TERM PAPER

Course – BUS 6020 A

Strategic Management

Topic – Generic Competitive Strategies

Due Date – 11 March 2019 (Week 10)

Name – Pravallika Valiveti

Student ID - 657979

Lecturer Name – Dr. Paul Katuse

About Michael Porter

Michael Eugene Porter, born May 23, 1947, is an

American academic known for his theories on economics,

business strategy, and social causes. He is currently the

Bishop William Lawrence University Professor and

director of Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness,

which was founded in 2001 to support and further his

research work at Harvard Business School. Prior to his

role in Harvard, he was one of the founders of the

consulting firm The Monitor Group (now part of Deloitte)

and FSG, a social impact consultancy.

Michael Porter is the author of 19 books and over 125 articles including Competitive Strategy,

Competitive Advantage, Competitive Advantage of Nations, and On Competition. A seven-

time winner of the McKinsey Award for the best Harvard Business Review article of the year,

Professor Porter is the most cited author in business and economics. (Aktouf 2008)

Porter received numerous honors and awards for his pioneering work in the field of strategy

and competition. Some of his many honors include Harvard's David A. Wells Prize in

Economics (1973) for his research in industrial organization. He also received the Graham and

Dodd Award of the Financial Analysts Federation in 1980. Michael Porter's book Competitive

Advantage won the George R. Terry Book Award of the Academy of Management in 1985 as

the outstanding contribution to management thought. “He has influenced more executives - and

more nations - than any other business professor on earth. Now, he and an all-star team aim to

rescue the U.S. economy.” (Colvin 2012)

Generic Competitive Strategies

Penned by Michael Porter in his book – “Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining

Superior Performance” (1985), generic strategies list down different sustainable competitive

advantages that a firm can adopt to make more profits than industry average. These strategies

are called generic as they can be applied to any product or service in any industry.

A firm's relative position within its industry determines whether a firm's profitability is above

or below the industry average. The fundamental basis of above average profitability in the long

run is sustainable competitive advantage (Porter 1985). These sustainable competitive

advantages can be categorized into 2 – Low cost and Differentiation. Considering the aspect of

market scope, generic strategies can be listed down as 4 in total – Low cost and Differentiation

in broad market scope; Cost focus and Differentiation focus in narrow market scope (niche).

Many consider generic strategies as only 3 in number, as they categorize strategies with narrow

market scope as just one strategy with two variants.

Fig – Generic Strategies by Michael Porter in the form of a Matrix

Choosing the Right Strategy

While all the generic strategies have the same objective, i.e., to make the organization

profitable, not all organizations are profitable adopting these strategies. Many factors must be

considered before deciding the best strategy to be used for the particular organization in the

particular industry for the particular segment.

To determine the best strategy to adopt, one needs to go through the following steps –

1. Create a SWOT profile for the business

The swot profile of a business consists of listing a company’s strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats. Both internal and external environment analysis needs to be

conducted to list all the elements in the SWOT profile. Internal analysis would give the

strengths and weaknesses while the external environment gives immediate opportunities and

threats and business has.

2. Analyse the industry using the 5 forces

Michael Porter’s 5 forces give a good start to industry analysis. They are –

 Threat of new entrants

 Threat of substitutes

 Rivalry among competitors

 Bargaining power of buyers

 Bargaining power of suppliers

The analysis differs from industry to industry; however, it does not differ from organization to

organization in the same industry.

 3. Compare SWOT to the industry analysis results

Combining the results of step 1 and step 2 give an idea of the best strategy to adopt. A mix of

company’s swot and industry analysis results is always unique for each organization, hence no

two organizations can end up being the same. Once the results of step 1 and step 2 are analysed,

the firm can select the best suited generic strategy.

Following figure give an insight of the implications industry forces have on the choice of the

generic strategy by an organization.

Fig. Combination of Porter’s five forces with Generic Strategies

The above figure shows how industry forces effect the choice an organization makes regarding

the generic strategies. Every situation and every firm are different and hence the matrix above

gives an insight of implications of every decision.

Cost Leadership

Cost is leadership is one of the generic strategies formulated by Michael Porter to achieve

sustainable competitive advantage. The competitive advantage in this case is charging low cost

for their products. Low cost is generally synonymous to low or no profits, however, firms

adopting this strategy make profits through efficiency in systems and processes.

It is considered difficult to adopt and operate using this strategy successfully as it needs the

managers to cut costs at every level to maintain their competitive prices in the market.

