What kind of Warrior are you?

Plowed under plenty of Mom & Pop operations, and got a Presidential award from Bush Pere. Old Sam snooped around in his competitor's stores in disguise. He was fortunate to have escaped retribution. You're wrong, Alm.

- Craig

Craig and S. Shady,

It's interesting (to S. Shady) that you mention Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and Sam Walton....

I don't know too much about Larry Ellison, but what I've read is that nowadays, he's trying to model himself on Gates (even though Gates is his arch-competitor). Essentially, Larry Ellison is trying (with Oracle) to gain an effective monopoly in databases, the way Microsoft has an effective monopoly in operating systems. His reasoning is because database software is important to much of the power of the internet.... If he can corner the market in databases, he feels he can make incredible profits.

However, I still think that Gates's history is not really reproducible, because there's a lot of luck there, particularly when you look at the deal he did with IBM. It's that deal which gave him the effective monopoly in operating systems, and he managed to leverage that into his various other gains....

But, moving on....

Sam Walton is an interesting case. I've never walked into a Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart made it big in small cities and towns, whereas others (like K-Mart) were focusing on the big cities.

I wouldn't say Sam Walton was aiming to "do in" all his competitors. His competitors were the small Mom and Pop stores (not K-Mart, since K-Mart was in the big cities, not the small cities and towns).

But, rather, I think Walton essentially has tried to give the consumers the best deal possible. What you're interpreting as "doing in his competitors," I interpret as giving the consumers a better deal. People shopped at Wal-Mart because they could buy things there cheaper than anywhere else.

Because Wal-Mart is a mass retail outlet, it could sell things more cheaply than the small Mom and Pop stores. But as far as I'm aware, he never did anything to "attack" these stores. He just gave consumers a better deal.

So I would say he "won over" the consumers, rather than "did in" his competition.... As Don Alm said, it's a matter of a different focus....

It's one thing to talk from theory, but another to talk from experience.... I pay a LOT of attention to what people like Jim Straw, Don Alm, and Gordon Alexander say, because they've "walked the walk" -- they've DONE it. They've already proven that they know what they're talking about....

Anyhow, it's okay to disagree in opinion.... Let's remember not to take disagreement of opinion personally.... :)

- Dien

I've come across numerous people that have this idea -- that the only way, or the best way, to succeed in business is to be ruthless. Fight to win the best advantage, rally the troops to gain new ground, smite your competitors and win the consumer dollar.

Although being ruthless *can* have advantages when applied to deal-making and securing a position, I think it's important to remember that such a business approach does have disadvantages too.

For one, those you have been ruthless against you may come up against again, or you might develop a reputation for it, in which case some people may be less likely to deal with you.

Sure, you might argue that a rational businessman wouldn't take into account your reputation when dealing, but would just look at the bottom line -- but the fact is, not everybody is or acts rationally.

But back to the issue at hand -- Is ruthlessness essential in business?

I don't think it is. But I also don't think you have to not be ruthless to succeed, either.

The world of business is an enormous one -- there are a huge amount of business successes out there, and the ways people have succeeded is tremendous.

That being the case, I don't think you can really limit it down and say "this is the only way to do it" -- there are many ways to do it.

If you're not naturally ruthless, and don't feel comfortable being so, then don't! There are many businesspeople who have become successful without being so. Warren Buffett comes to mind.

If you like being ruthless, enjoy the thrill of the kill, and don't have a moral problem with it as many of us would, then be ruthless. Just make sure you're aware of the consequences.

Personally, I choose not to be ruthless in business.

I aim to offer the best to consumers, and if that should harm my competitors, then that's ok. The difference is in the approach -- attempting to screw people over, force people into things, destroy competitors -- acts some would consider ruthless that I wouldn't do much of, if any.

- Thomas. :)

> Do you were a frilly pink skirt and frolic
> along with your wicker basket singing
> "La La La" or are you fit,
> camouflaged, well (but lightly) armed, and
> ready to decisively "do in" every
> opponent who crosses your path? All else
> being equal, the winning businessman is the
> more ruthless.

> - Craig