profile-competitor

name	profile-competitor
description	Build a comprehensive competitor profile using Porter's four-component framework. Use when asked to analyze a competitor, predict competitor moves, or assess competitive threats.

Profile Competitor

Build a diagnostic profile of a named competitor using Porter's four-component competitor analysis framework, culminating in a Competitor Response Profile that predicts the competitor's likely behavior.

Input

• Competitor name (required): the firm or business unit to analyze
• Industry context (required): the industry and your firm's position in it

Output

A structured profile containing findings for all four diagnostic components, a blind-spot assessment, and a Competitor Response Profile answering the four predictive questions.

Procedure

Work through each diagnostic component in order. For each, gather the data points below using public filings, trade press, management statements, job postings, and other available signals.

Component 1: Future Goals

Diagnose goals at corporate, business-unit, and functional levels. Goals drive what the competitor will do; misreading them is the most common analytical failure.

1. What are its stated and unstated financial goals? How does it trade off long-run vs. short-run performance, profits vs. revenue growth, growth vs. dividends?
2. What is its attitude toward risk?
3. Does it hold economic or noneconomic organizational values (e.g., wanting to be the technology leader, the industry statesman, the maverick)?
4. What is its organizational structure? How does it allocate responsibility and power for resource allocation, pricing, and product changes?
5. What control and incentive systems are in place? How are executives and the sales force compensated? Do managers hold stock? Is there deferred compensation? What performance measures are tracked regularly?
6. What accounting systems and conventions are in place (inventory valuation, cost allocation, inflation accounting)? These shape how it perceives its own costs and sets prices.
7. What are the backgrounds and experiences of its leadership, especially the CEO? What kinds of younger managers are being rewarded? Where are outsiders hired from? Are retirements imminent?
8. How much unanimity is there among management about future direction? Are there factions favoring different goals?
9. What is the composition of the board? Does it have enough outsiders for effective review? What are their backgrounds and company affiliations?
10. What contractual commitments may limit alternatives (debt covenants, licensing, joint ventures)?
11. Are there regulatory, antitrust, or social constraints on its behavior? Any history of antitrust problems or consent decrees?

If the competitor is a business unit of a diversified company, also ask: What are the parent company's current results, and is the unit performing better or worse than the parent? (A unit performing worse faces intense pressure; a parent with an unbroken growth record will avoid risky moves that jeopardize it.) What role does this unit play in the corporate portfolio -- cash cow, build/growth area, source of stability, harvest/divestment candidate, defensive move protecting other businesses, or high-leverage unit whose performance significantly impacts corporate earnings? Does the unit share R&D, manufacturing, or distribution with sister units (creating overhead pressure or cross-subsidies)? Does top management have emotional attachment to the unit? Can the parent support planned changes across all its business units?

Component 2: Assumptions

Identify what the competitor believes about itself and the industry. Assumptions reveal exploitable blind spots -- areas where the competitor will not see the significance of events, will perceive them incorrectly, or will perceive them only very slowly.

1. What does it believe about its relative position in cost, product quality, technological sophistication, and other key dimensions? Are these beliefs accurate?
2. Does it have strong historical or emotional identification with particular products or functional policies (design approach, quality standards, manufacturing locations, selling approach, distribution arrangements)?
3. Are there cultural, regional, or national differences that affect how it perceives and assigns significance to events?
4. Are there organizational values or canons that have been strongly institutionalized -- including beliefs the founder held?
5. What does it believe about future demand and the significance of industry trends? Will it over- or under-build capacity?
6. What does it believe about the goals and capabilities of its competitors? Will it over- or underestimate any of them?
7. Does it believe in industry "conventional wisdom" or historic rules of thumb that may no longer reflect market conditions (e.g., "everyone must have a full line," "customers trade up," "one needs a large number of dealers")?
8. Are its assumptions subtly influenced by its current strategy and past circumstances, creating filters that prevent objectivity?

Component 3: Current Strategy

Define the competitor's key operating policies in each functional area and how it seeks to interrelate those functions. Strategy may be explicit or implicit -- one always exists in one form or the other. Identify it across: target markets, product line, pricing, distribution, selling approach, manufacturing, R&D, and finance.

Component 4: Capabilities

Appraise strengths and weaknesses by asking these synthesizing questions:

• Core capabilities: What is it best at? Worst at in each functional area? How does it measure up to the tests of strategy consistency?
• Ability to grow: Will capabilities increase or diminish as it grows? What is its capacity in people, skills, and plant? What is its sustainable financial growth (Du Pont analysis)?
• Quick response capability: Uncommitted cash reserves? Reserve borrowing power? Excess plant capacity? On-the-shelf new products? What are fixed vs. variable costs and cost of unused capacity?
• Ability to adapt: Can it adapt to competing on cost, managing complex product lines, adding new products, competing on service, escalating marketing? Can it respond to inflation, technological obsolescence, recession, wage increases, government regulation? Does it share manufacturing facilities or a sales force with other units of its corporate parent?
• Staying power: Can it sustain a protracted battle that puts pressure on earnings or cash flow? Assess: cash reserves, unanimity among management, long time horizon in financial goals, lack of stock market pressure. Does it face exit barriers?

