The concept followed by Flower Country USA at the time was a great concept. The distribution needs followed a supply chain model that would prove effective. Distinguishing a hub for the flowers to pass through, while working with suppliers and shippers to develop lower cost – high quality flowers, helped the company’s concept and model grow to substantial revenue potential. The in-store experience created a perceived value to its customers; embedding to them that not only is this company a great place to buy flowers, but it’s also an enjoyable shopping experience that will keep shoppers coming back time after time. The perceived value and supply chain are integral parts to this business model that helped it succeed. It was clearly thought out, and the reason I believe it to be a great business model.
Playing to Win Assignment #1
1) I believe there are many broad conditions in Figure 1.1 in Playing to Win that are useful for firms to be successful and to formulate and execute a strategy framework. Start-up and small business may already know their winning aspirations and may need to focus more on the, where do they play and how do they win questions. A pizzeria shop start-up already knows their winning aspirations; make pizzas that can be picked up or delivered and make a profit. But many where-do-they-play questions must follow. Do I produce quantity over quantity as the likes of Little Caesars, or do I focus on making the best dough and sauce and use the freshest ingredients to make a one-of-a-kind pizza? How will they win must fit with how they play. The low-cost pizza shop may need to open their shop in a lower-income neighborhood where customers are more willing to perceive the low cost shop as valuable. Placing a low cost shop in an upscale neighborhood and selling pizza’s 30% cheaper than any other shop around may sound like a good plan, but the perceived value of those higher scale customers may not want to buy the cheaper pizza since they feel the quality isn’t there. Vice-versa, a high scaled pizza shop in a lower income neighborhood would obviously not suffice.
These conditions also fit into the internal aspects of large corporations. Many corporations such as P&G doodle in many different markets, brands, business units, products and services. Each unique condition is important to the overall scheme of the corporation. In other words, each product, service, or brand must cascade into the competencies of the corporation. Wal-Mart, a low cost advantage corporation, would most likely not have a winning aspiration to start the world’s next big innovative technology component; because it doesn’t cascade into the where-we-play, and how-we-win concept’s that the Wal-Mart Corporation follows as a whole.
2) Is there a condition that Figure 1.1 in Playing to Win would be not useful? The generic and most obvious answer is no, all conditions known to man can be assessed and evaluated using the 5 questions in Figure 1.1 in Playing to Win. I was trying to think outside the box to see if there is one condition that can’t be used, and thought I found one; until I went through the 5 questions. I thought, what happens when a firm decides to do business in a foreign territory? A winning aspiration for a Deodorant company in America may be to push their deodorant line into Europe, but that winning aspiration may not be so successful seeing that deodorant isn’t widely used in Europe. Right off the bat, this condition would prove the Figure 1.1 in Playing to Win model as unsatisfactory. The next question however, “where will I play?” will ultimately tell the deodorant company that Europe might not be the best place to expand their line, simply by performing a market and demographic target analysis.

References:
Bigler, Bill. (2014). MADM 760 FCUSA Example. Power Point presentation for MADM 760 Fall A course.
Lafley, A.G. & Martin, R.L. (2013). Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works. Figure 1-1, p15