For a company to successfully adopt cost leadership strategy, they would the following –

 Capital resources to improve technology

 Efficient logistics

 Low factor prices

 Imagination at higher levels, to envision and create new markets (Hamel and Prahlad

1990)

 Offer no-frill options for services to cut down costs

 Run services operations like factories

A company is said to be a cost leader when it is able deliver a given set of customer benefits

lower than the competitors or provide with a bundle of benefits that the rivals cannot match

and above are few ways of achieving the same.

This strategy works best for organizations selling standardized products with many rival sellers.

It is specifically used in industries where there is little or no scope of differentiation. These

kinds of products/industries make the customer price sensitive, which is the target market for

organizations adopting cost leadership strategy.

Examples of organizations following cost leadership

IKEA

IKEA is one of the world’s largest and most successful furniture retailer. Founded in Sweden

in 1943, it has gained popularity as a seller of self-assemble furniture, home decoration and

daily necessities. IKEA has consistently been a Cost Leader throughout its 77 years’ journey.

IKEA seeks for suppliers who could manufactures well-designed subassemblies at the lowest

costs and customers need to assemble the products themselves. This method could save

delivery costs for both producers and customers. It allows manufacturers reducing a lot of costs

as soon as customers could pay for the products on a much lower price with high quality and

therefore, to receive different segments of customers. With the competitive price, the company

could receive a vast market and easily won the business. (Kristin 2016)

SpiceJet

SpiceJet is one of the Low-Cost Carriers (LCC) in India. It started as a small airline company,

however, it is now 4th largest airline company in terms of domestic passenger share. It has

consistently positioned itself as a pocket friendly airline. Cost leadership strategy has proven

successful for SpiceJet. It achieved low costs by offering no-frill services to customers. Price

sensitive customers preferred SpiceJet as it provided basic services and charged low prices.

Naivas

Naivas is a retail market chain in Kenya. It has established itself as a cost leader, targeting

mainly the middle- and low-income customers. Naivas aims to achieve low costs by operational

efficiencies. According to Muasa (2014), while Naivas has been established as the cost leader,

it needs to work on different aspects like high technology investment, consumer focus, good

relations with suppliers, in short – being more effective and efficient, which will enable Naivas

to make its competitive advantage sustainable.

Advantages

 High profits can be achieved if a cost leader has a high market share. This enables the

organization to enjoy economies of scale.

 Low cost firms can withstand price-wars because high priced competitors will not want

to compete directly with a more efficient rival.

 Its competitive advantage depends on consistent and efficient internal processes and

capabilities, which make it difficult for the competitors to duplicate.

 Lower cost of production equips the organization to sustain worst economic ups and

downs as it gives them the greatest chance at sustainability.

 Cost leadership allows organizations to have an abundance of capital resources dues to

higher margins. Over time these resources can be pooled in together to be used for

multiple purposes. (Kokemuller 2017)

Disadvantages

 Low prices might lead to perception of low quality. This may affect the sales of the

business.

 The company must aim for large volume sales to make considerable profits as the

margins are slim.

 The business might be skipping out on new trends in the process of keeping the costs

low.

 Efficient processes and structures in place might be a hinderance to flexibility and

change.

 Consumer feedback is given less importance as there is minimal scope of customization

for the customer due to cost cuts.

Differentiation

A firm adopting differentiation strategy seeks to be unique in the industry. The firm picks a

few attributes that are widely valued by buyers and uniquely positions itself to meet those

needs. The firm is rewarded for its creativity and innovation by charging premium prices.

(Porter 1985). Along with premium prices, the firm also enjoys customer loyalty to the product/

service or firm as such. In this case, the sustainable competitive advantage of the firm lies in

the uniqueness of their product/ service.

The differentiating factor differs from industry to industry and from firm to firm. The firm may

differentiate itself based on the following categories –

– Product attributes

– Brand image

– Delivery system

– Technology

– Customization

– Location

– Quality (warranties, reliability, after sales service)

Differentiation strategies work best in some markets circumstances where there are many ways

to differentiate the company’s offerings from that of rivals and many buyers perceive these

differences as having value. (Thompson and Strickland 1984)

It should be stressed that the differentiation strategy does not allow the firm to ignore costs, but

rather they are not the primary strategic target. (Porter 1980)
To adopt and succeed using differentiation strategy, a firm needs the following –

 Good research, development and innovation

 Ability to provide high quality goods and services

 Effective sales and marketing

 Invest in resources that add to uniqueness of the firm (Hill, Charles, & Jones)

 Highly skilled product development team

 Build reputation for quality and innovation

Main rivals for large firms pursuing differentiation strategy are firms that adopt focus

differentiation strategy. Big firms need to be vigilant and agile to identify and capture

opportunities in the changing markets.

