the more time it takes to copy it, aggravates the business model's replicability B-P55: Constant product innovation so that

competitors need time to copy B-G185: Constant product innovation so that competitors need time to copy

B-P63: The more sophisticated software hase been developed, the more time it takes to copy it, this aggravates the business mod-el's replicability

B-G188: The more sophisticated software hase been developed, the more time it takes to copy it, this aggravates the business mod-el's replicability

B-P79: the establishment of brand is for a tangible product much more important than for online business

B-G190: the establishment of brand is for a tangible product much more important than for online business

High -Tech:

B-P125: the VRIO model denotes a set of questions investors can ask themselves whether a company is eligible and whether it is at the right spot where an investment or smart money is necessary

B-G200: the VRIO model denotes a set of questions investors can ask themselves whether a company is eligible and whether it is at the right spot where an investment or smart money is necessary

IPs, know-how, developing new techno-logic approaches and methods are typical sources of (internal competitive advantage)

B-P111: start-ups are faster in decision mak-ing processes due to the lack of formal struc-tures.

B-G205: start-ups are faster in decision making processes due to the lack of formal structures.

Technologic innovation brings cost effi-ciency which can be a source of competi-tive advantage

B-P291: in order to become first in the con-sideration set start-ups do not need to be first movers but to spend a lot on marketing

B-G163: in order to become first in the con-sideration set start-ups do not need to be first movers but to spend a lot on marketing

High quality products leads to credibility which facilitates the co-operation with opin-ion leaders

B-P56: customer loyalty can be achieved by providing a smart and easy-to-use product

B-G182: customer loyalty cannot be ultima-tively sustained but fosterd by providing a smart and easy-to-use product

B-P173: customer and brand loyalty are old economy concepts that do not reflect the re-ality in the new economy

B-G193: customer and brand loyalty are old economy concepts that do not reflect the re-ality in the new economy

B-P148: high quality products in the tech-sector lead to more credibility which facili-tates the co-operation with opinion leaders

B-G194: high quality products in the tech-sector lead to more credibility which facili-tates the co-operation with opinion leaders

B-P92: customers need to immediately un-derstand the app, have a limited time span of attention

B-G203: customers need to immediately un-derstand the app, have a limited time span of attention

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P31: petal diagram has a poor argumenta-tion line, logo dropping

B-G126: petal diagram has a poor argumen-tation line, logo dropping

B-R12: Petal diagram

B-P32: competition also accrues on budget level, petal diagram shows to which competi-tive markets or indirect competitors custom-ers could spend money

B-G127: competition also accrues on budget level, petal diagram shows to which competi-tive markets or indirect competitors custom-ers could spend money

Poor argumentation line, logo dropping, shows too much potential threats of lateral markets by showing weaknesses of focal company, difficult to understand in short pitch For fundraising and pitching appealing, puts focal company in centre, can depict competitors into strategic groups, contains two of the five forces (threat of new en-trants and rivalry), upcoming graph in start-up scene, shows competition also on budget level or spending power of custom-ers

B-P102: For fundraising and pitching the petal diagram is appealing as it puts the fo-cal company in the center

B-G128: For fundraising and pitching the petal diagram is appealing as it puts the fo-cal company in the center

B-P77: Petal diagram shows too much po-tential threats of lateral markets and compet-itors by showing the weaknesses of the focal company

B-G129: Petal diagram shows too much po-tential threats of lateral markets and compet-itors by showing the weaknesses of the focal company

B-P249: the petal diagram is graph which will be more and more upcoming in the start-up scene

B-G130: the petal diagram is graph which will be more and more upcoming in the start-up scene

B-P304: the petal diagram can visually de-pict relevant competitor in strategic groups, but is too difficult to understand in a short pitch

B-G131: the petal diagram can visually de-pict relevant competitor in strategic groups, but is too difficult to understand in a short pitch

B-P101: The petal diagram contains two forces of five forces, threats of new entrants and rivalry among industry

B-G33: The petal diagram contains two forces of five forces, threats of new entrants and rivalry among industry

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P130: combination of re-segmentation and blue ocean thinking can facilitate developing a market niche

B-G132: combination of re-segmentation and blue ocean thinking can facilitate devel-oping a market niche

B-R13: Blue ocean strategy

B-P243: the blue ocean strategy entails the risk that the market is not yet developed and customer do not buy the product, if sales cannot be soon generated start-ups will go bankrupt

B-G133: the blue ocean strategy entails the risk that the market is not yet developed and customer do not buy the product, if sales cannot be soon generated start-ups will go bankrupt

Combination of re-segmentation and blue ocean thinking can facilitate developing a market niche Blue oceans can be hardly found, there is always competition but market trends can be anticipated Blue ocean strategy difficult to implement due to the lacking risk culture of investors in Europe, entails risk that the market is not yet developed and customer do not buy the product, if sales cannot be soon generated start-ups will go bankrupt

B-P244: Due to the lacking risk culture of in-vestors blue ocean strategies are even more difficult for European start-ups; start-ups cannot raise funds if investors do not recog-nise the upcoming market potential of a product

B-G134: Due to the lacking risk culture of in-vestors blue ocean strategies are even more difficult for European start-ups; start-ups cannot raise funds if investors do not recog-nise the upcoming market potential of a product

B-P299: blue oceans can be hardly found but market trends can be anticipated

B-G135: blue oceans can be hardly found but market trends can be anticipated

B-P6: before searching for a blue ocean means of differntiation should be found

B-G136: before searching for a blue ocean means of differntiation should be found

B-P158: Blue Ocean markets are not exist-ing, there is always competition

B-G3: Blue Ocean markets almost do not exist, there is always competition

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P89: lean start-up menas working with hy-pothesis which are validated and checked against competitors

B-G143: lean start-up means working with hypothesis which are validated qualitatively by customer interviews, results are checked against competitors

B-R14: Lean start -up method

B-P179: According to the lean start-up method start-ups need to constantly validate the feasibility and accuracy of their business model, not only in the pre-seed and seed phase

B-G144: According to the lean start-up method start-ups need to constantly validate the feasibility and accuracy of their business model, not only in the pre-seed and seed

Fear of focus on product development in-stead of obtaining customer feedback about MVP, do not research idea to death,

phase and constantly check their competi-tors

feedback in order to get a feeling about time frame and cost of implementation Minimum viable product, includes the mini-mum of features that convince the cus-tomer to purchase; criteria that are decisive for purchase are being asked during cus-tomer interviews The combination of lean start-up with clas-sic research approaches is favourable By applying the lean start-up method com-petitors can be identified according to cus-tomer interviews; the current coverage of needs and their solutions by competitors is identified by customer interviews Working with hypothesis which are vali-dated qualitatively by customer interviews, results are checked against competitors Start-ups need to constantly validate their hypothesis, feasibility and accuracy of busi-ness model, not only in the pre-seed and seed phase and constantly check their

B-P181: The lean start-up method does not imply that new models need to be used but the assumed hypothesis have to be con-stantly checked

B-G145: The lean start-up method does not imply that new models need to be used but the assumed hypothesis have to be con-stantly checked

B-P218: by applying the lean start-up method competitors can be identified accord-ing to customer interviews; the current cover-age of needs and their solutions by competi-tors is identified by customer interivews

B-G146: by applying the lean start-up method competitors can be identified accord-ing to customer interviews; the current cover-age of needs and their solutions by competi-tors is identified by customer interviews

B-P250: the combination of lean start-up with classic research approaches is favoura-ble; analysing to death will not bring the de-sired results without asking the customer whether his or her need is matched

B-G147: the combination of lean start-up with classic research approaches is favoura-ble; analysing to death will not bring the de-sired results without asking the customer whether his or her need is matched

B-P219: criteria that are decisive for pur-chase are being asked during customer in-terviews

B-G162: criteria that are decisive for pur-chase are being asked during customer in-terviews

B-P139: Getting in contact with potential competitors facilitates the positioning pro-cess

B-G25: Getting in contact with potential com-petitors facilitates the positioning process

B-P13: Minimum viable product, the mini-mum of features that convince the customer to purchase

B-G137: Minimum viable product, includes the minimum of features that convince the customer to purchase

B-P103: Start-ups should not research their idea to death but rather get customers', in-vestors' and experts' feedback in order to get a feeling about time frame and cost of imple-mentation

B-G204: Start-ups should not research their idea to death but rather get customers', in-vestors' and experts' feedback in order to get a feeling about time frame and cost of imple-mentation

competitors

B-P295: start-ups are focused on the devel-opment of the product because it is easier to develop it without receiving a negative feed-back

B-G157: start-ups are focused on the devel-opment of the product because it is easier to develop it without receiving a negative feed-back

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P119: competitor checklist can be also im-plemented with plus-plus, plus, minus or mi-nus-minus, still better than without any clear indication of performance

B-G148: competitor checklist can be also im-plemented with plus-plus, plus, minus or mi-nus-minus, still better than without any clear indication of performance

B-R15: Competitor checklist

B-P184: The competitor checklist lists the competitors and investigates their perfor-mance according to special "need of client"

B-G150: The competitor checklist lists the competitors and investigates their perfor-mance according to special "need of client"

Gives an impression about the identified main competitors and the company's posi-tioning regarding defined competing fac-tors, alternative to strategy canvas Easiest model for pitching, the red and green signs indicate where the focal com-pany exhibits a USP Lists the competitors and investigates their performance according to special "need of client", "customer need" or criteria decisive for purchase"

B-P186: The competitor checklist is the easi-est model for pitching, the red and green signs indicate where the focal company ex-hibits a USP.

B-G151: The competitor checklist is the eas-iest model for pitching, the red and green signs indicate where the focal company ex-hibits a USP.

B-P245: instead of strategy canvas a similar model is used, instead of "competing factors" "customer need" or criteria decisive for pur-chase"

B-G20: instead of strategy canvas a similar model such as a competitor checklist can be used, where "competing factors" are re-placed with "customer need" or criteria deci-sive for purchase"

B-P133: competitor checklist gives an im-pression about the identified main competi-tors and the company's positioning regarding defined competing factors

B-G23: competitor checklist gives an impres-sion about the identified main competitors and the company's positioning regarding de-fined competing factors

Competitor checklist can be also imple-mented with plus-plus, plus, minus or mi-nus-minus, still better than without any clear indication of performance

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduct ion B-P303: the four action framework rather re-lates to product verification and customer value than to competitor analysis

B-G152: the four action framework rather re-lates to product verification and customer value than to competitor analysis

B-R16: Four action framework and com-peting factors

B-P29: creation of a competing factor con-nected to large sums of money in high-tech sector

B-G153: creation of a competing factor con-nected to large sums of money in high-tech sector

B-P246: start-ups often only include compet-ing factors where they perform favourably

B-G154: start-ups often only include compet-ing factors where they perform favourably

Relates to product verification and cus-tomer value than to competitor analysis, start-ups often only include competing fac-tors where they perform favourably High-tech: Creating totally new factors in the automo-tive industry is difficult, because R&D of in-cumbent competitors constantly develops new things, modifying, adapting or making something more efficient is more prevalent Creation of a competing factor connected to large sums of money in high-tech sector ICT: Adding competing factors to increase cus-tomer convenience and reducing costs or complexity simultaneously, first adding then

B-P271: start-ups in the ICT sector tend to try both ways of adding competing factors on the one hand and reducing costs or com-plexity on the other hand

B-G155: start-ups in the ICT sector tend to try both ways of adding competing factors on the one hand and reducing costs or com-plexity on the other hand

B-P302: it is increasingly becoming difficult for ICT start-ups to eliminate competing fac-tors totally, as most of the markets have switched their business models from old to new economy already, the reduce factor is still prevalent

B-G156: it is increasingly becoming difficult for ICT start-ups to eliminate competing fac-tors totally, as most of the markets have switched their business models from old to new economy already, the reduce factor is still prevalent

B-P248: start-ups initially tend to add factors in the ICT sector until they realise reducing or softening factors is also an option

B-G173: start-ups initially tend to add factors in the ICT sector until they realise reducing or softening factors is also an option

B-P215: Complexity reduction for the func-tionality and usability of the product is a typi-cal goal in the ICT sector

B-G178: Complexity reduction for the func-tionality and usability of the product is a typi-cal goal in the ICT sector

B-P58: Adding product features that in-crease convenience for the customer and re-ducing factors to lower costs go hand in hand

B-G186: Adding product features that in-crease convenience for the customer and re-ducing factors to lower costs go hand in hand

reducing or softening a factor Complexity reduction for the functionality and usability of the product Complexity reduction is more efficient, add-ing new features needs to be explained to customer Eliminate competing factors difficult, most of the markets have switched business models from old to new economy already, reduce factor is still prevalent

B-P60: Complexity reduction in the ICT sec-tor is more efficient than adding new features that need to be explained to the customer

B-G187: Complexity reduction in the ICT sector is more efficient than adding new fea-tures that need to be explained to the cus-tomer

B-P128: creating totally new factors in the automotive industry is difficult, because R&D of incumbent competitors constantly devel-ops new things, modifying, adapting or mak-ing something more efficient is more preva-lent

B-G199: creating totally new factors in the automotive industry is difficult, because R&D of incumbent competitors constantly devel-ops new things, modifying, adapting or mak-ing something more efficient is more preva-lent

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P3: Underestimation of importance of competitor analysis

B-G1: Underestimation of importance of competitor analysis

B-R17: Competitor analysis in general

B-P4: Competition should not be overevalu-ated, focus on customer value more im-portant

B-G2: Competition should not be overevalu-ated, focus on customer value more im-portant

Models not necessary, start-ups find their own models and approaches, form of com-petitor analysis depends on the way of how the idea was generated and the need veri-fied

B-P36: start-ups overlook competition on purpose, are convinced of the uniqueness of their products

B-G161: start-ups overlook competition on purpose, are convinced of the uniqueness of their products, but competitors are constantly emerging

B-P253: start-ups do not realise that com-petitors can also stem from indirectly related markets, therefore the need and its coverage level by alternative product solutions should be investigated

B-G172: start-ups do not realise that com-petitors can also stem from indirectly related markets, therefore the need and its coverage level by alternative product solutions should be investigated

Underestimation of importance of competi-tor analysis (Google research enough), start-ups overlook competition on purpose, are convinced of the uniqueness of their product Two initial possibilities: predatory competi-tion to take away market shares of compet-itors or addressing new customers to de-velop new markets Competition should not be over evaluated, focus on customer value more important Competitors are constantly emerging, on-going analysis and adaption of competitive knowledge necessary, not enough having written once a competitor analysis in the business plan Overlooking that competitors can also stem from indirectly related markets, therefore the need and its coverage level by alterna-tive product solutions should be investi-gated

B-P33: ongoing analysis of competition nec-essary, not enough having written once a competitor analysis in the business plan

B-G183: ongoing analysis of competition necessary, not enough having written once a competitor analysis in the business plan

B-P34: competitor analysis does not need models, start-ups should find their own mod-els and approaches, but they should do an analysis

B-G184: competitor analysis does not need models, start-ups should find their own mod-els and approaches, but they should do an analysis

B-P64: two initial possibilities: predatory competition to take away market shares of competitors or addressing new customers to develop new markets

B-G189: two initial possibilities: predatory competition to take away market shares of competitors or addressing new customers to develop new markets

B-P142: Competitive knowledge needs to be refreshed and adapted permanently

B-G195: Competitive knowledge needs to be refreshed and adapted permanently

B-P107: Start-ups are satisfied with a mere competitor analysis by researching on Google

B-G207: Start-ups are satisfied with a mere competitor analysis by researching on Google

B-P266: the form of competitor analysis de-pends on the way of how the idea was gen-erated and the need verified

B-G171: the form of competitor analysis de-pends on the way of how the idea was gen-erated and the need verified

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P308: the eligibility of a model depends on the accessible data and figures, start-ups will use models that position them favourably

B-G22: the eligibility of a model depends on the accessible data and figures, start-ups will use models that position them favourably

B-R18: Models in general

B-P307: the presented models are useful when start-ups have already researched their ideas and want to depict them for presentation

B-G28: the presented models are useful when start-ups have already researched their ideas and want to depict them for presentation

Start-ups ask the strategic questions sug-gested by the models intuitively, should ra-ther ask strategic questions than work only with models, which models are used de-pends on the accessible data and figures, checklist for inexperienced founders in the pre-seed phase useful (in which order which research steps should be conducted including questions to be asked) Need verification needs to be completed as otherwise a market and competitor analysis is unnecessary and irrelevant Competitor matrix diagrams are often used for pitches whereas five forces are used for business plans, methods or models are de-scribed in a pitch but stories The presented models are useful when start-ups have already researched their ideas and want to depict them for presenta-tion, start-ups will use models that position them favourably

B-P309: competitor matrix diagrams are of-ten used for pitches whereas five forces are used for business plans

B-G29: competitor matrix diagrams are often used for pitches whereas five forces are used for business plans

B-P310: start-ups should rather ask strategic questions than work only with models

B-G30: start-ups should rather ask strategic questions than work only with models

B-P27: should not follow models religiously, think in the right direction

B-G139: should not follow models reli-giously, think in the right direction

B-P273: inexperienced founders in the pre-seed phase need a easy-to-understand checklist they can refer to in order to com-plete their homework of doing all necessary research

B-G158: inexperienced founders in the pre-seed phase need a easy-to-understand checklist l in which order which research steps should be conducted including ques-tions to be asked in order to to complete their homework of doing all necessary re-search,

B-P217: not methods or models are de-scribed in a pitch but stories

B-G160: not methods or models are de-scribed in a pitch but stories

B-P135: start-ups may not use models on purpose but they ask the strategic questions suggested by the models intuitively, it is a good idea to have a model, concept, ap-proach or toolkit as a guideline through the whole research process

B-G198: start-ups may not use models on purpose but they ask the strategic questions suggested by the models intuitively, it is a good idea to have a model, concept, ap-proach or toolkit as a guideline through the whole research process

B-P280: The need verification needs to be completed as otherwise a market and com-petitor analysis is unncesseary and irrelevant

B-G167: The need verification needs to be completed as otherwise a market and com-petitor analysis is unncesseary and irrelevant

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P255: There are two approaches of devel-oping an idea, the first one refers to detec-tion of a need or "pain" that could serve as a business idea; the second one relates to a market where the efficiency of value genera-tion is scrutinised, based on the detected in-efficiency the idea is generated

B-G 93: There are two approaches of devel-oping an idea, the first one refers to detec-tion of a need or "pain" that could serve as a business idea; the second one relates to a market where the efficiency of value genera-tion is scrutinised; based on the detected in-efficiency of a value chain analysis the idea is generated

B-R19: Need and idea verification

B-P284: in case of the second approach of idea generation a value chain analysis should be conducted in the first step

B-G94: in case of the second approach of idea generation a value chain analysis should be conducted in the first step

The need verification needs to be com-pleted as otherwise a market/ competitor analysis is unnecessary and irrelevant, the motivation for the need should be investi-gated and checked whether more inter-viewees share a similar one, the customer need of the early or late majority must be met and not from the early adopters; differ-ent motivations for purchase Includes four steps: is there a need, if somebody needs it can he or she pay, would it pay off to sell such a product, can the market be accessed and developed Adjusting the product to the individual cus-tomer need is extremely important Two approaches of developing an idea, the first one refers to detection of a need or

B-P280: The need verification needs to be completed as otherwise a market and com-petitor analysis is unncesseary and irrelevant

B-G 167: The need verification needs to be completed as otherwise a market and com-petitor analysis is unncesseary and irrelevant

B-P278: Need verification includes four steps: is there a need, if somebody needs it can he or she pay, would it pay off to sell such a product, can the market be accessed and developed

B-G168: Need verification includes four steps: is there a need, if somebody needs it can he or she pay, would it pay off to sell such a product, can the market be accessed and developed

B-P235: the customer need of the early or late majority must be met and not from the early adopters; different motivations for pur-chase

B-G 176: the customer need of the early or late majority must be met and not from the early adopters; different motivations for pur-chase

B-P91: adjusting the product to the individual customer need is extremely important such as for B2B customers developing an individ-ual campaign or making an easy-to-use app for B2C customers

B-G 202: adjusting the product to the individ-ual customer need is extremely important such as for B2B customers developing an in-dividual campaign or making an easy-to-use app for B2C customers

B-P108: the identified need is the first step of the whole research process; the motiva-tion for the need should be investigated and checked whether more interviewees share a similar one

B-G206: the identified need is the first step of the whole research process; the motiva-tion for the need should be investigated and checked whether more interviewees share a similar one

"pain" that could serve as a business idea; the second one relates to a market where the efficiency of value generation is scruti-nised, in case of the second approach of idea generation a value chain analysis should be conducted in the first step

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P140: Potential competitive products should be tested in order to find sources of differentiation

B-G197: Potential competitive products should be tested in order to find sources of differentiation

B-R20: Value Proposition and USP

B-P236: start-ups tend to stop developing their value proposition after first sales to early adopters, but customer need of aver-age consumers is still not met

B-G175: start-ups tend to stop developing their value proposition after first sales to early adopters, but customer need of aver-age consumers is still not met

Sources of a clear USP: new business model, new technology, new market or new usage situation, potential competitive prod-ucts should be tested in order to find sources of differentiation Start-ups tend to stop developing their value proposition after first sales to early adopters, but customer need of average consumers is still not met Clear USP is necessary to convince unedu-cated customers, but takes a lot of money and time, in the high-tech sector customers need to be educated by organising work-shops for potential customers to present the benefits and potential use cases of the new technology

B-P183: Sources of a clear USP that fosters innovation is a new business model, a new technology, new market or a new usage situ-ation

B-G149: Sources of a clear USP that fosters innovation is a new business model, a new technology, new market or a new usage situ-ation

B-P112: in the high-tech sector customers need to be educated if a new technology or innovation has been developed, organising workshops for potential customers to present the benefits and potential use cases of the new technology.

B-G141: in the high-tech sector customers need to be educated if a new technology or innovation has been developed, organising workshops for potential customers to present the benefits and potential use cases of the new technology.

B-P66: Clear USP is necessary to convince uneducated customers

B-G142: Clear USP is necessary to con-vince uneducated customers, but takes a lot of money and time

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P224: The business model is adapted ac-cording to results of customer interviews and the value chain analysis

B-G92: The business model is adapted ac-cording to results of customer interviews and the value chain analysis

B-R21: Business model

B-P293: how the profitability of a business model can be verified depends on the re-spective industry

B-G164: how the profitability of a business model can be verified depends on the re-spective industry

Adapted according to results of customer interviews and the value chain analysis Verification of business model’s profitability depends on industry (e.g. Online CLV>CAC) Before developing a business model and product market analysis is necessary

B-P276: before developing a business model and product the relevant industry should be analysed and understood

B-G169: before developing a business model and product the relevant industry should be analysed and understood

Paraphrase Generalisation Reduction B-P160: After having developed a product start-ups need to plan more long-term ori-ented and define a vision in order to recog-nise or anticipate trends

B-G181: After having developed a product start-ups need to plan more long-term ori-ented and define a vision in order to recog-nise or anticipate trends

B-R22: Market understanding

B-P178: time patterns and economic cycles have become very short, companies need to be extremely agile in the new economy; con-stantly validate the feasibility of their busi-ness models and perpetuously reinvent themselves

B-G192: time patterns and economic cycles have become very short, companies need to be extremely agile in the new economy; con-stantly validate the feasibility of their busi-ness models and perpetuously reinvent themselves

Start-ups need to plan more long-term ori-ented and define a vision in order to recog-nise or anticipate trends Time patterns and economic cycles very short, extreme agility in new economy; con-stant validatation of feasibility of business models high-tech markets: build on existing struc-tures ICT market: new markets are devel-oped

B-P137: in high-tech related markets start-ups build up on existing structures unlike to ICT sector where new markets are devel-oped

B-G196: in high-tech related markets start-ups build up on existing structures unlike to ICT sector where new markets are devel-oped

Qualitative Content Analysis according to Mayring (201 4) Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R7: Competitor profiling B-R´1: Competitor profiling, matrix

and checklist Profiling and matrix is useless with a new product on a new market with no direct competitors

useless in a new market Profiling:

Makes only sense in case of access to numbers and figures (P/L statement, balance sheet) and di-rect competitors

numbers from market players necessary or from comparable foreign competitors

is useless with new product on a new market

Model is adapted to profiling for technology, busi-ness model, pricing strategies or co-operation partners, less or little KPI performance

model idea can be adapted it needs to be backed with numbers or figures of direct competitors, other-wise a comparison does not make sense

In new markets comparable competitors can be profiled as reference point

it can be adapted for other forms of profiling related to technology, busi-ness modeling, pricing or strategic co-coperation partners; comparable foreign competitors as reference point can also be used for profiling

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R8: Competitor matrix Matrix: Numbers for quantification of performance on competing factor are important and should be adapted, business model should be adjusted ac-cordingly

performance numbers should be adjusted is an eligible model for fundraising, start-ups use it to position them fa-vourably, an expansion to a radar chart is possible if competing factors want to be added

Useful model for fundraising in order to show to in-vestor the focal company's positioning; subjec-tive/favourable positioning to receive better feed-back at pitching

eligible for fundraising, subjective positioning or numbers

the numbers regarding performance and quality should not be subjective

Factors of competition or parameters can be added to a make a radar chart

can be expanded to radar chart if factor of competition needs to be added

Figures should not be subjective such as numbers of individual estimation of quality

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R15: Competitor checklist Checklist: Gives an impression about the identified main competitors and the company's positioning regard-ing defined competing factors, alternative to strat-egy canvas Easiest model for pitching, the red and green signs indicate where the focal company exhibits a USP Lists the competitors and investigates their perfor-mance according to special "need of client", "cus-tomer need" or criteria decisive for purchase" Competitor checklist can be also implemented with plus-plus, plus, minus or minus-minus, still better than without any clear indication of performance

alternative to strategy canvas is a comparable model to the strategy canvas and easy to use for pitching

easy-to-use model for pitching and to show company's positioning/USP

competing factors are named alterna-tively and listed

"need of client", "customer need" or criteria decisive for purchase"

also applicable with plus or minus rating the respective performance on a fac-tor can be evaluated with plus/minus or else with green and red signs, good for depiction of positioning or USP

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R14: Lean start-up method B-R´2: Lean start-up thinking Fear of focus on product development instead of obtaining customer feedback about MVP, do not research idea to death, feedback in order to get a feeling about time frame and cost of implementa-tion Minimum viable product, includes the minimum of

features that convince the customer to purchase; criteria that are decisive for purchase are being asked during customer interviews The combination of lean start-up with classic re-search approaches is favourable By applying the lean start-up method competitors can be identified according to customer interviews; the current coverage of needs and their solutions by competitors is identified by customer interviews Working with hypothesis which are validated quali-tatively by customer interviews, results are checked against competitors Start-ups need to constantly validate their hypoth-esis, feasibility and accuracy of business model, not only in the pre-seed and seed phase and con-stantly check their competitors

better to make customer interviews and to de-velop a MVP than conducting only research; lean method combined with classic research brings best results; by customer interviews needs and competitors can be identified; hy-pothesis need to be constantly validated in every stage of the company

constant validation of hypothesis is necessary, identification and orienta-tion towards the customer need (to develop an MVP), value proposition and need have to match, by applying lean method and classic research competitors, market gaps and options for USP development can be identi-fied

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R19: Need and idea verification

The need verification needs to be completed as otherwise a market/ competitor analysis is unnec-essary and irrelevant, the motivation for the need should be investigated and checked whether more interviewees share a similar one, the customer

need of the early or late majority must be met and not from the early adopters; different motivations for purchase Includes four steps: is there a need, if somebody needs it can he or she pay, would it pay off to sell such a product, can the market be accessed and developed Adjusting the product to the individual customer need is extremely important Two approaches of developing an idea, the first one refers to detection of a need or "pain" that could serve as a business idea; the second one relates to a market where the efficiency of value generation is scrutinised, in case of the second ap-proach of idea generation a value chain analysis should be conducted in the first step

Identifying the need is the first step of the lean method; business models can be developed due to a need or a detected inefficiency in the market; the customer need is the central ele-ment of lean thinking

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R20: Value Proposition and USP

Sources of a clear USP: new business model, new technology, new market or new usage situation, potential competitive products should be tested in

order to find sources of differentiation Start-ups tend to stop developing their value prop-osition after first sales to early adopters, but cus-tomer need of average consumers is still not met Clear USP is necessary to convince uneducated customers, but takes a lot of money and time, in the high-tech sector customers need to be edu-cated by organising workshops for potential cus-tomers to present the benefits and potential use cases of the new technology

the value proposition needs to meet exactly the customer need; customers have different needs and motivations; early and late majority need to be educated, defining a clear USP is necessary and should be constantly adjusted

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R22: Market understanding B-R´3: Market understanding Start-ups need to plan more long-term oriented and define a vision in order to recognise or antici-pate trends Time patterns and economic cycles very short, ex-treme agility in new economy; constant validata-tion of feasibility of business models high-tech markets: build on existing structures ICT market: new markets are developed

start-ups need to have a vision and should an-ticipate of trends in order to stay agile in short economic cycles

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R13: Blue ocean strategy

Combination of re-segmentation and blue ocean thinking can facilitate developing a market niche

Blue oceans can be hardly found, there is always competition but market trends can be anticipated Blue ocean strategy difficult to implement due to the lacking risk culture of investors in Europe, en-tails risk that the market is not yet developed and customer do not buy the product, if sales cannot be soon generated start-ups will go bankrupt

Blue ocean markets cannot be developed in Europe due to a lacking risk culture but blue ocean thinking can facilitate the development of a market niche

Start-ups need to have a vision and a feeling for market trends; the devel-opment of blue ocean markets is vir-tually impossible, modifying factors in high-tech and complexity/cost reduc-tion in ICT sectors are the prevalent patterns how to alter competing fac-tors

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R16: Four action framework and competing fac-tors

Relates to product verification and customer value than to competitor analysis, start-ups often only in-clude competing factors where they perform fa-vourably

High-tech: Creating totally new factors in the automotive in-dustry is difficult, because R&D of incumbent com-petitors constantly develops new things, modifying, adapting or making something more efficient is more prevalent Creation of a competing factor connected to large sums of money in high-tech sector ICT: Adding competing factors to increase customer convenience and reducing costs or complexity simultaneously, first adding then reducing or sof-tening a factor Complexity reduction for the functionality and usa-bility of the product Complexity reduction is more efficient, adding new features needs to be explained to customer Eliminate competing factors difficult, most of the markets have switched business models from old to new economy already, reduce factor is still prev-alent

The decision whether to add or eliminate fac-tors goes hand in hand with the need and business model verification; new factors are barely created in the high-tech sector but ra-ther modyfied or adapted; in ICT sectors fac-tors are reduced to reduce costs or complexity of functionality, adding factor is connected with customer education

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R1: Generic strategies B-R´4: Market analysis

Focus strategy: early customer feedback and education, equal customer development (e.g. platforms)

generates cash flow and increases sales perfor-mance to earn back R&D costs

Focus strategy in the beginning of a start-up is absolutely necessary

product testing and obtaining product-market fit, roll-out to whole market, new target group/prod-ucts/categories

Low-cost strategy: fear of association with low quality (high-tech), capital backing necessary, problem for high-quality products with USP development

low-cost strategy is no option for high-tech start-ups but can be relevant in ICT related sectors

motivation to follow low-cost strategy not econo-mies of scale but optimising inefficiencies

Generic strategies in general:

generic strategies model not used explicitly, but implications are discussed; start-ups fear of com-petitiveness due to high pricing

The Generic Strategies model is not eligible for strategy development of a start-up altough some implications are relevant

The Generic Strategies model is not useful for start-ups, although some of the strategic implications are relevant

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R4: Five forces

imlplications should be considered in the pre-seed phase (e.g. subsitute products) for business model development

the implications of the model are relevant for strategy development

poor assessment of model due to lack of knowledge and understanding of forces (e.g. bar-gaining powers)

the model is more eligible for existing markets, although the forces can be investigated in the case of new markets

can be easier applied in existing markets the model is only limited useful for pitching but more often used for business plans

in new markets subsitute products and replicability of business model can be evaluated, experts/cus-tomer interviews for assessment of bargaining powers

eligible for pitching in front of traditional investors, include in business plans

for new technologic products rivalry among com-petitors can only be assessed after market entry new competitors

