Rectification of names for the Glanz.docVIP

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13 Rectification of names for the Glanz Glanz recently read several articles on the articles that not only the writing is fluent, rhetorical, and the theme is very clear - Glanz low-cost competitive strategy can not be called a fundamental strategy, competitive advantage can not be sustained Glanz . Glanz mentioned previously, many of its articles were full of praise, which is a few articles but can not drift along and speak up, we can see how the author’s revolutionary spirit is admirable. However, after reading the article, I still do not feel that Glanz strategically useless, but it is also remarkable in some places. Glanz as the ‘fans’, I feel a need to rectify the name Glanz, of course, need to declare in advance that I do not anything to do with the management Glanz, this is purely wishful thinking. Out of several articles that the author’s admiration and expressions to facilitate consideration, I will take ‘predecessors’ to call them bar. From the article point of view, several senior right Glanz criticism can mainly be summarized as the following points: 1. Glanz’s victory is a typical ‘only tactical not strategic’ victory. Glanz So far, access is just a comparative advantage, regardless of its cost advantage in production to obtain a victory, or whether it was in the market leader in the victory, are competitors for the purposes of comparison, this All is not a strategy that is the core competitiveness of victory. Glanz with Wal-Mart is different from Wal-Mart’s ‘low cost’ is just a result or appearance, which is backed by excellent logistics capabilities and logistics management capacity to attract customer loyalty, which is its inherent ability to -- core competitiveness. Wal-Mart has been able to continue to grow and become the boss 500, the fundamental reason is that all its competitive strategy, are based on the established core competitiveness, and this is precisely the lack Glanz. 2. The core competence is the collective