“Where to play is about understanding possible playing fields and choosing between them. It is about selecting regions, customers, products, channels, and stages of production that fit well together – they are mutually reinforcing and that marry well with customer needs” and I would add “… and for which customers have a Willingness to Pay at the price point that will yield profits and not losses. Do you agree with this statement universally? In other words, why couldn’t an established firm test many new and diverse “playing fields” with very small beta tests via prototype new products and services? Or could the established firm do both simultaneously?

W.L. Gore is a great start-up firm story Robert. I wonder how they were able to test and use their products in those very different markets without pulling to many resources (mainly R & D) from its original core-product PTFE in the wire & cable industry? It would also be very interesting to find out how they balanced their current commitments to buyers while they tested new applications of their product in different industries, especially in the beginning phases of the business. Gore serves a very diverse customer base with a lot of different needs. My bet is a big key to their success and strategy choice was finding “where not to play” as you stated earlier in your discussion post.

I agree beta testing on new products provide the established firm “Where to Play” choices on what can be done to expand the enterprise. But in doing so the established firm still stands to assume some “risk” in product(s) being unsuccessful. In my opinion the firm is “wasting money and resources” on unsuccessful beta test because it’s not able to generate profitable revenue from unsuccessful beta test on new products. The only value in unsuccessful beta test is finding out “Where not to play”. Sustainability issues