Nike vs. New Balance: Competitive Strategy Comparison
This paper compares the competitive strategies of Nike and New Balance in the athletic footwear industry using Michael Porter's Five Forces framework. It examines each company's leadership style, manufacturing approach, and market positioning to assess whether an organization can simultaneously pursue both a cost leadership strategy and a differentiation strategy. The analysis finds that Nike's global scale supports a cost leadership approach, while New Balance's niche focus on premium running shoes reflects a differentiation strategy. The paper concludes that these two strategies are mutually exclusive due to their conflicting operational requirements.
- Introduction: Sets up Nike vs. New Balance strategic comparison
- Overview of Nike and New Balance: Leadership styles, manufacturing, and market positions
- Porter's Competitive Forces Model: Explains Porter's five forces framework
- Entry of Competitors and Threat of Substitutes: New entrants, counterfeiting, and buyer-supplier power
- Cost Leadership and Differentiation Strategies: Compares each company's core strategic approach
- Conclusion: Strategies are mutually exclusive; both firms succeed separately
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Applies a well-known strategic framework (Porter's Five Forces) systematically to two real companies, grounding abstract concepts in concrete industry examples.
- Balances company-level description with theoretical analysis, using leadership style and manufacturing choices to explain each firm's broader strategic position.
- Reaches a clear, defensible conclusion — that cost leadership and differentiation strategies are mutually exclusive — supported by the comparative evidence built throughout the paper.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates structured comparative analysis: it introduces each company independently, establishes a shared analytical framework (Porter's Five Forces), then applies that framework to both companies in parallel before synthesizing findings in the conclusion. This technique allows the reader to follow a logical progression from description to analysis to judgment.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with brief company overviews that establish context, then introduces Porter's model as the analytical lens. Subsequent sections apply each of the five competitive forces to Nike and New Balance before shifting focus to cost leadership versus differentiation strategy. The conclusion ties the comparative threads together with a final verdict on whether both strategies can coexist within a single firm.
Introduction
In recent years, competition among organizations that manufacture and sell athletic apparel and athletic shoes has dramatically increased. As a result, competitive strategies have emerged as key factors in determining the long-term success or ultimate failure of such organizations. Two large rival companies that have demonstrated extreme success as well as periods of instability and weak sales are Nike and New Balance. An analysis and comparison of their cost leadership and differentiation strategies provides a clearer picture of what types of competitive strategies are essential for an organization to survive in today's competitive economy.
This paper critically examines the current competitive strategies of Nike and New Balance and analyzes whether an organization can simultaneously follow a cost leadership strategy and a differentiation strategy. It compares the various approaches used at both organizations as implemented by their successive CEOs, in light of the five generic competitive strategies laid out by Michael Porter's Five Forces framework, and offers conclusions based on those comparisons.
Bibliography
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Dusen, S. (2006). The manufacturing process of the footwear industry: Nike vs. the competition. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from
Fiol, R. J., & Luch, C. H. (1992). The influence of individual differences on the perception and categorization of leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 55–66.
Hartog, D., House, R., Hanges, P., Dorfman, P., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, A. (1999). Emics and ethics of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Retrieved November 12, 2006, from
Kimerling, L., & Sood, S. (1998). Nike: Building a global brand. Prentice-Hall.
Kotelnikov, V. (2005). Ten3 business e-coach — new wonder of the world. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from
Jaquier, B. (2003). Cost-leadership strategy. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from
Lord, R., & Maher, K. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Unwin-Everyman.
Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 243–281.
Treacy, M., & Wiersma, F. (1993). Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harvard Business Review, January/February.
Value-based Management.net. (2006). Five competitive forces model. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from
Wolfe, D. (2006). Ageless marketing explained. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from http://www.agelessmarketing.com/explained.php
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.