Examples of firms following differentiation

Starbucks

Starbucks is a highly popular coffee store. It has gained popularity and market share through

one of the generic strategies – differentiation. Starbucks is known for high quality products and

highly customisable coffee. One example of that – rule of serving expresso within 23 seconds

of brewing. Starbucks has taken full advantage of their brand reputation by making strategic

alliances with organizations like Pepsico and Jim Beam to serve markets other than just coffee

consumers. Consumers recognize the Starbucks logo in supermarkets selling bottled coffee

beans and now know it is synonymous to high quality. While Starbucks has successfully

differentiated itself by its products, it has also emphasized the differentiation other aspects as

well, like the warm and friendly ambience, its sustainable and responsible sourcing policy

completing the package with a healthy company culture. (Thompson 2017)

Hindustan Unilever (HUL)

Hindustan Unilever (HUL) is an FMCG company based in India. It has a wide range of

products and brands, and hence is highly competitive in the Indian market, along with other

markets. HUL has a highly innovative Research and Development team that is continuously

working on new products and brands. HUL also invests huge sums of money on marketing and

sales distribution processes that help in positioning the brand appropriately. One example in

that aspect is that of Dove – though it is priced above average, it has an impressive market

share as it is positioned as a ‘moisturizer’ compared to its competitors, which are mere

‘cleaners’. Thus, this generic strategy also satisfies HUL’s vision and mission statement, i.e.,

support sustainability by bringing vitality to consumer lives. (Young 2017)

American Express

American Express is a pioneer in revolutionizing digital payment systems, eagerly capturing

more and more markets. Founded in 1850, it has evolved and come a long way since. Currently

it earns $15.6 billion in terms of net income and $32.8 billion in terms of annual revenue.

American Express has seen its share of ups and downs, however, its competitive advantage

remained fairly sustainable, i.e., differentiation. It has recognized different segments in the

market and created products that are most suitable for each segment. For example, a student

has different needs when compared to a person with higher education and higher self-worth.

Hence, they made different products for different demographic groups. (Bhasin 2018). The

brand reputation – being a premium brand has helped American Express to be highly favoured

and this helped it sustain the ups and downs of the economy and the market.
Advantages

 When done right, companies using differentiation strategies gain customer loyalty at a

broad base.

 Adoption of differentiation strategies helps in evolution of market, hence creating more

customers and more markets.

 Gives more importance to what customer needs than what the organization can produce.

 It leads the companies into non-price competition – competition based only on real

value to customer.

 Companies adopting differentiation strategy enjoy the customers’ perception of their

product being non-substitutable, hence averting threats of substitutes. (Kelchner 2019)

 Differentiation strategy hinders market entry, as it gives established brands and

companies an upper hand than the new entrants.

Disadvantages

 Differentiation is considered risky due to the changing market share.

 The company always needs to be vigilant so that the uniqueness is well guarded and

protected.

 It is a challenge for the organizations to continuously come up with unique ideas.

 Some innovations by the company may be considered too unique or too bold, i.e., the

customer may not believe it is true or the customer may not understand its benefits.

 As the strategy enables organizations to compete on a non-price basis, it is difficult for

the organizations to come up with the optimal price that can be sustained in the long

term.

 Over differentiation might exclude a big chunk of consumers, hence affecting the

forecasted sales and forecasted prices.

Focused (Market Niche) Strategies

Focused strategies are those that are targeted towards markets with narrow scope (niche). These

are further categorized into focused cost leadership and focused differentiation.

This narrow market can be in terms of –

 Particular buyer group

 Specific product/service offered

 Geographic region

While focus strategies suggest a misconception of being preferred by smaller companies, in

reality, focus strategies enable companies to serve a specific set of customers in the most

optimal way (Tanwar 2013). This enables companies to tap into the market’s full potential and

earn immense customer loyalty, hence discouraging new entrants.

