Over the last several decades, key innovations have spurred the creation of modern-day industries and social tendencies. For companies to situate themselves in high-growth markets, they must implement successful imitation strategies. Companies that pioneer new products and operational strategies set trends for others to follow. During the pandemic, many legacy clothing retailers like J. Crew and Nieman Marcus struggled financially because they relied heavily on brick-and-mortar stores, whereas fast fashion companies thrived because they generated revenue from e-commerce with less inventory to sell (Monroe). As a result, traditional clothing retailers adopted strategies from fast fashion companies such as outsourcing manufacturing to lowering prices and releasing products more frequently. This allows large fashion companies to become more agile and competitive with small fast fashion firms. Additionally, companies should not only imitate strategies but create collectivist work environments for employees to share and adopt each other’s ideas. Synchrony in groups enhances cooperation and cohesion (Gelfand et al.). This means that companies should promote teamwork amongst employees to create productive group thinking. Teams offer greater productivity and a culmination of ideas that can be tested. These groups serve the purpose to unite behind goals and execute roles more efficiently. The combination of ideas and adoption of successful actions is present on a macroeconomic level with multiple competitors in a product market and in every company’s workplace. However, since individualism can help businesses innovate, the question arises, how can collectivism and imitation promote cooperative environments as well as innovation and monetary growth in companies? To answer this question, we must approach it by utilizing economic, social, political and legal lenses. This paper identifies how imitation allows companies to maximize revenue and innovate, as well as how groups are more productive than individuals.
Economic Lens
For companies to succeed in their respective markets they must provide a unique value proposition to their customers. In fact, innovation in companies requires some level of imitation at an operational or product level. Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman are professors at the Schools of Law at UCLA and NYU, respectively. They have published peer-reviewed research papers on the “Knockoff Economy” and how copycat companies operate in markets. They believe that at the center of innovation is imitation. Most innovation that takes place is not inventing the wheel, it is the gradual tweaking, tuning, and optimizing of common products. Both professors point to great innovators such as Edison and Shakespeare who created their best ideas based on previous works of other innovators (Raustiala and Sprigman). Incremental innovation allows for the constant development of better products and continuous competition and market growth. While imitation should inherently not be rewarded, inhibiting it could lead to less opportunity for innovation. According to business leader and author Peter Drucker, imitation is crucial to competition in business markets. His ideologies are divided between two methods: a “me-too” product where a copy of the original is developed or creative imitation where the original is improved upon. A prime example of successful creative imitation is Walmart, which achieved growth by observing competing stores and applying and improving upon their methods where customer value could be added (Ink). In a stagnant market, creative imitation is more successful because it has differentiated markets. On the other hand, in markets that have experienced significant growth, a “me-too” product can capture a greater market share as the current market leader’s perception of the market has changed. Ultimately, the most successful companies practice creative imitation because they are more sustainable in the long run because of differentiated products.
Works Cited
Alikhani, Amir. “Is American Individualism Hurting Our Teams at Work?” Medium, 1 July 2019, medium.com/hackernoon/is-american-individualism-hurting-our-teams-at-work-cdad9c591577.
Gelfand, Michele J., et al. “The Cultural Evolutionary Trade-off of Ritualistic Synchrony.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 375, no. 1805, June 2020, p. 20190432, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0432.
Ink, Ed’s. “Driving Business Growth through the Practice of Creative Imitation: Part II.” Management Matters Network, 3 Dec. 2018, www.managementmattersnetwork.com/innovation-entrepreneurship/articles/driving-business-growth-through-the-practice-of.
Ivaldi, Marc, et al. The Economics of Tacit Collusion. 2003, ec.europa.eu/competition-policy/system/files/2021-04/the_economics_of_tacit_collusion_2003.pdf.
Lieber, Chavie. “Fashion’s Copycat Problem: Why Brands like Zara Get Away with Rip-Offs.” Vox, Vox, 27 Apr. 2018, www.vox.com/2018/4/27/17281022/fashion-brands-knockoffs-copyright-stolen-designs-old-navy-zara-h-and-m.
Lieberman, Marvin B., and Shigeru Asaba. “Why Do Firms Imitate Each Other?” Academy of Management Review, vol. 31, no. 2, Apr. 2006, pp. 366–85, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208686.
MIT Technology Review. “Social Physics.” MIT Technology Review, 2014, www.technologyreview.com/2014/03/04/173783/social-physics/.
Monroe, Rachel. “Ultra-Fast Fashion Is Eating the World.” The Atlantic, 6 Feb. 2021, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/03/ultra-fast-fashion-is-eating-the-world/617794/.
Peterson, Barbara S. “Airline Collusion: It’s Nothing New and Will Be Difficult to Prove, Analysts Say.” The Guardian, 3 July 2015, www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/03/us-airline-collusion-investigation-prices-seat-capacity.
Picincu, Andra. “Collectivism vs. Individualism in the Workplace.” Bizfluent, 2018, bizfluent.com/info-8192993-collectivism-vs-individualism-workplace.html.
Raustiala, Kal, and Christopher Sprigman. “The Copycat Economy.” The Pennsylvania Gazette, 1 Mar. 2013, thepenngazette.com/the-copycat-economy/.
Waldman, Susan. “Copying Your Competition Is a Popular Brand Strategy — but It Can Backfire.” Washington Post, 19 Apr. 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/copying-your-competition-is-a-popular-brand-strategy–but-it-can-backfire/2012/04/19/gIQAEjnXTT_story.html.