Competitor Response Profile

After completing all four components, answer these four questions -- this is the deliverable:

1. Is the competitor satisfied with its current position? (Compare its goals with its current performance.)
2. What likely moves or strategy shifts will the competitor make? (Driven by goals + assumptions + capabilities.)
3. Where is the competitor vulnerable? (Where blind spots, capability gaps, or goal conflicts create openings.)
4. What will provoke the greatest and most effective retaliation by the competitor? (What moves threaten its core goals or assumptions most directly?)

Blind Spot Detection

Cross-reference findings from Component 2 (Assumptions) against Component 4 (Capabilities) and external reality. Flag every assumption that is inaccurate or outdated. These are the competitor's blind spots -- moves that exploit them carry a lower probability of immediate retaliation, and retaliation, once it comes, is less effective.

Data Sources Porter Recommends

• Management backgrounds, experience, and hiring patterns of the competitor's leadership
• Historical pattern of reactions to competitive moves and industry events
• Compensation and incentive structures (executive comp, sales force comp, stock ownership, deferred compensation)
• Accounting conventions and inventory valuation methods
• Management consulting firms, advertising agencies, investment banks, and other advisors used by the competitor -- their conceptual approaches and what they have done for other clients provide clues about future strategic changes
• Board composition and outside director affiliations
• Public statements, earnings calls, trade press, patent filings, job postings

Heuristics

• A competitor's organizational structure reveals what it considers strategically important. If sales reports to a senior VP and manufacturing reports two levels down, sales dominates strategic thinking.
• A history of antitrust problems or consent decrees may cause a competitor to forgo reacting to moves by smaller rivals, even when it otherwise would. A firm capturing small share from an industry leader can enjoy protection from such constraints.
• When management factions disagree on direction, sudden strategy shifts become more likely as power changes hands. Unanimity produces staying power but also stubbornness.
• Conventional wisdom that is no longer true is the richest source of blind spots. Strategies built around invalidating conventional wisdom yield advantages in timeliness and effectiveness of retaliation response.
• Parent company portfolio mandates often override business-unit-level rationality. A unit classified as a "cash cow" will underinvest even when the competitive situation demands investment. Attacking a unit the parent is trying to "build" is potentially explosive.

Failure Modes

1. Projecting your own goals onto the competitor. Assuming they want what you want instead of diagnosing their actual goals, values, and incentive systems.
2. Treating all competitors as monolithic. Ignoring factions, parent company mandates, and board dynamics.
3. Skipping assumptions analysis. The blind-spot detection that flows from assumption analysis is the highest-value output of the entire framework. Capabilities tell you what a competitor can do; assumptions tell you what it will do.
4. Static analysis. Capabilities change as a competitor grows or matures; reassess whether they increase or diminish over time.
5. Ignoring the parent company. For business units of diversified firms, the parent's portfolio role, capital allocation, and emotional attachments may matter more than the unit's own management intentions.
6. Confusing stated strategy with actual strategy. Always check whether operating policies match public statements.

Output Template

# Competitor Profile: [Name]
## Industry Context
[1-2 sentences]

## 1. Future Goals
[Findings organized by the 11 sub-questions + parent company analysis if applicable]

## 2. Assumptions
[Findings organized by the 8 sub-questions]
### Blind Spots Identified
- [Each inaccurate or outdated assumption, with evidence of divergence from reality]

## 3. Current Strategy
[Key operating policies by functional area and how they interrelate]

## 4. Capabilities
[Core | Growth | Quick Response | Adaptability | Staying Power]

## Competitor Response Profile
1. **Satisfied with current position?** [Yes/No + evidence]
2. **Likely moves:** [Predicted strategy shifts with reasoning]
3. **Vulnerabilities:** [Specific openings tied to blind spots or capability gaps]
4. **Retaliation triggers:** [Moves that would provoke the strongest response]

## Strategic Implications for Our Firm
[What this profile means for our competitive moves]

Worked Example (Abbreviated)

Competitor: Miller Brewing (post-Philip Morris acquisition) Industry: U.S. beer industry, 1970s

Goals: Parent Philip Morris sought aggressive market share growth, applying its consumer packaged goods playbook. Willing to sustain losses to build position -- time horizon and cash reserves far exceeded traditional family-owned breweries.

Assumptions: Miller, under Philip Morris, was NOT bound by the beer industry's conventional wisdom. Traditional breweries believed in brand loyalty, slow innovation, and premium pricing hierarchies. Miller questioned all three assumptions.

Current strategy: Introduced Lite Beer, a 7-ounce bottle, and domestically brewed Lowenbrau at a 25% price premium over Michelob -- each move violated industry conventional wisdom.

Capabilities: Philip Morris brought massive financial resources, consumer marketing expertise, and willingness to sustain a protracted battle. Staying power was essentially unlimited relative to family-owned competitors.

Response Profile:

1. Not satisfied -- parent demanded rapid share growth, unit was underperforming parent's targets.
2. Likely moves: continued unconventional product introductions exploiting blind spots of traditional competitors.
3. Vulnerabilities: potential overextension if too many new products launched simultaneously; reliance on parent's continued patience and capital allocation.
4. Retaliation triggers: direct attacks on Miller's new premium positioning would threaten the core Philip Morris thesis for the acquisition.

What happened: According to Porter, most breweries laughed at Miller's moves. They then grudgingly followed as Miller made major gains in market share -- a textbook case of blind spots created by adherence to industry conventional wisdom.