Imitation

"Copycat" is a term loaded with judgement and businesses tend to look down on any kind of imitation as a weak and limiting strategy. According to received wisdom, an imitator can only be as good as, never better than, the real thing – just as a tribute band is bound to peddle the same old material without the original spark.

Our research attempts to set the record straight on this blinkered and outdated view. Imitation is rife throughout commerce – and has been applied widely – from floor mops through to consumer technology and services. Used deftly, imitation can speed up the pace of change, spark innovation and leverage creativity.

Back in 1966, Harvard economist Professor Theodore Levitt pointed out that we “often mistake innovation for what is really imitation”. More than 40 years later, the equally revered Stanford Professor James G. March observed “imitation probably represents the majority of what is normally called innovation”.

Big companies stay ahead by imitating smaller rivals; startups fast track their experience by looking at competitors’ strategies, sometimes sharing insights and successes. Investors prefer startups that borrow from tried and tested technology and experience rather than putting their cash into riskier novel ventures.

But imitation as a business strategy doesn’t inspire; LinkedIn isn't awash with entrepreneurs declaring themselves to be leading imitators in their field. We idolise what is new and creative without acknowledging the debt owed to existing business. But if leaders can recognise the importance of imitation, they can limit blind spots and get the upper hand.

Imitation is more than simply copying: it might mean emulating products and processes, a firm’s technologies and resources, or even structures and strategies.

Used deftly, imitation can speed up the pace of change, spark innovation and leverage creativity.

Take the fashion chain Zara, which pioneered the extremely successful business model of swiftly copying designer brands for a fraction of the price, and putting clothes on sale at carefully selected locations. Enter challenger Shein, which has stolen the rug from under brands like Zara by producing on-trend clothes available online in under a week at rock bottom prices. This has resulted both in meteoric growth and flurries of copyright complaints. But, in turn, new challengers from China are poised to oust Shein with superior offers. Whatever your view of fast fashion, in this case imitation has created a new market.

There are at least three main misconceptions about imitation that are worth challenging:

1. Imitation is weak

Mightier firms often compete with, and draw upon, the experiences of smaller players. They’re often successful because their superior muscle power allows them to exploit innovations. Take P&G’s "breakthrough" quick mop, the "Swiffer", which was an instant hit when it launched in 1999, and has since generated millions of dollars. A similar product was already sold in Japan, which P&G says it tweaked and improved.

There are other instances of corporate giants introducing products or features bearing a resemblance to competitors’ earlier efforts: at its launch in 2001, the Apple iPod bore a close physical resemblance to the Diamond Rio, the world’s first digital audio player launched four years earlier. More recently, Meta launched Facebook products resembling Snapchat and TikTok features.

In the right climate, imitation benefits even the heftiest players. Imitation can be an effective defensive strategy for a leader, as illustrated by our analogies with competitive sailing in earlier research.

2. There’s only one way to imitate

We tend to assume that imitation is a binary choice, a simple "yes or no" decision, but choosing when, how, what and who to imitate requires skill and judgement. Sometimes it pays to integrate disparate elements to create something new – and then imitation becomes creative. Timing can be critical too: is it better to wait until a new product or service has bedded in or move swiftly? Speed can influence how competitors respond and creates its own market dynamic.

3. Imitation is easy

Business leaders fall into the trap of believing that imitation is a simple cut and paste option, which doesn’t do justice to its complexity. Technologies and services might be opaque or secretive and, as a result, difficult to copy. To imitate well, a company might require superior resources such as supply and distribution networks. Or, it may not be obvious which element gives a brand its competitive edge.

For example, consumers might be choosing a beer for its flavour over its packaging, but if rival firms don’t understand what’s driving consumer preferences, they might imitate the wrong thing. And then there are occasions when it suits businesses to encourage imitation by others – it might boost customer numbers, help establish and legitimise goods or services, or even help firms keep an eye on the opposition and limit risk.

While these assumptions may be true in some instances, they don’t do justice to the more complicated reality. To underestimate the power of imitation is a business opportunity missed and, as a business tool and tactic, imitation risks being overlooked. With a deeper understanding of how imitation helps businesses and sectors evolve – as seen in fast fashion, personal computing and more – it can become a source of inspiration, as well as nudge companies to push boundaries and speed up the pace of innovation.

This article draws on findings from "Reconceptualizing Imitation: Implications for Dynamic Capabilities, Innovation and Competitive Advantage" by Hart E. Posen (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Jan-Michael Ross (911��պ�� London), Brian Wu (University of Michigan), Stefano Benigni (911��պ�� London) and Zhi Cao (University of Nevada, Las Vegas).

