Co-opetition

Co-opetition Plot Summary

Introduction

Business has traditionally been viewed through the lens of pure competition—a zero-sum game where one company's gain must be another's loss. But what if this fundamental assumption is flawed? What if the most successful businesses aren't those that simply outcompete their rivals, but those that understand when to compete and when to cooperate? Co-opetition offers a revolutionary framework that transcends this limited perspective by applying game theory to business strategy. At its core lies a profound insight: business success requires both competition and cooperation, often simultaneously with the same players. This dual approach—cooperating to create value while competing to capture it—opens new strategic possibilities that remain hidden to those trapped in purely competitive thinking. Through the PARTS framework (Players, Added Values, Rules, Tactics, and Scope), executives gain practical tools to not just play the existing game better, but to fundamentally change the game itself.

Chapter 1: The Value Net: Mapping Business Relationships

The Value Net represents a revolutionary framework for understanding the complex web of relationships that define any business ecosystem. Unlike traditional models that focus exclusively on competition, the Value Net acknowledges that business success depends on a broader set of interactions that include both competitive and cooperative elements. At its center stands your company, surrounded by four key types of players: customers, suppliers, competitors, and complementors. While the first three categories are familiar to most executives, complementors often remain overlooked despite their critical importance. A complementor is any player whose product makes yours more valuable to customers—Intel benefits when Microsoft develops software that requires faster processors, and Microsoft benefits when Intel creates chips that enable more sophisticated applications. By identifying your complementors, you can find opportunities to expand the total market rather than just fighting for market share. The Value Net's symmetrical structure reveals important insights about business relationships. Customers and suppliers occupy the vertical dimension, representing the flow of products and money. Competitors and complementors occupy the horizontal dimension, representing players who make your product less or more valuable to customers. This visual arrangement highlights that these relationships aren't static—they're dynamic and multifaceted. The same company might be your competitor in one context and your complementor in another, your customer in one transaction and your supplier in the next. Perhaps most importantly, the Value Net encourages allocentric thinking—viewing the game from multiple perspectives rather than just your own. By understanding how each player perceives the game, you can identify opportunities for mutual benefit that might otherwise remain hidden. For instance, a university might recognize that local employers are complementors because they provide jobs for students' spouses, making the university more attractive to potential faculty. The Value Net ultimately serves as a map that guides strategic thinking beyond simplistic win-lose scenarios. It reveals that business success depends not on defeating others, but on creating a healthy ecosystem where multiple players can thrive together even as they compete for their share of the value created.

Chapter 2: Competition and Cooperation: The Dual Nature of Business

Business is neither pure war nor pure peace—it's both simultaneously. This fundamental duality forms the foundation of co-opetition, a mindset that recognizes business involves cooperation when creating value and competition when dividing it up. This perspective transcends the traditional view of business as a zero-sum game where one company's gain must be another's loss. The cooperative aspect of business becomes evident when we examine how markets develop and grow. When antique dealers cluster around a particular neighborhood, they compete for individual customers but cooperate to create a destination that attracts more buyers overall. Similarly, when technology companies establish industry standards, they cooperate to grow the total market even as they compete for market share within it. This cooperation extends to relationships with customers and suppliers, where creating value requires understanding each other's needs and working together toward mutual benefit. The competitive dimension emerges when it comes to capturing value. Companies compete with rivals for market share, negotiate with customers over price, and bargain with suppliers over terms. Even complementors engage in a tug-of-war over who captures more value from their relationship. Microsoft benefits when hardware prices fall because consumers have more money left to spend on software, so there's an element of competition even in complementary relationships. This dual nature extends to all business relationships. With customers, you cooperate to create products they value while competing over price and terms. With suppliers, you collaborate to improve efficiency while negotiating over costs and quality standards. With competitors, you may fight for market share while jointly developing industry standards or infrastructure. With complementors, you work together to grow the market while each trying to capture the lion's share of value. Understanding this duality helps businesses avoid two common traps: seeing only competition and missing opportunities for cooperation, or focusing solely on cooperation and being unprepared for competitive pressures. The most successful companies recognize when to compete and when to cooperate, often doing both simultaneously with the same players. This nuanced approach—co-opetition—represents a more sophisticated and effective way to play the game of business.