For a company to be profitable while adopting focused strategy, the target segments must either

have buyers with unusual needs or else the production and delivery system that best serves the

target segment must differ from that of other industry segments. Cost focus exploits differences

in cost behaviour in some segments, while differentiation focus exploits the special needs of

buyers in certain segments. (Porter 1985)

The main objective of any company adopting focus strategies is to become a market leader in

their own specific target market as it can be more efficient and effective focusing all its

resources towards the specific market. However, it cannot reap benefits by just narrowing the

size of the market. The company needs to offer something extra to its customers. This is where

the company chooses either cost leadership (focusing on cost sensitive/ cost insensitive group)

or differentiation (producing something unique that the customers want). Narrow market with

something extra, i.e., one of the generic strategies, helps the company achieve its objectives to

become the market leader.

According to Thompson and Strickland (1984), this strategy is best used in the following

circumstances –

 There is no other rival attempting to serve the market, as it is difficult for multi-segment

organizations to focus

 The firm is small, hence does not have enough resources to take over a bigger piece of

market.

 There are gaps in the market that are not covered by cost leaders and differentiators.

(Zaware 2016)

Examples of firms adopting focused strategies

Mercedes-Benz

Mercedes-Benz is a part of the German automobile manufacturing company Daimler Inc.

Mercedes-Benz has a world-wide presence and is known for its quality. Though it is known for

luxury in most markets, it has all kinds of cars from SUV to sedans to sports models. While its

parent company Daimler has presence in many segments like power trains, financial services,

etc., Mercedes is only focused on cars, specifically for the upper-class market, who need classy

style, safety and efficiency, complete with modern technology. Mercedes is able to take out its

competitors like Volvo, Audi and BMW in a very easy way, especially in the developing

countries, due to its low operational costs. It has strategically placed plants and has the immense

advantage of its diverse parent company, which helps in its advance technological innovations.

With help of these internal capabilities, Mercedes moved from a product centric to customer

centric company, focusing on a specific customer group and tailor making differentiated

products needed by the narrow market.

Chipotle

Chipotle is a Mexican grill ‘fast-casual’ type eatery. It has adopted focused differentiation

strategy to carve itself a niche of Americans who wanted to combine fast food and casual

dining. Chipotle’s brand campaign is “Food with Integrity”, which points towards their animal

and farmer friendly food sourcing. This attracted a segment of consumers who are

environmentally sensitive and health conscious. Chipotle believes that sourcing

environmentally friendly and organic food is costly and hence passes these costs to their

consumers, charging premium prices for high quality food. In this way, it has created a niche

for itself by focusing on different products a different ambience.

Claire’s

Claire’s is an American cost sensitive store that sells jewellery targeted specifically towards

cost sensitive teenage girls. It has adopted the cost focus strategy. It initially started with one

or two stores, which now has expanded to have a presence in 95% of the malls in the United

States. It mainly sells small trinkets, inexpensive jewellery, tattoos and piercings that the

teenage girls generally need. It does not compete with high end stores, hence does not spend

as much on promotions and other marketing activities. This way Claire’s has been able to

manage costs and sustain their cost advantage over rivals, creating themselves a niche.

Advantages

 Entry to the market is easy as the requirement of resources like capital and machinery

is less compared to the success that companies enjoy.

 If done right, companies using differentiation focus can pass the high costs to customers

and enjoy premium prices as substitutes do not exist.

  Firms will be able to master the skill of product development with focused markets

which can be used to expand.

 It helps in building strong relationships between the firm and each target niche.

 It helps bring expertise into the products, services or internal capabilities, hence

creating more value than profit for the consumer and the firm.

 It helps in restoration or the reputation of a brand that is affected by negative events or

critics.

Disadvantages

 Company adopting focused strategy would not be able to enjoy economies of scale as

their production is targeted towards only a specific set of customers.

 The company is likely to face many rivals as the entry to the market is easy, given the

success with limited set of resource.

 The firm would not have bargaining power with suppliers as their product count is too

low to be bargained on.

 The firm adopting focused strategy is highly sensitive to the changes in target segment.

 It is easier for the big firms to enter the focused segments and capture the market

through imitation or better substitutes.

 The focused market of one firm can be sub-focused by another firm, hence taking away

a big chunk of market.

 The initial demand might be limited if the promotion and sales distribution budgets are

limited.
Stuck in the middle

According to Porter (1996), company is said to be stuck in the middle when it is not able to

execute any of the generic strategies successfully. It is illustrated through the following figure.

Fig – Generic strategies showing ‘Stuck in the middle’

It is not a strategy that is picked by the organization, however, an organization might end up

being in the ‘stuck in the middle’ space when the chosen strategy is not implemented in the

business level of the organization.

At this stage, the company is neither providing a competitive price, nor any unique product

both in the narrow and broad market, hence, such organizations generally have low profitability

and mediocre market share.