The strategic implications of the Five Forces are relevant for existing and new markets, the forces can be mostly investigated

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R5: Market mapping

important for business planning and investors, they need figures to estimate feasability, risk and chances of success of start-up

Market mapping is always possible and nec-essary

market mapping is always necessary and possible, as there are no blue ocean markets

A market should be mapped with both ap-proaches, however the bottom-up approach is more reliable due to validation from interviews

market mapping is an inevitable part of the market analysis, all potential approaches should be used in order to define the market as exactly as possible

combination of both approaches favourable: top-down approach quantitatively and bottom-up quali-tatively assessment

comparable markets or foreign markets can also be used as point of reference

bottum-up approach is more important due to qual-itative validation and even works in non-existing markets, top-down often lacks veracity

market mapping is part of market analysis

major issues: market size, growth, target group size, sales volume, regional differences

bottom-up conducted according to lean method (e.g. beta launch to estimate conversion rate and thereby market volume, customer interviews)

third method: taking comparable markets or for-eign markets as point of reference

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R6: Critical success factors

ICT CSF:

Harmonisation of critical mass with operative profit Complexity reduction Customer need and value proposition need to fit Critical mass and traction is a result of customer need and value proposition fit

Legal regulations or entry barriers and data protec-tion Scaling and network effects Business model verification CLV>CAC Execution more important than product develop-ment Understanding industry relationships Critical mass and time-to-market or first mover ad-vantage are no CSF but disadvantage, customers need to be educated

Legal regulations and customer need are most important CSF, followed by business model verification and execution;

CSF: legal regulations, customer need, business model verification and execution for ICT sector; technologic differentiation and anticipation of trends for high-tech; CSF are like hy-giene factors (Herzberg)

High-Tech CSF:

clear differentiation or USP in technologic ad-vantage

anticipation of market trends and their implementa-tion of strategy as start-ups focus only on current market situation

CSF in high-tech sector are related to techno-logic differentiation and anticipation of market developments

transition of team from technicians to entrepre-neurs

FMCG CSF:

more related to brand, shape or taste of product Brand is a CSF for tangible products

General: Also assessed during customer interviews CSF are not strategic success factors, there are no strategic success factors CSF can be added to market analysis CSF = Herzberg’s hygiene factors

CSF follow a similar prinicple such as Her-zberg's hygiene factors

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R9: Value Chain B-R´5: Business model verification

Not part of competitor analysis but relevant for business model development, because the left side of the business model canvas relates to the value chain; Important for transforming of old to new economy value chains (paradigm shift); Viable tool to to check a business idea and to dis-intermediate an unnecessary participant in the value chain (mobile app), finding inefficiency, or market gap that denotes a customer need/USP; High tech start-ups develop products out of a need but not out inefficiency in value chain; Value chain analysis can be also conducted for competitors, but rarely done due to comprehen-siveness

A value chain analysis should be conducted in scope of the business model verification pro-cess; market gaps and inefficiencies that could denote a basic need can be detected by applying the value chain analysis

After the need identification and mar-ket analysis, the business model should be verified by validating rele-vant hypothesis (e.g. profitability, rel-evant for satisfying a need etc.); a value chain analysis is eligible for identifying market gaps and ineffi-ciencies that could denote a need

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R21: Business model

Adapted according to results of customer inter-views and the value chain analysis Verification of business model’s profitability de-pends on industry (e.g. online CLV>CAC) Before developing a business model and product or market analysis is necessary

The verification of the business model follows after the identification of the need and conduc-tion of market analysis; hypothesis about busi-ness model should be qualitatively validated

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R2: Step-by-step competitor analysis approach B-R´6: The usage of models steps are individually, intuitively and iteratively used; too detailed

approach for development of long-term strategic competitive advantages

Start-ups use some of the steps in the step-by-step model and apply them individually

start-ups combine relevant steps with lean start-up method of MVP and etc. to avoid overflow of anal-ysis

missing steps: need and business model verifica-tion; competitive advantage step relevant for start-ups

Reduction No.1 - Category

B-R18: Models in general

Start-ups ask the strategic questions suggested by the models intuitively, should rather ask strategic questions than work only with models, which mod-els are used depends on the accessible data and figures, checklist for inexperienced founders in the pre-seed phase useful (in which order which re-search steps should be conducted including ques-tions to be asked) Need verification needs to be completed as other-wise a market and competitor analysis is unneces-sary and irrelevant Competitor matrix diagrams are often used for pitches whereas five forces are used for business plans, methods or models are described in a pitch but stories The presented models are useful when start-ups have already researched their ideas and want to depict them for presentation, start-ups will use models that position them favourably

Start-ups rather ask strategic questions than use models actively; some models are applied individually for internal usage; other models are directly used for pitching; which models are used for pitching depends on the start-up's desired positioning and presentation

Start-ups ask strategic questions and thereby use some of the models for individual usage whereas for pitching models are directly applied

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R10: Benchmarking B-R´7: Benchmarking Companies with no vision focus on benchmarking, should not be used for total orientation or strategy development; knowing KPIs of competitors facili-tates market understanding; does not necessarily limit creativitiy By benchmarking start-ups try to conclude from the success of a competitor that the identified be-haviour will lead to success Benchmarking against product features, communi-cation strategies or USP strategies instead of busi-ness performance makes sense, can serve as ref-erence point for developing an own USP Useless as first mover Useless in pre-seed phase with established com-panies; only after start-up is established cost and revenue structures can be compared Makes sense only if valid figures regularly availa-ble, as figures need to be updated; incumbent competitors barely publish relevant KPI figures, therefore industry reports, articles, and online sta-tistics or competitive intelligence websites are ma-jor sources

Benchmarking is useless for start-ups be-cause numbers of relevant competitors are barely available; start-ups still use benchmark-ing individually (e.g. against product features, communication strategies etc.) although the reliability of a competitor's KPI should be scru-tinised

Benchmarking is useless for start-ups, because imitating a successful behav-iour of a competitor will not necessarily lead to success

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R11: Competitive Advantage B-R´8: Competitive advantage Generally : Customer value more important than competitive advantage Flexibility and lack of formal processes is the big-gest competitive advantage for start-ups

Start-ups deal with implications regarding competitive advantage such as time and cost for replicability of a business model; the most

Thinking about competitive advantage makes sense after having completed the idea verification Start-ups prefer internal sources of competitive ad-vantage such as innovation and uniqueness Start-ups understand the importance of competi-tive advantage in the pre-seed and seed phase by analysing the time and cost necessary for a com-petitor to catch up There are three classic sources of competitive ad-vantage: time, quality and price VRIO: Start-ups discuss the strategic implications of the VRIO model even if the model is not actively used; valuation of the answer to the questions can be still subjective; model helps investors to find right spot where an investment or smart money is nec-essary

prevalent competitive advantage is a start-ups agility, start-ups rather focus at the customer value and need than on competitors/competi-tive advantage

the implications of the model are relevant for a start-up's strategic development, but the an-swers to the questions are subjective

Typical general sources: Understanding the customer the best is most im-portant source of competitive advantage, iterating customer value so that it meets the customer need is important as competitors will catch up in tech-nology, the competitive advantage in technology is therefore only short

Good execution (customer need, implementation, product development and process management) Customer and brand loyalty are old economy con-cepts; brand loyalty is not an input but an output factor, it is a result and not a source of a competi-tive advantage; brand is more important for tangi-ble products than online The first mover advantage is no real source of competitive advantage, First movers are not nec-essarily top of mind, depends on marketing budget, first movers need to educate customer Internal: technology and innovation, so that com-petitor needs time to copy External competitive advantages such as co-oper-ations operations with partners in terms of sales channels, marketing and testimonial for convincing pilot customers are the more striking sources, be-cause it takes more time to replicate them Two ways of developing a business model: MVP + lean method=customer need better understood, or product development (e.g. Algorithm = time ad-vantage)

understanding the customer need and execu-tion are general competitive advantages, the first mover advantage is no real competitive advantage; internal competitive advantages are related to technology and innovation; co-operations denote external competitive ad-vantages; ICT: easy-to-use or complexity reduction, speed high-tech: IP, developing new technologic methods and us-age applications, high-quality

start-ups deal with the topic of competi-tive advantage but rather focus on cus-tomer value; good execution, speed and product innovation are typical sources of competitive advantage

ICT: Smart and easy-to-use product, limited time span of customer’s attention; customer loyalty cannot be ultimately sustained but fostered by providing a smart and easy-to-use product

Speed is an important competitive advantage com-pared to competitors that quickly emerge when a business idea has proved on the market; the more sophisticated software, the more time it takes to copy it, aggravates the business model's replicabil-ity

High -Tech: IPs, know-how, developing new technologic ap-proaches and methods are typical sources of (in-ternal competitive advantage)

Technologic innovation brings cost efficiency which can be a source of competitive advantage

High quality products leads to credibility which fa-cilitates the co-operation with opinion leaders

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R3: Strategy canvas B-R´9: Strategy canvas provides overview about serving level of compet-ing factors

eligible for finding market gaps, uncovered needs, spots for positioning and USP development

by analysing the competing factors start-ups can find empty spots for postioning according to specific customer needs

competing factors can be positive or negative, competitors' strenghts or weaknesses can be shown

the depiction of the value curves can be so-phisticated; the model can be eligible for pitch-ing

the strategy canvas is eligible for pitch-ing by depicting the serving level of spe-cific competing factors

eligible for internal usage and less for pitching

comparison of old with new economy value curves

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R12: Petal diagram B-R´10: Petal diagram Poor argumentation line, logo dropping, shows too

much potential threats of lateral markets by show-ing weaknesses of focal company, difficult to un-derstand in short pitch For fundraising and pitching appealing, puts focal company in centre, can depict competitors into strategic groups, contains two of the five forces (threat of new entrants and rivalry), upcoming graph in start-up scene, shows competition also on budget level or spending power of customers

the petal diagram is not eligible for a short pitch but it shows the focal company in the centre of strategic groups that could denote di-rect or indirect competitors; the focal compa-ny's product cannot be compared with the petal diagram

the petal diagram is eligible for fundrais-ing due to the viable depiction of a focal company's competitive environment, however the product thereby cannot be compared with those of competitors

Reduction No.1 - Category Generalisation Reduction No.2 - Category' B-R17: Competitor analysis in general B-R´11: Competitor analysis in gen-

eral Models not necessary, start-ups find their own models and approaches, form of competitor analy-sis depends on the way of how the idea was gen-erated and the need verified Underestimation of importance of competitor anal-ysis (Google research enough), start-ups overlook competition on purpose, are convinced of the

uniqueness of their product Two initial possibilities: predatory competition to take away market shares of competitors or ad-dressing new customers to develop new markets Competition should not be over evaluated, focus on customer value more important Competitors are constantly emerging, ongoing analysis and adaption of competitive knowledge necessary, not enough having written once a com-petitor analysis in the business plan Overlooking that competitors can also stem from indirectly related markets, therefore the need and its coverage level by alternative product solutions should be investigated

start-ups underestimate the importance of competitor analysis, because they are con-vinced of the uniquness of their product; an ongoing competitor analysis is necessary since competitors always can directly or indi-rectly emerge; start-ups do not need models to conduct a competitor analysis, but some of the model's strategic implications are dis-cussed

Start-ups tend to underestimate their competition, due to the focus on the product; not all models are necessary for the conduction of a competitor analy-sis but their strategic implications are relevant for start-ups

Content Grid: Summary of Qualitative Results

Content Grid: Summary of Qualitative Results

Interview No.1

Short biography and background of interviewee

• Start-up consultant of incubator for academic spin-offs • Expertise: consultancy and start-up team coaching, business development • Focus: high-tech

Interview Transcript

Guth: So please, tell me from your personal experience with competitor analysis and what would you recommend start-ups regarding this. Interviewee: Ok, first experience I can tell you, is that most start-ups I am getting in contact with are in an early, seed or even pre-seed stage. What I see is that most of the founders do not really conduct a competitor analysis or at least underestimate its importance. I often see phrases like “there is no competition on the market because we are the one who have this and that technology”. Therefore, the first thing we often do is to force the teams to make at least a low-level competitor analysis in order to get a feeling of the market. So first point is, doing any competitor analysis is better than doing nothing. Second point is how they do that. In most cases we are dealing with technology oriented start-ups and their founders are technical university alumnus and they heavily rely on their technology skills, so they are very convinced that this and that feature they have make sure that they are ahead of com-petitors. Therefore, in most cases, they have a very technological point of view on compet-itor analysis. So, I ask them whether they did a competitor analysis and know the competition on the market. In most cases I get a comparison of technology features. Company A has feature X, Y, Z, we have A, B, C and D, while D is the most important feature. Therefore, we try to show them more the market point of view regarding competitor analysis. I think most im-portant is that they know where the competitors are, what are their strengths and weak-nesses. On the other hand, I would not recommend start-ups to focus on competition the whole day but you have to know where the players on the market are. So, having a basic understanding of the market is very important but if you have something in your value prop-osition which has also a value for the customer you do not need to concentrate on compe-tition. You have to know the industry, how the processes in the industry are implemented such as depicted on an industry mapping. This means, you should know how the market you want to enter is working. Who are the suppliers, customers, who does what in the customer pro-cesses? Summarising, you should know who your competitors are and how are the market and its processes working. Guth: Basically what you mean is, understanding who the competitor is refers to doing a market or industry analysis, while understanding the product features is somehow related to following a differentiation strategy, if I get you right. So, high-tech start-ups or technology oriented start-ups usually follow the differentiation strategy, do I get you right? Interviewee: Well, what the vision of most of the start-ups is, is surely creating a blue ocean, but we first recommend to our start-ups to find means of differentiation from competitors. So this differentiation strategy is certainly often used by start-ups.

Guth: If I get you right, you mean start-ups initially want to create a blue ocean but then they realise, that it is all about differentiation so "we should rather just look how to re-seg-ment the existing market". Would you agree to this comment? Interviewee: Finding a blue ocean is often purely related to luck, so the differentiation strat-egy seems to be logic - or focusing on a special niche. Start-ups often have in the beginning some kind of niche in their mind, which is often too small. Therefore you have to broaden it in order to target a larger market. Yet, differentiation and niche strategy is something very common among start-ups. Guth: So I conclude, differentiation strategy is a natural strategy for high-tech start-ups, because if you think of the Generic Strategies you simply cannot follow a low-cost strategy as R&D costs are way too high for doing economies of scale. Interviewee: Basically yes, yet, start-up companies which have a breakthrough approach that cuts down the cost of a technology can follow the low-cost way. But even then, I would recommend not to force the customer to low-costs. Bringing the product at low cost to cus-tomers, even then you can make small steps down by gaining margins in the first phase of the market. If you orient towards competitor's pricing and you have low costs internally you can maybe earn back your money that you needed for R&D of the product. So, regarding low-cost strategy, I seldom see start-ups following low-costs strategy as in most of the cases competitors have more money and market power. So again, looking for differentiation, niche and value proposition are what we recommend our start-ups. Guth: To complete the Generic Strategies, the third strategy is the focus strategy. Would you say focus makes in the beginning of a start-up company sense in order to target a very narrow group of customers? Then, after having received the proof of concept and market you can expand the whole concept to a larger market and therefore just follow the differen-tiation approach, what about this approach? Interviewee: Well that's true, because you have to go on a market very fast in order to get in touch with customers early and if you focus on a certain segment of customers you have the chance to get faster to customer feedback. So, referring to Steve Blank who says cus-tomer development is very important, if you focus on a smaller customer segment it is easier to get in touch with them. Also, you rarely have the money or the resources to target a broad market, wherefore you must decide where your emphasis on the market is and that leads to focus. If you get traction on that specially focused market, then hopefully you get visibility and cash flow in order to "broaden up" the targeted market. Guth: So basically, were you referring to the lean-start-up approach? Interviewee: Yes, I think this approach can be very valuable compared to sitting in your office thinking about and analysing all the time the market - this leads to nothing. So, you have to go out and talk with the market, learn something. Of course, some learnings will be negative but you learn fast and you can quickly rebuild your strategy. I mean, you often get to a certain point where you meet this concept of a minimal viable product, which is some-thing you have to be very careful about. You have to know what is minimum viable for your certain market but if you have something for a customer which has a high enough quality you should go out and talk with him. Also, this can be considered as a market competitor analysis to some extent.

Guth: So let us now go through those models which have not yet been mentioned. Referring to this traditional competitor analysis step-by-step approach, would you say the model is still up-to-date and it is relevant for start-up companies? Would you add or eliminate some of these steps? Interviewee: Well I think, it is not a totally outdated concept. It is understandable for the founders, however if you go through every point it is too detailed. It is too much for a com-petitor analysis of a start-up. Yet, for the first contact with competition and for analysing it, it is a good thing. I would also say this model is easier understandable for our founders than, for instance, Porter's Five Forces. Think of a software engineer, whom you need to explain what the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers means. That is very theoretic, so this step-by-step is more operational and visible for founders. Guth: Just referring to the Five Forces, would you say that it is an outdated model as Porter is just addressing existing markets, whereas for start-up companies, which want to create blue oceans, there are often not yet existing markets? Interviewee: Well, sometimes yes! My experience is that founders often look up the Five Forces in web and books and there is the definition of suppliers, buyers, and substitute products and so on. So they just focus on what bullet points need to be filled in instead of thinking about the market. Also, in most of the cases it is not clear who the buyers are in a market and what are really the power of suppliers. I don't want the founders to rely on busi-ness administration theory. Rather I want them to rely on more easily understandable con-cepts. Guth: To sum up, you mean, as there are no customers or suppliers to be analysed, be-cause they do not yet exist in the market, the model is not really useful. Interviewee: Yes, furthermore, the concept is understandable for business students, but not so much for technicians, chemists or engineers, which usually are team members of our start-ups. They have a different mind-set. I often see the Five Forces in business plans which I receive, yet they are totally useless because they are just copied and pasted from books or the web. This means that, the founders have just used any information for factors such as bargaining power of suppliers but they were not thinking about what the important information is for me as an entrepreneur. Guth: I would just like to go through the remaining models of the traditional competitor analysis approaches. What do you think about critical success factors? What are the most relevant critical success factors for high-tech start-up companies? Interviewee: I mean, in reality I would say the most important critical success factors is the development of the team. The team needs to develop from a technology oriented group to market or business focused one. This transition process is very important. There will be the point in the early stage where they have to stop from being a researcher or technician in order to become an entrepreneur which means you have to talk to customers, understand the processes and so on, this is in the early stage. Guth: Ok I see, continuing to competitor profile, what would you comment on this? Interviewee: Well, most of the tech start-ups do a kind of technology profiling, or product profiling to compare competitors' products with their own products. So you can often see a table, where the differentiation points are depicted regarding technology. Also, competitor

profiling is something I would not consider as bad idea. However, as I said earlier, do it, learn from it, but then focus on your own qualities and not all day on competitors. Guth: Insofar, a competitor matrix is something also that should be used "carefully"? Interviewee: I think, it is not a bad idea, but the reality is, that this matrix usually leads to the result that the founders' product is always in the upper right corner, meaning we are "so differentiated". "We are always the best, because our products are always to be set high and high on the axes". So it is more a self-motivating matrix than a real competitor matrix. Guth: Also, would you agree this matrix only makes sense when the market exists? Interviewee: Definitely, when the market exists, then you have to be honest to yourself. You have to admit that competitor B might be better regarding quality. If you say by definition "I am the best regarding price and quality" you have no learning effect. This aspect of com-petitive analysis should be always related to transparency and honesty!

Guth: Regarding the value chain analysis, do you think it is good to conduct this type of analysis in order to define the market gap or look for inefficiencies in a technology market?

Interviewee: I would say yes, it is important to make something like this in order to know how you prepare your business model. You need to understand the value chain, if you think of a technology which solves a problem for the customer or end user. So you need to grasp who the customer and the end user actually are. Is it important to get in contact with the end user or is it better to get an indirect sales mode, so you have to find partners who are in the value chain on the right place, so they can take your product to the end user? What I mean is, that it is important how this chain works and where are your partners, also where is the best place to fit in the value chain with your product, know-how or also IP. It is better to sell an IP license, because you understand the value chain. As it is really hard to get to the end user, you sell your IP license to a big company. Maybe this is a better option than producing the product and sell it to the end user yourself. In order to decide which strategy best to use, you need to know how the value chain works.

Guth: Insofar, thinking about competitive advantage and the VRIO model, would you say it is important already in the start-up phase of a young company to look for potential sources of competitive advantage? Or is this actually a model that is rather relevant for established companies?

Interviewee: As I said before, I am more focused on encouraging my start-ups to concen-trate on the customer, that they build an advantage for the customer! If they are able to build an advantage for the customer, they also build a competitive advantage. You have to be sure that the built customer value is difficult to be imitated by competitors. But in general, I would say you have to rethink this whole Porter perspective from competitor to customer. Look at customer advantage and customer value which is more important than just having an advantage against the competitor.

Guth: So you mean, it is better to have an external source of competitive advantage, mean-ing the customer is convinced of your product? Then, an internal source of competitive advantage could mean something like technology?

Interviewee: Of course you have to be sure that you do your homework and innovate your technology constantly also regarding IP, IPRs and patents and so on. But if you are always the one who deliver the best values for the customer you will be always in front of your competitors. I am saying this because I always see start-ups which compare themselves with their competitors and try to differentiate them from competitors. But they always over-look, that the more they differentiate from competitors, the more they go away from the customer.

Guth: This basically overlaps with the ideas of the blue ocean concept, which says you should rather focus on the customers and needs they currently do not know yet, instead of focusing only on all the competitors around there. So would you agree that the strategy canvas as practical implementation of the concept is a useable model for overall analysing how to differentiate on the market without focusing only on competition but rather on the customer?

Interviewee: It is not a bad model, because it forces you to focus on the value of the cus-tomer. It also denotes a good opportunity for visualisation of this. Looking at the strategy canvas you can see at the first glance where are the factors I am good or bad compared to other ones. Am I at the strategic move towards the blue ocean or not? So, it forces you to think about the right questions and that is the important aspect regarding all these models. They should force you to think in the right direction. It is not important to fulfil every detail of a single model.

Guth: When implementing the ideas of the strategy canvas, we can continue to the four action framework, where you have the four options of reducing, eliminating, raising or cre-ating factors. Would you say that high-tech start-ups prefer any kind of action? Any propen-sity towards reducing or adding factors?

Interviewee: Talking about high-tech start-ups, you have to make a big development and invest a lot of money. For instance, if they have to develop a new drug or machine it is important to create something of value to the customer. This is because you need to have a strong position, so creating a new factor brings you in this very situation. You need this, because you have to earn back, for example, 10, 20 or 100 million you might invest in advance in order to get to the point where you have the product developed. If you make a product which is a little bit better or provides a little bit better solution for a problem of the customer, increasing factors is a lean way. Yet, if you want to make a breakthrough inno-vation, which is in the tech sector usually connected with a lot of money that you have to invest, it would be wise to create something.

Guth: So, it is not enough to just raise a factor and have just a better technology. That is usually not sufficient, if I get you right?

Interviewee: Well, it depends, every single start-up is unique, but in general I would say, tech start-ups need a lot of R&D, engineering and so on. If this really leads to breakthrough innovation, hopefully, you create a new factor for the customer.

Guth: Ok we are almost done, what would you recommend your start-ups how to best pre-sent their competitor analysis? Would you just say straight forward: "use the strategy can-vas, it is a good tool for depicting how you thought about the competition and the customer in front of an investor"? Or what about Blank's petal diagram?

Interviewee: Honestly I did not work with it in detail, but I would say it is a good starting point to use something like the strategy canvas, if you talk in front of investors. There, it is always good to name the competitors and show that you are really aware of them. Do not just talk about general risk and competition. Name it! Show that you know the players on the field. If you talk in front of investors you will always have to build up trust. You can build up trust if they think "they know what they are doing, they know the player, not only from the newspapers". So don't be just on the general level, give some insights on the detail level of your competitor.

Guth: But is it not often the case, when start-ups re-segment the market, that there are competitors from very diverse fields and also customers could stem from industries which might seem at that point of time unrelated? Therefore, this petal diagram suggests to name unrelated industries, which currently look like they are not directly competing industries. So would you say this diagram makes sense to initially just show the competitive environment where the focal start-up could drag away customers from?

Interviewee: Well if you have a good argumentation line it makes sense, if you just put some nice logos of companies there you cannot really give a logical explanation why you did that. As an investor I could say you could give me a good explanation why you did that. I always try to say to start-ups "think in the eyes of the customers", the customer has a budget of 100 and he or she has to use this budget to buy something, so you also have always competition on the budget level of the customer. So you should broaden your way to approach competition not only on direct competitors but also on the level of the cus-tomer’s spending power. The important point is that they have a good logical way why the see the competition like that. That builds trust towards investors and partners.

Also never forget to continuously analyse your competitors, don't put away the competitor analysis after having written the business plan. You have to know about the market on an ongoing base.

Guth: Just to finish, could you look at this example ranking. It is my overall goal to develop a ranking where it says like how the structure of the competitive analysis could be like. If you look at all these factors and columns, would you add something, add new columns, or recommend me to give away something? What could be interesting to depict for somebody, who sees this ranking?

Interviewee: What I would comment on this is, that start-ups should be always given tools which are easy to use. So if you can differentiate these models depending on their difficulty for daily use, this could be a relevant factor that could be added. Is the model easy to inte-grate in the weekly strategy process, and so on?

Guth: And what about critical success factors for example? Could it be interesting to depict the critical success factors, such as understanding the team development process from engineer to businessman, do you think this could be interesting to show?

Interviewee: I would say this is more a general topic as it is not really a point of competitor analysis, it is rather a key factor anyway. I would put this on a higher level than competitor analysis. Regarding the used models, honestly, I wonder if you can differentiate models by industry for example.

Guth: But basically, what you would agree on is that the strategy canvas is probably best to use in general?

Interviewee: Yes, but in general I would say, I prefer models which are easy understanda-ble, so I think graphics like that are easy to grasp. Regarding Blank’s petal diagram, I think there is always the fear of just logo dropping. So beware that you have to give good expla-nations about that. If I see something like this on a pitching desk it often tends to be just logo dropping without deeper understanding of the competition. Guth: Ok, we are basically done! Any further comments on what has not been mentioned yet? Any further models that are worth to consider, that you would recommend? Interviewee: Well, I would like to add that basically every start-up has to find its own model and approach. The important thing is, just do it and analyse your competition! You have to know your market but do it only 10 percent of the time and not 90 percent of it. Think more about the product and most important about the customer and not only about the competi-tion! But of course, you have to know about your competition, it is obligatory! And you need the competitor analysis also as starting point for conversation with your competitors. You will somehow get into contact with them anyway, be it at conferences or whatever, so that you know what is going on. So knowing my competitors, I should keep in mind that I have to find places where I can talk with them, so that I can see what they are doing. So, if you do not make a competitor analysis at all, you will not even know who they are, where do I get information on them and where can I get in contact with them.

Interview No.2

Short biography and background of interviewee

• Managing Partner, Head of Sales and Co-Founder of market platform for searching and booking of educational or advanced training courses and workshops of all kinds Focus: ICT, market platform

Interview Transcript

Guth: Please give me some idea, when you founded the company, what was your personal experience about competition, how did you approach it? Did you actually do anything about competition? Interviewee: Well I have to say, in my experience, nobody cares about competition in the first place. That is the thing, many start-ups say, "we have a new idea, so we don't want to see any competition out there, because this is a new idea, we want to do that". So what I have seen is that they did not really use time to analyse which competition is there on the market, so most of them just deploy a product and then they realise, that there is something on the market similar to them. Actually the same thing was with us.

We were saying: "ok cool software, we make this and that", but later we found out that, there are quite similar competitors, which are doing comparable things. Also, right now we are finding more and more competitors. I think you can never say, I found all my competitors, because most of them are popping up from time to time. Of course, you can try always to screen the market but it's very difficult, because if you have an idea, usually at the same time the same idea is being dealt with within five other companies. So, it is very hard to have an overview of the market. Regarding to us, we did not really care about competition, but of course we checked com-petition a little bit on Google, by searching for keywords. So, we were defining keywords, what is our message, what are we providing and what is our USP. We saw what popped up on Google. With this method we somehow could grasp who our competitors were. In our case we did not have direct competitors. Guth: So you realised there were some unrelated competitors, but did you realize at that point of time, that they probably one day later could become direct ones? Interviewee: To be honest, no! In the beginning we thought like: "Oh we don't need to be scared about it". Actually it should be totally the other way around, you should go safe and check whether your product is good and also needed. But we were thinking like, "Oh they are not doing the same, so it is not important". That was totally wrong, when we started 3 or 4 years ago. Guth: Would you say that a natural reaction to this might be to follow more and more a differentiation strategy. So you have to differentiate yourself very much from these probably unrelated competitors? Interviewee: Yes, that would be the smart solution, I don't know whether start-ups do and think like that, but that would be in my opinion the best solution. Saying ok, what competitors are on the market and how can I differentiate my own company to the other ones. We had pitch trainings from American investors, and the first thing they said: "describe why you are different to other companies, find your USP". Guth: Just to relate this to one of the models I have presented, namely to the Generic Strategies, which basically say that there are three different strategies namely differentia-tion, which start-ups naturally follow, would you say that low-cost strategy is not option for an online start-ups? Interviewee: Well it could be possible, but I cannot imagine a start-up that is doing that, all the start-ups I know have a special idea. Maybe, bigger ones or incubators, like Rocket could follow this strategy by copying things or making things cheaper, such as Zalando. However, they have the necessary money for following this approach. You really need money, to make things cheaper and to roll out these products. That is the problem, start-ups do not have the money. Guth: Well, that was my assumptions as well, start-ups cannot follow low-cost strategy due to lacking possibilities of economies of scale. So, the third strategy, namely focus, means that first you target a very narrow market segment. Would you say this is reasonable when you start a company to target a small market and then go out when you have the proof of concept and market? Interviewee: Yes, that's the thing. We did it wrong. You have to target a special customer group. That is also a thing, everyone tries to make a solution for everything or for everyone.