Chapter 3: Added Value: The Source of Bargaining Power

Added value represents the fundamental source of power in any business interaction. Simply defined, your added value is the difference between the size of the pie when you're in the game and the size when you're out. This concept provides a clear measure of what you bring to the table and, consequently, how much you can expect to capture from any business relationship. The power of added value is illustrated by comparing Nintendo's success in the video game industry to companies like Sony and Nissan. While Sony and Nissan operated in competitive markets with many substitutes for their products, Nintendo established a virtual monopoly in 8-bit video games. Nintendo's added value was essentially equal to the entire video game market—without Nintendo, there would have been no game. This position allowed Nintendo to capture an extraordinary share of value, making it temporarily more valuable than either Sony or Nissan despite operating in a seemingly less essential industry. Added value isn't static—it can be engineered and protected through strategic choices. Companies can increase their added value through intelligent trade-offs, spending $1 to create $2 of customer value. Even better are "trade-ons" that simultaneously improve quality and reduce costs. TWA's Comfort Class initiative exemplifies this approach: by removing some seats from planes that weren't filling up anyway, TWA dramatically improved passenger comfort at minimal cost, creating substantial added value that translated into higher fares and fuller planes. In competitive markets, relationships become crucial for maintaining added value. Without relationships, you risk selling a commodity where your added value approaches zero. American Airlines' AAdvantage frequent flyer program demonstrates how relationships can create added value even in a highly competitive industry. By rewarding loyalty, American created switching costs that gave it power even when competitors offered similar services at similar prices. The program continued to work even after being copied because it fundamentally changed the nature of competition in the industry. The concept of added value also explains why limiting supply can be strategically advantageous. When DeBeers controls the diamond supply or Nintendo creates artificial shortages of game cartridges, they limit the added value of their customers, allowing them to capture more of the total value created. This strategy must be balanced carefully, however, as undersupply can shrink the total pie and create opportunities for new entrants.

Chapter 4: Rules and Tactics: Shaping How the Game is Played

Rules fundamentally shape how business games unfold, often determining who captures value regardless of added value. While some rules come from laws or industry standards, many of the most consequential rules appear in contracts with customers and suppliers. These contractual rules can dramatically shift the balance of power in negotiations and transactions. Most-favored-customer clauses (MFCs) exemplify how rules can transform business dynamics. When a company promises a customer the best price it gives to anyone, it seems to benefit the customer. However, this rule makes the company much tougher in negotiations with other customers because any concession must be extended to everyone with an MFC. This "strategic inflexibility" paradoxically strengthens the company's bargaining position. The U.S. government inadvertently demonstrated this effect when it mandated that Medicaid would receive the best price given to any buyer of pharmaceuticals—drug manufacturers responded by raising prices across the board rather than offering deep discounts to anyone. Meet-the-competition clauses represent another powerful rule. These provisions allow customers to bring competitors' offers to a supplier, who then has the right to retain the business by matching the offer. While seemingly beneficial to customers, these clauses actually reduce price competition by eliminating the incentive for competitors to offer aggressive discounts. Why offer a low price if the incumbent supplier will simply match it and retain the business? The result is often higher prices for everyone. Tactics complement rules by influencing how players perceive the game. The New York Post demonstrated this when it published its competitor's confidential business plan, revealing that the competitor planned to lose money for years to gain market share. By exposing this strategy, the Post changed how advertisers perceived the competitor's low prices—not as sustainable offers but as temporary loss leaders. This tactical move prevented a destructive price war by altering perceptions. Effective tactics often involve managing information flow. Sometimes it's advantageous to lift the fog by providing transparent information, as when companies publish prices to signal they won't negotiate special deals. Other times, preserving uncertainty benefits negotiations, as when sellers avoid revealing their cost structure. In still other situations, deliberately creating confusion can be advantageous, as when airlines use complex pricing structures to segment customers and capture more value.

