A man presented a book to the King of Yan, saying: "If Your Majesty cannot rely on your own strength, you should not disdain a humble reputation and serve a powerful state. Serving a powerful state can bring stability and longevity to the kingdom—this is a strategy worthy of ten thousand generations. But if serving the powerful cannot be a plan for all ages, then would it not be better to unite with the weak states? How, then, should this be approached?"
💡 商战启示录
This strategy reveals the strategic choices available to an enterprise when it is in a position of weakness: either attach itself to a giant (as Xiaomi relied on Qualcomm's supply chain in its early days), or ally with other weak players to form a coalition (as the Android camp did against Apple). The key lies in assessing whether such attachment is sustainable. If the giant continues to squeeze your living space (as some platforms impose exorbitant commissions), then attachment is no long-term solution, and one should pivot toward forming an ecosystem alliance with other small and medium enterprises to collectively withstand risks. In modern commercial warfare, small enterprises often face a binary choice: become a vassal of a giant, or forge strategic alliances with peers. The choice confronting the King of Yan is precisely the trade-off today's entrepreneurs face between "siding with a power" and "forming alliances." Successful alliances, such as the Wintel coalition, stand in contrast to failed attachments, like the numerous startups that were acquired and subsequently marginalized. The essence of the strategy lies in dynamic assessment, avoiding over-reliance on any single path, and ensuring a viable retreat under any configuration of circumstances.