But in my opinion, the more you go into detail with a target group the better you perform in the beginning. But we did it all wrong. We had every education course you can find, who is our target group? Everyone! So this was stupid in the first place, then we realised ok wait a moment, that's not good what we are doing, so let's focus on the student market first. Then we started with the student market, we had a totally clear target group. When we started becoming successful we created more and more categories. It is the same with Ama-zon.com. Nowadays, they sell anything, but they initially began selling books. Guth: To sum up the Generic Strategies is not that wrong from a start-up point of view, because focus and differentiation strategy are still up-to-date, but low-cost not. Interviewee: Exactly. Guth: To name another overall approach, what do you think about this traditional step-by-step competitor analysis? Would you say there are some steps not relevant? Interviewee: Well, it does not show the reality, it is typically a university thing. In university or an entrepreneurship institute as well you learn all these models, but nobody actually uses this. You just use this for business plan probably, but for practice, nobody uses that in my opinion. It is too complicated and it takes too much time. In this matter I would say this model is irrelevant. Guth: Also the Five Forces? Interviewee: The thing is, start-ups do not have the competence to do that. Guth: And the human, capital and time resources? Interviewee: Yes, and the knowledge! If you tell someone to make an industry mapping, 90% do not even know what that means. So they have to find out what that is and even if they know, who can tell us that they are doing it carefully and right?! So, in my opinion it makes no sense at all. Guth: Well when doing industry mapping you define the market segments and preliminary market share. Did you define your market at least in numbers? Did you somehow quantify it to a certain extent? Interviewee: Yes, we did, but we did not have a special approach behind that. We just thought, ok we need to know our market, so we should search for how many students are living in Austria and so on. It was more an assumption than a concrete excel sheet, in order to have the numbers. Most of the people are asking for that, also for business planning you need the numbers. I think it is very important to know who your target group is, how many people you can reach and so on. Guth: Regarding critical success factors, what would you say are the most important ones in the online business, such as market platforms? Interviewee: I think we should split up this question. One the one hand you probably want to build up your company on a short term basis, one the other hand maybe on a long term basis. When you build up a long term company the thing what matters the most is the prod-uct itself. So you need to have a good software and system behind it. Because, after time more and more competitors will come and you always have to be leading one with the most

innovation, such as it was the case with Google. They had also five competitors, but Goog-le's product apparently was the best, as they developed and developed it. Nowadays eve-ryone searching via Google. On the short-term, finding good brands that are working with you, meaning co-operations with companies, traction and track record are most important. So if you can say I work this and that company together most of the other companies are likely to join. And then they recommend you and then the whole process starts. Guth: So competitor profiling and matrix are probably not relevant for you as well? Interviewee: Well, it is not bad if you are doing all this, but most start-ups simply don't do it. Guth: So, what about value chain. Did you do a kind of value chain analysis? Or did you think how the customer receives the product, did you look for the market gap by analysing the value chain? Did you find the inefficiency, that seminars could be arranged or organised online? Interviewee: Yes, that is what we did. Well, it was probably not exactly a value chain anal-ysis, but it is more about what the customer needs. Guth: You mean how the customer could be more efficiently or differently served in other ways that are more reasonable or convenient for the customer? My assumption was by doing a value chain analysis you can find the market gap or inefficiency where upon you can build a business model. Interviewee: Yes, exactly, I would agree to that. Guth: What about benchmarking? Is not relevant for doing a competitor analysis because it limits your point of view? When you simply look all the time at the KPIs of competitors will you not be creative? Interviewee: Well that is interesting, there are two types of people or companies. The one company always says "I am looking at my competitors and I want to do it like them, but maybe I add my special USP to that". So you take things from your competitors and make it your own. The other one does not care about its competitors because they want to build their own vision and build up their company. And the first class companies are those who do not care about what their competitors are doing. Look at Google and Facebook, they do not care. If you want to build a medium company and go with the first way you will be safe but you will never get that far as the big companies, you know what I mean? The more you are listening to your competitors and the more you copy things from competitors, the safer you are, but the less money you will get and the less worth the company will be. You can actually compare this with case of a DJ. You know, as a DJ you can do two things. You can play the commercial things everyone wants to hear. Then everybody surely likes you, but you will never be a star. You are a star if you play your own music, if you are doing your own style, then you get the chance to become a real star. So what I want to say, you can do what the others are doing or you do it your way and don't care, and that's the thing with benchmarking and competition. Guth: This brings us to the topic of competitive advantage, the previous interviewee told me that it is most important to understand the customer, because you will then be closer to the market. Would you underline this? Or what would you say is the most important com-petitive advantage in the online business?

Interviewee: Well, that is good if you are a small company, saying that "we are nicer be-cause we have better customer support" but when you get bigger and bigger, I still think this is not as important as having a good product. With the product comes also usability, which is a very important thing. Certainly, it is important to analyse consumer behaviour, which feels better if you have done this. But it is not about I am taking care about customers. Guth: I guess the previous interviewee rather related this to the understanding the need of the customer. Interviewee: Well, of course this is a very important thing Guth: So let's consider this from the online business perspective. What do you think could give you sustainable competitive advantage so that nobody can imitate your business model that fast? Interviewee: Well you have to create the need that is not there in the first place, so that everyone is visiting your site and then innovation, innovation, innovation! You always have to be one step ahead. You cannot safe a software, you cannot patent a software, so every-body can copy. And the thing is, if they copy it, you are one step ahead only if you constantly add new features. Guth: Well, my assumption was that customer loyalty could be a competitive advantage, because you have locked in the customer. They are convinced of your business model and your product, and they don't want to switch. So they avoid the switching costs of taking a new service. Interviewee: Well, that, combined with customers' laziness! You know, people are over-flowed with so many information, platforms and start-ups, so they don't want to change a lot. If they find an application they like, they will keep it! Of course, you should make a loyalty program, that's very important, but the good thing is, people are so lazy. So, if our customers for example on our platform book a course they will not search in the internet, whether there is a better platform, where they could otherwise book. They think like "I trust the brand, I booked it once, and so I do it twice". I do not think that it is very important, that we make that much about loyalty, even if we don't say them that much like "hey thanks for booking us, here is a coupon for your loyalty", the laziness alone is in most of the cases the reason why people are not going to the competitor. Because they don't know them then even. Guth: But compared to WIFI, which is a competitor of yours, also offering online educational courses, how can you then make the customer switching to you? Interviewee: Well that's another question! You were first asking about locked in customers which should be given loyalty programs, I think that is not that important, because if they booked once, they will go again for us. By contrast, if somebody books on the WIFI and we want him or her to book on our platform, you have to find some good reasons for the cus-tomer why he or she should book on our page! Well that's marketing! You have to show them why it is better to go to our site than the competitor's one! Guth: So you mean aggressive marketing would be the answer? Interviewee: Yeah kind of, and what I like is to really show the people what they can do with our solution and service for their problems. To show them, "don't accept the existing system" like WIFI is very conservative and we show our customers like "hey, look this is possible, we can do it like this and that".

Guth: Finishing the traditional point of view let's go to the new approaches of competitor analysis. So we already found, that the majority of start-ups try to create something new, make market disruption but in the end they actually do not create something new but rather re-segment the market. Would you agree to that? Interviewee: Exactly. Guth: So then let's go to the blue ocean strategy, which basically means that you can add competing factors and thereby drive out of the competition’s usual value curve. So you add new factors by creating or reducing factors that are inefficient for example. Would you say from your business model perspective, that you tried to create or rather eliminate something in the value chain? I am referring to the four action framework now. Interviewee: Well I think both, actually both ways are very important. On the one hand, we certainly added new features offering new possibilities, on the other hand we tried to make things easier as well. We tried to make the whole process easier. For example, people have to go in reality to some institutions and then have to pay for the course. So we were saying, ok so an online payment would be way easier, so the value chain can be made easier. Additionally, we also were building features. Both ways should be actually followed I would say. You can compare it with a company's key factors. So you say, you can rather make revenue or we cut the costs. You can't say what is right or wrong! It is both! Guth: That's the point, as the blue ocean strategy actually says you can go both ways! You can go with lower costs and make a better or more differentiated product. Interviewee: Well I agree with that definitely! The blue ocean strategy in general is a very modern way of thinking I would say! The strategy appears to be quite intuitive. Guth: So, to ask you as a representative of the online business, would you say usually for online companies or market platforms, it is good to do both, reducing and creating factors? Interviewee: I think reducing is more efficient. Surely, both ways are fine, but people are sick of new features, they have to try out everything. So rather tell them like: "we make the way you have been used to easier with our solution and you win a lot of time, like with the online payment, when you don't need to go to the institution and wait for registration". So it easier to understand for the customer what he or she is winning. On the other hand, if you have a new feature, it is harder to convince the customer and to get him or her into contact and to create trust with this new creation. Because there is so much with everything on the market. Guth: So we are almost done, just to more things. Referring to the petal diagram, there you can depict your competitive environment and even competitors that might not seem to be that much related. Could you think this would be a good idea to depict the competitive en-vironment for you? And for pitching or showing this tool to an investor? Interviewee: Well, it is easy to understand, and way easier than Porter's Five Forces. Guth: Ok, well then to summarise in general, would you agree that the strategy canvas is basically a good idea if you use a competitive model, compared to all those traditional mod-els? And for depicting the competitive environment, the petal diagram might be better than the strategy canvas?

Interviewee: Well, I can tell you, I see it at the first time, and I like it. It simply makes sense. Guth: Ok, then I tell you some critique from the literature about the petal diagram. The diagram can only depict competitors but not the product and its features. And as well how the product features attract customers. Interviewee: In my opinion, that's not the thing, in my opinion, people associate something with a brand. So, for example when people want to understand what we are doing or when we are pitching we say like "do you know what your platform is, it is like Amazon but we are focusing on the educational market". Then it goes like "Uh, I understand!" That is exactly the same what you are doing here, you take the brands people know about, and you are showing where I am in the system. So it is the easiest way to make the people understand what are you doing and who is surrounding you. Guth: Ok so summing up again, your procedure about competitor analysis was kind of looking for the market gap, then you made a Google search engine analysis and then you set out your business model towards a differentiation approach. Interviewee: Well, we heard about different competing platforms, so we looked at them of course, how they were doing it, but not on purpose kind of. And yes, we somehow followed this differentiation idea to re-segment the market. Guth: Last question, regarding the ranking of competitor analysis approaches itself, if you think you are a new founder and you want to know how others did the competitor analysis, is there any column or information you could add or eliminate? Interviewee: Well, where is the product? Product and business model are not the same. Or call it technology maybe. A competitor will look at your technology and try to find some-thing which can be done better. Guth: So what do you mean by product or technology? Interviewee: Well it is like a code, you are developing and nobody can copy it that fast. So for example for our platform to copy it, you need at least about 100 developers which will need half a year. It is about the know-how of the code. A competitor will orient towards the code, in order to see what can be copied or where something could be made better.

Interview No.3

Short biography and background of interviewee

• Employee of a start-up for specialised beer, responsible for promotion and logistics • Focus: FMCG, food and beverage sector

Interview Transcript

Guth: So please tell me about your experiences at your company regarding competition.

Interviewee: So the first step we did actually with the company was not really to analyse our competitors but to analyse the whole market. We are a beer company and we are in Austria, so we have the second largest per head consumption on beer, which is very im-portant to know. This tells us also a lot about the market. We have a saturated beer market, where there is actually no need for a new brand. The only way how you can get more people to drink beer is to gain market shares from competitors or to find a new product, which people do not yet have and can drink. So we actually, I would say, are doing both. In one way, we are addressing people that have different beer taste and also those that are more looking on their body and are lifestyle oriented. For example in Austria, the other beer com-panies are a bit outdated, their designs are not very fresh, and their business innovation is not very high. So, this is our chance to be in a big market and to win by innovating. Guth: To sum up, you say, are you targeting two markets, the existing beer market and the market of current non-customers, who probably would have the need as they realised this is beer probably relevant for them? Interviewee: Exactly, so therefore we try to look at other companies, especially how they work and what their products are, what products are running well concerning sales. What was for us for example very important to us, we had two products analysis, namely beer and radler. We analysed the whole radler market, before we started it, we tasted everything. Then we realised the differences in the composition of ingredients and their quality. They also do not communicate the quality of the ingredients. Thanks to this we found ways to position our radler as a high quality product, our customers also appreciate. With the beer, we already had the idea, how the beer should look like. In the beginning we looked at dif-ferent designs. The taste and functionality of the beer was already set when we started the idea. Otherwise we would have analysed the market further. Guth: Summarising this, it was clear for you, that you needed to differentiate the product from existing competitors and add a certain feature to it. Interviewee: Yeah, but it was important to make the product not too complicated. In the beginning we saw, nobody knew what a low-carb beer was in Austria. Every time we ex-plained, that it has these features. It was a long process, that is why the people were in the beginning a little bit uneducated and they were a bit afraid to taste and to buy. Therefore a lot of education had to be done and this is why we also wanted to do the basic radler with lemon so that we do not have to explain as much, so that, the product is easier for people to understand. Guth: So generalising this for the whole industry, when you need to educate the customer it is the easiest way to make an easy product, where the people immediately grasp the benefit. Interviewee: Exactly, if they don't understand the benefit they will not buy it.

Guth: So, let's have a view at these traditional models of competitor analysis. If you look at the first model, as a "representative" of the food and beverage industry, would you say this step-by-step approach makes somehow sense to you? Or would you say it is unnecessary? What would you comment on that? Interviewee: Well, what is hard in the beginning is benchmarking, because you do not have a company that is like you. We are for example competing with big companies. Of course, there is a certain craft beer trend, but we do not see ourselves as craft beer. So we either have small companies that are craft beer companies, which we don't really see as our com-petitors, or we have big companies which are simply not representative for us. So we do not really have a benchmark we can work with. Guth: Well I kind of assumed this, in this case benchmarking would only limit our creativity and you would not do in scope of a competitor analysis? Interviewee: In the beginning, it makes no sense, if you are on the market, for a couple of years then it becomes important. But for us for example, we simply do not produce as much as an incumbent player like Stiegl, so we cannot even compare our costs. Right now it is too early. Guth: It is interesting that you name industry mapping as relevant for you as a startup. Usually start-ups told me that there is no market yet here, you cannot map anything. Interviewee: Well, that is because we are in an existing market. It is just a new product and philosophy in an existing market. So, in fact we conducted research regarding segments in the beer market, how the retail market and gastronomy industry works. Also we investigated about the beverage industry structure in Austria and how beverages are distributed. Guth: Regarding critical success factors, what would you say for the beverage industry might be most important? Interviewee: The most important is the taste and look of the product. Brand of course as well, but the look comes with the brand. In our market there are so many competitors that you have to stand out with your marketing, otherwise nobody will see you. Also, entering supermarkets, is so important. So co-operations are integral too, if they don't let you in, you will not sell. When you map your industry they will of course also be part of that. Guth: Going to Porter's models, would you say for you case they are relevant models, as you are in an existing industry? Interviewee: Well, they are. But we did not know the bargaining power of buyers before we had the product. We had big threats regarding entries, as a big company could immediately imitate our product and take our idea. So, if you are aware of the model as a start-up founder in an existing market it can work, but you need to know the forces.

Guth: To relate what you said to the Generic Strategies, differentiation is your strategy basically, low-cost is not a case because you are a premium product, but what about focus strategy? Targeting first a very narrow market segment, would you agree as a start-up in the food and beverage sector, that this makes most sense, when you first want to target a narrow customer group and then you educate the customer? Interviewee: Yeah, makes sense. This is especially for marketing relevant, in the beginning you do not want to use too much money. You do not have the experience what will pay off and what not. So, you have to try different things, and these things should be kept very lean! If you burn the cash you have fast, you will see the return after all the money is gone, which is too late! Therefore, in the beginning you have to be careful. Look what will pay off, what is going good, if you see that something is good, if it is bat, you should stop it immediately. So it is a lot of trial and error. In the beginning it is very important to test everything. The first stage in a start-up is always that you develop a product and then you have the product-market fit or proof of concept. Guth: What about competitor profiling? Interviewee: Well, I cannot remember that in detail, probably we did something similar, but not in depth. Probably, we looked at most of the companies and their balance sheet as well profit and loss statement. This is just to see, if they are making money, is there a market for it and if it is worth it. Guth: Well because it is an existing market it makes sense, I would think. Interviewee: Yeah, it does, but in a blue ocean that is useless. Guth: Ok, value chain analysis. Would you say analysing the usual beer industry value chain would still give enough room for finding a market gap and therefore doing a new business model in the nowadays beer industry. Would you say that works? Finding an inef-ficiency in the beer industry, you would say this would work? Interviewee: Well, we are tackling many of those problems, but not in the production pro-cess. In a production process you will rather find something like an inefficiency. We are rather thinking about other ways where we have more experience, where we can better use technology in order to get a competitive advantage. But as a non-producing company - we outsourced that - we do not have experience with that. So without experience it is quite difficult to find a market gap. Also, you cannot produce that easily beer yourself, the equip-ment you need is very capital intensive. So for a classic beer producer in the value chain we would not have the capital. It would not fit to our business model. Guth: Where would you see you largest competitive advantage, or more generally said, is it easy to build a competitive advantage as a small beer producer?

Interviewee: Yes, the biggest competitive advantage for us is first of all, that we are not an old beer company that has been selling beer for a hundred years already. So, without this "historic duty" we were able to rethink the whole beer selling concept. We are not trying to do it like everybody else does. Because we are not "stuck in the system" we are able to do something different. We are young and flexible! So if you want to change something in a bigger company, the whole process of setting-up a low-carb beer and bringing it to market would take about two years due to all the necessary decision steps! We can do such pro-cesses way faster. Guth: Well, this is probably the most important competitive advantage for any kind of start-ups. Interviewee: And also, because they are not stuck in the system. If you work at Stiegl or Gösser, you are probably working there already for 40 years and you will not do something new and innovative. Because you are already so used to everything. This whole industries has a lot of big players and nothing has been really changed for the last 30 years, because it was not necessary. This is a sure-fire success industry. Of course they have launched some little bit innovative products, but nothing disruptive. Guth: Ok, so let's go to the entrepreneurial point of view. Talking about blue-ocean and re-segmentation, I have this assumption that start-ups first want to create a blue ocean, but then realise it is too hard so rather they just add some product features that re-segments the market. What about you, did you want to crush the whole beer market or just re-segment it with the low-carb idea? Interviewee: Actually, we did not really know what we wanted in the beginning. We just wanted to make our beer. Initially we planned to import Australian beer, where you have a lot of low-carb beers. After getting to a contact with a brewery, we realised that we can make our own beer. Doing something nobody in the beer industry has never done and to start something different or to disrupt the market. But, it was rather the idea that was cool, so we did not think that much about disrupting the market. Guth: Talking about blue ocean strategy, would you say the strategy canvas would be a good idea for depicting your initial idea with the beer and low-carb as added competing factor? Could you have thought about that? Interviewee: Yes, could be, you have a good overview. However, for depicting the compet-itive environment with that when pitching I would probably not use it. Because, usually com-petition is something I would rather explain. If I want somebody to understand my company, this is not necessarily something I would show him. I would like to give him a feeling rather with something like pictures. Maybe one or two slides with a graph, but not too much of that. For graphic depiction I would at the most probably show the revenues of competitor, how

they got those revenues for example, or like how much beer is sold in the market. To show the opportunities in the market. Guth: Well, ok understandable. Then, I would like to know your opinion on the petal dia-gram, would that rather be an alternative when pitching or showing an investor the compet-itive environment? Interviewee: Well, with this diagram, I would give the listener all my weaknesses. There you show for example, that the other beer companies are on that level, I am on this one. It shows too much, it gives too much information. It might be interesting in the beginning, if you are starting your product, to give somebody a feeling, what industries you can tackle. Of course you could compare ourbeer with Coke light, some high class vodkas or something in the spirits market. But I do not personally like this comparison. Guth: If I get you right, you mean it basically makes sense? Interviewee: It makes sense in the beginning to explain your product, what it is, and to show how other successful companies in different or similar sectors did something similar and had a good outcome with it. Guth: The critique about the diagram was that you cannot depict the product and features of it. Interviewee: Also you have different markets, therefore you cannot really compare. That is why I do not personally like the comparison with our beer and Coke light for example. Be-cause then you assume that these are companies that are kind of similar, but on the second point of view you see that is something completely different. Guth: But that is actually the point of the diagram, that you can drag away customers from related products, so substitute competition. Interviewee: Yeah, I guess that is why I am saying it is a good thing, but you have to be very careful with that kind of thing. Guth: So going back to the blue ocean idea, let's proceed to the four action framework. You basically added a competing factor - the lob carb. But from a more general point of view, would you say that it is easier in the beer industry to add or reduce something? Interviewee: Hard to say, with the craft beer trend now, there is tons of things that are added. In my opinion there is a very limited market for doing a lot more. There has been so much done, you have caffeine beer, you have strong, light, dark beer, beer with different flavour. So there are so many adding that it would not make that much sense. Sometimes I am surprised, that we found something nobody in Europe has done so far, where there is a big need for it. Also, let somebody else brewing you beer is not necessarily something new,

that is quite often done by a lot of other companies. So in general, in the value chain I do not see that much opportunities anymore. Guth: The very last question is about the ranking. In order to give a prospective founder an idea, what would you add to these columns, anything that is important to you? Interviewee: Probably the brand, at least for the beer or beverage market that is very im-portant. Not just a new product and taste, but people especially in the beer market, like to drink "their" brand. That is why it also in the beginning harder to convince somebody to drink something different. Same goes with fashion. Brand building and customer trust, this is something very important for us. Regarding customer trust, in the beginning people are mostly like "oh low-carb beer, how is that going to taste", so they had no trust in the begin-ning when they saw it. And then they tried it and liked it. Then they saw the marketing which got accepted very well. From that on we had just the brand building, people see it more, and hopefully they like it and trust us more. Establishing a brand for online business is probably much harder, because people cannot touch it. Also, you have to keep in mind that we are in the lifestyle segment, for lifestyle it is very important. Guth: And the graphic depiction? Interviewee: Well for here, the graphic depiction makes kind of sense.

Interview No.4

Short biography and background of interviewee

• CEO & Founder of a mobile app start-up company for cashback-offers of products of the FMCG industry

• Focus: ICT, mobile app, FMCG

Interview Transcript

Guth: Please, tell me something about your personal background, your experience when you founded your start-up. How did you approach the competitor analysis, any systematics and so on? Interviewee: After my consulting career I helped building up the sales organisation of Groupon, which was my entrance into the online business. Together with two other col-leagues we started our company in 2012. We had a conception period before founding the company itself. This took about three to four months. During that period, we clearly analysed the industry we wanted to get into, looked at the competitive landscape, also the setting and market perspective. Summarising what we are, we are a cashback app for supermarkets, which is B2C based. We offer direct cashback promotions to supermarket brands, shoppers

can redeem these promotions by taking a photo of the grocery receipt. Flowingly, brands have the opportunity to directly conduct cashback promotions without having to consult dif-ferent retailers with different cash systems. So our target market is FMCG. We are a mobile-focused start-up, but not purely mobile or online, so it is mixed. Of course we quantified the market we wanted to enter as well. There were some peers with similar models in other countries, foremost in US and France. There was one thing when we looked at these peer companies, we tried to find out whether our market was similar enough to their markets, in order to adapt their model in a successful way. The other thing was, that we did a bottom-up market size analysis for Germany. Guth: Could you explain this a little bit in more detail? Interviewee: Sure! Well, bottom-up means that we tried to derive the market size from the individual market parties and their behaviour, so not from the macro side of the market. Precisely that means, we started with the numbers of FMCG companies, looked at their average marketing budget, looked at how they were spending their marketing budgets and so on. So it is a more detailed approach to market size than just to go down from macro factors. Guth: How did you then proceed, did you somehow estimate what the competitors would do? Interviewee: That was a minor part in our planning I would say. In general, we looked closely at the peers, or call them competitors in foreign countries and tried to find out their business models, pricing models and partner brands. We then transferred that to Germany and did some early talks with the target market in Germany with FMCG brands there. We tried to find out if they find our business idea appealing in itself. Guth: I am just referring to the first model of the traditional competitor analysis approach. Somehow I am trying to compare this step-by-step approach with what you were saying. If I get you right, you found the market, then mapped it with this bottom up approach, then you did some kind of competitor profiling by looking at the business models of your peers abroad. Interviewee: Exactly. Guth: Just to continue this step-by-step approach, did you kind of look at the value chain how customers are within this value chain, or did you analyse how the value is generated in the FMCG market? Interviewee: I would say a bit less. What we did was that we tried to find out how FMCG companies are committing and spending their budgets. It is a similar thing, if you brake down from, how they sell their products to retailers, they get revenue and how do they then

make sure that they really sell their products, how do they distribute their marketing and sales budgets and so on? Guth: So would you say, you were looking for an inefficiency in the market? Interviewee: Basically it is an inefficiency in the market in terms of price and the sampling of products. Because product trial was so far mostly done offline. This means making gifts in supermarkets or other locations, it was in Germany until then not at all online. That was what we looked at. Looking at the model, benchmarking we did not really do. Guth: That was what I also expected. Benchmarking would not suit for competitor analysis as it would limit you in terms of strategic thinking and also creativity. So for starting compa-nies benchmarking would not from my perception make that much sense, maybe later. The same goes with competitive advantage. Interviewee: Well, for us we were in particular first mover in the market. What we could have done is to look more closely at traditional models like paper based couponing, but we also did not do that a lot. Guth: Just to summarise, I refer to the Generic Strategies, where you have the basic three strategic choices. Would you agree low-cost strategy from this point of view makes no sense for a start-up in your market? Interviewee: Well it depends. The efficiencies you create online for example are basically cost efficiency, so then you actually follow the low-cost approach. For example also a price comparison tool could work with the same logic. Guth: So for online business models you would say that low-cost could also work, not only the classic differentiation strategy? Interviewee: Yeah. Guth: What about focus strategy, did you first narrow down your market and try to concen-trate on a particular market segment or something like that? Or would you say that makes sense for you? Interviewee: Well, definitely, it depends on your business model certainly. But every kind of market place, B2B or B2C model where you serve both sides you should always start with focus strategy and with a market segment. Otherwise you will not get out of the chicken egg dilemma. It means, one side, for example the B2C side, depends on the B2B side and vice versa. So you cannot build up both sides simultaneously on a broader scale. So you should narrow down your scale. For example, where this was done successfully are the delivery service platforms in Germany, like Lieferheld. They started in a specific city, very

segmented market and could there acquire enough restaurants for the inventory and target marketing in that city and build up some traction, instead of spreading all over Germany and not being able to match consumers to restaurants. This is an important approach, but for our model it was more difficult to pursue this approach. This is due to the fact, that by defi-nition we do national campaigns, so we had to address the national market in general. I mean you could also say that we are focused because we serve only the FMCG market, but that is still a huge market. Guth: But in general, from an online business model perspective, first focus and then roll out to the whole market, makes more sense? Interviewee: Definitely. Guth: Just let’s shortly go back to the industry analysis. About the Five Forces, for your particular case it could have made sense to use this tool to somehow analyse your business case? Or to put it differently, could you have known the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers and so on? Or as a first mover, was this not predictable? Interviewee: In a way we tried to find out that beforehand by calling buyers in the industry for example. It would have made sense to know the forces a bit deeper beforehand, be-cause we learned a lot about the industry after founding. This is also mirrored in the model. Guth: To continue, we talked about industry mapping. So you said you used the bottom up approach. Did you thereby quantify market size, shares, segments or something? Interviewee: Well, I can tell you how we are doing it currently. It is basically the same approach so it does not matter whether when you found the company or you are in the middle of it. We are rather using a top down approach. So we are starting at the whole FMCG market revenue in Germany. And then we break it down to a first addressable mar-ket, then the segments of market and then potential market share with more or less vali-dated assumptions. This means, we look at the total FMCG revenue, ok what part of this revenue is made with price promotions, as this is our addressable market. Now the inter-esting question is, what the average discount is. The discount namely also determines our revenue. So we came up with a certain figure and then we realised the numbers of the market segments. We now have to make assumptions, what our potential market share is. We just said, it makes sense to use our model for roughly 10% of all price discount promo-tions. That's the way we did this. We used this approach by ourselves and developed it with our investors. We just thought about how we could define the market. Guth: Did you also adapt your approach to the lean startup method somehow? Interviewee: Well basically this is somehow what we did and are still doing. We know we can only validate our model by pursuing it. Also we had to adapt the models from time to

time. That was also somehow based on this approach. In a way this lean startup approach somehow also works for analysing the competition. It is all about heuristics, you try to figure out what competitors are doing and that is nothing else than building hypothesis. Then you observe their behaviour and then you adjust the hypothesis. That is a natural but similar approach. Guth: So just let's continue to critical success factors. What would you say are the most critical success factors for your business and also the online or mobile business environ-ment you are embedded in? Interviewee: Well, a critical success factor we underestimated are the existing industry relationship networks. So understanding the industry network is crucial. Of course the prod-uct is important as well. You need to have a platform that can quickly adjust to customers' demand. All our B2B customers have very individual needs regarding our product. It is very often that it is a k.o. criteria for certain campaigns. That is a pretty important factor. Espe-cially in the mobile sector as we are. On mobile, the usability is really a crucial factor, be-cause you have a very limited attention span of your users. You user has to like your product and understand your product in a very short amount of time. If you are not good in that regard then you will not succeed in spreading your idea. That is actually applicable to the whole mobile or app industry. So the customer needs to immediately grasp the product and how it can be used. That actually relates to what Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo.com said. She said the basic purpose of your app has always to be two steps away. Guth: To continue with competitor profiling, we said you analysed the business models of peers but you did not do in detail a something similar to competitor profiling or matrix? Or would you benefit from comparing of yourself to other similar competitors? Interviewee: Well we did not do a profiling in that sense, but for example for fundraising, we try to map our competitors in two dimensions. So it is similar to the matrix approach, also with this high-low, high-low approach. But we have other dimensions such as brand- based vs retailer based. So you could summarise this by target market/customer which is one dimension and the other is focus on up-sell vs focus on loyalty on branding. So you could call that dimension value-added for the customer. But we do not use this matrix for strategic issues. It is rather used for fundraising. Guth: Regarding competitive advantage. How would you say are you trying to achieve a competitive advantage? Or is it at all possible for a start-up in the mobile business to get one on a longer term? And from which sources would you say could a competitive ad-vantage rather originate, from external, such as market changes or internal, such as devel-opment and innovation? Interviewee: We have seen start-ups that succeeded in doing this. But it depends on how you define sustainable competitive advantage. Well, I think the most common source of competitive advantage is basically technology and that is internal. For us however internal

advantages are a minor part. That is related to our cost structure and our processing, like how we do our operations. There we are able to develop a competitive advantage by for example by having a super sophisticated OCR text recognition engine that allows us to keep our processing costs very low. That would be meant by internal. But that is a minor point. We rather are trying to achieve competitive advantage by building relationships and co-operations, as this takes a lot of time to imitate. The advantage of co-operations is that they have very often some kind of exclusivity. So you once you locked someone in, not necessarily a target customer but also an agency that can help you find customers and so on, and your competitor then cannot work with this particular player, that is an entry barrier. I guess this is quite representative for the whole mobile app industry in general. Guth: So let us now come to the blue ocean and Steve Blank's ideas. Would you say you first wanted to find a new blue ocean but then you realised it is easier to re-segment the market? Interviewee: Certainly, we are re-segmenting an existing market. But this does not mean we are following a niche or low-cost strategy. Well from the customer perspective this is surely a niche strategy. But that is not our vision. Basically we want to get out of the niche. Guth: So talking about strategy canvas and four action framework. Did you somehow use these models or did you think of the models' implications when founding your company? Interviewee: We did similar things when we founded our company. We did some kind of mapping with different competing factors and tried to map us compared to traditional paper-based couponing for example or to other traditional business models. But the concept seems to make sense for our case as well. It would definitely make sense to use this canvas when somebody liked to enter the mobile app industry. Referring to the four action frame-work, I would say we rather reduced something. We have a disintermediating model basi-cally, because we disintermediated the retailer from price-setting in a way. Guth: But would you say that is a general trend in the mobile app industry to reduce things in order to make products easier for the customer to grasp? Interviewee: Well, not only that, apps are often dis-intermediators. Look at mytaxi for ex-ample which disintermediates the taxi industry. Or fin-tech apps with direct lending for ex-ample. This is all disintermediating banks. App or mobile start-ups are very often focused on reducing market complexity. Guth: Ok we are almost done, looking at Blank's petal diagram what would you say about depicting the competitive environment with this? Interviewee: Well, it makes somehow sense. It is a different way to visualise a market environment. It also entails existing competitors, so it is kind of like two of the five forces

that you have the threat of new entrants into that and existing. I could imagine using this for pitching. Guth: So, as a representative of the mobile industry would you recommend the petal dia-gram or strategy canvas for example for graphic depiction of the competitive environment. Interviewee: Currently we use the competitor matrix. Well, I find the petal diagram quite appealing, because it puts your company in the centre just visually. On the other hand it is not digging very deeply to be honest. You have a few different areas of peers, you just show them and segment them, but that's it. But fundraising is a lot about impressing and convinc-ing investors, not just about the content so it might work. Guth: Ok, last question, about the ranking of competitor analysis approaches I would like to develop, I wanted to ask you, what you would add to the ranking. If you think you are a new founder and you would like to have an easy-to-use tool for looking up how to analyse competition, what kind of information would you add or need to know? Interviewee: I would probably add criteria of the business model, whether it is a proven model or not. That might be interesting. For example whether the business model is proven in other countries, meaning it has proof of concept. In terms of the precise steps of the competitor analysis I would recommend to talk to as many people as possible about the model. Do not spend too much time on the theoretical but rather on the practical research, by getting feedback from people. After having the feedback from customers or experts you go into implementation and you are trying to estimate your time frame and cost for imple-mentation. One important question is also what your financial strategy is. Do you pursue rather a bootstrapping approach, if yes, what are your resources? What can you achieve with them? What you should decide very early on is what kind of exit approach you have. So if you pursue to sell the company soon or if you rather want to establish a cash flow oriented start-up. That is then a completely different set-up from the beginning on. That is because it is always a question when you approach investors for example. That is between these two approaches completely different. The more you want to exit your company in general, the earlier you approach investors. And that also relates to your implementation plan. Maybe you can summarise it as financing strategy. When you have decided your fi-nancing strategy you go to implementation. There, the crucial decision is to start with a minimum viable product like lean start-up approach or do I first have to build a substantial internal competitive advantage. For example by developing for two years an algorhythm for something and then going out. That is the basic two approaches.