Monthly newsletter

Receive the latest insights from 911��պ�� Business School

How to adapt your business in a crisis

In times of crisis, companies tend to respond by downsizing their operations. But instead, they should be taking stock and considering opportunities for innovation, so they can emerge stronger during the recovery.

MSc Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Management

MSc Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Management is designed to equip graduates with the skills to become entrepreneurs or lead innovation from within companies. Apply today!

Download PDF

Academic area

Management & Entrepreneurship

Knowledge Categories

Strategy & Leadership

Off

Why do so many products look the same?

HeeJung Jung — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 09:13:31 +0000

Why do so many products look the same?

HeeJung Jung Thu, 26/08/2021 - 09:13

31 August 2021

Is innovative product design a help or a hindrance? New research from 911��պ�� Business School looks at how a product’s design can help consumers understand its function

Why does an electric car still have a grille if it’s no longer needed to cool a combustion engine? It’s a relic of a previous design and its purpose is more than aesthetic – it signifies the “car-ishness” of the new model. It makes us trust that an electric car is still a car, by referencing the look and feel of the recent past.

But in the realm of design, we also value originality and creativity. As social animals, we like to express ourselves through clothes and consumer products. As a rule, we don’t want to turn up to a party in the same clothes as each other or show off the same tattoo; when too many people possess the same design, or something becomes a fad, its value diminishes.

Design, as years of research have shown, is pivotal for commercial success. The look of a product affects consumers’ choices. Corporate design budgets are vast, and design awards are coveted – design is now a strategic resource.

A product can be at once similar to the past and different from the contemporary – and items which possess both these qualities will be deemed more valuable

And products jostle for our attention: go into any large store or look online, and you’ll see a huge range of functionally similar but aesthetically distinct products on show – from toasters to chairs to garden tools. There is a bewildering choice.

Every designer wants to create a beautiful functional product that consumers and the market will value. But here’s the dilemma: should designers go for creativity and newness, or echo the look and feel of previous models? What exactly do consumers want and how do they value new products? Academics have come up with conflicting theories about the importance of similarity, i.e. how much new designs should resemble what’s gone before and how much new designs should be different from what’s on the street now.

Corporate design: innovation versus familiarity

We want to better understand how consumers are informed by a new product’s design, where is the balance between standing out from the crowd and familiarity? Our research seeks to show how corporate design can aim for the best of both worlds.

To find this out, we looked at what happens in the real world, as well as conducting our own experiments. And after examining thousands of design patents granted in the US over more than three decades (from 1977 to 2009) and carrying out our own experiment, we spotted a couple of interesting trends.

We asked 400 consumers to look at a selection of lawnmowers and assess their designs according to their originality or similarity to the recent past. By observing design similarities and differences – and crucially, how the market reacted to them – we learned consumers like products that stand out from other contemporary product designs on the market and those that resemble models and designs from the recent past.

The more expressive and less functional a product is, the more it’s a disadvantage for it to resemble current designs

From our examination of design patents, we found that the more functional a product the more consumers value similarity to recent products. It gives them a reference, an understanding of what the product is for, and boosts their trust in the design. If there’s no reference to the past look and feel, it might make people uncertain how to use it, and diminish trust in the product.

But the more a product is visible, the more consumers appreciate the fact that it’s not the same as other contemporary designs.

In fact, the more expressive and less functional a product is – fashion for instance – the more it’s a disadvantage for it to resemble current designs. If you walk down the road in a particular dress, then seeing people wearing similar dresses will make you feel less individual and special. In this instance, consumers value what is novel and unique – it allows them to express their individuality.

Anchored differentiation

This provides an important pointer for firms and their designers: it helps them understand better from whom and how it’s good to be different – and thus how to stand out in the market. Similarities are more effective if designs resemble those from the recent past rather than the present. And differences are more effective if designs stand out from other contemporary products. It doesn’t pay to resemble contemporary designs and follow a fad – it signals a lack of originality.

A product can be at once similar to the past and different from the contemporary – and items which possess both these qualities will be deemed more valuable. In our research, we call this “anchored differentiation”.

Our work shows designs that meet these criteria are about 10 per cent more valuable in terms of market valuation than those that don’t. New designs must be carefully curated – and customer research might mislead designers in understanding what exactly the consumer wants. It doesn’t necessarily pay to fall in line with the latest trend.

This article draws on findings from “Anchored Differentiation: The Role of Temporal Distance in the Comparison and Evaluation of New Product Designs” by Tian H. Chan (Emory University), Yonghoon G. Lee (Hong Kong University of Science & Technology) and HeeJung Jung (911��պ�� London).

Academic area

Management & Entrepreneurship

Knowledge Categories

Entrepreneurship & Innovation