Some firms end up in the ‘stuck in the middle’ space not because of poor strategy execution

but their intent of being ‘everything’ (all 3 generic strategies), however, they end up being

nothing.
Examples of organizations stuck in the middle

Levi’s

Levi’s is a textile company that mainly offers jeans and other casual clothing for men and

women. Prior to restructuring in the US, Levi’s followed focus strategy where it focused on

upper markets who wish to buy premium quality products at the premium prices. Levi’s

restructured their operations by shifting most of their productions offshore where the cost of

labour and other costs is much lesser compared to the US. Around this time, on one hand

Levi’s cut down its costs and now has huge margins and one the other hand, its rivals moved

into low cost strategy. Levi’s was not able to capture the market with their premium prices and

hence had to follow suit of its rivals and go into cost leadership. This left Levi’s stuck in the

middle where they neither have a competitive price, nor are focused on a niche.

Holiday Inns

Holiday Inns are a series of motels. They are mainly known for their average price and average

quality of their motel rooms. After the 1970s, where the world started shifting towards

customer centricity, Holiday Inn found itself stuck in the middle. It was neither offering

differentiation like resort features, customised benefits, nor was it a cost leader, offering no

frill services. Hence, Holiday Inn had a huge restructuring lined up to get out of the stuck in

the middle phase and adopt a strategy.

Arby’s Roast Beef Sandwich

Arby’s is a chain in the US owned for a short period of time by Wendy’s. They found

themselves to be stuck in the middle when they realised they were not offering anything unique

and not providing competitive prices. This lead to a restructuring when their profits were at the

lowest. They changed the menu items and operational processes so that they can now become

a cost leader in the market.

Critical Review of Generic Strategies

Porter has been considered a management guru since his book about Competitive Advantage

in 1980. However, there have been many critical evaluations of the same, questioning his ideas

and assumptions based on which he formulated the generic competitive strategies.

Following are a few points that have been raised by the critiques –

 While Porter presents his generic strategies as a choice presented to every company,

Wright (1987) argues that the smaller firms would have resources only for the focus

cost leader or focus differentiation strategies.

 Porter’s strategies were also questioned for their validity in reality, mainly if the

success of these strategies meant superior profit. (Dawes and Sharp 1996)

 One of the requirements for the successful adoption of the strategy requires ‘heavy

state-of-the-art equipment’ (Porter 1996), this leads to the question of whether the

organizations were expected to invest such huge amounts without any guarantee of

superior profits. (Datta 2009)

 Porter states – For a company to be a successful cost leader, it needs to have a high

market share. The question here is how would a company achieve this high market

share if it is just starting out as a new organization. According to Datta (2009), a

company often becomes a cost leader through differentiation, in terms of packaging,

distributions etc.

Other than the above mentioned points, there have been several other criticisms of the generic

competitive strategy model and its application in today’s world. When Porter came up with the

model in the last parts of 20th century, it was considered brilliant and appropriate at the time.

However, the question remains if that is still applicable in the 21st century where the world has

turned into a global village and market places have turned into market space. (Mekic 2014)
References

1. Aktouf, Omar (January 24, 2008). "THE FALSE EXPECTATIONS OF MICHAEL

PORTER'S STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK". Gestão &

Planejamento - G&P. 1 (11). Retrieved from

https://revistas.unifacs.br/index.php/rgb/article/view/199

2. Colvin, George (2012). Senior Editor, Fortune Magazine. Retrieved from

https://www.isc.hbs.edu/about-michael-porter/Pages/default.aspx

3. Porter, Michael E. (1985). "Competitive Advantage". Ch. 1, pp 11-15. The Free Press.

New York. Retrieved from https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/dstools/porters-

generic-competitive-strategies/

4. Edwards, J. (2012). Mastering Strategic Management. Canada. Open Education

Resources. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/strategicmanagement/front-

matter/about-the-1st-canadian-edition-adaptation/

5. Mack, Stan. (n.d.). Advantages of the Cost-Leader Strategy. Small Business -

Chron.com. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-costleader-

strategy-67155.html

6. Kokemuller, Neil. (2017, September 26). Advantages of the Cost-Leader Strategy.

Bizfluent. Retrieved from https://bizfluent.com/info-8611808-advantages-costleader-

strategy.html

7. Thompson, A. A. (1984). Strategic management: concepts and cases / Arthur A.

Thompson, Jr., A.J. Strickland III. Retrieved from http://library.um.ac.id/free-

contents/index.php/buku/ detail/strategic-management-concepts-and-cases-arthur-a-

thompson-jr-a-j-strickland-iii-15755.html
8. Smoak, Anthony. (2017, March 20). Michael Porter’s Generic Differentiation Strategy