Guth: Ok so thanks a lot, we are in general actually done. Would you like to add anything else? Interviewee: In general I would like to add it always depends on what type of founder you are. Some founders will probably approach this whole thing more pragmatically and will not be that theoretical. For me, as I have a consulting background the usage of models and

approaches is definitely something useful. When you have arrived in the day-to-day busi-ness this theoretic strategic thinking will not be that prevalent probably. But in the pre-seed or seed phase, this way of thinking can be very useful and also for fundraising.

Interview No.5

Background of interviewee

• Business angel and investor in high-tech start-ups • Industry focus: automotive sector

Interview Transcript

Guth: Please tell me something about your industry experience with start-ups and compet-itor analysis.

Interviewee: My experience with start-ups and the market definition and analysis is quite simple. Usually, as an investor you can be happy if you find a more detailed market analysis than a simple Google research or market research by copy and paste of a consulting com-pany or so. However, there are some start-ups which of course have more sophisticated approach regarding market analysis. I can give you two examples of two start-ups in the automotive industry I have invested in. For me as an investor it is important to find start-ups with a focus not on their possibilities but mainly on the need of a market. If I find out when negotiating with the start-ups that they have no answer to the question whether there is a need in the market I soon discontinue the talks. So if a startup found a need the next ques-tion would be, how did it find out that they found a need? Because if there is a need you have to at least get into contact or ask someone like a customer. If somebody agrees to this need, you should ask him or her why this need is there. And this somebody is your first market. If you have a lot of these people with a similar need there must be a market with a specific size. Finding a need means to find a market, that is a lean startup approach. So if you find a need and therefore this potential market you have to define what the market segments are in this market that you could assume. How you can get an answer to this question? Mainly you do an internet research, but not a simple Google research, you try to find out the main competitors, go to their websites and analyse them. What are the products they are serving? What is the history of them, where are they coming from? How or why did they modify their business model? So mainly, in the automotive sector you talk about a stable supply chain of OEMs. This means it is very hard to get into this market. You can get into the market with a similar product, production process or market strategy. This is an oligopoly market with strong relationships between the customer or OEM like BMW and their suppliers. You only can enter this when you find a specific segment, a technologic segment or service where there is still a need and where the competitors or other suppliers have not focused yet. Or a new technology such as a combination of different production processes that you have developed and that have never been used in the automotive sec-tor.

So to sum up, the automotive sector is an existing market where you can rather go with a re-segmentation strategy. If a start-up intends to create a new market this is really difficult. So following re-segmentation in order to find possibilities to get into the market is definitely what I would recommend. On the other hand it is not that competitive, because of the long lasting relationships between OEMs and the suppliers. So again, you need to supply a new technology that is out of the focus of the existing suppliers and also speed is relevant in order to get into the market. Even if you find a supplier or competitor in this existing supplier structure, this does not mean that you cannot be successful. This are also very big compa-nies with thousands of employees. So their decision process is way more complex as it takes months to get a simple decision compared to a start-up. That is the opportunity for start-ups. So if you can offer a product in a known segment but with a different approach compared to the current product range they know that is preferable. It is kind of hard to educate the customer to a completely new technology. They have limited resources namely, so if you cannot explain your technology quite easily it is getting complicated. So what I could suggest is to organise workshops with developers from the customer where you in-troduce your technology and possible use cases. And ask them, can you imagine or do you have some ideas where you can apply similar use cases by solving problems that you are currently working on? This approach gives you an entrance in the market, starting from the development side. And the developer is the first position in the production process that mainly sets the goals for the other process steps. If you can convince them by using this new technology this will be the best starting point in this market, then they can realise the need and the problem that will be solved by your solution. So create new use cases based on their problems. That would be the right formula. Guth: So there were some interesting experiences you gave, which I just would like to combine with the models I have found. As we have heard about the general approach al-ready something, I would like to ask you regarding to the generic strategies. From a tech startup point of view would you agree that a focus strategy in the beginning and then after having the proof of concept concentrating on a larger market makes sense? Interviewee: Definitely, otherwise it would be very critical, because in the tech related sec-tors prototype costs are immense compared to ICT related start-ups. If you widen your strategy too early and do not focus on a specific segment or niche you will run out of money. So you focus on a small niche and offer some added value to the customer within this niche and give an outlook to extend this niche to a broader market. Maybe it is different in the ICT sector were you probably finance a beta version of an app. But in ICT the market is probably way bigger then in my tech related market. To get a market feedback you should therefore ask way more customers than in my very limited range of customers in the automotive sec-tor. Guth: Regarding industry mapping, you already said you want start-ups that you invest in to do some online research in order to find out what the competitors' products are about. Do you also ask them to make some kind of quantification about their projected market share or would it not make sense?

Interviewee: It definitely makes sense and it is necessary as it gives me an impression about the depth of their research. Also about their positioning in this market. If they do not use any tools I mainly suggest some bubble charts. You have there to place a value excel table behind with some criteria. I demand this in order to make them thinking about posi-tioning of their technology in this whole environment. This is a necessity. Guth: So you said positioning, what about doing something like a competitor profiling or matrix?

Interviewee: What I asked one of my startup was to show me a table regarding competitors and about the factors of competition they have chosen to be compared with. For me the first question is namely what the factors of competition are. Is it turnover, growth, number of patents, IP, so anything you will be able to quantify. It should not be some "prosaic" kind of factor, like "is it good or not". This is because the numbers will change in the future. You should review the numbers after a specific time, like after half year, year and go back to the table and check the numbers whether they are still the same. Out of this numbers you esti-mate your positioning. You create you strategy out of that. If you do not review your estima-tion your learning curve will be not existing. It is a lean startup approach, to modify your business model you have to be in touch with the market. And it is easier to be in touch on figures and numbers than on "prose". Guth: I have heard in previous interviews, referring to this competitor matrix that usually start-ups tend to present this matrix in this way that they say "we are so differentiated" and therefore they are in the upper right corner on a certain competing factor. Don't you think there is a certain bias in this? Interviewee: Of course for all figures you get presented by a start-up this is the case. First question, why do you think this number is corresponding to your ability? How can you argu-ment it? Can you value it somehow? Is there some specific number that can be traced back? I am a fan of quantification. If you see this list with a plus, plus, minus, neutral and so on, these are the main charts you see by comparing your position on specific factors to your competitors. The more you get some numbers behind it, the more trustable and valuable are these figures. Guth: Going back to critical success factors, could you somehow name the most important success factors in the automotive sector? What would you say? Interviewee: The most important thing is identifying your technological sweet spots. So describing, where you are super sophisticated, where you can offer something really unique. If you are strong in finding out this position then this is a key factor. Also, having a good feeling for the future trend. I always ask start-ups about their market. They describe everything they found in Google, on research papers. Then I ask, tell me about the market in five years. So a startup needs, at least in my industry, 3, 4, or five years until they are established in the market. If you do not know where the market will be or have not even an assumption, so will the technology still be needed in five years, because it will take me 2 or 3 years to get into the market? That is very crucial. Start-ups tend to focus only on existing

market situations. So if you know trends or anticipate them your strategy will be better be-cause you can follow it.

Guth: So, talking about value chain analysis, do you think tech-start-ups in your industry should conduct something like this in order to find a market gap or inefficiency were upon they could build up a business model? Interviewee: No, I would not say that, because if you analysed a whole value chain or supply chain this would be really a hell of job. Doing this as well for a lot of competitors would rather possible for start-ups however. I would also say that the seed of their idea should be rather a need than an inefficiency. So it is coming out of need and not out of the analysis of a full supply chain. It is coming out of a specific topic which could be part of this whole value chain. It could be an R&D or logistics topic. But when starting a startup they have already focused on something and therefore not on going into the whole process. I do not analyse the whole process and maybe I will find something to get into the market. This is not how it works. A start-up is so focused on a specific niche, because of the specific need that it wants to satisfy. Guth: Regarding competitive advantages, do you think start-ups in the tech-sector can de-velop any competitive advantage that is somehow sustainable? Or what would you say are sources of competitive advantage for tech-start-ups and what do you think about the VRIO approach to analyse whether a company has gained a sustainable competitive advantage? Interviewee: Specific inventions, IPs, some specific new approaches in a technology. Let me give you an example with one of a startup I have invested in. So is it valuable what they did, definitely, it is rare as well, because there are not that many competitors, it is a new technology. Is it costly to imitate, yes, because there is so much know-how behind it and IPs that it takes at least a few years to find out specific materials for this special production process they have developed. And they have been researching for years until they finalised the process. But is the company organised well enough to capture the value? No. Here, the VRIO model clearly gives me a picture where I find my investment entry spot. My entry spot is exactly where the answer is “no” for asking whether the company is organised enough to capture the value. That is the perfect entrance point because there I can help them. I might not have the know-how they have in this specific kind of technology but I know how to raise the company and to build up the company under the condition that it is costly to imitate. Also I can provide from then on my network. So using the VRIO approach as an investor is definitely valuable. Guth: Ok, interesting to hear that. Another question regarding benchmarking. You would not say to use KPIs from competitors in order to orient towards them? Or would you say this makes sense? Interviewee: No, you have to know it. You have to treat it as an information, you should not rely your strategy or other topics on it. Cause this gives you an impression about the im-portance of KPIs to your competitors. But you have to find your own way. It is an advantage

to know the KPIs of your competitors. Guth: So let us flip to the blue ocean strategy or to be precise to the strategy canvas and four action framework. Have you used them? And would you say the canvas is an eligible tool for depicting the competitive environment? Interviewee: Well not in an academic way probably, but in a practical way I used that. I would definitely say it is a good tool for depiction. If have used and applied it on mainly all start-ups I consulted and I have invested in. If they have not used that canvas, I would propose them to go back to it and to visualise the competitive environment for using it as a strategy base. Regarding the four action framework, I would comment on this concerning my industry background in the automotive sector that making something more efficient is definitely most prevalent. To create factors, you have to ask why someone else of your competitors has not yet found out. They have been on the market for decades, they have a staff of thousands of developers. It would be hard to create new factors, but surely you can adopt something and modify it. This could be a significant advantage. So in my case with that start-up I have invested in, they found this production process which is not new, but they adopted it for totally different use cases I could have never thought of. So by modifying something you can add value such as cost reduction or for example weight reduction in the automotive sector to the customer. So the idea of the blue ocean to lower costs and still add value is possible. The best entrance opportunity into the market is actually a combina-tion because a total blue ocean strategy will be very rare to find. To combine the blue ocean strategy approach with re-segmentation and to find a small spot or niche, this would be the right way. I think this would be the easiest way to get into the automotive sector. Guth: Ok, two major questions still and then we are almost done. Referring to pitching of presentations would you say you could use the strategy canvas to depict the competitive environment or, talking about Blank's petal diagram which is also a model I have found for the graphic depiction, would the Blank diagram be more eligible? Interviewee: Well, I have been so far not so familiar with the petal diagram, but it looks way easier to understand the competitive environment compared to the canvas model. It is just a better visualisation. Guth: But critiques say, with the petal diagram you cannot depict the product itself so it is just like logo dropping of competitors. Interviewee: Sure, it is. But if you want to pitch or present the whole canvas model. This will be very complex. You will not be able to communicate this one picture. I get it that you can just depict the competitors or the markets but not the product. It cannot deliver the communication that is documented within the canvas model. Still, the visualisation of differ-ent market segments is very valuable.

Guth: In the literature I often heard that combining the petal diagram with a competitor matrix would be favourable to also have the product depicted.

Interviewee: Well, if I ask start-ups to explain their canvas models I think this always takes very long for them. So this should not be part of a pitch I would say. Guth: Ok so very last question, talking about this ranking which is my overall goal. To give founders that have no idea how to approach competition a kind of guiding how other start-ups did it in this respective industry, what would you suggest that could be interesting for somebody to view? Or what would you add to such a table? Interviewee: This bubble chart or competitor matrix is something I have seen a few times. I have never worked with this petal diagram but what I have often been working with is a quite easy-to-use and lean framework is this double plus to double minus segmenting of critical factors. I see that very often to compare yourself to your competitors and also com-petitors to other competitors as well. So in the first step, you try to find out significant factors. This is the most difficult topic behind this. Find the significant factors. And then you try to rate it. There are no numbers behind it, it is only plus, minus, plus-plus or minus-minus. You can also use percentages or whatever. The idea behind it is to find critical factors that will be significant for your strategy to get into to the market. I give you an idea, for example if you offer four different kind of services, name the services and then rate if the competitor is offering the service. If the competitor is not offering it then it is a minus-minus. If it is offering the service in a very sophisticated way it is a plus-plus. So rate you competitors in between this range. You can rate products, services, critical factors or whatever. Is his maintenance and service for customer service well established? In my strategy this would be a key factor. Then I check their homepage, do they offer customer service, how do they do it? Do they offer it online, 24/7, whatever? If I think this kind of service is a critical factor to get into the market I compare it with competitors, where I think there could be relevant competitors for me. I could want to identify the whole spectrum of competitors, but there could be 100 com-petitors in the market. But I try to find out the competitors that are most critical to me. And then I rate them on these specific factors. They could be 6 or 8 factors, so that they are handle able. You cannot do it with every competitor but at least with the main ones. These must not necessarily be the biggest ones, but the most relevant to me. Niche competitors for example. I have seen this checklist quite often at my start-ups. Of course it is not valued by numbers, it is just an impression out of research. It just gives me an impression how the start-ups position themselves comparing to their competitors. I can see there, what are the main competitors for them and how do they position themselves in this competitive environ-ment. Guth: Ok, that is a very valuable information, thank you. So we are basically done, would you like to add anything in general? Interviewee: I mean it is obvious, start-ups are not yet really focusing on this whole re-search process. Especially marketing and sales issues are usually their main weaknesses of them. So it is quite hard to expect that they have a structured approach towards all these issues. Yet, even if all these academic models are not known by the start-ups by name, they still somehow apply them. If a start-up uses this strategy canvas model it is forced to ask itself questions about the relation between need and market, how to get into the market and so on. These are all questions that are intuitively asked, but I think it is a good idea to

have a kind of toolkit where you can individually use this or that structure, approach or model. I am an absolute fan of bubble charts because of their good visualisation. You see the worst left, left and the best on the right, right. Guth: One last model we did not yet mention, the five forces, what about that? Interviewee: Well, you can only get into the market as market entry barriers are so high if you virtually threaten the established suppliers which are your customers with an innovative new technology that could serve as a substitute product. Insofar, I would say of course you need to look on the five forces. Yet, I would say all these questions deal with these topics, so you probably use it once or twice. Then you know that you usually have only this oppor-tunity as you cannot otherwise enter the market. So the market analysis will not change. To sum up, when you are able to develop an innovative substitutive technology or product that is the only way. So unlike to ICT where you usually develop new markets; in the tech or automotive sector you typically build up on existing structures.

Interview No.6

Background of interviewee

• COO of a high-tech start-up • Industry focus: healthcare sector

Interview Transcript

Guth: Please tell me something about your experiences in your start-up regarding compet-itor analysis, did you have any kind of procedure? Any step-by-step approach, mistakes you did and so on, please. Interviewee: I think it is best to start from the beginning. The idea popped up when our CEO had a surgery and asked the doctor whether there were any possibilities for distraction, which were not given. So the idea was born out of this need, we therefore started talking to prospective customers or in other words medical doctors which was a kind of lean start-up approach. So, as we talked to customers what possibilities there were for non-invasive dis-traction, we presented them some existing solutions and asked them why they do not used them. We had done some Google research and so on regarding medical supplies of the entertainment industry for this issue and then we took these existing solutions and asked the experts why they would or would not use such offers. Next, we took this feedback and filtered the information for improving the research about our competitors. The biggest step for us however was not online, but when we visited the largest trade fair in the medical technique field. There, we split up and walked through the whole trade fair in order to look for potential competitors. As this was the biggest trade fair worldwide in this field which we had searched through we concluded that there were no real exact competitor products, probably some indirect ones. This is rather PR related to them, they have to be there to

show their presence on this fair I would also recommend all start-ups to go to fairs, it really helped us a lot. Research a big one in your field, which is easy to arrive. Big players are always on fairs. It also helped us in discussion with investors and pitch contests. It was a big argument simply. And it was no big financial risk to go there for us as we just visited the fair. But in general, the most helpful thing is still going to potential customers, people that know how work in this sector is done. Talk to them, ask them why they would use your product or why not. Ask them whether they would recommend some product of a competitor and why. If there is something, Google research cannot bring you all the results you need. Also, when you are at trade fairs and find something similar to your product or idea, try out that product and then think what could be done better by you. So to generalise, of course this is a lean start-up approach. We took some ideas, we saw there is a market for it, and people would like to use that according to our interviews. But the result of our interviews was also that people would like to have any easy-to-use product without any adaptation or installation necessary. Guth: Would you actually agree that you can use the lean start-up idea also somehow for analysing your competition? Interviewee: I would say it is not a contradiction. The lean start-up idea might not be in its basic purpose a tool for analysing the competition but you can implement the lean method everywhere in fact. It would be greatly false just to go to your prospective customer and ask them and that's all. You have to do your research yourself of course. It is a little bit of both, but it would not be enough just to ask the customer about competition. Maybe they were never interested in that stuff, so they cannot name your any competitors. Guth: Ok, just to close your personal procedure, after the fair you found out there is no directly related product. How did you then proceed? Interviewee: Well, we still sometimes research on Google about our competition not only on the medical sectors but also innovation sectors. But again, I have to say after the fair we had the biggest advantage regarding our competitive knowledge. But surely, you cannot stop competitor analysis like six months before you go on the market. That would be haz-ardous. Guth: So that was an interesting introduction, thank you. I would like to go to the models. Regarding the traditional step-by-step approach, when you see all these steps, would you say this would have made sense for you using that procedure? Or would it not reflect the reality at all for you? Interviewee: Well I would say, we found the market gap, mapped market and looked on Google in order to develop a differentiation strategy and define a USP. Regarding this tra-ditional step-by-step approach I would say, some of these steps we used, but also differ-ently. An industry analysis would actually be too far. We rather looked at the market for products, not for the whole industry.

Guth: What about Porter's Five Forces, would this have given some benefit? Interviewee: Well, the threat of new entrants would have actually later become relevant to us as in the beginning of a new product you are in a kind of stealth mode. The rivalry among the industry therefore is not really there for us. The bargaining power of suppliers and buy-ers is not really there as well. So, if you have a product in an established market, this would make sense but not really for a new product. Guth: This brings us to the next model of Porter, namely the Generic Strategies. Would you say you followed a differentiation strategy? Interviewee: Definitely, we were not low-cost. Especially for tech-products, if you sell cheap products, people think you have low quality. Yet, the focus approach certainly makes sense to me, especially in the medical market. When we started we were interested in just one medical field and then saw there was a proof of concept. Then we realised we can adapt the idea to other fields as well. Guth: Ok, so industry mapping you said like you did not directly do it but did you make some kind of market assumptions or did you quantify somehow the market? Interviewee: Yes, we researched some numbers of course like in the customer segment, such as how many hospitals do you have in the DACH region in different fields how many surgeries relevant to our idea there are and so on. The numbers then affected our strategy as we then adapted the idea to more medical fields. So summarising this, I recommend doing this, you always have to get some numbers. Investors not only want that, they want to know how you did your research and the easiest way how to prove this is by doing that. Guth: Let's continue to critical success factors. What would you say, are in your industry the most prevalent success factors? Is there something that unconditionally needs to be achieved to ultimately succeed? Interviewee: Well definitely high quality. Start-ups developing tech products need to do that with high quality, and regarding medical tech-start-ups it is hygiene. This is because if your product is not clean, nobody will buy it. You will never get a certification and that is like the minimum they expect from you as doctors work with sick people and they do not want these people to get even sicker. So with high quality and hygiene you can build up credibility which can facilitate the process of getting co-operations with opinion leaders and recommenda-tions by them. When you show them the product and can say it is high quality, it won't brake if it falls down, it does not harm any hygiene requirements they have. These are like the first steps. I would also underline, that these requirements are relevant for the whole medical tech-sector.

Guth: Concerning competitor profiling and matrix, did you do something like this or did it not make sense to you as you were in a new market with no relevant competitors? Interviewee: Exactly, we did not measure other companies at all. Our product is now still too specified and it would therefore make no sense today as well. You could benchmark with a company offering a similar product if there was one, but at this point there is not. It would then only make sense if there was a directly competing product. In general I would add to that, for a start-ups benchmarking does not make sense at all. Comparing yourself with big players does not make sense at all. So again if you do not have direct competitors it is useless and if you have a direct competitor you will not be innovative with that. It limits your creativity. Guth: Ok, about value chain analysis I would like to know your opinion. Did you in the beginning analyse the value chain of the healthcare business or did you have an idea how a value chain could look like? Like if you analyse the industry and found an inefficiency or market gap? Interviewee: Well I know how the industry works, but we did not do something like this. Well, it might not be irrelevant but it takes a lot of time. I basically think the value chain analysis model is basically useful but at this point we were not aware of that. If you want to find a market gap or if you are not sure if your USP exhibits a market gap I guess it is definitely a good idea to use. Guth: What about competitive advantage, what do you think about the idea to build up a competitive advantage? Is this even possible or relevant for you and in your specific case? What could be a source of competitive advantage for you? Interviewee: Of course, an IP is definitely the biggest advantage you can have. Also, there are other things especially in the medical sector, like if you get a certification as a medical product that can also be a viable competitive advantage. This takes a lot of time, money and resources to get this certification and not every company has the resources for this. Next, I would say the trademark or brand that could be obtained. Maybe in the short run to convince opinion leaders or the doctors which are usually the customers to recommend the product, this would give a preliminary competitive advantage but not in the long run. The business is too fast at this point. If they find something better they just buy the other product. To sum up, in the short run I would say the customer loyalty and for the long run patent or IP are means of competitive advantage. Guth: So let's continue to the blue ocean strategy and related concepts. Would you say you disrupted a market or rather tried to re-segment a certain field in the medical sector? Interviewee: I would say we found a gap, but still there are indirect competitors. So I would rather say re-segmentation applies. Guth: Or let's put it different, did you in the beginning intend to look for a blue ocean and then realised re-segmenting the market is simply easier?

Interviewee: Well, the way we did our research and competitor analysis, we already knew how the competitive environment would look like, so I would not say that. Guth: Ok, so talking about these blue ocean tools like the strategy canvas, what would be interesting for me to know, would you agree that this model is useful for depicting the com-petitive environment for you? Interviewee: Definitely, it is a good visual tool and easy to create. On the first glimpse, you can understand which product is most useful, that depicts this very well. I would have used is for sure. I think this makes sense in any field. If you have the right advantages, I would even say you can use it in a pitch deck for presenting. Guth: Ok, there is another diagram called petal diagram, what would you comment on this tool regarding the usage and benefits for depicting the competitive environment? Would you use it for pitching as well? Interviewee: I understand what it means, it is easy understandable, but I would not like to show in a pitch deck form which indirectly related markets I could drag away customers from. It would look like you have so much competition. If you see at the first glimpse com-pany logos and you see the big players I think you will rather scare off investors. Of course you should be honest with investors, but maybe the investor does not understand the graphic and thinks these are direct competitors to you. So everything in your pitch deck should be explained easily, especially graphics. Guth: So would you support my statement that the strategy canvas is easier to understand than the petal diagram? Interviewee: Yes and I would also recommend the strategy canvas for pitching and the petal diagram rather not. Of course you always should be able to name your competitors, but name the direct ones. Because if competitors want to know indirect competitors you can still give an answer to that, but to immediately depict that like in the petal diagram, I would not do that. Guth: The four action framework goes basically hand in hand with the strategy canvas. What do you think about this approach to consider this four possibilities? Interviewee: Well, I would say we did a little bit of everything, because we reduced some factors as we looked what we can do better, which factors can we therefore eliminate or reduce. On the other hand, we also looked which advantages could we add to our product to raise the possibilities of usage. I cannot say for the whole industry that it makes sense to consider all four options as this really depends on your product. With some products you cannot really create new value, because you can only reduce or eliminate some factors.

Guth: Ok so we are heading towards my last question concerning the ranking of competitor analysis approaches which should be the outcome of my thesis. What would you recom-mend that should be added to that? What kind of information could be useful to show a prospective founder regarding how to approach the competitor analysis? And if we depict your approach, what information would be relevant to show? Interviewee: Well, the information whether something is easy and quickly to use is definitely important. Investors do not have a lot of time, so an entrepreneur who quickly wants to pitch should be able to use an easy model. Regarding our approach I would depict our procedure like defining the market gap, map the market for products, and not the industry as industry is for companies and the market is for products, search engine analysis and also trade fairs. For the depiction I would recommend the strategy canvas. Interview No.7

Background of interviewee

• Programme and investment manager of a public funding institution • Industry focus: ICT

Interview Transcript

Guth: Wie stehen Sie zu Porters Modell der Generic Strategies bezüglich deren Anwend-barkeit auf Start-ups? Ist die Low-Cost Strategie prinzipiell keine Option für Startups, wes-halb anfangs eine Focus-Strategie verfolgt wird, um den Markt auszutesten und dann eine Differentiation-Strategie? Interviewpartner: Auf jeden Fall, bevor man einen großen Markt betritt, probiert man sein Geschäftsmodell in einem Test-Markt aus. Guth: Wie würden Sie Ihrer Erfahrung nach einschätzen, dass Start-ups Industry oder Mar-ket Mapping betreiben, um ihren Markt zu quantifizieren bzw. Marktsegmente, -anteile und -größen einzuordnen? Ist dies in jedem Fall sinnvoll und machen Startups im ICT-Bereich diese Art von Analyse? Interviewpartner: Meiner Erfahrung nach versuchen das alle Start-ups. Wenn sie es schaf-fen, ist es auf jeden Fall gut, wenn sie es nicht schaffen arbeiten sie quasi "blind". Daher kann es passieren, dass sie von einem großen Partner überrollt werden, weil sie ihn nicht betrachtet haben. Das ist keine Frage des Wollens, sondern eher des Könnens. Meistens haben Startups nicht die Zeit und Ressourcen eine gute Recherche zu machen. Die Mehr-heit der Start-ups macht dies aber, da dies das Erste ist, was Gründer versuchen heraus zu bekommen. Ohne eine gewisse Marktgröße einschätzen zu können, kann ich beispiels-weise bei einer App, die ich erstelle, ja nicht einmal einschätzen, ob die Idee einen Nischen-markt oder größeren Markt darstellen könnte.

