Michael Porter was the first economist to become a business guru. He used economic concepts to illustrate issues of corporate strategy. One of his most cited conclusions was the need to avoid being “stuck in the middle”. Companies, he said, must either gain a cost advantage or emphasise product differentiation. It was fatal to fall between the two stools of cost leadership and superior quality.
迈克尔•波特(Michael Porter)是第一位成为商业大师的经济学家。他用经济概念来阐明企业战略课题。他最常被引用的一个结论是，企业需要避免“夹在中间”。波特称，企业必须要么掌握成本优势，要么着重产品差异化。介于成本领先和卓越质量之间是致命的。
This claim struck me as nonsense. Middle market positions were not only viable but the preferred stance of many successful companies. In debate with Prof Porter, the eponymous chairman[WHO? AND WHEN?] of Sainsbury’s supermarket defiantly displayed a model truck carrying the slogan “Good food costs less at Sainsbury’s” — a celebration of being stuck in the middle. And, when Tesco overtook Sainsbury’s in the UK market, it was not by following Prof Porter’s advice but by beating Sainsbury’s at its own game.
我曾经认为这个主张是胡扯。居中的市场位置不仅能够生存，还是许多成功企业偏爱的定位。在和波特教授辩论时，森宝利超市(Sainsbury’s)的董事长森宝利曾以挑战的姿态展示了一辆模型卡车，上面印着“Good food costs less at Sainsbury’s”（森宝利食品物美价更廉）的标语——为“夹在中间”的状态喝彩。而乐购(Tesco)在英国市场上取代森宝利的地位，靠的也不是波特教授的建议，而是采取了和森宝利一样的策略，并且做得更加出色。
Yet if we look at the UK supermarket sector today, the consensus view is that Prof Porter was right after all. The most successful competitors are Waitrose, firmly at the top of the market, and German discounters Aldi and Lidl, which have placed themselves at the bottom. Tesco, the market leader, along with traditional rivals Asda and Morrisons are under pressure, apparently stuck in the middle. The transformation of fortunes is not confined to the food sector; a remarkable phenomenon in UK high street retailing is the rise of Primark, which sells clothes for less than a hotel charges to launder them. And the most valuable company in the world, Apple, charges premium prices for premium products.
然而，如果我们看一看今天的英国超市业，共识观点是波特教授终究还是正确的。最成功的竞争者是牢牢占据市场顶端的Waitrose，以及将自己定位于市场底端的德国折扣超市Aldi和Lidl。身为英国超市业巨擘的乐购、及其传统竞争对手阿斯达(Asda)和Morrisons都承受着压力，显然被夹在中间。发生境遇转变的不仅是食品业；Primark的崛起在英国商业街零售业中创造了一个不同寻常的奇迹，这家店以低于酒店洗衣费的价格售卖服装。世界上市值最高的公司苹果(Apple)为其高端产品设定了高昂价格。
Like many business gurus, Prof Porter wriggled out of the challenge of “good food costs less” by adopting a slippery definition of his proposition. “Don’t be stuck in the middle” can be interpreted as meaning that unless you have some cost advantage or product differentiation, you are unlikely to be very successful. That is a proposition so banal as to be almost tautological. A different proposition altogether says that you must emphasise either cost advantage or product differentiation, and if you aim at both you will not be successful. This may be either true or false. It is disingenuous to use the self-evident truth of the first proposition as support for the empirical validity of the second. And that, I argued back in the 1990s, was exactly what Prof Porter was doing.
像许多商业大师那样，波特教授用一种滑头的方式来界定自己的主张，以避开森宝利的挑战。“不要夹在中间”可被解释为，除非你有一定的价格优势或者产品差异性，否则你不太可能非常成功。这种阐释太过泛泛，几乎只是在重复。另一种不同的阐释是你必须要么注重成本优势，要么注重产品差异化，把二者都列为目标是无法成功的。这或许对，或许不对。如果用不言而明的第一种阐释来支持第二种阐释的经验有效性，就有点不实在了。而我在上世纪90年代曾提出，那正是波特教授所做的。
Business conferences typically proceed by competitive anecdote. But these debates can never be resolved by repeating slogans and telling stories; you can usually find a narrative to support all but the most outlandish assertions. The only way to find answers is to use more comprehensive data sets, and the combination of market research and company financial statements made such analysis possible here.
商务会议往往充斥着竞争的轶闻。但只靠重复标语或者讲故事永远无法解决这些论争；除了最古怪的断言外，你总能找到一种叙述来支持任何断言。找到答案的唯一方法是使用更全面的数据集，就此而言，综合市场研究和公司财务报表使此类分析成为可能。
My empirical research drew[WHICH RESEARCH?] on a database that enabled us to relate perceived market position to return on capital employed. We discovered, to no one’s surprise, that high cost with low quality was not often a successful strategy. And low cost with high quality yielded the highest profits. Of course it did. But were you better off with low cost[AND?,], low quality, or high cost and high quality, or being stuck in the middle with medium quality and medium cost? All produced similar returns.
我的实证研究使用了一个数据库，通过这个数据库，我们能分析市场地位和已动用资本回报率的相关性。不出所料，我们发现高成本低质量往往不是一种成功的战略。而低成本高质量能够带来最高的盈利，当然会这样。但低成本低质量、高成本高质量、以及以中等成本和中等质量夹在中间，哪一种状况最有利？三种情况得到的回报率是相似的。
A product offering is very rarely a sustainable source of competitive advantage because it can readily be imitated. What really matters is enjoying a competitive advantage in the market position you choose — and that typically involves matching your market position to the distinctive underlying resources and capabilities of your business. Waitrose, Aldi and Lidl are not the beneficiaries, and Tesco and Sainsbury’s not the victims, of any verity of business strategy other than the eternal one; the best strategy is to be good at whatever it is you do.
产品范围很少能带来可持续的竞争优势，因为产品很容易被模仿。真正重要的是在你选择的市场地位上取得竞争优势，一般而言这就需要使企业的市场地位切合其根本层面的独特资源和能力。除了一条永恒的商业战略真理之外，Waitrose、Aldi和Lidl并非其他任何商业战略真理的受益者，乐购和森宝利也并非受害者。这条真理就是：最好的战略是擅长你做的事情，无论你做什么。