Explained. Retrieved from https://anthonysmoak.com/2017/03/20/michael-porters-

generic-differentiation-strategy-explained/

9. Hill, Charles, & Jones, G. (n.d.). Essentials of Strategic Management By Charles Hill,

Gareth Jones. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/?id=Sy8vejqbcocC&pg=RA1-

PA19&lpg=RA1-PA19&dq=apple+IIe+educational+sales

10. Kelchner, Luanne. (2019, February 12). The Advantages of a Product Differentiation

Strategy. Small Business. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-

product-differentiation-strategy-17691.html

11. Essays, UK. (2018, November). The Cost Leadership Strategy. Retrieved from

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/the-cost-leadership-strategy-marketing-

essay.php?vref=1

12. Tanwar, Ritika. (2013). Porter’s Generic Competitive Strategies. IOSR - Journal of

Business and Management, 15 (1). Pp 11-17. e-ISSN: 2278-487X, p-ISSN: 2319-7668.

Retrieved from https://sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/TANWAR

%202013%20Porter%E2%80%99s%20Generic%20Competitive%20Strategies.pdf

13. Porter, Michael. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6) (Nov-Dec

1996). Pp 18 pages.

14. Porter, Michael. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The Free Press. NY

15. Prahalad, C.K. and Gary Hamel. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation.

Harvard Business Review. 68(3) (May-June, 1990):79 (13 pages).

16. Jennings, D. F., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1992). Insights between environmental scanning

activities and Porter’s generic strategies: An empirical analysis. Journal of

Management, 18(4), 791-803.

17. Kuijk, A. (2018). Porter’s Generic Strategies. Retrieved from ToolsHero:

https://www.toolshero.com/strategy/porters-generic-strategies/

18. Kristin. (2016, October 2). IKEA – A success of Porter’s generic strategies. Retrieved

from https://blogs.ubc.ca/junlingliu/2016/10/02/ikea-a-success-of-porters-generic-

strategies-combination/

19. Muasa, S. M. (2014). Cost Leadership Strategy and Sustainable Advantage of Naivas

Supermarket Limited in Kenya. Unpublished Thesis. University of Nairobi. Retrieved

from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11295/76547/Muasa

_Cost%20leadership%20strategy%20and%20sustainable%20competitive.pdf?sequen

ce=3&isAllowed=y

20. Thompson, A. (2017, January 31). Starbucks Coffee’s Generic and Intensive Growth

Strategies. Retrieved from http://panmore.com/starbucks-coffee-generic-strategy-

intensive-growth-strategies

21. Young, J. (2017, February 21). Unilever’s Generic Strategy and Intensive Growth

Strategies. Retrieved from http://panmore.com/unilever-generic-strategy-intensive-

growth-strategies

22. Bhasin, Hitesh. (2018, February 16). Marketing Strategy of American Express.

Retrieved from https://www.marketing91.com/marketing-strategy-american-express/

23. Bhasin, Hitesh. (2018, March 3). Marketing Strategy of Mercedes-Benz. Retrieved

from https://www.marketing91.com/marketing-strategy-mercedes-benz/

24. Jagtiari, V. (2016, April 25). Chipotle – An analysis of the Growth and Future of Fast-

Casual Dining Restaurant. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/AmandaCarullo/

chipotlean-analysis-of-the-growth-and-future-of-the-fastcasual-dining-restaurant
25. Mekic, Ensar & Mekic, Enima. (2014, April). Supports and Critiques on Porter’s

Competitive Strategy and Competitive Advantage. Conference Paper. International

Conference on Economic and Social Studies. International BURCH University.

Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266967720_Supports_and

_Critiques_on_Porter's_Competitive_Strategy_and_Competitive_Advantage

26. Wright, P. (1987). A Refinement of Porter's Strategies. Strategic Management Journal,

Vol. 8(No. 1), pp. 93-101.

27. Datta, Y. (2009). A Critique of Porter's Cost Leadership and Differentiation

Strategies. Cincinnati, Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program

28. John Dawes, B. S. (1996). Independent Empirical Support for Porter’s Generic

Marketing Strategies? A Re-analysis using correspondence analysis.. Journal of

Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science. Volume 1, pp. 36-53.