Chapter 5: Changing the Game: The PARTS Framework

Changing the game represents the essence of business strategy. Rather than simply playing the existing game better than competitors, truly transformative success comes from fundamentally altering the game itself. This perspective shifts the focus from operational excellence within fixed constraints to strategic creativity that redefines those constraints. Game transformation can occur through any of the five PARTS elements: Players, Added values, Rules, Tactics, and Scope. Changing the players might involve bringing in new customers, suppliers, complementors, or even competitors. American Express demonstrated this approach by forming a healthcare buying coalition that pooled 600,000 employees across multiple companies, attracting over 100 bidders and dramatically reducing HMO premiums. By changing who was in the game, American Express fundamentally altered the balance of power. Added values can be transformed through innovation, relationship building, or strategic supply management. Nintendo exemplified this by creating artificial shortages of game cartridges, which limited retailers' added value and allowed Nintendo to capture more of the pie. Alternatively, companies can increase their added value through loyalty programs that create switching costs, as American Airlines did with its AAdvantage program. Rules transformation often involves contractual provisions that change incentives. Most-favored-customer clauses make sellers more resistant to price concessions, while meet-the-competition clauses reduce competitors' incentive to offer aggressive discounts. By carefully designing these rules, companies can reshape competitive dynamics to their advantage without requiring any technological innovation or operational improvement. Tactics transformation focuses on changing perceptions. When Rupert Murdoch's New York Post published a competitor's confidential business plan, it changed how advertisers perceived the competitor's pricing strategy. Similarly, companies can signal commitment through irreversible investments or create uncertainty about their costs to gain negotiating leverage. These tactical moves change the game by altering how players interpret and respond to each other's actions. Scope transformation involves recognizing and managing links between games. When Epson entered the laser printer market with aggressive pricing, it failed to anticipate how this would affect its core dot-matrix business through a chain reaction of price adjustments across market segments. By understanding these connections, companies can avoid unintended consequences and leverage actions in one arena to create advantages in others.

Chapter 6: Strategic Scope: Linking and Delinking Games

No business game exists in isolation. Every strategic interaction is connected to others across space and time, creating a complex web of interdependencies that smart strategists can manipulate to their advantage. The concept of scope focuses on understanding and managing these connections—knowing when to link games together and when to keep them separate. Games become linked in multiple ways. Players create links when they participate in multiple games simultaneously. Added values become linked when success in one arena affects your value in another. Rules can explicitly connect games, as when contracts specify that pricing in one market affects terms in another. Perceptions create links when actions in one game send signals about how you'll behave elsewhere. Understanding these connections is crucial because moves that seem irrational in isolation often make perfect sense when viewed in their broader context. Challengers can use scope strategies to overcome incumbents' advantages. Sega's entry into the video game market illustrates this approach. When Sega introduced its 16-bit Genesis system, Nintendo dominated the 8-bit market and could have quickly responded with its own 16-bit system. However, doing so would have accelerated the obsolescence of Nintendo's profitable 8-bit business. By pricing its 16-bit system high enough to avoid directly competing with 8-bit systems, Sega created a dilemma for Nintendo. This "judo strategy" turned Nintendo's 8-bit strength into a 16-bit weakness, giving Sega time to establish itself in the new market. Contract length represents another scope strategy. Longer contracts effectively turn multiple short-term games into one long-term game, changing the dynamics of competition. The authors advise that when you have bargaining power (being on the "short side" of the market), you should "go long" by requiring suppliers or customers to compete for long-term contracts. This forces them to bid more aggressively since the prize is larger and opportunities less frequent. Sometimes tactical moves create perceptual links between games. When NutraSweet's European patent expired five years before its U.S. patent, Holland Sweetener entered the European market. NutraSweet responded with aggressive price cuts that made no economic sense in Europe alone. However, by fighting in Europe, NutraSweet sent a signal about how it would respond to entry in the much larger U.S. market. This tactical linkage between the European and U.S. games discouraged Holland from expanding capacity, limiting its ability to challenge NutraSweet when the U.S. patent expired. The key insight about scope is that recognizing the larger context of any business situation is essential for effective strategy. Even when a player appears to be narrowing the scope of a game, it's often their power in some bigger game that makes this possible. The most important lesson is that there's always a larger game—understanding this perspective opens new strategic possibilities that might otherwise remain hidden.

Summary

Business strategy reaches its highest form when leaders master the delicate balance between competition and cooperation. Co-opetition transcends the false dichotomy of business as either pure conflict or pure collaboration, revealing that sustainable success requires both—often simultaneously with the same players. Through the PARTS framework, executives gain practical tools to transform their strategic thinking, moving beyond simply playing the existing game better to fundamentally changing the game itself. The revolutionary power of co-opetition lies in its ability to expand our strategic vision. By mapping the full Value Net of business relationships, recognizing the added value each player brings, designing rules that shape favorable interactions, employing tactics that influence perceptions, and managing the scope of connected games, leaders can create more value while capturing a fair share for themselves. This balanced approach not only produces better business results but contributes to a healthier economic ecosystem where multiple players can thrive together. In a world increasingly characterized by complex interdependencies, co-opetition offers not just a competitive advantage but a more sophisticated and sustainable path to prosperity.

About Author

Loading...

Adam M. Brandenburger

Read more

Related Books by Adam M. Brandenburger

Loading...

Split the Pie

Barry J. Nalebuff

A Radical New Way to Negotiate

★★★★☆4.0