Guth: Was ist aber bei Bereichen im IKT-Sektor, die erst entwickelt werden, wo daher noch keine Marktgröße abgeleitet werden kann? Angenommen Startups versuchen einen Blue Ocean zu finden, versuchen sie dann trotzdem den Markt zu quantifizieren? Interviewpartner: Meiner Meinung nach gibt es solche Blue Ocean Projekte so gut wie nicht. Das Problem ist nämlich, dass viele glauben, sie betreten einen völlig neuen Markt oder entwickeln ein völlig neues Produkt, wo es noch keinen Wettbewerb gibt. Das gibt es so gut wie nicht. Guth: Aber Startups, die versuchen quasi in einen Blue Ocean Markt eintreten, würden sie dann trotzdem den Markt in irgendeiner Form zu quantifizieren, indem sie sich beispiels-weise eine gewisse Marktstruktur "zusammenzubauen", um davon die Größe ableiten zu können? Interviewpartner: Ich glaube nicht, dass Start-ups eine Art ex-ante Marktanteilsgröße sich herleiten können, sondern sie werden wissen müssen, wie groß die bestehenden Märkte jetzt sind und wie groß sie werden könnten - zumindest mittelfristig. Langfristig ist es ganz wichtig, dass dies im Auge behalten wird. Zum Beispiel Runtastic, dieses Startup hat kurz-fristig gar keinen Markt gehabt, weil es bereits Nike, Polar und andere Wettbewerber gab, mittelfristig haben sie aber einen Markt erkannt, weil sie einfach eine besonders smarte und leicht handhabbare Lauf-App geschaffen haben. Langfristig wiederum könnte die iWatch jedoch für Runtastic zur Gefahr werden, weil dort Lauf- und Fitness-Apps standardmäßig installiert sind. Daher wird der Kunde keine zusätzliche App dafür brauchen. Insofern zeigt sich, dass kurz-, mittel- und langfristige Perspektiven auf dem Markt völlig unterschiedliche Dimensionen haben. Die Fristigkeit von Perspektiven spielt eine ganz wesentliche Rolle. Wenn ein Unternehmen sagt, ich kann nur kurzfristig planen, da es mittel- und langfristig gar nicht mehr geht, finde ich das falsch. Für Unternehmen ist es schwierig in der Frühphase zu planen, weshalb auch relativ kurzfristig geplant wird, da man ja noch nicht weiß wie sich das Unternehmen entwickeln wird. Ab dem Zeitpunkt aber wo man ein fertiges Produkt hat, ist eine mittel- und langfristige Perspektive oder gar eine Vision, um Trends zu erkennen ein ganz essentieller Faktor. Wie sich also zeigt hat die Wettbewerbsanalyse verschiedene Dimensionen, es geht eben auch um Fristigkeiten. Guth: Welche Erfolgsfaktoren würden Sie im IKT-Bereich als besonders wichtig betrach-ten? Worauf müssen Start-ups besonders Acht geben, damit ein Geschäftsmodell erfolg-reich werden kann? Interviewpartner: Signifikante Muster bei Erfolgsfaktoren gibt es eigentlich nicht. Typische Barrieren, die aber zu beachten sind regulative Markteintrittsbeschränkungen, Scaling-Markteintrittsbarrieren auch. Vielleicht kann ich mit einem gewissen Produkt nur entweder klotzen aber nicht kleckern. Der kleine organisch-operative Schritt in den Markt geht bei manchen Produkten gar nicht. Ich würde hier eher auf intrinsische und nicht extrinsische

Faktoren eines Startups setzen. Zum Beispiel, ich brauche eine Mindestausstattung an Pro-grammieren, ich brauche eine Mindestausstattung an Kapital, an Input-Faktoren um über-haupt weiterzukommen. Ich würde das sozusagen als herzberg'sche Hygienefaktoren se-hen, wenn also diese Faktoren nicht erfüllt sind, kann es gar nicht gehen. Das heißt aber nicht, wenn sie erfüllt sind, ist man jedenfalls erfolgreich. Das würde ich quasi als Critical Factors bezeichnen. Das kritischste wäre im ersten Sinne, ob der Markt überhaupt betrie-ben werden darf, sprich gibt es regulative oder rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen. Ein Online-Marktplatz für Apothekerwaren ist zum Beispiel in Österreich nicht erlaubt, daher wäre hier der erste nach Herzberg betrachtete Hygienefaktor schon mal nicht erfüllt. Wenn er erfüllt ist, kann man es weiter probieren. Das heißt aber nicht, dass man erfolgreich wird. Weitere Hygienefaktoren wären meiner Meinung nach Skaleneffekte oder Netzwerkeffekte. Das sind sicher Faktoren die in der Frühphase über "hopp oder top" entscheiden. Wenn die Gründer diese nicht kennen, können sie alles richtig machen und trotzdem auf die Nase fallen. Guth: Vergleichen Startups sich im IKT Bereich mit ihren Wettbewerbern in Form eines Art Competitor Profilings? Interviewpartner: Ich glaube, dass Start-ups sich eher benchmarken, sprich sich ähnliche Unternehmen anschauen, um herauszufinden, wie diese es gemacht haben und durch Nachahmung von augenscheinlichen Vorgehensweisen versuchen hier ähnliche Erfolge zu erzielen. Gleiches machen vermutlich auch manche Investoren, wenn ich ein erfolgreiches Investment gemacht habe, versuche ich diese Vorgehensweise zu kopieren oder zu repli-zieren. Man versucht daher von der Erfahrung anderer auf die Zukunft zu schließen. Dieser Schluss von einem anderen Unternehmen auf das eigene zu schließen, machen alle. Benchmarking mag vielleicht nicht das wichtigste sein, aber es wird am häufigsten ange-wendet. Es ist wahrscheinlich sogar unbedeutend, weil ich nur aus dem Benchmarking sel-ber heraus ja trotzdem nicht weiß, was bei dem zum Vergleich hergenommenen Unterneh-men die tatsächlichen Erfolgsfaktoren waren. Benchmarking gleicht insofern einem Induk-tionsschluss. Wenn ich mir ein anderes Startup anschaue und sage "weil sie es so gemacht haben, werde ich auch erfolgreich werden" ist dies falsch. Das wird so nicht funktionieren wird aber sehr oft gemacht. Das Problem ist eben, dass es keine signifikanten Muster gibt, die zwischen erfolglosen und erfolgreichen Unternehmen unterscheiden. Guth: Wie stufen Sie die Sinnhaftigkeit einer Value Chain Analysis ein, um im IKT-Be-reich oder durch IKT-Lösungen eine Marktlücke oder Ineffizienz in Märkten zu finden? Interviewpartner: Das ist auf jeden Fall ein guter Zugang. Wie kann ich in den derzeitigen Wertschöpfungsketten irgendjemanden aushebeln - klassisches Beispiel Uber oder AirBnB. Das sing genau jene Startups die einen disintermediären Ansatz verfolgen, indem sie bei-spielsweise die Taxivermittlungszentrale unnötig machen. Ich spare in der Wertschöpfungs-kette den Vermittler aus und mache es direkt. Diese Value Chain Analysis ist ein sehr prak-tikables Instrument, um neue Geschäftsoptionen zu entdecken und wird von allen eigentlich

gemacht. Es ist aber nicht gesagt, dass Start-ups die keine Wertschöpfungsketten-Analy-sen machen, erfolglos wären. Es gibt viele Start-ups die aus anderen Faktoren erfolgreich geworden sind. Ich würde es in jedem Fall aber empfehlen, da auch ich der Meinung bin, das momentan ein Paradigmenwechsel stattfindet. Momentan werden viele Bereiche in den Wertschöpfungsketten aufgehoben, weil man sie nicht mehr braucht, quasi der Switch von analoger in die digitale Welt. Daraus ergeben sich neue Geschäftsoptionen und das vor allem stark durch die Analyse von Wertschöpfungsketten. Daraus kann man neue Ge-schäftsmodelle und Geschäftsideen ableiten, ob sie allerdings erfolgreich sind, hängt nicht davon, dass ich eine Ineffizienz in der Wertschöpfungskette gefunden habe, da dies ja von der Umsetzung abhängt. Guth: Gehen wir über zum Thema der nachhaltigen Wettbewerbsvorteile. Können Startps überhaupt im IKT-Bereich irgendwelche Wettbewerbsvorteile erreichen? Gibt es irgendwel-che Maßnahmen und Quellen dafür, dass Startups sich einen Wettbewerbsvorteil schaffen, der nicht so leicht und schnell nachmachbar ist? Interviewpartner: Nachhaltig im IKT-Bereich gibt es eigentlich nicht. Einen mittelfristigen Vorteil kann man aber schon erreichen. Den First Mover Advantage und diesen Marktvor-sprung zu halten ist sicherlich signifikant. Das sind signifikante Größen, die sich bewährt haben. Das heißt, ich muss der schnellste sein und dann ständig eine Nasenlänge dem Wettbewerb voraus sein. Ich muss also entweder ein First Mover sein oder einen signifi-kanten Wettbewerbsvorteil haben. Runtastic war nicht First Mover aber sie hatten einen signifikanten Wettbewerbsvorteil durch eine besonders leicht bedienbare App, die einfach konstruiert ist. Guth: Kann es im IKT-Bereich auch Wettbewerbsvorteile geben durch Faktoren wie Brand Loyalty oder das Erhöhen von Switching Costs? Interviewpartner: Das wäre nicht die richtige Schlussfolgerung. Kundentreue wünscht sich sicherlich jeder, das ist aber nicht mehr haltbar. Der Konkurrent ist einen Klick davon ent-fernt und das funktioniert in der New Economy nicht mehr so. Brand Loyalty ist etwas was an Bedeutung verliert. Was heute cool ist, ist morgen out. Brand Loyalty wäre außerdem kein Input Faktor, sondern ein Output Faktor, der sich als Resultat ergibt. Leute sind loyal, weil sie mit der Leistung des Produkts zufrieden sind. Loyalität ergibt sich also aus der Kombination von Leistung und Bezahlung, die im Vergleich zum Wettbewerb standhält. In der New Economy funktioniert das Konzept der Brand Loyalty eigentlich kaum mehr. Ei-gentlich können Startups ja nur dann entstehen, wenn bestehende Kunden keine Brand Loyality zu vorhandenen Spielern im Markt haben. Wenn du heute eine App entwickelst für eine neue Anwendung, hoffst du ja dass die Kunden nicht zu den vorhergehenden Apps loyal sind. Warum sollen sie dann bei dir loyal bleiben? Mangelnde Loyalität hat also eben dazu geführt, dass Leute nicht mehr die Nike Running-App, sondern die Runtastic-App ver-wendet haben, da kann Nike noch so eine starke Marke haben. Diese Einstellung der Kun-den kann aber genauso auch Runtastic treffen. Indem Moment, wo du jemand anderen übervorteilst mit einem opportunerem Modell - entweder schneller oder besser - musst du extrem schnell sein, um nicht wieder überholt zu werden. Angenommen du bist in der Pre-

Seed Phase und hast etwas Neues erkannt, startest und in dem Moment, wo du auf dem Markt bist, gibt es schon 50 Copycats von deiner Software und drei Jahre später gibt es 300 Copycats. Du weißt gar nicht mehr wie viele es gibt, so schnell geht das. Alle hoffen, dass Kunden nicht zu dir loyal sind, sondern wieder irgendeinen kleinen Wettbewerbsvorteil erreichen, im Vergleich zu dir. Guth: Wie würden Sie Ihrer Erfahrung nach einschätzen, ob Startups mit denen Sie in Kon-takt waren eine Art Strategy Canvas Modell verwendet haben, um ihren Wettbewerb zu analysieren? Interviewpartner: Ich bin sicher, dass alle ihren Wettbewerb analysiert haben, so wie er im Canvas-Modell dargestellt wird. Sie haben es aber womöglich graphisch anders dargestellt oder nicht gewusst, dass es sich hierbei um das Canvas-Modell handelt. Sich mit dem Wettbewerb auseinanderzusetzen macht aber jeder, weil keiner etwas gründet ohne sich dieser zentralen Frage zu stellen. Dies ist schließlich die erste Frage für Ideenfindung, man sieht sich mal um, was gibt es am Markt und was machen Wettbewerber, gibt es aus der Wettbewerbssituation heraus eine Lücke die entdeckt werden kann, in die man sich hinein setzen kann. Das Thema Wettbewerbsanalyse ist ein sehr spannendes, aber auch ein sehr unstruktu-riertes und schwer greifbares Thema. Guth: Würden Sie noch ein anderes relevantes Modell für die Wettbewerbsanalyse vor-schlagen oder wie ist Ihre Meinung allgemein dazu? Interviewpartner: Viele Modelle die es gibt, sind nicht neu, es geht eher darum wie ich an das Ganze herangehe. Es gibt allgemein zwei Hypothesen bei einem Unternehmen: die erste besagt, ich kann etwas machen was ein anderer bisher nicht gemacht hat. Die zweite Hypothese lautet, dass was ich hier neu mache, will nicht nur ich sondern viele andere - also Kunden - auch. Das ist das Grundwesen jeden Unternehmertums. Hypothese eins, kann ich irgendetwas was andere nicht so können, das sollte ich in der Regel relativ einfach beantworten können und dazu muss ich ein paar Fragen stellen. Da muss ich den Wettbe-werb kennen, eigene Fähigkeiten, Ressourcen und das umsetzen. Hypothese zwei ist wie-derum sehr schwierig, weil es im Prinzip niemand so richtig weiß, ob das, was dann raus kommt nicht nur ich sondern viele andere wollen. Das ist eigentlich eine hopp oder top Geschichte. Für die Hypothese eins haben wir heute eine Zeit wo wir nicht mehr wie früher langfristig planen können. Die Modelle sind da alle gleichgeblieben, aber die Betrachtungs-zeiträume haben sich geändert, sodass wir extrem kurze Zyklen haben und viel wendiger agieren müssen. Ich muss einfach neue Fristigkeiten in meinen Geschäftsmodellen be-trachten. Das hat sich bei Startups einfach geändert. Bei heutigen Unternehmensgründun-gen muss man sich relativ rasch ständig neu erfinden müssen. Diese Frage, die sich also in der Vorgründungs- und Gründungsphase stellt, werden sich auch in Zukunft bestehende Unternehmen stellen müssen, nämlich, ob ich mit meinen Produkten überhaupt in zwei oder

drei Jahren noch Kunden bedienen kann - Hypothese zwei also. Das sind die großen Her-ausforderungen, das ist keine Frage der Modelle. Die Frage ist eher wie man mit bestehen-den Denk- und Arbeitsweisen ein Geschäftsmodell aufbauen, etablieren und stabil halten kann, ob das überhaupt geht. Das sind die großen Herausforderungen, die uns wieder zum Lean-Start-up Approach bringen, wo sich Startups nicht nur in der Pre-Seed und Seedphase neu erfinden müssen, sondern ständig dazwischen alles überdenken müssen. Das ist keine Frage des Modells, sondern des Tuns und Umsetzens, ständig schauen zu müssen, wo neue Geschäftsopportunitäten sind, wo ich einen First Mover Advantage errei-chen kann. Das sind also eher organisatorische Fragen, wie müssen Unternehmen organi-siert sein, damit sie sich schnell anpassen können. Guth: Es ist also eine Frage der Herangehensweise. Was ich mich aber frage, ist, ob man mit der Lean-Start-up Methode eine Wettbewerbsanalyse herleiten kann. Interviewpartner: Man muss pragmatisch gesagt aufgrund der Lean-Start-up Methode je-den Monat eine neue Wettbewerbsanalyse machen. Ich kann nicht mehr mit einer einzigen Wettbewerbsanalyse, die ich am Anfang der Gründung mache, mein Unternehmen auf-bauen. Das reicht nicht mehr. Die Lean-Start-up Methode heißt also, ich muss ständig die Fragen neu stellen und neu beantworten. Ich muss nicht ständig neue Modelle dazu ver-wenden, wichtig ist nur, dass ich ständig überprüfe, ob meine Hypothesen noch stimmen. Das ist zwar extrem mühsam, aber ein wichtiger Faktor, um überleben zu können.

Interview No.8

Background of interviewee

• Start-up consultant of an academic incubator • Expertise: Strategy and business development, business and financial planning • Industry focus: ICT, Cleantech (Mobility & Energy)

Interview Transcript

Guth: Bitte erzählen Sie aus Ihrer Erfahrung, wie Start-ups in der Pre-Seed Phase, die Sie betreut haben, bei der Wettbewerbsanalyse vorgegangen sind, bzw. ob es dabei irgendein allgemeines Prozedere gab. Wie läuft dieser Prozess als bei Ihnen ab? Interviewpartner: Nachdem wir von Frühphasen-Startups reden, wird Research über die Competitor-Analyse und das Vorhandensein der Idee am Markt sowieso online gemacht. Das heißt, dass ich nicht eine Wettbewerbsanalyse in Form einer Thesis, hochtechnolo-gisch oder gar wissenschaftlich mache, da es ganz einfach knappe Ressourcen gibt - sprich knappe Zeit. Wir bewegen uns auf einer relativ hohen Oberfläche also und gehen nicht sehr tief hinein, also immer top-down. Alles was ich schnell über Internet Research bekomme, das mache ich.

Guth: Das heißt also, rein vom Proceeding her, jemand hat eine Idee, kommt zu Ihnen her und sagt, dass er oder sie sich schon am Markt ein bisschen um gehorcht hat. Dann sagen Sie, "machen Sie noch Google Search und schauen Sie, ob es diese USP schon gibt". Interviewpartner: Genau, schauen Sie, ob es diese USP gibt! Wir machen es ja nur be-dingt mit ihnen und challengen das Ganze auch. Wenn jemand bei uns pitcht und im Pitch eine Wettbewerbsanalyse oben hat ist das meistens eine Art Matrix. Da sieht man, wer die Hauptkonkurrenten sind und was mich unterscheidet, in Form von grünen Häkchen bzw. roten Kreuzen. Was ist meine Funktionalität, was sind meine Features, die ich in meinem Produkt bzw. meiner Value Proposition abbilde im Vergleich zu anderen. Die Erkenntnisse dazu werden eben immer über Internet Research generiert und wir challengen das Ganze eben auch, indem wir über Verschlagwortung eingeben, ob es nicht weltweit auch andere Mitbewerber gibt. Man muss dazu natürlich auch sagen, dass Startups in der Regel neigen, nur jenen Mitbewerber zu sehen, den man schlagen kann, sprich direkter Wettbewerb. Das ist das eine vom Zugang her. Natürlich schauen wir auch, ob die Idee einen Markt bedienen könnte. Nachdem wir innovations- und USP-orientiert sind, brauchen auch wir ein wesent-liches Unterscheidungsmerkmal zum Wettbewerb, da sonst das Thema Innovation nicht drinnen ist. Entweder steht dahinter also ein neues Geschäftsmodell oder es ist eine neue Technologie, neuer Markt, bzw. eine neue Art es zu tun. Am liebsten wäre uns natürlich kein Wettbewerb, allerdings wäre das vielleicht ja auch ein Zeichen, dass es dafür keinen Markt gibt. Der Idealfall wäre natürlich ein Blue Ocean, sprich der Bedarf ist erkannt, der Bedarf ist von niemanden noch gedeckt oder ich kreiere überhaupt einen neuen Bedarf über diese neue Idee. Das heißt, es gibt keinen Wettbewerb, auch das hatten wir schon bei unseren Startups. Es kann auch keinen Wettbewerb geben, weil ich etwas ersetze bei-spielsweise. Allerdings tue ich mir hier schwer zu errechnen wie hoch das Marktpotential sein kann, da es noch keinen Markt gibt. Methodisch gesehen arbeiten Frühphasen-Unternehmen eben mit beschränkten Ressour-cen und knapper Zeit, Research ist eben online, die Darstellungsform ist über eine Compe-titor Matrix und eben eine Matrix wo ich die Funktionalität der Competitors im Vergleich zu meiner habe. Man könnte auch so machen, dass ich es entsprechend der Kunden-Requi-rements oder dem Need of Client abbilde. Ich mache da eigentlich auch eine Kundenana-lyse, indem ich sage wo der "Pain" des Kunden ist, was ist das Requirement. Das mache ich dann mit Canvas und so weiter. Dann habe ich eine Vielzahl von Eigenschaften, wo ich der Meinung bin, dass der Kunde das braucht. Dann sage ich, dass ist der Abdeckungsgrad meiner Mitbewerber. Das heißt also, der Kunden-Need ist aufgelistet als eine Achsengröße und die andere Ach-sengröße ist dann schon, wo die Mitbewerber sind. Im Prinzip könnte man auch sagen, dass das eine Art Checklist ist mit Competing Factors, wo der Erfüllungsgrad der Kunden-Requirements von den Markteilnehmen dargestellt wird. Das ist die einfachste Art, wie vor Investoren gepitcht werden kann. Durch das Grün und Rot sieht man dann sehr schnell

auch meinen USP gegenüber dem Wettbewerb. Das ist natürlich keine Mitbewerber-Ana-lyse im Sinne von was für einen Umsatz, Deckungsbeitrag und so weiter die haben. Das ist nur meine Lösung bzw. Value Proposition im Vergleich zu was am Markt vorhanden ist. Guth: Um das von Ihnen angewandte Procedure abzuschließen, nachdem also bei Google entdeckt wurde, dass nichts am Markt ist, wie gehen Sie dann vor? Interviewpartner: Da stellt sich die Frage, ob es einen Bedarf gibt. Das wird dann aber mit der Befragung von möglichen Kunden gemacht. Den Markt da zu quantifizieren ist natürlich schwierig. Das passiert aus allen Richtungen heraus mit Bottom-up und Top-Down Planun-gen. Wenn es top-down nichts gibt, sprich ich kann nichts in einem Markt herunterrechnen, dann versuche ich einzelne Ereignisse festzulegen. Ich arbeite mit meinen Start-ups einfach mit Hausverstand. Wir nutzen alle Möglichkeiten, die es gibt, um schnell zu einem Ergebnis zu kommen, welches uns ein gutes Gefühl gibt. Das ist schließlich der einzige Sinn und Zweck dieser Übung. Es geht ja darum das Risiko zu reduzieren, bzw. zu begreifen. Ich versuche eben von allen möglichen Richtungen den Markt beschreiben zu können. Bottom-up mache ich indem ich in der Bevölkerung etwas hochrechne, wie viele Leute könnten so etwas brauchen und so weiter. Guth: Da höre ich heraus, Bottom-up macht eher Sinn, wenn es keinen Markt gibt und man das nicht berechnen kann, sonst mache ich es Top-Down, wie groß ist der Markt, wie groß ist das Marktwachstum, welchen Marktanteil kann ich davon haben. Interviewpartner: Genau. Guth: Ok, dann lassen Sie uns nun einige Modelle durchgehen, wo ich Ihre Meinung gerne wissen würde. Wir fangen bei einem traditionellen Competitor Analysis Step-by-Step Ap-proach an. Wie sinnvoll halten Sie die einzelnen Schritte, bzw. was davon wäre für ein Startup irrelevant oder was müsste in dem Fall ergänzt werden? Interviewpartner: Ich starte also in der Industry Analysis, dann Mapping, Critical Success Factors, was ist also erfolgsentscheidend. Competitor Profiling, hier überlege ich mir, ob das einen Sinn macht das auf Startup-Ebene zu machen. Das würde dann Sinn machen, wenn ich strategische Partnerschaften versuche einzugehen mit möglichen Mitbewerbern. Dann hätte ich das vielleicht gemacht. Aber zu dem kommen wir ja noch. Guth: Genau, und bei der Special Competitor Analysis würde in dem Fall diese Matrix als Kreuzdiagramm gemacht werden, sprich eine Art Bubble Chart. Interviewpartner: Das klingt ähnlich wie das was wir vorher besprochen haben. Value Chain Analysis, wofür brauche ich die? Guth: Wenn ich eine Ineffizienz am Markt suche, eine Marktlücke oder zum Beispiel wenn ich einen Intermediär ausschließen möchte.

Interviewpartner: Das hängt wieder unter den vorherig genannten Gesichtspunkten ab. Beim Startup ist die Vorgangsweise ja vom groben ins Detail. Das hier ist jetzt die Maximal-ausprägung von dem was man machen kann. So würde ich das sehen, eine Value Chain Analysis wird eine Startup auf Competitors bezogen wohl nicht machen. Sprich, dass ich meine Value Chain vom Startup darstelle, und dass dann berücksichtige bezüglich meiner Competitors ist eine andere Sache. Aber eine Value Chain Analysis, ist für mich nicht in der Wettbewerbsanalyse explizit drinnen. Ich muss meine Value Chain verstehen. Aber das ist eher Teil des Business Models bzw. der Strategie. Wenn ich meine Value Chain verstehen will, die ja auch Work in Progress ist, wo ich sage was ich selber mache und was ich out-source, analysiere ich sie, stelle sie dar und modelliere ich sie. Aber ich würde das nicht bei jedem Competitor machen. Guth: Die Value Chain Analysis kann in dem Fall branchenbezogen gemeint sein. Einige Interviewpartner haben mir bereits gesagt, dass sie dadurch eine Marktlücke gefunden ha-ben. Interviewpartner: Das ist verständlich, im Prinzip ist die ganze linke Hälfte des Business Model Canvas eine Value Chain. Das ist für das Startup auf jeden Fall wichtig. Ich versuche hier nur den Konnex zur Mitbewerber-Analyse zu machen. Der fehlt mir hier allerdings. Das Startup muss natürlich die Value Chain verstehen. Wenn ich aber sage, ich möchte mir im Rahmen meiner Wettbewerbsanalyse meine sieben, acht oder wie viel Konkurrenten auch immer untersuchen, würde ich bei denen die Value Chain nicht unbedingt analysieren. Benchmarking würde ich auf jeden Fall machen. Was sich für mich hier darstellt, ist auf jeden Fall ein Prozess, wie ich ausgehend von einer Branchenanalyse, Wettbewerbsana-lyse mir strategische Wettbewerbsvorteile erarbeite. Das ist der beschriebene Prozess. Das Startup-Denken ist ein bisschen anders. Ich sage ja, dass ich eine Idee habe, aufgrund von einem Need, dann versuche ich ein Business Model daraus zu machen und natürlich ver-suche ich mir Wettbewerbsvorteile zu erarbeiten. Aber das hier ist ein typischer Prozess, sprich ein strategischer Ansatz um Wettbewerbsvorteile zu erarbeiten. Guth: Wo würden Sie hier den Internet-Research und USP Development einordnen? Interviewpartner: Nun, Google und Internet sind ja nur Quellen der Informationsbeschaf-fung. Google Search kann ich ja bei Benchmarking hernehmen oder allein wenn ich mir Firmenbuchauszüge, Firmenberichte oder Kennzahlenberichte von Mitbewerbern herhole. Das Internet als Informationsbeschaffung nehme ich überall her. Guth: Habe ich Sie generell gesagt richtig verstanden, dass das Modell relativ nachvoll-ziehbar klingt? Interviewpartner: Es klingt nachvollziehbar, es ist ein Strategieprozess, der von Groß- und Mittelbetrieben gemacht werden kann, wo Startups sich aber punktuell die relevanten Sa-chen herausnehmen sollten. Das ist prinzipiell das, was ich bei Startups machen würde und

mit dem Lean Approach, mit dem Minimal Viable Product Approach kombinieren würde, um eben nicht Strategie Tools bis zum Ende verwenden zu müssen. Eher sollte auf den Markt rausgegangen werden und punktuell aus diesen Strategie Tools die relevanten Sachen in-dividuell herausgenommen werden. Guth: Gehen wir weiter über zu Porter's Five Forces über. Interviewpartner: Ich würde es jedem Startup empfehlen, da es eine gute visuelle Darstel-lung ist. Guth: Viele aber finden das Modell nicht sinnvoll, wenn es um noch nicht existente Märkte geht. Interviewpartner: Bei einem Blue Ocean kann man es natürlich nicht machen. Ich würde es aber trotzdem machen, weil ich oft mit Startups konfrontiert bin, wo zum Beispiel die Substitution des Produkts immer ein Thema war. Wir hatten Startups die sind mit einer neuen Technologie gekommen, dann ist aber immer die Frage aufgetaucht, was passiert wenn ein großer Player, der derzeit noch den Bedarf nicht erkannt hat, diesen Bedarf fest-stellt und dadurch der Bedarf, den das Startup decken will, wegfällt. Das ist sehr wahr-scheinlich und das muss man durchdenken. Ich würde die Five Forces immer nur als Bild hernehmen und durchdenken, weil man einfach Dinge erkennt. Durch die einfache, nicht-wissenschaftliche Darstellung hat man fünf wichtige Punkte, die man einmal durchdenken sollte. Ich würde es eventuell in einen Business Plan hineingeben, es sollte aber in erster Linie dem Startup dabei helfen, das Richtige zu machen und das richtige Geschäftsmodell zu finden. Ich will ja nicht dem Investor zeigen, welche möglichen Gefahren ich erkannt habe. Aber ich will als Backup, falls mich der Investor auf eine mögliche Gefahr hinweist, diese durchdacht haben und eine Antwort, wie man damit umgehen kann, finden. Guth: Ein weiteres Porter Modell ist jenes der Generic Strategies. Haben Sie ein anderes Learning gehabt, dass Startups nicht eine Differentiation Strategy gefahren sind, sondern eher den Low-Cost Ansatz verfolgt haben? Ist der Focus Ansatz eine geeignete Anfangs-strategie? Interviewpartner: Nun, es gibt alles. Startups kommen auch zu uns mit dem einzigen Un-terscheidungsmerkmal, dass sie das Produkt billiger anbieten könnten. Aus Economies of Scale Gründen ist es nicht, meistens ist es technologiebedingt. Durch neue Möglichkeiten kann ich von Grund auf im Bausteinsystem das günstiger machen. Es ist relativ selten. Eher geht es uns aber natürlich eine Marktnische zu finden, unique zu sein und hohen Value zu bringen für ein klares Kundensegment, um das geht es. Und der Focus Ansatz ist natürlich anfangs sinnvoll. Guth: Dann gehen wir weiter im Step-by-Step Modell, welches wir ja gerade grob durchbe-sprochen haben, zum Schritt des Industry Mapping. Erwarten Sie von Ihren Startups, dass

diese den Markt in einer gewissen Form quantifizieren, sprich die Marktgröße einschätzen, die einzelnen Segmente und so weiter? Interviewpartner: Auf jeden Fall. Bottom-up wenn es keinen Markt gibt ansonsten Top-Down. Wobei hier gesagt werden muss, dass das es eigentlich am schwierigsten ist, den Markt zu definieren. Startups sollen einfach wissen, worin sie sich bewegen. Was sie ma-chen müssen, ist daher den Markt kennen und zu wissen was der Markt überhaupt ist. Daraus muss man ja auch schließen, wer die relevanten Competitors sind. Sie sollten daher vergleichbare Stückabsatzzahlen, die es gibt, wissen. Sie sollten die regionalen Unter-schiede in den Größenordnungen einschätzen können, wie Österreich, DACH, Europa und vielleicht weltweit, sowohl in Absatz und Umsatz. Das wäre eben wünschenswert. Es reicht, wenn es in einem Excel Sheet oder dergleichen durchgerechnet wurde. Hinzu kommt, dass man auch Quellenverweise dazu liefern können sollte. Aber prinzipiell Marktgröße und Marktwachstum sind die relevanten Zahlen. Das ist ja auch beim Pitchen interessant und relevant sagen zu können. Für einen Investor klingt es schließlich immer toll zu hören, dass das Startup sich in einem Multimillionen-Euro Markt befindet und der Markt jährlich 5 bis 10% wächst. Guth: Nächtes Thema Critical Success Factors. Was sind für Sie Ihrer Expertise nach im IKT Bereich die wichtigsten Faktoren, die Startups beachten sollten, um erfolgreich zu sein und Hindernisse zu erkennen? Interviewpartner: Die kritische Masse schnell zu erreichen ist sicherlich ein wichtiger Fak-tor. Das divergiert in der Regel immer wieder mit dem Operative Profit Model, also entweder hebe ich nicht genug Fees, erreiche aber eine größere Masse dadurch und umgekehrt. Zweitens ist die Fähigkeit Komplexität aus einem Produkt oder einer Lösung herausnehmen zu können und dieses logisch, strukturiert und userfriendly aufzubereiten sehr wichtig. Die einfache, e, wiedererkennbare Implementierung, wo sich ein User wohlfühlt - das ist das Um und Auf. Speed ist natürlich auch wichtig. Guth: Muss die Software so raffiniert sein, dass sie nicht so schnell kopierbar ist? Interviewpartner: Das wäre schön, ist aber selten möglich. Guth: Damit kommen wir schon auf die Competitor Profiling Ebene. Ist das für Startups sinnvoll? Interviewpartner: Das machen Startups nicht und ich halte das auch nicht für sinnvoll. Eine Competitor Matrix allerdings machen sie, einerseits sehr intuitiv andererseits analytisch. Startups lernen ja, dass Storytelling und Pitching alles ist, daher versuchen Sie auch sich dementsprechend im rechten Quadranten oben, also so vorteilhaft wie möglich zu positio-nieren, um überzeugend zu wirken. Das Gleiche ist aber auch bei der Checklist Matrix, wo ich den Kundenbedarf so festlege, dass ich nur die Funktionen als Kundenbedarf aufliste, die ich auch erfülle. Das ist so, aber sollte auch kritisch hinterfragt werden. Es dient aber auch so optisch als graphische Darstellung, wo man auf einen Blick die Mitbewerber sehen

kann, man sieht die Quadranten der Mitbewerber und man sieht den Marktanteil. Diese visuelle Darstellung des Bildes meiner Competition finde ich sehr gut, weil es dazu führt, dass Startups ihre Positionierung im Markt tatsächlich hinterfragen. Guth: Die Value Chain Analyse haben Sie ja eher nicht im Bereich der Wettbewerbsanalyse gesehen oder? Interviewpartner: Richtig, ich mache mit Startups die Value Chain Analyse immer dann, wenn es darum geht, das Business Modelling zu betreiben. Wie gesagt, die linke Seite der Business Model Canvas ist im Prinzip die Value Chain, da nehme ich auch die Primary und Support Activities her mit Inbound, Outbound, Aftersales und so weiter. Gerade wenn ich etwas online zur Verfügung stelle oder eine Software als Service habe, ist das sehr wichtig solche Dinge wie Customer Support zu überlegen. Also zur Erstellung des Geschäftsmo-dells sollte man das immer machen, in der Wettbewerbsanalyse wird es allerdings nicht gemacht. Was ich aber machen kann, ist dass ich durch die Analyse der Value Chain, die eben in mein Business Model einfließt, eine USP gegenüber dem Wettbewerb leichter ent-wickeln kann. Indem ich zum Beispiel sage, wenn der Wettbewerb sehr fragmentiert ist, kann ich durch meine Erkenntnisse aus dieser Analyse One-Stop-Shop, kurze Wege oder was auch immer als USP beanspruchen. Genauso kann man durch die Value Chain Ana-lyse genauso auch nicht nur eine USP, sondern auch eine Innovation daraus entwickeln - wenn es das Geschäftsmodell anbelangt. Aber wie gesagt, eine Value Chain Analysis würde ich nicht zwingend bei meinen Mitbewerbern machen. Aber selber brauche ich es, um davon lernen zu können, so wie im Benchmarking. Dementsprechend ist diese Analyse auch zum Pitchen nicht relevant. Guth: Ok, Benchmarking ist auf jeden Fall sinnvoll, so wie ich Sie vorher verstanden habe? Ist es nicht eigentlich schlecht, sich ständig an den Competitors zu orientieren, allein schon weil es die eigene Kreativität einschränkt? Interviewpartner: Auf jeden Fall finde ich es gut, aber es ist oft schwer die richtigen Zahlen zu bekommen. Benchmarking heißt nichts anderes als dass ich so gut wie möglich meinen Mitbewerber und Markt kennen möchte. Das heißt, ich stelle oft meinen Startups die Frage, ob die Zahlen wie eine EBITDA Rentabilität von beispielsweise 70% realistisch sind im Ver-gleich zu Mitbewerbern. Gibt es so etwas überhaupt beim Mitbewerber? Startups sollen dadurch ein Gefühl für den Markt entwickeln können, was ist denn "marktüblich" auch was KPIs betrifft? Ich würde also Benchmarking jedenfalls machen, das Argument man kon-zentriere sich damit ausschließlich auf die Competitors und wird unkreativ finde ich nicht relevant. Guth: Kommen wir zu Wettbewerbsvorteilen, wie würden Sie einschätzen, ob Startups an so etwas in der Frühphase überhaupt denken? Wenn sie daran denken, würden sie eher extern oder intern ihre Wettbewerbsvorteile beziehen? Oder einfach formuliert – denken Startups, dass es wichtig ist, schnell First Mover zu sein, um nicht gleich einholbar zu sein?

