Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the...
-
Upload
sebastian-guth -
Category
Documents
-
view
9 -
download
1
Transcript of Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the...
![Page 1: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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
![Page 2: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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.
![Page 4: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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).
![Page 14: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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).
![Page 15: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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.).
![Page 17: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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.
![Page 19: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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;
![Page 22: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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?
![Page 23: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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.
![Page 27: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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
![Page 28: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
![Page 29: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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
![Page 30: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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).
![Page 31: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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
![Page 32: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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.
![Page 33: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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.
![Page 34: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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”.
![Page 35: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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).
![Page 37: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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
![Page 38: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
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
![Page 39: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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
![Page 40: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
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
![Page 41: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
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).
![Page 42: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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
![Page 43: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
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.
![Page 44: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
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 … … … … …
![Page 45: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
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.
![Page 46: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
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
![Page 47: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
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
![Page 48: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
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
![Page 49: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
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.
![Page 50: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
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.
![Page 51: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
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.
![Page 52: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
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
![Page 53: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
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.
![Page 54: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
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,
![Page 55: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
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.
![Page 56: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
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.
![Page 57: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
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
![Page 58: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
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.
![Page 59: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
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
![Page 60: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
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
![Page 61: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
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
![Page 62: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
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
![Page 63: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
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
![Page 64: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
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
![Page 65: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
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
![Page 66: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
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
![Page 67: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
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).
![Page 68: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
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
![Page 69: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
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
![Page 70: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
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
![Page 71: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
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
![Page 72: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
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.
![Page 73: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
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.
![Page 74: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
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.
![Page 75: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
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
![Page 76: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
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
![Page 77: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
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
![Page 78: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
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
![Page 79: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
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
![Page 80: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
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).
![Page 81: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
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
![Page 82: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
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.
![Page 83: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
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.
![Page 84: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
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
![Page 85: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
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
![Page 86: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
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).
![Page 87: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
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
![Page 88: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
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
![Page 89: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
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.
![Page 90: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
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.
![Page 91: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
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).
![Page 92: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
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
![Page 93: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
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.
![Page 94: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
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.
![Page 95: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
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
![Page 96: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
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
![Page 97: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
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.
![Page 98: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
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
![Page 99: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
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
![Page 100: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
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,
![Page 101: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
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
![Page 102: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
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.
![Page 103: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
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.
![Page 104: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
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?
![Page 105: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
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
![Page 106: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
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.
![Page 107: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
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.
![Page 108: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
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
![Page 109: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
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.
![Page 110: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
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.
![Page 111: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
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.
![Page 112: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
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.
![Page 113: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
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/
![Page 114: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
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
![Page 115: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
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
![Page 116: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
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.
![Page 117: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
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
![Page 118: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
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,
![Page 119: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
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
![Page 120: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
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
![Page 121: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
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
![Page 122: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
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
![Page 123: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
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/
![Page 124: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
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.
![Page 125: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
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
![Page 126: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
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
![Page 127: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
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
![Page 128: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/128.jpg)
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
![Page 129: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/129.jpg)
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
![Page 130: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/130.jpg)
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
![Page 131: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/131.jpg)
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
![Page 132: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/132.jpg)
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,
![Page 133: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/133.jpg)
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
![Page 134: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/134.jpg)
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
![Page 135: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/135.jpg)
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
![Page 136: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/136.jpg)
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
![Page 137: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/137.jpg)
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
![Page 138: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/138.jpg)
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
![Page 139: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/139.jpg)
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
![Page 140: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/140.jpg)
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
![Page 141: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/141.jpg)
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
![Page 142: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/142.jpg)
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
![Page 143: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/143.jpg)
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
![Page 144: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/144.jpg)
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,
![Page 145: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/145.jpg)
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
![Page 146: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/146.jpg)
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"
![Page 147: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/147.jpg)
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
![Page 148: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/148.jpg)
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
![Page 149: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/149.jpg)
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
![Page 150: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/150.jpg)
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
![Page 151: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/151.jpg)
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
![Page 152: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/152.jpg)
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
![Page 153: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/153.jpg)
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
![Page 154: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/154.jpg)
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
![Page 155: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/155.jpg)
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
![Page 156: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/156.jpg)
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
![Page 157: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/157.jpg)
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
![Page 158: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/158.jpg)
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
![Page 159: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/159.jpg)
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
![Page 160: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/160.jpg)
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
![Page 161: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/161.jpg)
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
![Page 162: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/162.jpg)
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
![Page 163: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/163.jpg)
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
![Page 164: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/164.jpg)
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
![Page 165: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/165.jpg)
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
![Page 166: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/166.jpg)
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
![Page 167: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/167.jpg)
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
![Page 168: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/168.jpg)
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
![Page 169: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/169.jpg)
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
![Page 170: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/170.jpg)
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
![Page 171: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/171.jpg)
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
![Page 172: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/172.jpg)
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
![Page 173: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/173.jpg)
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
![Page 174: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/174.jpg)
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
![Page 175: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/175.jpg)
Content Grid: Summary of Qualitative Results
![Page 176: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/176.jpg)
Content Grid: Summary of Qualitative Results
![Page 177: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/177.jpg)
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.
