Conventional wisdom holds that newcomers and outsiders are better than incumbents at disrupting mature industries, because they’re less hindered by conventions, vested interests, and other sources of inertia. A great deal of empirical evidence, however, suggests that in reality outsiders often struggle to effect change. We’re interested in understanding why they struggle.
Research: Which Firms Are Allowed to Be Disruptors?
Despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, new entrants in an industry tend to have trouble changing how the industry works. In this study of the Champagne industry, the researchers looked at whether that pattern held — and why. They found that vineyard owners strongly resisted structural changes that new Champagne houses (which create and distribute the wine) attempted to introduce. However, the vineyards were much more open to structural change from longstanding Champagne houses — companies that been their partners for a long time. These findings suggest that newcomers need to survey the whole ecosystem they’re working within, and anticipate resistance from various players. On the other hand, incumbents may find that they have tacit permission to introduce more change than they realize.