Interviewpartner: Doch, das machen sie schon. Das denken sie jedenfalls. Auch die Zeit und Kosten der Nachahmung bedenken sie. Dieser Faktor der Replizierbarkeit eines Un-ternehmens fließt ja auch in die Unternehmensbewertung mit ein. Wie lange brauche ich, um das Know-How zu imitieren und was wären die Kosten dafür? Unsere Startups machen das unterschiedlich. Gründer mit Consultinghintergrund gehen natürlich sehr analytisch an die Sache heran und verwenden all diese Tools aus der Beratung, andere eben nicht. Guth: Und was halten Sie vom VRIO Modell? Interviewpartner: Ich finde diese Art von Fragemodell prinzipiell gut, wo man relativ schnell sieht, wo potentielle Probleme entstehen können, vor allem weil man da keinen Research betreiben muss. Auch wenn ich das Modell selber nicht kenne, kommen diese Fragen bei den Startups immer vor und werden dementsprechend auch durchgedacht. Guth: Gehen wir über zum Thema Blue Ocean, würden Sie Ihrer Erfahrung nach zustim-men, dass Startups zuerst glauben einen Blue Ocean Markt entdeckt zu haben und dann im Endeffekt erkennen, dass sie im Prinzip nur einen bestehenden Markt re-segmentieren? Interviewpartner: Ja das passiert oft so. Guth: Bezüglich Blue Ocean, verwenden Startups, die Sie betreuen die Strategy Canvas in der Regel und wie sinnvoll ist dieses Tool für sie? Interviewpartner: Das Strategy Canvas Tool kenne ich zwar, aber ich habe es noch nicht verwendet, da wir diese Checklist Matrix stattdessen gebrauchen. Guth: Das Four Action Framework, was im Prinzip die Implementierung der Strategy Can-vas darstellt schlägt vier Möglichkeiten vor, Wert für den Kunden zu schaffen, nämlich kre-ieren, erweitern, reduzieren und eliminieren. Zu was neigen Ihrer Erfahrung nach Startups, die sie betreuen, eher? Interviewpartner: Ich versuche Startups immer dazu zu animieren Komplexität in ihrem Geschäftsmodell herauszunehmen, das heißt immer zu fokussieren, weil das die Erfolgs-wahrscheinlichkeit erhöht. Das gilt sowohl für die Funktionalitäten des Produkts oder Ser-vices, als auch die Kundensegmente. Dieses Framework aber kenne ich nicht, weshalb es schwer für mich ist, eine Antwort darauf zu finden. Guth: Ok, natürlich verstehe ich das. Dann gehen wir noch zu einem letzten Modell dem Petal Diagram, was halten sie von dieser Darstellung des Mitbewerberumfelds? Eignet sich diese Graphik zum Pitchen? Interviewpartner: Es klingt auf jeden Fall sinnvoll, aber es ist ja im Prinzip nur eine visuelle Darstellung, wo das Startup in der Mitte seine Differentiation darstellen kann. Bezüglich Pitchen finde ich, hängt es immer davon ab, wie meine Geschichte ist. Pitchen heißt auch

Storytelling, daher nehme ich auch jene Bilder, die diese Geschichte unterstreichen. Wenn in dieser Geschichte vorkommen soll, wie mein Unternehmen im Vergleich zu den anderen da steht, dann kann dieses Bild passen. Wenn die Wettbewerbsanalyse in die Geschichte hineinpasst, dann geht das. Ich würde nicht in eine Geschichte Methoden hineinschreiben. Daher würde ich auch nicht Five Forces in einen Pitch hineinbringen, sondern eher welche Geschichte ich erzählen will. Wenn ich aufgrund dieser und jener Methoden zu dem Ergeb-nis gekommen bin, dann passt das. Ich will ja nicht dem Investor beim Pitchen Methoden erklären müssen. Ich will diese Methoden anwenden, um meine Erkenntnisse zu untermau-ern. Guth: Dann kommen wir zu meiner letzten Frage, was würden zu diesem Ranking der Competitor Analysis Approaches hinzuzufügen? Was wäre interessant, relevant und wich-tig für einen angehenden Gründer, der lediglich eine Idee, aber keinen Zugang zu der Bran-che hat, bezüglich Wettbewerb zu wissen? Anders gefragt, was sollte hier dargestellt sein? Interviewpartner: Verwendete Patterns, Tools und Techniques als Entität oder Spalte müssen natürlich enthalten sein. Industry - also welcher Branche zuordenbar -und Entwick-lungsphase wären auch relevant und wichtig. Das Business Model würde ich weglassen, das wird zu kompliziert. Strategie könnte ich auch weglassen, da das aus meiner Sicht keinen Einfluss auf die verwendete Methode der Wettbewerbsanalyse nimmt. Die Frage-stellung ist ja, welche Startups welche Tools und Patterns verwenden. Ob ich also eine Blue Ocean Strategie oder Low-Cost Strategie verfolge, ist eigentlich egal. Die Wettbewerbsana-lyse mache ich so oder so. Ich würde auch keine Tool-Änderungswahl machen, weil ich jetzt Low-Cost oder Differentiator bin. Guth: Wobei, wenn ich Low-Cost fahre werde ich eher mehr Value Chain orientiert sein. Wenn ich hingegen Differentiator bin, versuche ich eher meine USP besser auszuformulie-ren. Interviewpartner: Das stimmt auch wiederum. Was ich auf jeden Fall machen würde wäre eine Art Beziehungsdiagramm, welches die Tools, Patterns, Modules und Techniques mit den Rubriken Industrie, Phase und vor allem Strategie in Beziehung stellt. Zum Beispiel könnte man sagen IKT, Frühphase und Blue Ocean Strategie wird mit den Modellen ver-bunden. Je nachdem wie häufig in der jeweiligen Industrie und bei der Anwendung der Strategie ein Modell verwendet wird, weist der Verbindungspfeil eine unterschiedliche Dicke auf.

Interview No.9

Background of interviewee

• Start-up consultant of an academic incubator • Expertise & focus: strategy consulting, business model development, high-tech mar-

keting, ICT

German Interview Transcript

Guth: Bitte erzählen Sie aus Ihrer Erfahrung, wie Startups, die Sie betreut haben, bezüglich der Wettbewerbsanalyse vorgegangen sind. Gibt es da eine gewisse Vorgehensweise, irgendwelche Modelle, die immer wieder verwendet werden? Interviewpartner: Bei uns ist es so, dass wir im Prinzip Customer Interviews machen. Wir machen das nicht im Büro, sondern es geht darum, zu potentiellen Kunden zu gehen, oder gar zu deren Lieferanten, was auch immer - also zu jenen Leuten, die in diesem Bereich Knowhow haben. Wenn es Kunden sind, hört man sich an, welche bestehenden Lösungen für eine bestimmte Problemstellung genutzt werden. Das ist im Prinzip die Lean Startup Methode, aber das inkludiert natürlich auch eine Art Wettbewerbsanalyse in dem Sinne, dass der aktuelle Status Quo abgefragt wird und dabei untersucht wird, wo die größte Prob-lemstellung ist und welche Anbieter das wie aktuell lösen. Da kommt man natürlich auch auf die Competitors. Aus dem Bedarf herausgehend, erkennt man wo indirekt oder direkt Mitbewerber sein könnten. Guth: Das heißt die Lean Startup Methode schließt in dem Sinn die Wettbewerbsanalyse nicht aus? Interviewpartner: Überhaupt nicht, im Gegenteil. Der zweite Schritt, den wir anfangs nicht machen, allerdings später wenn es Richtung Markteintritt geht, ist, dass man bei die-sen Interviews sehr stark kaufentscheidende Kriterien mitschreibt. Es geht darum, dass man bei so einem Interview heraushört, was dem Kunden besonders wichtig ist und womit er mit der aktuellen Lösung des Mitbewerbers Probleme hat. Das setzt jetzt voraus, dass wir uns im Innovationsbereich befinden und das heißt direkte Konkurrenz ist nicht so gege-ben, weil es etwas Neues ist. Es gibt wahrscheinlich direkte Konkurrenz irgendwo auf der Welt, weil ja überall etwas in dieser Richtung entwickelt wird. Daher führen wir diesbezüg-lich natürlich eine Web-Recherche durch. Das was aber dem Kunden wichtig ist, das ist eher die Status-Quo Lösung, die muss man schon an als Wettbewerb sehen. Ich trete ja an mit einer neuen Lösung, mit der ich die alte oder bestehende Lösung ablösen möchte. Da finde ich heraus, was dem Kunden wichtig ist und wo er meint, dass die bestehende Lösung nicht so gut ist. Wenn ich das herausgefunden habe, kann ich mehr oder weniger mit diesen kaufentscheidenden Kriterien Preis-Leistungsdiagramme machen mit dem Wettbewerb. Das entspricht im Prinzip einer Bewertungsmatrix, wo ich low-high, also Leistung hoch-niedrig mit meinen wichtigsten identifizierten Wettbewerbsprodukten vergleiche. Ich kann natürlich auch sagen, dass ich statt Leistung den Customer Need, also wie sehr er erfüllt wird, als eine Achsengröße hernehmen will.

Startups verstehen die Matrix leichter, wenn man es mit Customer Need macht. Wenn zum Beispiel Gründer mit naturwissenschaftlichen Hintergrund die Leistungsfähigkeit von einem Produkt einschätzen müssen, überlegen sie oft über die Definition von Leistungsfähigkeit. Guth: Zusammenfassend gesagt, ist der Bedarf der Grundstein. Der Bedarf wird durch Kundeninterviews abgefragt. Dann wird erhoben, ob es innerhalb dieses Bedarfs einen Markt gibt, der schon von Wettbewerbern besetzt ist. Dann wird per Internet geprüft, ob es konkrete USPs von anderen Mitbewerbern gibt. Und dann wird so eine Art Competitor Mat-rix gemacht. Ist diese Reihenfolge so richtig? Interviewpartner: Ganz genau. Guth: Ok gut, dann gehen wir über zu einem Modell aus der Literatur über, eine Art gene-reller Step-by-Step Competitor Analysis Approach. Wie würden Sie - den Schritten nach zu urteilen - einschätzen, dass dieses Modell für Startups Sinn macht? Welcher Schritt passt nicht oder was fehlt? Interviewpartner: Das ist ein sehr wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Ansatz, den man kaum bei Startups in der Detailliertheit verwendet, wobei es durchaus manchmal Sinn machen würde. Nur ein Beispiel, ein namhafter US-Professor machte mit seinen Studenten eine klassische Industrieanalyse in einem kleinen Segment, nämlich Zahnbürsten. Da gab es billige um 1 bis 3 Dollar und eine elektrische mit dem zehnfachen Preis um 30 Dollar von der Firma Braun. Das Ergebnis der Industrieanalyse war, dass der Preissprung für den Konsumenten zu hoch war. Der Konsument kann sich nicht vorstellen, ob die Leistung den hohen Preis rechtfertigt. Daraufhin entschied die Gruppe, dass da ein Markteintrittspunkt mit einer elektrischen Zahnbürste um 10 Dollar wäre, was dann tatsächlich gemacht wurde. Das Un-ternehmen wurde erfolgreich so hochgezogen. Hier würde das also Sinn machen, klassisch vorzugehen, wenn ich auf der Suche nach einer Idee bin, die genau in einen bekannten Markt und in ein bekanntes Segment hineinpasst. Ich schaue, ob es irgendwo Marktlücken gibt, die ich systematisch entdecken kann. Wenn ich allerdings eine Idee im Innovationsbe-reich habe, zum Beispiel mit einer neuartigen Technologie zugrunde, dann wird mich die herkömmliche Industriestruktur oder eine Value Chain nicht interessieren. Ich bin mir nicht sicher über die Sinnhaftigkeit einer Industry Analysis, weil ich ja eigentlich alles verändern will - besonders vom Business Model her. Im Grunde sind die Punkte, die in diesem Step-by-Step Approach zu finden sind, analytischer hingeschrieben, als der Zugang wenn man qualitative Interviews macht. Wir untersuchen aber genauso wo die Critical Success Factors liegen, wir fragen dazu einfach, wo sind die kritischen Notwendigkeiten damit der Kunden-Need befriedigt wird. Competitor Profiling machen wir auch so, aber eher aus der Informa-tion herausgehend, die wir vom Kunden erhalten. Eine Competitor Matrix, die in der Special Competitor Analysis vorkommt, wird auf jeden Fall notwendig sein, weil es Mitbewerber geben wird, die nahe an meiner Solution sind oder die zumindest eine hohe Marktmacht besitzen. Das muss ich mir genauer überlegen. Bei diesem Schritt gehen wir sicherlich in die Tiefe. Value Chain machen wir wenig, aber wenn, dann nicht wettbewerbsbezogen,

sondern in Verbindung mit der Generierung des Business Models. Im Business Model Can-vas ist ja die Value Chain drinnen. Wir sagen dazu, dass wir ein Business Model auf Basis von Kundenfeedback modellieren. Da kann durchaus rauskommen, dass die Value Chain, so wie sie im Status quo gelebt wird, Schwächen hat. Dann kann man bewusst einen an-deren Zugang vom Business Model her haben, um Kaufbarrieren niedriger werden zu las-sen zum Beispiel. Das hat viel mit Vertrauen zu tun, weil neue Sachen oft bei Nicht-Early Adoptern ein Risiko sind. Denen muss man im Business Model Anreize geben, wo ihr Risiko gesenkt werden kann. Was wir nicht tun, ist, dass wir diese Steps systematisch durchge-hen, es ist iterativ. Guth: Für mich stellt sich hier auch die Frage, ob Startup überhaupt in der Pre-Seed oder Seed Phase überhaupt an die Erlangung von Wettbewerbsvorteilen denken. Interviewpartner: Das kommt etwas später, aber dann muss man sehr wohl daran denken. Es ist dann schon so, wenn man einen gewissen Insight auf Basis der Kundeninterviews und deren Interesse hat, dann sieht man schon, wo man seine Vorteile haben kann. Diese muss man natürlich ausbauen in alle Richtungen. Guth: Ich würde vorschlagen, dass wir die folgenden Modelle, die in den jeweiligen Schrit-ten dieses generellen Approachs vorkommen, etwas genauer durchgehen. Porter's Five Forces wurde in vorherigen Interviews oft als sinnlos betrachtet, wenn man sich in Indust-rien befindet, die noch nicht existieren. Wozu sollte ich das verwenden? Andere haben ge-meint, dass es sehr wohl Sinn macht sich zumindest die Implikationen des Modells zu über-legen. Wie stehen sie dazu? Interviewpartner: Im Grunde ist es eine Detailierung der Industry Analysis. Es macht dort und da Sinn, wir haben das bis vor zwei, drei Jahren bei unseren Workshops, für Startups, die sich bei uns bewerben, verwendet. Dabei schulten wir sie, wie sie einen Business Plan schreiben sollen und da haben wir eben angeregt die Five Forces Analyse zu machen. Guth: Das heißt sie würden es prinzipiell empfehlen zu verwenden? Interviewpartner: Nun, das müssen eigentlich Berater machen. Junge Entrepreneure sind ziemlich überfordert mit dem, sie machen es zwar, aber sie verstehen den Sinn dahinter nicht. Es kommt nicht viel raus ohne Schulung für die Startups dabei. Wenn man es ernst-haft machen will, gibt es dazu ja viel Literatur. Die meisten Gründer aber arbeiten nur mit dieser Graphik. Man muss schon den Background wissen, damit man das analysieren und interpretieren kann. Guth: Die Generic Strategies sind eine Erweiterung von Porter. Wie ist hier ihr Learning, können Startups auch etwas anderes als Differentiation, sprich eine Nischen-Strategie, fah-ren? Wird am Anfang immer Fokus gemacht?

Interviewpartner: Low-Cost macht keinen Sinn, wenn ich ein hohes Unterscheidungs-merkmal habe. Auch wenn wir das Modell nicht explizit verwenden, sind all diese strategi-schen Fragen ständiger Diskussionspunkt. Erfahrungsgemäß ist bei den Startups das Thema Pricing sehr schwierig. Die Gründer tendieren nämlich dazu zu sagen, es besser machen zu können, entweder zum selben Preis oder zu einem höheren Preis aufgrund des Technologievorsprungs. Das Denken, wenn ich etwas Besseres liefere und damit bessere Leistung oder höherer Kundennutzen erbringe, kann ich mehr verlangen - das ist sehr schwer den Startups beizubringen. Sie glauben immer, dass es Low-Cost sein muss, sonst sind sie nicht wettbewerbsfähig. Das ist mit Sicherheit in den Strategieberatungen mit den Startup Consultants ein Thema. Da wird überlegt, ob man sich auf ein Segment fokussieren soll, sprich auf eine Nische, soll man das ganze breiter aufstellen, wie soll das Pricing sein und so weiter. Das sind sehr wichtige Themen. Da braucht es aber erfahrene Leute, weil Pricing ein schwieriges Thema ist. Startups haben immer ein ungutes Gefühl, wenn sie den Preis etwas höher ansetzen. Guth: Industry Mapping bedeutet im Grunde genommen den Markt zu quantifizieren. Er-achten sie das als sinnvoll oder macht das keinen Sinn, wenn die Branche, in der sich das Startup befindet, sich erst im Aufbau befindet? Interviewpartner: Wir machen das eigentlich nicht. Was wir im B2C Bereich machen ist es direkt auszuprobieren. Da schauen wir, dass wir mit einem Beta Launch eine Conversion Rate abschätzen können, sprich gratis anbieten und dann irgendwann um Geld fragen. Da kommt ein guter Estimate heraus, wie groß das Volumen sein könnte. Im B2B Bereich hat man seine Kundeninterviews, wo man ja weiß, wie viele davon man hat. Dann schaut man, bei welchen deiner Kunden es ziemlich gut gepasst hat. Wo ist das vorgeschlagene Produkt gut angekommen und wie viele sind tatsächlich bereit, Geld dafür auszugeben. Das ist ei-gentlich ein Lean Ansatz mit Bottom-Up Prinzip. Guth: Das heißt Bottom-up kann man immer machen, wenn es nicht anders geht. Wann ist top-down schwierig? Interviewpartner: Top-down wird auch in der Investorenszene eher als nette Übung ohne Wahrheitsgehalt aufgefasst. Üblich ist es im Wesentlichen, dass das Marktpotential über-haupt dargestellt wird. Wie viel gibt es in dem Bereich, wie viel Prozent der besagten Ziel-gruppe wären für das Produkt anfangs affin? Das wären wichtige Fragen, aber der Rest muss eigentlich bottom-up sein und für einen Investor zum Beispiel in einem Excel Spread-sheet dargestellt werden. Dort kann er seine eigenen Überlegungen eintragen, um dann schauen zu können, wie viel sich in der Umsatzplanung am Ende ändern kann. Wo ist das Ganze sensibel in Bezug auf das Business Model? Dann kann der Investor bereits sagen, dass das Risiko höher oder niedriger ist, weil zum Beispiel die Conversion Rate 2 oder 7 Prozent ist. Ist das Business Model basierend auf wiederkehrende Einnahmen oder so zum Beispiel? Darunter kann sich ein Investor etwas vorstellen. Im Grunde aber machen wir es bottom-up mit einer guten Story, wie ich das evaluiert habe - sprich mit einer Website, wo ich eine Landing Page aufgestellt habe, mit einem Analytics Tool. Oder wenn ich in den Social Media Kanälen etwas poste, wie viel kommen da überhaupt auf meine Page, von

denen, die ich angeschrieben habe. Wie viele klicken sich wie weit durch und so weiter, wie viele klicken sich wirklich bis zur Vorbestellung durch? All diese Aspekte der Customer Touchpoint Journey also. Das ist eigentlich auch Lean-Startup Denken, speziell nennen wir das Customer Development, was sich im Innovationsbereich besonders eignet. Allerdings muss für jedes Projekt natürlich überlegt werden, wie man auf das alles draufkommt. Wie könnte ich testen, wie viele sich für mein Produkt interessieren? Ich muss es halbwegs glaubwürdig machen. Ich kann nicht meine Freunde fragen, sondern es muss objektiv mit irgendeiner Testing Methode sein. Guth: Gehen wir weiter zum Thema Critical Success Factors. Was würden Sie Ihrer Bran-chenerfahrung nach als das Wichtigste einschätzen, das bedacht werden muss, um ein erfolgreiches Startup aufbauen zu können? Wo sind die meisten Hindernisse? Interviewpartner: Wir haben vor einiger Zeit eine Umfrage bei unseren Alumni gemacht, also Startups die das Programm absolviert haben. Dabei haben auf die Frage hinsichtlich Markteintrittsprobleme alle im Prinzip geantwortet, dass das entwickelte Produkt sich nicht verkaufen lässt, die häufigste Problemquelle ist. Das ist auch einer der Gründe warum wir Lean Startup machen. Viele haben dann aber ihren Weg gefunden, indem sie ihr Produkt dementsprechend modifiziert haben, so dass es einen Markt dafür gibt. Prinzipiell aber ist das das tödlichste für Startups. Du hast eine bestimmte Ressourcenausstattung, wenn du mit der es nicht schaffst Umsätze zu machen, woher kriegst du dann dein Geld her? Das Wichtigste also ist, dass der Kunde das Produkt kaufen würde! Der Kunde kauft, wenn sein Customer Need und die Value Proposition hundertprozentig passen. Das ist das einzige Kriterium, das wirklich passen muss. Guth: Würden Sie nicht auch meinen, dass es im IKT-Bereich wichtig ist, Traction und Cri-tical Mass zu bekommen, da sonst so zu wenig Kunden akquiriert werden können? Interviewpartner: Schon, aber du erhältst nur Critical Mass und Traction, wenn das Pro-dukt hundertprozentig den Need der User trifft. Das steht über allem darüber. Da kommt lange nichts in meinen Augen danach. Du kannst gar nicht ein falsches Produkt machen, alle Startups, die ich kenne haben ein Produkt entwickelt, nur ob es den Customer Need befriedigt, das ist die andere Frage - nämlich wie will es der Kunde eigentlich haben? Bei Startups ist das noch irreführender, vor allem, wenn sie anfangs einen Verkaufserfolg haben. Da erwischen sie eher die Early Adopters, die sind nicht so kritisch, ob das Produkt so toll zu ihnen passt. Die haben eher andere Kaufmotivationen, weil sie etwas Neues aus-probieren wollen und es als Status-Symbol vielleicht sehen. Aber dann kommt der Durch-schnitt der Kunden und da muss ich den Need der Kunden genauestens treffen. Die meis-ten Startups hören auf, an ihrer Value Proposition zu feilen, wenn sie sehen, dass die ersten Kunden ihr Produkt kaufen. Das sind aber die falschen Kunden, weil es von den Early Adoptern nicht viele Kunden gibt. Das heißt, ich muss unbedingt von den Early Adop-tern zum Durchschnitt kommen, zu den Pragmatikern oder Normalos, die die Masse aus-machen. Die fragen sich nämlich wirklich, ob ihnen das Produkt wirklich hilft oder nicht. Dieser Kundennutzen für die Early oder Late Majority des Product Adoption Cycles muss

getroffen werden. Alles andere leitet sich daraus ja ab. Ich kann mit einem halbfertigen Produkt wo hinkommen, wenn das Paket insgesamt passt. Wir haben ein paar junge Star-tups, mit denen wir drei Monate am Anfang die Lean-Startup Methode machen. Einige da-von haben innerhalb dieser drei Monate erste Aufträge an Land gezogen ohne Produkt! Die Kunden warten bis das verfügbar ist, weil es genau ihren Need trifft. Wenn es keine Alter-native zu meinem Produkt gibt und ich genau das treffe, was der Kunde braucht, dann funktioniert das. Oft ist es so, dass sich in Kundeninterviews ein völlig anderer Aspekt, der dem Kunden wichtig ist, herauskristallisiert. Dadurch können sich völlig andere Gebrauchs-muster und -situationen ergeben. Den Aspekt, den man selber betont ist also oftmals völlig woanders, als der tatsächliche Kundenneed. Früher hat man das nicht so gemacht, dass man mit unzähligen Kunden redet, systematisch das festhält, dann in einer großen Gruppe mit Consultants zusammen bespricht, hundert Mal das Produkt neu austestet, hundert Mal pitcht, sich von Investoren eine Meinung holen lässt und so weiter. Wenn all diese Infos in dein Produkt einfließen, dann bist du mit deinem Kundennutzen schon so knapp am tat-sächlichen Need, dann kann es funktionieren. Man muss nur mit den Leuten reden, die sagen dir schon was sie wollen! Guth: Gehen wir noch die weiteren Modelle durch, Competitor Profiling machen sie also nicht, die Competitor Matrix allerdings schon? Aber macht die Matrix in einem noch nicht-existenten Markt keinen Sinn? Interviewpartner: Genau. Die Competitor Matrix machen wir aber, die ist auch sinnvoll, weil sie einfach ist. Ich würde natürlich nicht alles auf diese Matrix setzen, aber es visuali-siert sehr anschaulich Trends. Auch wenn Startups da manchmal dazu neigen, nicht allzu objektiv zu sein - sprich sich rechts oben hin zu positionieren - kann ich es aber in Relation mit der Competition setzen. Natürlich gibt es sehr viele kaufentscheidende Parameter, also nicht nur Preis und Leistung, man kann das Ganze in Spinnennetz-Diagrammform darstel-len. Da sieht man sehr gut, wo man wenig Fläche belegt. Wenn ein Faktor eben sehr es-sentiell ist, kann ich das eben nicht außer Acht lassen. Guth: Beim Thema Value Chain Analysis haben Sie gesagt, dass diese Analyse nicht in den Bereich Wettbewerb passt. Interviewpartner: Genau, außerdem wird die Value Chain Analysis eigentlich mit der linken Seite des Business Model Canvas ersetzt. Guth: Benchmarking, macht das Sinn? Oder schränkt man sich da nicht ein, weil man sich ausschließlich an Mitbewerbern orientiert? Interviewpartner: Es macht dort und da schon Sinn, indem man sich analoge Produkte ansieht, um in Erfahrung zu bringen, mit welchen Messages Mitbewerber agieren und so weiter. Was stellen die als Vorteile und USP heraus? Benchmarking verstehe ich daher eher in dem Bereich, was Kunden gewohnt sind zu bekommen. Das muss ich natürlich auch liefern, das ist das Mindeste. Wenn sie es gewohnt sind, über Social Media mit dem

Produkt in Berührung zu kommen, muss ich natürlich auch in diesen Kanälen meine Nach-richten verbreiten. Also dort, wo der Kunde ist, in die Richtung muss man benchmarken. Guth: Können Startups überhaupt noch heutzutage eine Wettbewerbsvorteil erreichen bzw. denken sie daran überhaupt? Woher beziehen sie - wenn dann - diese Vorteile? Durch externe Quellen, sprich eine Marktveränderung, die ihnen beispielsweise einen First-Mover Advantage bringt, oder durch interne Quellen, wie Softwareentwicklung oder dergleichen? Interviewpartner: Der First Mover Advantage ist fast eine Entschuldigung, wenn es schließlich keine anderen Gründe für einen Wettbewerbsvorteil gibt. Aber im Grunde, was ich sehe, ist, dass Startups nach einiger Zeit strategische Partnerschaften beginnen zu su-chen. Das ist oftmals im Vertriebsbereich, aber auch auf Projektpartnerbasis, die ihr Produkt in ihren Projekten einbauen. In dem Bereich passiert einiges, oder zum Beispiel, dass man einen großen Pilotkunden als Testimonial gewinnt. Kooperationen machen es für einen Mit-bewerber einfach schwieriger das Geschäftsmodell zu replizieren. Das ist auch für ein Star-tup erreichbar, alles andere ist schon schwieriger. Guth: Gehen wir weiter in Richtung moderner Ansätze, nämlich der Blue Ocean Strategie. Wie würden Sie Ihrer Erfahrung nach einschätzen, dass Startups zu Ihnen mit dem Glauben kommen, dass sie einen Blue Ocean Markt finden können, aber im Endeffekt erkennen Sie, dass es einfacher ist, den Markt zu re-segmentieren und daher eine Nischenstrategie zu fahren? Interviewpartner: Nun, wir sind fast immer auf der Nischenstrategie-Seite. Ein Blue Ocean Startup hat kaum den Atem. Bis es eine Kundenabdeckung von etwas völlig Neuem gibt, vergeht einiges an Zeit. Da ist die Gefahr sehr hoch, dass man mit dem zu früh dran ist, was man anbietet. Ein Startup überlebt das nicht, wenn nach mehreren Jahren noch immer kein Interesse entsteht. Man liest immer wieder von Startups, die etwas ausgelöst haben und wenn man Größen wie Whatsapp oder Twitter ansieht, dann erkennt man schon, dass sie Blue Ocean Strategien angewandt haben. Aber das schafft nur eine Handvoll Startups. In Europa ist das für Startups noch schwieriger, überhaupt eine Finanzierung durchzukrie-gen, wo sie so etwas durchziehen können. Das ist fast nicht möglich. Guth: Das bringt mich zu meiner nächsten Frage bezüglich Blue Ocean Strategie. Verwen-den oder kennen Sie das Strategy Canvas Model, bzw. gehen Sie mit Ihren Startups die Fragen durch, ob Competing Factors h inzugefügt oder eher weggenommen werden sollen, was dem Four Actions Framework entspricht? Interviewpartner: Ja, wir machen ähnliche Graphiken, nennen das aber nicht Competing Factors, sondern benennen das meistens "kaufentscheidende Kriterien" oder "Customer Need", dann machen wir auch diese Kurven. Offering Level bleibt gleich, low oder high. Die Summe meiner Competitors ist die Industry Value Curve. Wenn ich da dann erkenne, dass es wo "frei Plätze" gibt, kann ich mich dort hinsetzen. Diese Analyse machen wir im Grunde

genommen anlassbezogen. Wir nennen es nur nicht Strategy Canvas. Die Gefahr ist je-doch, dass man eben nur jene Competing Factors auswählt, wo man selber gut aufgestellt ist. Wenn man das also ernsthaft machen will, muss man den Startups Themenkreise vor-geben, wo sie die Competing Factors finden müssen. Zum Beispiel "Aftersales", hier kann es Factors wie Service, Verpackung, Recycling und so weiter geben. Solche Dinge müssen sie beleuchten, weil sie sich sonst nur auf die Features ihres Produkts konzentrieren, wo sie selbst behaupten, dass ihre Features so high sind, wobei sie sich gar nicht überlegen, wie und wo der Kunde das kaufen kann beispielsweise. Generell aber finde ich die Idee gut, wir verwenden dieses Canvas Modell in abgewandelter Form und ich würde es auch weiterempfehlen. Alle Graphiken, wo Gründer sehen können, dass es einen "freien Platz" bei einem Thema gibt, sind gut. Die meisten sind ja keine Wirt-schaftler in der frühen Phase. Wenn du ihnen erklärst: "du musst dir eine Nische suchen", verstehen sie es oft nicht, weil sie sich nichts darunter vorstellen können und hier wird das erst sichtbar. Guth: Und wie würden Sie einschätzen, wie Startups Competing Factors abändern? Interviewpartner: In der frühen Phase wollen sie tendenziell etwas dazugeben, damit sie in gewissen Bereichen besser sind. Das Abschwächen oder Reduzieren von vorhandenen Competing Factors der Value Curve kommt erst viel später - sprich dieses Bewusstsein, dass das geht. Da ist mir eigentlich nur bekannt, dass die meisten strategische Partner-schaften anstreben, wodurch der Vorteil der Competitors nicht mehr so hoch ist. Guth: Kennen Sie das Petal Diagram, wäre dieses Tool für Sie eine geeignete Graphik zum Abbilden des Wettbewerbsumfeld oder gar zum pitchen? Interviewpartner: Ja, das passt schon. Das habe ich auch schon manchmal gesehen, auch beim Pitchen. Das wird noch in der Startup-Szene mehr und mehr aufkommen. Guth: Letzte Frage noch, die auf dieses Ranking abzielt, welches die jeweiligen Competitor Analysis Approaches abbilden soll. Welche Informationen und Implikationen sollten Ihrer Meinung nach darin enthalten sein, damit angehende Gründer bei der Wettbewerbsanalyse "in die richtige Richtung denken"? Was fehlt hier in dem exemplarischen Ranking? Interviewpartner: Critical Success Factors sollte man hier sicherlich dazu geben, da die meisten Gründer zu technikverliebt sind und daher auf das vergessen. Ich würde außerdem viel stärker das Business Model Canvas, bzw. das Business Modeling stärker mit herein-nehmen. Die Strategien wären nur relevant, wenn man tiefer reingeht, aber die sind nicht so wichtig. Der generelle Approach zu einer Competitor Analysis ist meines Erachtens nach von der Branche unabhängig. Der große Unterschied wird nur sein, dass manche Branchen schnellere Produktlebenszyklen haben und manche längere. Das heißt, dass das eine Aus-wirkung auf die Vorgangsweise haben wird. Wenn ich ein Bio-Tech Startup hernehme, das 10 Jahre für die Entwicklung eines Impfstoffes braucht, wird es anfangs nicht eine riesige