![Page 178: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/178.jpg)
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.
![Page 179: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/179.jpg)
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
![Page 180: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/180.jpg)
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?
![Page 181: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/181.jpg)
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.
![Page 182: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/182.jpg)
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?
![Page 183: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/183.jpg)
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.
![Page 184: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/184.jpg)
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.
![Page 185: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/185.jpg)
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
![Page 186: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/186.jpg)
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?
![Page 187: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/187.jpg)
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".
![Page 188: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/188.jpg)
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?
![Page 189: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/189.jpg)
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.
![Page 190: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/190.jpg)
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.
![Page 191: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/191.jpg)
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.
![Page 192: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/192.jpg)
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?
![Page 193: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/193.jpg)
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
![Page 194: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/194.jpg)
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,
![Page 195: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/195.jpg)
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
![Page 196: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/196.jpg)
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
![Page 197: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/197.jpg)
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
![Page 198: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/198.jpg)
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
![Page 199: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/199.jpg)
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
![Page 200: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/200.jpg)
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
![Page 201: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/201.jpg)
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
![Page 202: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/202.jpg)
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.
![Page 203: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/203.jpg)
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?
![Page 204: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/204.jpg)
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
![Page 205: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/205.jpg)
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
![Page 206: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/206.jpg)
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.
![Page 207: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/207.jpg)
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
![Page 208: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/208.jpg)
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
![Page 209: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/209.jpg)
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.
![Page 210: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/210.jpg)
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.
![Page 211: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/211.jpg)
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?
![Page 212: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/212.jpg)
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.
![Page 213: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/213.jpg)
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.
![Page 214: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/214.jpg)
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
![Page 215: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/215.jpg)
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
![Page 216: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/216.jpg)
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-
![Page 217: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/217.jpg)
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
![Page 218: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/218.jpg)
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.
![Page 219: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/219.jpg)
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
![Page 220: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/220.jpg)
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.
![Page 221: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/221.jpg)
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
![Page 222: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/222.jpg)
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
![Page 223: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/223.jpg)
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
![Page 224: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/224.jpg)
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?
![Page 225: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/225.jpg)
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
![Page 226: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/226.jpg)
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.
![Page 227: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/227.jpg)
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.
![Page 228: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/228.jpg)
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,
![Page 229: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/229.jpg)
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?
![Page 230: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/230.jpg)
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
![Page 231: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/231.jpg)
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
![Page 232: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/232.jpg)
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
![Page 233: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/233.jpg)
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
![Page 234: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/234.jpg)
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
![Page 235: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/235.jpg)
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
![Page 236: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/236.jpg)
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?
![Page 237: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/237.jpg)
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
![Page 238: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/238.jpg)
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.
![Page 239: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/239.jpg)
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.
![Page 240: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/240.jpg)
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.
![Page 241: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/241.jpg)
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
![Page 242: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/242.jpg)
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
![Page 243: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/243.jpg)
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.
![Page 244: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/244.jpg)
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-
![Page 245: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/245.jpg)
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
![Page 246: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/246.jpg)
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.
![Page 247: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/247.jpg)
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.
![Page 248: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/248.jpg)
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
![Page 249: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/249.jpg)
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.
![Page 250: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/250.jpg)
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.
![Page 251: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/251.jpg)
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,
![Page 252: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/252.jpg)
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.
![Page 253: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/253.jpg)
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
![Page 254: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/254.jpg)
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)
![Page 255: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/255.jpg)
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
![Page 256: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/256.jpg)
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
![Page 257: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/257.jpg)
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
![Page 258: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/258.jpg)
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
![Page 259: Master Thesis Sebastian Guth - Developing a competitor analysis canvas model for start-ups in the pre-seed phase](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032122/55d3a087bb61ebf3098b45ac/html5/thumbnails/259.jpg)
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?