Competitor Analysis machen müssen. Aber generell ist der Zugang der Startups schon ein-deutig, dass sie eben viel Aufmerksamkeit auf die Business Model Generation geben und validieren, indem sie die Lean-Startup Methode einbringen und einfach ihre Produkte bein-hart verkaufen. Ich sage nicht das Lean-Startup der heilige Gral ist, aber es ist anfangs eine sehr gute Orientierungshilfe. Startups sollen das ja dann weiterhin machen, aber es bleibt ihnen deshalb trotzdem nicht erspart, dort und da ins Detail zu gehen - sprich Lean mit den klassischen Methoden zu kombinieren. Das ist beides kein Widerspruch, weil es nichts bringt sich zu Tode zu analysieren, wenn das Produkt ganz einfach am Kunden vorbei geht aber auch umgekehrt genauso. Guth: Würden Sie abschließend noch gerne etwas hinzufügen? Interviewpartner: Ich kann Ihnen noch ein Modell, das wir immer verwenden, zeigen. Wir haben gesagt, der Kundennutzen ist essentiell. Wenn ich als Startup in den Markt will, will ich einen gewissen Kundenbedarf besser befriedigen, als der Status-Quo. Der Status quo wird von irgendeinem Unternehmen, das eine gewisse Lösung anbietet für einen speziellen Kundenbedarf bestimmt. Jetzt muss ich als Startup schon einen ordentlichen USP haben, um sagen zu können, dass ich es besser kann. Allerdings haben Startups immer ein Zeit-problem. Deren Produkte sind nicht verfügbar, weil sie erst produziert werden müssen und in den Markt eingeführt werden müssen. Das dauert, daher gibt es auf der Zeitachse einen Punkt mit Markteintritt. Die Startups arbeiten ja mit Kunden. Die wissen was Kunden wollen und werden das dementsprechend weiterentwickeln. Zu einem Zeitpunkt wo ich als Startup in den Markt eintrete ist der unterscheidbare Kundennutzen allerdings viel, viel geringer als am Anfang, wo die Idee da ist. Da zu verkaufen ist sehr schwer. Die meisten Modelle ana-lysieren den Markt auch genau da. Lean Startup hingegen sagt aber, dass ich zu dem Zeit-punkt verkaufe, wo der USP am höchsten ist. Das steht in keinem Buch drinnen - das ist das was die Methode ausmacht. Der Wettbewerbsvorsprung ist da am höchsten. Da habe ich zwar noch nicht das Produkt, aber ich fange schon an es zu verkaufen. Während ich es verkaufe, lerne ich sowieso alles, was ich wissen muss. Da brauche ich keine Analysen mehr zu machen. Da weiß ich, was passiert, und da mache ich auch mein Branding. Den-ken Sie an Kickstarter, wo man kein Produkt kaufen, sondern nur vorbestellen kann. Kun-den warten dabei ein Jahr lang, bis sie das Produkt bekommen. Sobald sie auf den Markt gehen oder sich bei Kickstarter listen, haben sie einen Wettbewerbsvorteil, weil es das Pro-dukt bis dato nicht gibt. In einem Jahr ist Google, Apple und Co. da, daher sind alle Gadgets auf Kickstarter nach einem Jahr dann nichts mehr wert. Die Big Players schauen also genau da, wo sie sich neue Technologien einkaufen können. Wenn das Startup, bevor das Produkt fertig ist, da schon Prototypen verkauft hat oder eben eine erfolgreiche Kickstarter Kam-pagne gestartet hat, dann wird Google zuschlagen. Lean Startup aber sagt, ich muss ite-rieren, da ich immer auf unterschiedliche Kundennutzen treffe. Daher werde ich anfangs Early Adopters bedienen, wenn ich da bisschen weitergehe, finde ich da schon Early or Late Majority. Das heißt, es muss nicht sein, dass meine Leistungsfähigkeit dieselbe bleibt, bis ich auf den Markt komme. Ich passe das immer an, während ich das entwickle und behalte meinen Wettbewerbsvorsprung dadurch unter Umständen. Das kann ich eben nur

indem ich den Kundennutzen besser als der Mitbewerber treffe. Den Technologievor-sprung, also bessere Leistungsmöglichkeit und so, den verliere ich. Weil Technologien ent-wickeln die Competitors ja auch weiter. Ein Technologievorsprung ist also für ein Startup schwer zu verteidigen. Im Grunde genommen ist das also alles ein Aspekt von Lean, dass man eben möglichst schnell mit dem kleinsten möglichen Feature Set, auf den Markt geht.

Interview No.10

Background of interviewee

• Academic expert on entrepreneurship, innovation and change management • Focus: cross-sector experiences, social entrepreneurship

German Interview Transcript

Guth: Bitte schildern Sie aus Ihrer Erfahrung, wenn Startups an Sie herantreten, wie bei der Wettbewerbsanalyse vorgegangen wird. Gibt es irgendwelche Modelle oder ein allge-meineres Prozedere? Interviewpartner: Wir arbeiten natürlich viel mit dem Business Model Canvas und dement-sprechend mit seinen neun Komponenten. Dort ist die Competitor Analysis primär ja nicht im Fokus, da es ja eigentlich darum geht, wie Value generiert wird, wer meine Partner sind und so weiter. Partner können aber auch Wettbewerber sein, der Wettbewerber muss nicht unbedingt ein Feind sein. Gibt es vielleicht Synergiemöglichkeiten oder Kooperationsfor-men? Meistens ist es aber so, dass Startups sich sehr auf ihren kleinen Markt konzentrie-ren. Die meisten, die eine innovative Idee haben, kommen mit der Aussage, dass es so-wieso keine Konkurrenz gäbe. Vielleicht mag das sein, dass es keine direkten Konkurrenten gibt, allerdings wahrscheinlich indirekte. Man muss da nach dem Bedarfsprinzip schauen, wer könnte denn noch in der Lage sein, den Kundenbedarf zu stillen? Was wir auch natür-lich machen, ist den Markt anzuschauen. Wie groß ist die Kundengröße? Welche großen Marktanbieter gibt es? Kommt man da an Absatzzahlen oder Umsatzzahlen heran? Mit Modellen gehen wir aber generell eher weniger vor, andererseits durchaus mit der Lean-Startup Methode. Guth: Lassen Sie mich das nur von der Vorgehensweise her zusammenfassen, damit ich das richtig verstanden habe. Ein Startup tritt an Sie heran, eine Idee wird gefunden und eine Bedarfsanalyse wird gemacht. Gibt es überhaupt einen Kundenneed, wenn Sie die Lean-Startup Methode verwenden, dann werden Sie wohl Kunden interviewen, um den Need und den Prototyp zu überprüfen. Interviewpartner: Genau. Guth: Empfehlen Sie auch Ihren Startups, dass Sie beispielsweise bei der Entwicklung ihres USPs auch Internet Research betreiben?

Interviewpartner: Natürlich, das Internet spielt dabei eine wichtige Rolle bei der Recher-che, neben Messe-Besuchen und Veranstaltungen im Startup Ökosystem. Dort kann man sich nämlich auch relativ schnell ein Bild machen, wer seine Competitors sein könnten. Wenn es außerdem um auf Wettbewerb gerichtete Strategien geht, fokussiere ich meine Startups immer auf die Kooperationsstrategie oder die Ausweichstrategie. Letztere ent-spricht der Blue Ocean Strategie, während die erste vorschlägt, eben nicht mit Konkurren-ten in den Kampf zu ziehen, sondern in Richtung Zusammenarbeit oder komplette Abwei-chung vom Hauptmarkt zu gehen, welche einer Nischenstrategie gleicht. Bei Anwendung der Blue Ocean Strategie verwenden wir natürlich die Strategy Canvas und das Four Action Framework. Guth: Lassen Sie uns nun die folgenden Modelle durchgehen. Das erste Modell entspricht einem traditionellen Step-by-Step Competitor Analysis Approach, den ich in der Literatur gefunden habe. Welche Schritte finden Sie hier für Startups sinnvoll oder irrelevant? Was fehlt hier? Interviewpartner: Nun, das ist eine sehr klassische Analyse, die sicherlich eine Grundlage für eine Herangehensweise an die Wettbewerbsanalyse darstellen kann. Allerdings glaube ich nicht, dass Startups, die ich kenne, ihre Analysen so detailliert vornehmen. Benchmar-king beispielsweise, wo man sich abschauen kann, was der Beste macht, oder auch wo man sich davon abgrenzen kann, um einen USP zu bilden - das machen wir schon. Guth: Aber im Prinzip, ergibt es für Sie Sinn, auch wenn es ein traditioneller Ansatz ist? Interviewpartner: Ja, interessant ist vor allem die Herangehensweise. Bei uns ist es so, dass Gründer eine Produktidee haben und dann in den Markt schauen, was es bereits gibt. Wie oder von wem müssen wir uns abgrenzen? Die andere Herangehensweise ist wiede-rum sich den Markt anzuschauen und eine Lücke zu suchen, für die dann eine Idee entwi-ckelt werden kann. Diese Herangehensweise ist eher seltener. Sprich, dass man sagt, ich habe eine tolle Idee, wo kann ich die bestmöglich platzieren im Markt. Wie muss ich dann die Idee vielleicht noch verändern, dass meine Konkurrenz nicht so stark ist. Das ist dann ein Ansatz von innen heraus, dass man sagt, was habe ich für eine Technologie, was habe ich für kombiniertes Wissen und damit gehe ich dann auf den Markt. Guth: Wenn ich Sie richtig verstanden habe, ist die Herangehensweise mit einer Value Chain Analysis, wo man gerade nach der Marktineffizienz oder Marktlücke sucht, um darauf basierend ein Geschäftsmodell zu entwickeln, eher unüblicher. Interviewpartner: Genau, wenn man eine Idee hat sucht man erst mal, ob es einen Markt dafür gibt und geht die Sache nicht umgekehrt an. Guth: Die kommenden Modelle richten sich nach diesem Step-by-Step Approach. Porter's Five Forces als Industry Analysis Modell ist ein kontroverses Thema. Viele meinen, dass

diese Analyse bei einem nicht existierenden Markt unnötig ist. Wozu soll ich die Five Forces nehmen, wenn ich nicht einmal die Bargaining Power of Buyers kenne? Interviewpartner: Porter nehmen wir eigentlich nur in Form der Generic Strategies, um zu sagen, dass die Startups entweder auf der Preis- oder Qualitätsseite sind. Aber die Diffe-renzierung der fünf Kräfte nützen wir eigentlich gar nicht. Anwendungsorientiert oder -freundlich ist es eher weniger. Wenn dann, glaube ich macht das Modell eher für etablierte Unternehmen Sinn, nicht für Startups allerdings. Wenn Zahlen kaum vorhanden sind und sie dann prognostiziert werden, keine richtigen Markterfahrungen vorliegen und so weiter, dann macht das keinen Sinn. Guth: Die Generic Strategies sind ja eine Weiterführung der Five Forces, aber rein von der Erfahrung her, würden Sie zustimmen, dass Startups eher die Nischenstrategie als Low-Cost fahren und anfangs sich auf ein kleines Segment fokussieren? Interviewpartner: Dem würde ich sicherlich zustimmen. Low-Cost Ideen habe ich bis jetzt nicht gesehen, wenn dann gehen die meisten auf Qualität und Problemlösungsorientie-rung. Low-Cost gehen die wenigsten. Guth: Industry Mapping - sprich kann ich den Markt quantifizieren - würden sie das emp-fehlen? Interviewpartner: Das wird schon gemacht, aber das würde für mich einfach unter den Namen Marktanalyse fallen, wie groß ist der Markt, Absatzzahlen und so weiter, wie kann der Markt wachsen. Es ist allerdings schwierig an Zahlen überhaupt heranzukommen. Das stellt jeden Gründer vor eine enorme Hürde. Solange es möglich ist halbwegs seriöse Zah-len zu finden, würde ich es jedenfalls machen. Guth: Und wie wäre das bei einem nicht existierenden Markt, sprich wenn ich einen Blue Ocean Markt entwickeln will? Interviewpartner: Auch da kann man den Markt abschätzen, man kann ja aus einem ana-logen Markt Zahlen daran anlehnen. Es ist eben auch bei existierenden Märkten wichtig, abschätzen zu können, wie groß die Zielgruppe ist. Mit welchem Absatz könnte gerechnet werden. Solche Zahlen sind gerade wenn man Geld von einem Investor oder von einer Förderstelle braucht unumgänglich. Guth: Würden Sie sagen, dass man trotz fehlender Zahlen bottom-up abschätzen sollte, indem man Kunden befragt und dadurch eine Kundengröße prognostiziert? Interviewpartner: Auf jeden Fall, einmal sollte man quantitativ vorgehen, sodass man sa-gen kann, wie groß der Markt sein kann und manchmal auch qualitativ, sodass man bereits Testkäufer generiert.

Guth: Thema Critical Success Factors: gibt es Ihrer Erfahrung nach markante Faktoren, die jedenfalls erfolgskritisch sind und die man unbedingt beachten sollte? Interviewpartner: Wir machen da eher Risikoanalysen, wo wir überlegen, woran Startups scheitern könnten, sprich Datenschutz oder rechtliche Dinge. Daher würde ich eher meinen, man sollte nach kritischen Faktoren, an denen es scheitern kann suchen, anstatt nach er-folgswirksamen. Mir fällt dazu eben in erster Linie Datenschutz ein. Meiner Erfahrung nach im Social Entrepreneurship Bereich ist Datenschutz so gut wie immer ein Thema. Das ist immer das erste woran man bei der Machbarkeit eines Geschäftsmodells überlegen muss. Egal wie effektiv und effizient die Idee ist, sie wird an den Datenschutzrichtlinien nicht vor-beikommen. Ich würde prinzipiell im Online-Bereich auch sagen, dass Datenschutz immer mehr ein Thema wird. Guth: Dann gehen wir weiter auf die Ebene der direkten Analyse der Konkurrenten. Würden Sie ein Competitor Profiling empfehlen? Interviewpartner: Wenn es einen sehr direkten Konkurrenten gibt, macht so ein Profiling sicherlich Sinn, aber erst wieder vor dem Hintergrund die Nutzenkurve oder Value Curve umzudrehen. Ich sage also, dass dieser Wettbewerber mein stärkster Konkurrent ist und dann schaue ich mir das Profil genau an, wie der Konkurrent aufgestellt ist. Daraus leite ich mir dann ab, welchen Nutzen der Konkurrent genau deckt und welchen nicht. In den nicht besetzten Nutzenbedarf kann ich mich dann positionieren, was in Richtung Blue Ocean Strategiedenken geht. Ich spiegle damit quasi die Value Curve des Competitors, um mich abzugrenzen. Guth: Über die Competitor Matrix habe ich schon öfter von deren Sinnhaftigkeit gehört. Sprich, ich vergleiche am Produkt basierend mich mit dem Wettbewerb. Würden Sie das auch als sinnvoll erachten? Interviewpartner: Ja, das verwenden auch Gründer, die ich kenne. Ich habe das auch in einem Business Plan vor kurzem gesehen. Guth: Ist da aber nicht die Gefahr, dass Startups dazu tendieren, sich rechts oben - eben am besten - zu positionieren, je nachdem welche Achsengrößen man nimmt? Interviewpartner: Natürlich, das kann manchmal auf sehr subjektiven Faktoren beruhen. Allein wie ich die Qualität messe, habe ich messbare Kriterien herangenommen, oder ist das einfach nur nach Gefühl? Die Kriterien dürfen eben nicht subjektiv gewählt sein, vor allem was die Einschätzung der Qualität anbelangt. Ebenso muss man sich die Daten-grundlagen genau anschauen. Aber prinzipiell würde ich branchenunabhängig sagen, dass diese Art von Matrix oft eingesetzt wird und dass diese Matrix Sinn macht. Nur wie gesagt, man sollte sich aber immer fragen, wie objektiv das ist und woher die Daten herkommen.

Guth: Bei der Value Chain Analysis haben wir ja bereits gesagt, dass Sie diese eher nicht wettbewerbsbezogen einsetzen. Interviewpartner: Genau, eher weniger. Es ist auch zu tiefgründig. Vor allem auch, weil ein Startup am Anfang nicht so strukturiert aufgebaut ist. Guth: Selbst wenn das Startup in der Pre-Seed Phase sich überlegt, wie der ganze Wert-schöpfungsprozess im Markt abläuft, würde auch das keinen Sinn machen? Interviewpartner: Das hängt wiederum vom Startup ab. Manche Startups gehen so an die Ideenfindung heran, dass sie bestimme Wertschöpfungsketten nehmen, sie einmal analy-sieren, sie quasi "zerstören" und neu zusammensetzen. Das ist eben die Art der Herange-hensweise an die Ideenfindung oder Konzeptfindung. Ich habe allerdings erst eine Grün-dung gesehen, die bei der Ideenfindung so vorgegangen ist. Allgemein gesagt, was ich immer wieder feststelle ist, dass die Art der Wettbewerbsanalyse - also welches Modell zum Tragen kommt - ganz stark davon abhängt, wie die Idee gefun-den wird. Aus der Idee heraus geht man in den Markt und schaut, oder man fragt sich, ob die Marktstruktur ein Argument für die Ideenfindung darstellt. An welcher Stelle ist der Markt wirklich relevant also, frage ich da. Bei vielen komm das erst, wenn die Idee schon feststeht, bei manchen hingegen kommt das ganz am Anfang. Guth: Benchmarking, haben Sie gesagt, ist jedenfalls sinnvoll? Interviewpartner: Ja, auf jeden Fall. Das wird auch in den Gedankenprozess miteingebaut. Diesen klassischen Prozess des detaillierten Benchmarking aber macht auch kein Startup. Aber sich zu fragen, wer ist gut, was ist gut bei demjenigen und dann schaue ich, wo ich mich abgrenzen oder gar etwas imitieren kann - dazu ist Benchmarking da. Guth: Würden Sie aber nicht zustimmen, dass ein sofortiges Benchmarking mit dem Com-petitor anfangs ein Startup eher in der Ideenfindung limitieren würde und die Kreativität gar einschränken könnte? Interviewpartner: Das würde ich nicht so sehen. Gerade wenn man sich am großen oder besten Mitbewerber orientiert, motiviert das sicherlich auch und das trägt dazu bei eine eigene Vision aufzubauen, weil man sieht was möglich ist. Guth: Gehen wir nun zum Thema Wettbewerbsvorteile. Denken Startups Ihrer Erfahrung nach überhaupt daran, wie sie schnell Wettbewerbsvorteile erreichen können? Interviewpartner: Ja, durchaus. Man hat ja eigentlich nur die drei klassischen Richtungen dafür, nämlich Qualität, Preis oder Zeit. Es wird schon versucht sich auf einen dieser fest-zulegen, wobei ich auch oft ein Mittelmaß von allen gesehen habe. Ich würde außerdem sagen, dass das vom Kundensegment abhängt.

Guth: Würden Sie das VRIO Model dazu als passende Herangehensweise einschätzen, um zu prüfen, ob ein Faktor überhaupt ein Wettbewerbsvorteil sein kann? Interviewpartner: Nun, das ist eben die Frage, wie man an die Bewertung herankommt. Das kann dann eine subjektive Bewertung sein. Es ist eben die Frage anhand welcher ob-jektiven Daten ich das wissen kann. Guth: Würden Sie außerdem sagen, dass Startups, die sie betreut haben, eher von inter-nen Quellen – zum Beispiel durch bessere Innovation – als aus externen Wettbewerbsvor-teile generieren? Interviewpartner: Ich würde intern sagen, sprich diese Abgrenzung über Innovation oder Originalität. Guth: Dann kommen wir zur Blue Ocean Strategie. Strategy Canvas und Four Actions Framework verwenden Sie ja, würden Sie diese Modelle auch weiter empfehlen? Würden Sie die Strategy Canvas auch zum Pitchen verwenden? Interviewpartner: Ich würde diese Modelle weiterempfehlen. Man kann auch mit der Stra-tegy Canvas pitchen. Gerade weil Startups innovativ sein wollen, stellt die Blue Ocean Stra-tegie eine andersartige Form des Herangehens im Vergleich zu den traditionellen Modellen dar. Guth: Würden Sie bezüglich des Four Actions Framework sagen, dass Startups, die Sie betreut haben, eher dazu tendieren, Competing Factors dazuzugeben, oder eher etwas reduzieren, um Komplexität herauszunehmen? Interviewpartner: Wenn dann würde ich eher hinzufügen sagen, um neue Werte zu gene-rieren und hingegen auf der Kostenseite etwas reduzieren. Ich meine, dass es leichter fällt, etwas hinzuzufügen, als Dinge zu reduzieren. In dem Fall wäre es eben schwieriger Kom-plexität aus einer App-Lösung herauszunehmen, um es noch mehr userfriendly zu gestal-ten. Guth: Eine Frage hätte ich noch zum Petal Diagram, welches zur Abbildung der Wettbe-werbslandschaft dienen soll. Halten Sie diese Graphik für sinnvoll und würden Sie es zum pitchen empfehlen? Interviewpartner: Ich kenne das Modell nicht, aber was mir sehr gut gefällt ist, dass es sehr visuell arbeitet. Gleichzeitig lässt es viele Möglichkeiten für Spielraum offen, was ge-rade gut ist, wenn man sich mit neuen Märkten beschäftigt. Man kann ja die Anzahl der Blütenblätter vom Prinzip her erweitern. Da kann man dadurch sehr gut Komplexität und Verbindungen, die manche Märkte haben, abbilden. Ich würde es weiterempfehlen. Man muss natürlich festlegen, wen man dann als Konkurrenz mit hinein nimmt. Man sollte nicht zu viele nehmen, sondern sich lieber auf zwei oder drei fokussieren - je nachdem wie viel

Zeit man beim Pitchen hat. Dann kann diese Graphik auch beim Pitchen die Message vi-suell und schnell dem Investor vermitteln. Guth: Die letzte Frage richtet sich an das Ranking der Competitor Analysis Approaches. Was müsste Ihrer Ansicht nach an Informationen, Implikationen und dergleichen in dem Ranking enthalten sein, damit einem angehenden Gründer geholfen wäre, "in die richtige Richtung zu denken"? Was würden Sie hier dazugeben oder weggeben? Welche Informa-tionen wären also aus Sicht eines Gründers wichtig, der lediglich eine Idee hat, aber nicht weiß, wie er bei der Wettbewerbsanalyse vorgehen soll? Interviewpartner: In der Praxis zählen sicherlich die Modellnamen. Was ich hier gut finde, ist mit Beispielen zu arbeiten, wenn man dann schnell aufnehmen kann, worum es in dieser einzelnen Methode geht. Strategie würde ich auch inkludieren, damit der Zusammenhang verständlich ist. Für den Vergleich, die Critical Success Factors hineinzunehmen, ist das sicherlich auch gut. Man sollte auch verschiedene Kriterien haben, an denen man die Mo-delle messen oder vergleichen kann. Für Gründer finde ich prinzipiell immer eine Checkliste gut, sodass man ihnen etwas mitgeben kann, das sie abarbeiten können. Es sollte aber natürlich nicht zu kompliziert sein.

Interview No.11

Background of interviewee

• Serial entrepreneur • Focus: ICT, software development, FMCG

German Interview Transcript

Guth: Bitte erzählen Sie aus Ihrer Erfahrung als Serien-Gründer im IKT Bereich. In welcher Form haben Sie in der Pre-Seed Phase eine Wettbewerbsanalyse gemacht, gab es dabei eine gewisse Vorgehensweise? Interviewpartner: Meine Erfahrungen sind relativ vielfältig. Nach meiner Tätigkeit in einem Handelsunternehmen, habe ich ein Getränk auf den Markt gebracht und bei einem Retai-ler untergebracht bzw. vertrieben. Seit ein paar Jahren bin ich im IKT-Bereich, wo ich zuerst eine Dating Plattform aufgebaut habe, jetzt bin ich im Software Development Bereich tätig. Bezüglich Konkurrenzanalyse würde ich daher meinen, dass die Gründung der Plattform am interessantesten ist. Im Prinzip haben wir uns bei der Gründung an ein amerikanisches Geschäftsmodell angelehnt. Dabei haben wir aber natürlich die am Markt befindlichen Un-ternehmen im DACH-Raum genau angesehen, mit wem wir also in direkter Konkurrenz stehen würden. Worum es mir ging, war einfach einen Marktüberblick zu bekommen, ich habe mir Market Reports gesucht, um den Überblick zu bekommen, wie groß die einzelnen Unternehmen sind. Das ist nämlich eines der schwierigsten Dinge herauszufinden - sprich wie viel Umsatz, wie viel Unique Visitors haben die und so weiter. Man muss einfach ein

Gefühl dafür bekommen, wer die Big Players am Markt sind. Die veröffentlichen aber na-türlich alle ihre Zahlen nicht, deswegen war es notwendig auf Branchenreports, Zeitungs-berichte und Statistikseiten, wie alexa.com zurückzugreifen. Das ist eine Webseite für Com-petitive Intelligence, sprich du kannst dir eine Idee holen, wie viel Traffic manche Websiten haben. Da kann man eben sehen, ob jemand viel Zulauf hat oder nicht. Damit konnten wir uns einen guten Überblick verschaffen. Dann habe ich die identifizierten Competitors nach verschiedenen Kriterien segmentiert. Ein wichtiges Kriterium ist zum Beispiel payed vs. free, also welche Seiten sind gratis, was ist kostenpflichtig. Folglich habe ich noch nach klassischen oder moderneren Unterscheidungsmerkmalen gesucht. So bin ich auf eine Shortlist von paar Unternehmen gekommen, die wir uns genau angesehen haben. Dabei haben wir dann genau unter die Lupe genommen, wie deren Sign-up Prozesse oder deren Conversion Rates beispielsweise sind. Uns wurde also bewusst, dass es viel am Markt gab, daher war die Analyse eher mehr darauf gerichtet, jene Competitors zu identifi-zieren, an denen man sich orientieren sollte, sprich wen man für Benchmarking hernehmen kann. Guth: Um das zusammenzufassen - anfangs wurde ein Need entdeckt und gewusst dass es für diesen Need schon einen Markt gibt. Dann wurde Market Research gemacht, aber nicht nur via Google, sondern auch Reports und so weiter wurden analysiert. Dann haben Sie die Wettbewerbsanalyse eigentlich auf die einzelne Ebene von mehrerern Competitors heruntergebrochen. Jeder Competitor wurde individuell analysiert und dessen Performance in einzelnen Gebieten untersucht. Interviewpartner: Genau, wir haben aber kein genaues Modell, wie ein Competitor Profi-ling mit Bewertung und Gewichtung gemacht. Aber ein ungefähres Ranking, wie gut ich wen, wo einschätze. Benchmarking haben wir eben nur begrenzt betrieben, ich würde eher sagen, was man von denen lernen kann. Benchmarks wären für mich genau zu wissen, wie viele Visitors, Conversion Rate und so weiter die haben. Das sind Zahlen, die man nicht verlässlich bekommt, solange das kein börsennotiertes Unternehmen ist. Guth: Haben Sie aber so etwas Ähnliches wie ein Art Value Chain Analysis gemacht, um abzubilden, wie die Prozesse in dem Markt und auf Dating Plattformen ablaufen? Ergab sich daraus vielleicht eine Ineffizienz, wo Sie daraus eine USP entwickeln konnten? Interviewpartner: Ja, in gewisser Weise schon. Was wir erkannt haben, war, dass es im System von den meisten Dating Plattformen ein gewisses Problem bezüglich der Funktio-nalität gibt und wir dafür aber eine Lösung gefunden hatten. Value Chain Analysis in dem Sinn wäre vielleicht übertrieben, aber wir haben Verbesserungspotential in manchen Pro-zessen erkannt und dann umgesetzt. Ich würde eher sagen, dass wir nur einzelne Details aus den Prozessen angesehen haben. Aber ja, wir haben uns schon angesehen wie die Prozesse bei dieser Art von Markt Plattform abläuft, wann verlangen sie Geld, wann muss man welche Daten eingeben und so weiter.

Guth: Würden Sie sogar meinen, dass Sie anhand der Marktlücke oder Ineffizienz Ihr Ge-schäftsmodell aufgebaut haben? Interviewpartner: Nun, ja und nein. Wir hatten etwas entdeckt und zumindest geglaubt, dass es diese Marktlücke gibt. Das war zumindest unsere Hypothese, aber die Execution war mangelhaft. Daher konnten wir diese Marktlücke nicht wirklich füllen. Guth: Das klingt nach einer ziemlich umfangreichen und strukturierten Wettbewerbsana-lyse. Lassen Sie uns nun die einzelnen Modelle, welche ich in der Literatur gefunden habe, durchgehen. Was halten Sie von diesem traditionellen Step-by-Step Competitor Analysis Appraoch? Welche Schritte finden Sie sinnvoll und welche passen für ein Startup nicht? Interviewpartner: Ich würde noch generell sagen wollen, was ich viel zu wenig bei den ersten Projekten gemacht habe, war eine richtige Industry Analysis. Bevor man sich sein Geschäftsmodell überlegt und anfängt sein Produkt dafür zu skizzieren, sollte man Meinung nach wirklich die Industrie verstanden haben. Das heißt, man muss die Player kennen, man muss "die Sprache der Industrie sprechen können", man muss verstehen, wie die einzelnen Geschäftsmodelle funktionieren. Das ist etwas was ich anfangs nicht gut genug verstanden habe, oft hat man da nur Glück. Auch die Industrie zu "mappen", so wie es hier steht, ist wichtig. Ich finde diesen Ablauf eigentlich nicht schlecht. Guth: Wenn ich das gleich einbauen kann, Sie würden meinen, dass dieser Approach nicht so weit von der Realität entfernt ist? Es müsste nun am Anfang der Need stehen, was hier fehlt? Gibt es einen Bedarf? Interviewpartner: Es kommt auf die Situation an. Wenn ich sage, ich habe eine Idee für ein Produkt, das ist mein Ausgangsschritt, dann ja. Ich kann es aber auch anders herum machen, indem ich sage, ich habe eine Industry und ich möchte da etwas gründen, nur ich weiß noch nicht genau was. Deswegen ist mein Prozess etwas anders. Aber prinzipiell ja, wenn man schon eine Idee oder Produkt hat, dann sollte einmal verifiziert werden, ob die-ses Produkt überhaupt einen Need trifft. Das ist Schritt eins. Das ist ja der normale Prozess eigentlich. Das ganze andersrum zu machen, ist eher seltener. Zu dem Need allerdings gibt es mehrere Stufen, die man sich überlegen muss. Der erste Abschnitt "Need verifizieren" teilt sich wiederum auf. Gibt es diesen Need am Markt, das ist das erste, sprich braucht das jemand. Schritt 1.2. wäre zu schauen, wenn das jemand braucht, kann derjenige auch dafür zahlen. Also zuerst gibt es einen Markt, und dann hat der Markt Geld? Schritt 1.3, wenn es den Markt gibt und die Leute dafür zahlen können, kann das Ganze auf Einzelpro-duktebene Sinn machen? Sprich, kann ich ein Produkt um mehr verkaufen, als ich es pro-duzieren kann, das impliziert natürlich die Frage ob ich Skaleneffekte erzielen könnte. Wenn das auch mit "ja" beantwortet werden kann, schaue ich mir den Punkt 1.4. an, kann ich den Markt bearbeiten? Es bringt mir nichts ein tolles Produkt zu haben, was Leute brauchen, wofür Leute bereit sind dafür zu zahlen, wenn sich das Ganze sogar für mich rechnet, aber ich komme an die Leute, die das kaufen wollen, nicht heran. Ich würde das Market Acces-

sibility nennen. Da gehört eben dazu, ob es Barriers of Entry gibt, ist der Markt zu fragmen-tiert, dass ich den bearbeiten kann? Das ist für mich alles noch in gewisser Form bei der "Need und Idee-Verifizierung". Da brauche ich mir den Markt noch nicht einmal genau an-schauen. Das würde eben vor der Industry Analysis in den Step-by-Step Approach hinpas-sen. Macht die Idee überhaupt Sinn? Wenn einer dieser Punkte "nein" ergibt, macht die ganze Idee keinen Sinn. Guth: Das klingt jetzt eigentlich nach Annahme von Hypothesen à la Lean Startup? Ich habe mich oft gefragt, ob man die Lean Startup Methode auch als Wettbewerbsanalyse hernehmen kann. Interviewpartner: Ja. Wobei hier gesagt werden muss, dieser erste Teil hat noch nichts mit Konkurrenzanalyse zu tun. Das ist die Vorstufe, ob ich eine Konkurrenzanalyse über-haupt machen muss, oder ob ich gleich sagen kann, die Idee ist zu verwerfen. Ich würde sagen, mindestens 60-70% der Startups, die in Österreich unterwegs sind, hätten über die-sen ersten Schritt nicht hinauskommen sollen. In dem Sinn könnte man eigentlich sagen, dass die Lean-Startup Methode der Vorspann zur Markt- und Konkurrenzanalyse wäre. Erstmal verifizieren, ob es das wert ist Zeit und Geld hineinzustecken, wenn ja, dann schaue ich mir die Industry und Competition genauer an. Wobei das sicherlich auch fließend in einander übergeht. Nach dem Need und Idee-Hypothesen sich bestätigt haben, würde ich die Industry analysieren und diese „mappen“, sprich quantifizieren. Das kann man eigent-lich als einen Schritt sogar sehen. Mappen ist eines der wichtigsten Sachen, sprich zu sa-gen, wie groß mein Markt ist und wie schnell er wächst. Guth: Angenommen man will einen Blue Ocean Markt entwickeln, es gibt also noch keinen Markt, weil der Kunde noch nicht existiert, macht Mapping dann überhaupt Sinn? Interviewpartner: Ich glaube Blue Ocean gibt es nicht wirklich, außer man macht etwas extrem Spezielles. Aber für 99% der Produkte im IKT-Bereich gibt es einen Markt. Dann kann man sehr wohl in irgendeiner Form mappen. Oder es gibt keinen Markt, aber dann wird es auch keinen wirklich jemals geben. Mappen macht auf jeden Fall Sinn. Um weiter im Step-by-Step Approach zu gehen, Critical Success Factors finde ich nicht unwichtig, aber das könnte man zur Industry Analysis dazugeben. Man muss verstehen, wie die Bran-che tickt, welche Geschäftsmodelle in der Branche funktionieren und welche nicht. Wenn man dann weiter auf die tiefere Ebene geht, kann ich nicht sagen, ob es wichtig ist, so viele Charts zu machen. Wichtig ist einfach seine 5-10 Competitors zu kennen - je nach Markt - und zu wissen was sie besser machen. Das muss man einfach wissen, sonst wirkt man auch unprofessionell vor Investoren. Für den Anwendungsfall, dass ich schon eine Idee habe und mir anschaue, ob sie Sinn macht, würde ich eine Value Chain Analysis eher un-nötig finden. Für den anderen Fall, ich schaue mir einen Markt an und überprüfe wo ich ein Window of Opportunity finde - dort ja. In diesem Fall aber würde ich die Value Chain Ana-lysis aber zur Ideenfindungsphase am Anfang dazugeben. Benchmarking wiederum, ist schwierig, weil ich keine Daten habe. Ich vergleiche mich ja mit anderen Startups oder IKT

Unternehmen, die keine Daten veröffentlichen. Und dann ist es schwierig. Es gibt aber ei-nige Benchmarking Tools für Startups. Es gibt Online Tools, die Hauptmitbewerber tracken. Aber die tracken Sachen wie Social Media Traffic, wie viele Follower es gibt und so weiter - online Beobachtungen eben. Da kann man halbwegs benchmarken, aber das sind keine wirklichen Kennzahlen. Wie gesagt, Benchmarking ist sinnvoll, wenn du stabile Prozesse, Umsatzzahlen und so weiter hast. Aber das gibt es für die meisten IKT Projekte nicht. Benchmarking macht eben auch nur Sinn, wenn ich mich regelmäßig vergleiche und nicht nur Zahlen aus einem Report von vor drei Jahren als Grundlage hernehme. Guth: Ist Benchmarking insofern eigentlich nicht in der Pre-Seed Phase zumindest unnötig, weil es sowieso keine Anhaltspunkte gibt und es einen sogar in der Kreativität limitiert? Interviewpartner: Ja, in der Pre-Seed Phase ist das Zeitverschwendung. Es geht darum seine Idee und das Geschäftsmodell zu verifizieren. Wenn man es genau nimmt ist, ist die gesamte Konkurrenzanalyse nicht wahnsinnig relevant, weil sich ja noch alles ändert. Was Competitive Advantages anbelangt, würde ich meinen, dass es für die Pre-Seed Phase zumindest noch nicht wirklich relevant ist. Guth: Gehen wir die einzelnen Modelle nun etwas konkreter durch, die ja in den jeweiligen Schritten dieses Step-by-Step Approaches enthalten sind. Thema Industry Analysis: sind Five Forces für Sie diesbezüglich sinnvoll? Oder bringt es etwas, sich zumindest die Impli-kationen des Modells durchzudenken? Interviewpartner: Nun, der einzige Sinn ist vielleicht für ein Pitch Deck. Es kommt darauf an, zu welchem Investor man pitchen geht. Wenn ich vor Ex-Geschäftsführern großer Un-ternehmen pitche, machen solche klassischen Modelle sicherlich Sinn. Einen Wissensge-winn wird man daraus aber nicht erhalten, eher bringt es was das zu verwenden, weil diese Investoren es gewohnt sind, Marktanalysen so präsentiert zu bekommen. Für ein Startup weiß ich nicht, ob das so viel Sinn macht. Es sei denn, man hat sich all diese Fragen noch nicht gestellt. Es kommt aber natürlich darauf an, die ganzen Sachen, die darin vorkommen, sind prinzipiell schon wichtig. Wie leicht kann ich kopiert werden, wie gut ist meine Ver-handlungsposition - diese Fragen müssen am Anfang schon geklärt werden. Das ist schon relevant, aber diese Sachen muss man sowieso mitbedenken. Dazu braucht man nicht extra Five Forces. Aber eben zum Pitchen kann es sinnvoll sein. Guth: Man wird am Anfang auch nichts anderes kennen, als Threat of substitute products, wo man weiß, der Need könnte durch dieses und jenes Produkt gestillt werden. Interviewpartner: Nun, das würde ich nicht so sehen, weil man die Threat of new entrants anfangs auch bestimmen kann. Man weiß, ja wie lang man dafür braucht, die Technologie zu bauen, ob das eine große Hürde ist oder nicht. Daher kann man schon wissen, wie viel Zeit einem bleibt, bis ein neuer Competitor kommt. Aber die Bargaining Powers weiß man nicht, bevor man den Markt nicht kennt. Dabei sind diese Kräfte sehr wichtig. Das kann man auch nicht anfangs herausfinden. Man muss wenn dann mit Leuten aus der Industrie reden.

Das können Experten aber wahrscheinlich sofort beantworten. Und das ist dann sehr hilf-reich. Allgemein gesagt, wenn ich es mir jetzt überlege, können die Five Forces zum Pit-chen schon Sinn machen und dass man das für sich selber ruhig einmal anschaut - das kann auch nicht schaden, damit man es nicht vergisst, diese Sachen zu bedenken. Guth: Die Generic Strategies sind im Prinzip nur eine Erweiterung der Five Forces. Rein von der Logik her ist Differentiation die natürliche Strategie eines Startups, oder kann Low-Cost eine Option im IKT Bereich sein? Interviewpartner: Nun, das ist Definitionssache. Es gibt Startups die sehr wohl auf Cost-Leadership setzen. Aber Ich würde verallgemeinert sagen, Cost-Leadership ist in der Pre-Seed oder Seed Phase keine wirkliche Option, wenn dann später - man bedenke nur Bran-chenriesen wie Zalando, die eigentlich noch ein Startup sind. Wobei man das auch nicht so sagen kann, Zalando hat auch mal klein angefangen. Was man öfters jedenfalls hört, ist, dass Startups immer wieder hergehen und ineffiziente Prozesse optimieren. Dadurch redu-zieren sich die Kosten, was im IKT-Bereich durchaus vorkommt. Ich finde aber prinzipiell, diese Einteilung der Generic Strategies macht für Startups eher wenig Sinn. Guth: Aber um das Modell zu vervollständigen, die Fokus Strategie wird doch von vielen Startups in der Anfangsphase verfolgt, um einen Markt auszutesten, oder? Interviewpartner: Nun, das hängt aber vom Produkt ab. Manchmal muss das Produkt teuer sein, damit es etwas wert ist. Generic Strategies würde ich daher prinzipiell eher nicht wirk-lich als wichtiges Tool sehen, das von Startups genutzt werden kann. Guth: Ok, dann gehen wir weiter zu Industry Mapping. Hier haben Sie zugestimmt, dass es prinzipiell sinnvoll ist. Wie würden Sie das graphisch darstellen, oder macht das überhaupt Sinn? Interviewpartner: Nun, da habe ich meistens Reports gesucht, wo das meistens in Kreis-diagrammen dargestellt wird. Aber eine gewisse Art von graphischer Darstellung ist schon wichtig, auch für den Investor. Guth: Dann kommen wir schon zu den Critical Success Factors. Hier wäre meine Frage, was besonders im IKT Bereich entscheidend ist, um erfolgreich sein zu können. Wo liegen die größten Hindernisse, wo man schnell scheitern kann, wenn man sie nicht bedenkt? Interviewpartner: Ich würde umgekehrt sagen, wo sich die meisten Gründer umsonst Ge-danken machen, ist Critical Mass und Time to Market. Jeder zweiter Gründer glaubt, man muss der Erste sein, um einen First Mover Advantage zu bekommen. Das ist meiner Mei-nung nach ein Irrglaube. First Mover ist in fast allen Industrien ein Disadvantage. Wenn man Neues auf den Markt bringt und Kunden kennen das Produkt noch nicht, dann muss man den Customer ja „educaten“. Im schlimmsten Fall muss man den Kunden davon sogar überzeugen, dass das einen Wert hat. Und das kostet viel Geld.

Guth: Wäre das aber nicht umgekehrt ein Vorteil, um im Consideration Set des Customers gleich als Erster gelistet zu sein? Interviewpartner: Dafür muss man aber nicht der Erste sein, dafür es das größte Marketing Budget zu haben. Das ist wie bei Zalando, die auch mit viel Online und ATL-Marketing werben, um Top of the Mind zu werden. Das ist eine Frage des Budgets und nicht des Timings. Time to Market und ein First Mover Advantage sind also eben nicht Critical Suc-cess Factors. Was eher kritisch ist, wäre das Geschäftsmodell. Viele Leute machen sich zu viele Gedanken über andere Sachen, bevor sie überlegen, ob sie mit Ihrem Produkt Geld verdienen können - und das auf Einzeltransaktionsbasis gedacht. Genauer gesagt, sind die Customer Acquistion Costs höher als der Customer Lifetime Value, dann kann sich das nicht rechnen. So etwas ist grundlegend - herauszufinden, ob es überhaupt einen Need gibt und ob ich damit Geld verdienen kann. Kann ich damit Geld verdienen? Das ist der Punkt und das ist schwierig. Ich würde diesen Faktor als "Verification of Business Model" benen-nen, das ist eigentlich überall wichtig, nur ist es in jeder Branche anders, wie man das her-ausfinden kann. Execution wäre für mich der zweite wichtige Critical Success Factor, es geht nicht darum, wer der Erste ist und nicht darum, wer die beste Idee hatte, sondern es geht immer um die Execution. Wer implementiert das Geschäftsmodell am besten? Im Ver-gleich zu dem, wie gut deine Customer Acquistion oder wie gut dein Marketing ist, ist das Produkt oder der Algorithmus, der dahinter steckt, nicht so wichtig. Es ist ein Irrglaube in der Gründerszene hundertprozentig auf das Produkt fokussiert sein zu müssen. Am eige-nen Produkt zu basteln ist natürlich cool, aber da bekommt man kein Feedback, wie im Vergleich zum Sales oder Marketing, wo man sofort merkt, wenn das Unternehmen nicht funktioniert. Das geht in die Lean-Startup Richtung, man muss bei einem gewissen Punkt sagen, das Produkt ist gut genug, jetzt muss man damit Geld verdienen. Guth: Gehen wir nun eine Ebene tiefer zum Competitor Profiling, welches Sie eher nicht machen würden, wie Sie vorher gesagt haben? So etwas wie die Competitor Matrix aber, würde das schon Sinn für Sie machen, um sich eine Positionierungsstrategie im Vergleich zum Mitbewerber erarbeiten zu können? Interviewpartner: Prinzipiell ist so etwas sinnvoll, aber das ist sehr subjektiv und die Zahlen wird man nicht so leicht bekommen. Diese Größen sind alle nicht objektiv bewertet. Die Competitor Matrix finde ich hingegen schon sinnvoll. Das ist etwas, wo man die Daten, die dem zugrunde liegen halbwegs beurteilen kann. Das heißt, es kommt darauf an, was auf den Achsen steht. Im Normalfall aber ist es Pricing und Quality oder Customer Value. Guth: Ist da aber dann wiederum nicht die Gefahr, dass man sich als Startup rechts oben positioniert? Interviewpartner: Nun, das Tool würde ich deswegen eher zum Pitchen als relevant sehen. Das ist in deinem Pitch Deck drinnen und du sollst rechts oben sein - gerade deswegen also ist es eigentlich zum „Angeben“. Das ist ja alles relativ subjektiv - Customer Value oder

Pricing. Für einen selber kann es Sinn machen, um zu identifizieren, wer sich in seinem Umfeld von der Konkurrenz her wie positioniert. Und die schaue ich mir dann näher an. So ähnlich habe ich es selber gemacht, als ich jene Plattformen aufgelistet habe, die gratis und nicht gratis waren. Dann habe ich mir die auch in so einer Matrix aufgezeichnet. Dann sieht man relativ schnell, wer in deinem Umfeld unterwegs ist. Also kurz gesagt - um das zu visualisieren, was man sowieso schon weiß, dafür ist es gut, und zum Pitchen erst recht. Guth: Zur Value Chain Analysis haben Sie gemeint, dass diese eigentlich irrelevant ist, wenn ich sie nicht sowieso schon anfangs bei der Ideenvalidierung gemacht habe. Interviewpartner: Genau, wenn ich eine Industry habe, und ich möchte wissen, was man darin machen kann - dann ist das wichtig. Dann sollte man all diese Bereiche und Prozesse durchdenken. Insofern bezieht sich die Value Chain Analysis ja auf die Marktanalyse, wenn ich nach Ineffizienzen beispielsweise suche. Ich würde es insofern keinem Startup raten zu machen, wenn man schon sein Produkt kennt, oder wenn man schon glaubt zu wissen, was sein Produkt sein wird. Guth: Nachdem wir Benchmarking schon ausreichend besprochen haben, würde ich gerne auf das Thema Competitive Advantage kommen. Ist das in der Pre-Seed Phase überhaupt relevant, ob und wie schnell man einen Wettbewerbsvorteil erlangen kann? Interviewpartner: Nun, da bin ich eher gespaltener Meinung. Man muss ja zuerst verifizie-ren, ob irgendjemand dein Produkt braucht. Wenn du das schon weißt und die Ideenverifi-zierung abgeschlossen hast, dann kann ich mir vorstellen, dass das ein sinnvoller letzter Schritt dieses ersten Prozesses ist. Wenn meine Idee Sinn macht, ich kann damit Geld verdienen und ich kann die User sogar mit Marketing erreichen und das liefert einen großen Deckungsbeitrag bei jedem User, dann sollte ich mir trotzdem noch überlegen, wie ich mir einen Vorteil gegenüber den Mitbewerbern aufbauen kann. Insofern macht das schon Sinn. Guth: Aber kann man überhaupt noch einen Wettbewerbsvorteil im IKT-Bereich erreichen? Gibt es so etwas noch? Customer Loyalty gibt es ja wohl eher nicht mehr. Würden Sie eher meinen, dass man durch interne oder externe Quellen einen Vorteil erreichen kann? Interviewpartner: Wenn dann - eher technologisch, also mit ständiger Innovation bin ich der Konkurrenz immer eine Nasenlänge voraus, für den Pre-Seed Bereich vielleicht ja. Im späteren Bereich - wenn man an diese neuartigen Lieferdienste denkt, die wissen ganz klar, man verdient nur als Nummer eins auf dem Markt Geld. Als Nummer eins arbeiten nämlich alle Restaurants mit dir zusammen, während die zweiten pleitegehen. Da kann ich dann auch bessere Konditionen verlangen. Das ist sicherlich ein Riesen Competitive Advantage. Nur der Erste verdient Geld, das heißt aber nicht, dass er der Erste am Markt war. Eine gute Execution kann eben Marktmacht bedingen und sich langfristig auszahlen. Insofern hängt wieder alles von der Execution ab, wenn das Marketing und das Produkt nicht gut ist, wenn man nicht genug Funds geraised hat und so weiter - dann kommt man auch nicht auf die kritische Masse beispielsweise.

Guth: Wenn ich den Customer Need am besten verstehe, kann das nicht auch ein Wettbe-werbsvorteil sein? Oder nicht, weil das noch nicht heißt, dass die Execution deswegen gut ist? Interviewpartner: Ich würde sagen, dass das für mich dazu gehört. Das ist ein wichtiger Teil der Execution, sprich dieser Customer Research. Wenn ich meinen Kunden nicht ver-stehe, kann ich alles andere nicht gut machen. Dann kann ich kein gutes Produkt bauen, dann kann ich kein gutes Marketing machen, dann kann ich mein Business Model nicht super aufbauen. Dass ich meinen Kunden besser als alle anderen verstehe, ist das Um und Auf und das fällt unter die Kategorie Execution. Um es zusammenzufassen, den Kunden Need verstehen, gute Implementierung, gute Produktentwicklung, Vermarktung und Pro-zessmanagement - das sind die wichtigsten Teile der Execution, die mir da einfallen. Guth: Kommen wir nun zu Themen wie der Blue Ocean Strategie. Ihrer Ansicht nach, ist die Blue Ocean Idee ja eher Wunschdenken, als realistisch. Daher wäre hier die Frage, ob man die Strategie trotzdem hernehmen soll, weil die Grundidee zumindest Gründer auf an-dere Gedanken bringen kann. Interviewpartner: Ich verstehe unter Blue Ocean Strategie den Traum einen Markt zu er-schaffen, den es noch nicht gibt. Den Grundgedanken "mache etwas, dass noch kein an-derer gemacht hat und dann wirst du keine Konkurrenz haben" finde ich eher sinnlos. Man wird nie der Einzige sein, der an etwas arbeitet. Was es aber natürlich gibt, ist dass sich neue Industrien mit der Zeit auftun. Aber das sind Markttrends, die ich als Startup verstehen muss. Daher finde ich die Strategie als Ganzes eher nicht hilfreich und das hat eher wenig mit Konkurrenzanalyse zu tun, eher mit Marktanalyse. Wenn ich mir Markttrends anschaue, dann macht das eher Sinn. Guth: Was aber vielleicht relevanter wäre, ist die modellartige Implementierung der Blue Ocean Strategy in Form der Strategy Canvas. Ist dieses Tool für Startups geeignet, um zu analysieren, wie man sich in einer Branche anhand der Veränderung der Competing Fac-tors differentiaten, oder sogar einen USP entwickeln kann? Interviewpartner: Das macht wiederum sehr viel Sinn, das ist eine sehr schöne graphische Darstellung von dem, was man sich bei einer Marktanalyse anschauen sollte. Ich kann das aber nicht nur auf den Markt, sondern auch auf einzelne Competitors beziehen. Das finde ich wie gesagt sinnvoll, aber eher für den internen Gebrauch, als zum Pitchen. Es ist näm-lich auf den ersten Blick nicht so leicht verständlich, vor allem wenn man anfangs annimmt, dass alles oben positiv ist. Aber das kann ja, je nach Competing Factor - zum Beispiel Costs - auch negativ konnotiert sein. Um Marktlücken zu entdecken, kann es sicherlich gewisser-maßen hilfreich sein - natürlich ist das mit Vorsicht zu genießen, weil das zum Teil subjektiv gewählte Competing Factors sind. Was ich nämlich oft sehe, ist das Gründer zu wenig den Markt kennen, und daher nicht einschätzen können, warum manche Competing Factors so hoch oder niedrig sind. Wie immer, wenn du schon weißt, was deine Idee ist, braucht man es nicht unbedingt. Wenn man sich eine Industry anschauen möchte, um nach einer Markt-lücke zu suchen - dann kann das sinnvoll sein.

Guth: Das bringt uns weiter zum Four Actions Framework, welches im Prinzip die Imple-mentierung der Strategy Canvas ist. Es gibt ja vier Möglichkeiten wie man einen Competing Factor verändern könnte, sprich eliminieren, reduzieren, erhöhen oder hinzufügen. Jetzt wäre die Frage, könnten Sie für den IKT Bereich sagen, ob Startups eher etwas reduzieren wollen, um beispielsweise Marktkomplexität herauszunehmen oder umgekehrt etwas hin-zufügen wollen? Interviewpartner: Prinzipiell ist im IKT Bereich Complexity Reduction immer ein Thema. Kann ich viele Schritte eliminieren und so weiter? Allerdings glaube ich, dass die Zeit, wo das im Internet so übermäßig praktiziert wird, eher schon vorbei ist. Das war in den 2000ern sehr oft, als man von der Old auf die New Economy umstieg und Marktplätze oder E-Com-merce Unternehmen alteingesessene Intermediäre aushebelten. Aber diese Zeit ist halb-wegs vorbei. Der Eliminate-Faktor ist also eher vorbei. Der Reduce-Faktor ist noch immer ein Thema und wird es auch noch bleiben. Diese Art von Framework allerdings, ist in mei-nen Augen eher nicht so zielführend, würde ich allgemein sagen. Allerdings, natürlich sind das Dinge, an die man denken muss. Welchen und vor allem wie biete ich meinen Kunden Wert? Das ist eine zentrale Grundüberlegung. Das passt in meinen Augen eigentlich fast schon zur Produktverifizierung. Guth: Ein Modell hätte ich noch, nämlich das Petal Diagram. Dieses stellt das Wettbe-werbsumfeld graphisch dar und bietet die Möglichkeit direkt und indirekt verbundene Wett-bewerber sowie Märkte abzubilden. Was halten Sie davon und eignet sich diese Diagramm zu pitchen? Interviewpartner: Das klingt sinnvoll, ich kenne das aber nicht. Es hilft einem sicherlich verschiedene Konkurrenzgruppen oder Strategic Groups zu bedenken. Zum pitchen glaube ich aber nicht, dass es geeignet ist. Wenn ich eine Slide beim pitchen herzeige, will ich ja, dass Leute das innerhalb von Sekunden verstehen. Alles was länger dauert und vor allem, was ich erklären muss, ist schlecht. Bei einer längeren Präsentation oder gar einem Busi-ness Plan - da könnte ich mir das eher vorstellen. Insofern würde ich es weiterempfehlen. Guth: Damit sind wir bei meiner letzten Frage, dem Ranking der Competitor Analysis Ap-proaches. Was müsste Ihrer Meinung nach darin an Informationen und Implikationen ent-halten sein, damit ein angehender Gründer "in die richtige Richtung denkt" und Anhalts-punkte findet, wie er bei der Wettbewerbsanalyse vorgehen soll? Was fehlt hier und welche Informationen sind unnötig? Interviewpartner: Die Spalte Strategy finde ich prinzipiell eher unnötig, das ist glaube ich irrelevant. Damit kann man Startups nicht wirklich einordnen. Industry und Business Model würde ich eigentlich zusammenlegen, das ist spezifisch genug, sonst wird die Gestaltung relativ aufwendig. Business Model ist ja hier eigentlich nur ein Unterteil. Pro Industry könnte man ja dann ein oder zwei verschiedene Best Practices auflisten, sodass ich sage, aus dem Online Bereich beispielsweise Approach 1 oder 2. Was für mich der beste Output wäre,

wäre zu lesen, wie dieses Schritt-für-Schritt-Prozedere bei anderen Leuten abläuft. Die Suc-cess Factors würde ich eher weglassen, weil sie relativ schwammig sind. Ob etwas ein Success Factor war, weiß ich außerdem erst im Nachhinein. Die Modelle, welche verwen-det wurden, das wäre schon gut zu wissen. Mir wäre am liebsten eine Checkliste, womit ich mir zuerst anschauen kann, in welcher Reihenfolge ich es durch gehe und welche Models ich beim jeweiligen Schritt verwende - wenn ich Modelle überhaupt verwende. Und vor al-lem, welche Fragen muss ich beantwortet haben? Als Input Faktor "which questions to be asked" wäre eine Idee neben der graphischen Darstellung. Das geht so ein bisschen in die Richtung wie ein Business Model Canvas, was ja eigentlich auch nichts anderes, als eine lange Liste an Fragen ist, die du beantworten sollst. So etwas Ähnliches für die Konkur-renzanalyse zu erarbeiten, macht sicherlich Sinn. Guth: Wollen Sie noch etwas allgemein hinzufügen? Welches Modell hat Ihnen am meisten gefallen? Interviewpartner: Am meisten hat mir der Step-by-Step Competitor Analysis Approach zu-gesagt. Ich finde es sinnvoll, weil die meisten Gründer und auch ich viele Schritte ausge-lassen haben. Nicht alle sind natürlich absolut notwendig. Die anderen Modelle gehen eher in Richtung graphischer Darstellung. Die sind sinnvoll, wenn man sich den Markt schon ganz angeschaut hat, damit man es präsentieren kann. Dafür können die anderen Modelle sinnvoll sein. Die Eignung der Modelle zum pitchen hängt natürlich davon ab, für wen man pitcht, welche Zahlen man zur Verfügung hat, was ich darstellen will und vor allem wie ich als Startup de facto da stehe. Wenn meine Marktposition in diesem oder jenem Diagramm schlecht aussieht, dann werde ich die Graphik wohl eher nicht verwenden. Daher kann man das nicht so pauschal sagen, allerdings sehe ich oft bei Pitches die Competitor Matrix oder ein Bubble Chart. Das schaut gut aus und wirkt gut. Für Business Pläne werden die Five Forces natürlich oft verwendet. Allgemein würde ich sagen, dass es viel zu unprofessionell abläuft, wie Gründer den gan-zen Research-Prozess gestalten. Es ist mühsame Arbeit und daher begnügt man sich mit der Aussage "meine Idee ist super, es gibt keine Konkurrenz". Wenn man da aber eine Art Liste oder Checklist beiseite hat, dann wäre das auf jeden Fall sinnvoll. Für die Praxis würde ich außerdem sagen, dass es mit Fragen, die man beantworten sollte, sinnvoller ist zu ar-beiten, als nurF mit einzelnen Modellen.

Interview Guideline

Introduction

1) Personal background and experiences with start-ups and competitor analysis (e.g. founding a start-up, consulting start-ups, investing in start-ups) 2) Based on your specific industry experience how would you describe: • Market structure (new vs. existing, fragmented, segmented, re-segmented market etc.) • Competitive environment (e.g. direct, indirect, substitutive competition etc.) • Customers in the industry (product is known by customers, customers had to be educated, value or need by customer identified etc.) • Strategy: differentiation, focus (on narrow target market), low-cost, creation of a blue ocean, re-segmentation, entering an existing market etc. • How was strategy implemented (e.g. add features to product, creation of new prod-uct, looking for inefficiencies in value chain, adding or reducing factors in the business model etc.) 3) Were competitors analysed; how were competitors analysed? What kind of re-search was conducted? 4) Any step-by-step approach how the competition was analysed? (E.g. define mar-ket gap � map market � google search � value chain analysis � develop differentiation strategy � USP � etc.) 5) Any models used? (Strategy canvas? Porter? Etc.) 6) How would you recommend new entrepreneurs in your industry to conduct the competitive analysis?

I. The traditional approach to competitor analysis

1. Traditional competitor analysis

Industry Analysis

Industry mapping

Critical success factors

Competitor profiling

Special competitor analysis

Value chain analysis

Benchmarking

Building competitive advantage

2. Industry analysis

Five Forces

Generic Strategies

Porter’s Generic Strategies is based on the theory that companies enter only exist-

ing markets.

Rivalry among

the industy

Bargaining power of suppliers

Bargaining power of buyers

Threat of new entrants

Threat of substitute products

Low CostUniqueness of

Product/

Service

Industrywide Overall Cost Leadership Differentiation

Particular Market Segment

Focus Strategy (low cost)

Focus Strategy (differen-tiation)

3. Industry mapping

4. Critical Success Factors 5. Competitor Profiling

6. Competitor Matrix

Company A Company B

Critical Success Factor Weight (0-1)

Rating (1-5) Score Rating (1-5)

Score

Brand reputation 0,13 2 0,26 3 0,39

Market share 0,14 2 0,28 4 0,56

Product range 0,05 3 0,15 1 0,05

TOTAL SCORE

Support Activities

Firm infrastructure General Management, Legal,

Finance, Accounting etc.

Human Resources Management

Recruitment, Training etc.

Technology DevelopmentR&D, Process and Product

Design etc.

ProcurementPruchase of raw materials

etc.

Primary activities

Inbound Logistics

Warehousing, storage, inventory control,

transportation planning etc.

Operationsconversion, assembly, packaging,

maintenance etc.

Outbound Logistics

order processing,

delivery, shipment etc.

Marketing and Sales

Sales channels, 4

Ps, customer value, sales

force etc.

Servicecustomer support, training,

installation etc.

7. Value Chain Analysis

8. Benchmarking

9. Building competitive advantage

Valua-

ble?

Rare? Costly to imi-

tate?

Company organised

enough to capture the

value?

Competitive implication

No Competitive disadvantage

Yes No Competitive parity

Yes Yes No Temporary competitive ad-

vantage

Yes Yes Yes No Unexploited competitive ad-

vantage

Yes Yes Yes Yes Sustained competitive ad-

vantage

II. The entrepreneurial approach to competitor anal ysis

1. Four start-up types of market entries according to Blank

Entry into existing market with existing product

Creation of a new market by introducing a new produ ct (Blue

Ocean)

Re-segmenting an existing market by following a nic he or low-

cost strategy

2. Blank’s petal diagram

3. The Blue Ocean Strategy

Red Ocean Strategy Blue Ocean Strat egy

Competition in existing markets Creation of new markets

Outperforming of competitors Making competition irrelevant

Exploitation of existing demand Generation of new demand

Direct relation between value and cost Breaking up the direct relation between

value and cost

Decide between differentiation or low

cost strategy

Breaking the differentiation vs. low cost

regime and pursue both strategies

Strategy Canvas

Four Actions Framework

New Value Curve

Eliminate:Which industry

factors are unncessary?

Reduce:Which industry

factors are overstated?

Raise:Which industry

factors are understated?

Create:Which factors

could be offered to create new

demand?