COMPETING ON PLATFORMS   在平台上競爭

he dominant online platform companies are now the most valuable companies in the world, and their growing power over other organizations is enabling them to rewrite the rules of business strategy.
佔主導地位的在線平臺公司現在是世界上最有價值的公司，他們對其他組織的日益增長的權力使他們能夠改寫商業戰略規則。

In the past decade, digital platforms have profoundly reorganized markets and industries and redefined the dynamics of value creation and competition. ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} They have created marketplaces that have spawned an enormous number of platformnative startups. ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} And as these have grown and prospered, existing businesses have felt compelled to join the platform economy, viewing participation as necessary for growth and even survival. ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3}
在過去的十年中，數字平臺深刻地重組了市場和行業，重新定義了價值創造和競爭的動態。 ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 他們創建的市場催生了大量的平臺原生初創公司。 ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 隨著這些企業的發展和繁榮，現有企業感到有必要加入平台經濟，認為參與是增長甚至生存的必要條件。 ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3}

To date, most attention to platforms has focused on understanding their advantages over traditional industrial structures and how to replicate platform successes. However, the vast majority of companies will not own platforms but, rather, will increasingly depend and compete on them. To do so effectively, platform-dependent businesses must recognize the power
迄今為止，對平臺的大多數關注都集中在瞭解它們相對於傳統產業結構的優勢以及如何複製平臺的成功。然而，絕大多數公司不會擁有平臺，而是會越來越依賴和競爭它們。為了有效地做到這一點，依賴平臺的企業必須認識到力量
dynamics and risks intrinsic to platform-controlled markets. And they must develop strategies that leverage a platform’s resources while mitigating its power over them.
平臺控制市場固有的動態和風險。他們必須制定戰略，利用平臺的資源，同時減輕其對平台的權力。

In early January 2019, after sealing a deal with Apple to sell more of its products, Amazon sent a letter to small businesses selling refurbished Apple products on the Amazon e-commerce platform. It read, in part, “You are receiving this message because you are currently selling … Apple or Beats products. Your existing offers for those products will soon be removed from Amazon’s online store in the United States.”
2019 年 1 月初，在與蘋果達成協定以銷售更多其產品後，亞馬遜向在亞馬遜電子商務平台上銷售翻新蘋果產品的小型企業發出了一封信。其中部分內容是，「您收到此消息是因為您目前正在出售......Apple 或 Beats 產品。您對這些產品的現有報價將很快從亞馬遜在美國的在線商店中刪除。

As one reseller said, “Since 2011, I have sold over a million dollars of iPods on Amazon and this is going to severely impact me and my family.”
正如一位轉銷商所說，“自 2011 年以來，我在亞馬遜上售出了超過 100 萬美元的 iPod，這將嚴重影響我和我的家人。

For many resellers, the agreement between Amazon and Apple spelled the end of their businesses and livelihoods. And this
對於許多經銷商來說，亞馬遜和蘋果之間的協定意味著他們的業務和生計的終結。還有這個
and interviews with entrepreneurs in the U.S. and Europe, and ongoing research into the rise of the platform economy and the impact of platforms on entrepreneurship.
以及對美國和歐洲企業家的採訪，以及對平台經濟興起和平臺對創業影響的持續研究。

Their work is also informed by engagements as advisers to businesses and investors on their platform strategies, and to government organizations on regulating the platform economy.
他們的工作還通過作為企業和投資者平臺戰略顧問以及政府組織監管平台經濟的顧問而得到啟發。
existential threat is not confined to small businesses. Discussing Google’s ability to favor its own travel platform in search results, Expedia’s CEO said the internet was “littered with the bodies of companies put out of business by Google.”
生存威脅不僅限於小企業。Expedia 的首席執行官在討論谷歌在搜尋結果中偏愛自己的旅遊平臺的能力時表示，互聯網上“充斥著被谷歌倒閉的公司”。

This is a new, harsh competitive environment that nearly every business eventually will confront as the platform economy matures. ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4}
這是一個新的、嚴酷的競爭環境，隨著平台經濟的成熟，幾乎每個企業最終都會面臨。 ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4}

An online platform’s success is predicated upon providing sellers with a large base of potential
在線平臺的成功取決於為賣家提供巨大的潛力基礎
customers while providing customers with a broad range of easily searchable offerings. For sellers and advertisers, entry costs are low. For buyers, there are none. The platform’s goal is to capture the largest market share relative to other platforms - a winner-takes-all strategy that achieves a near-monopolistic position.
客戶，同時為客戶提供廣泛的易於搜索的產品。對於賣家和廣告主來說，進入成本很低。對於買家來說，沒有。該平臺的目標是佔領相對於其他平臺最大的市場份額——一種贏家通吃的策略，實現近乎壟斷的地位。

On these terms, a platform’s success comes when it effectively owns the market and can “tax” all transactions that run through it. For example, Apple and
根據這些條件，當一個平臺有效地擁有市場並能夠對通過市場運行的所有交易“徵稅”時，平臺就會取得成功。例如，Apple 和

Google take $30\mathrm{\%}$$30\mathrm{\%}$30%30 \% of all revenues earned in their app stores; Etsy takes 20 cents per item listed, as well as 5% of the transaction cost (including shipping), and fees from its payment-processing system (which sellers are required to use). YouTube takes $45\mathrm{\%}$$45\mathrm{\%}$45%45 \% of the advertising revenue generated by its content creators. As game-maker Epic Systems argued in its recent legal complaints against Apple and Google, their fees are nonnegotiable, regardless of how much revenue flows through an app. ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5} Other companies, including Spotify and even Microsoft, appear to be joining the criticism of the stringent rules that app store owners impose.
谷歌從其應用商店中獲得的所有收入中扣除 $30\mathrm{\%}$$30\mathrm{\%}$30%30 \% ;Etsy 每列出一件商品收取 20 美分，以及 5% 的交易成本（包括運費）以及支付處理系統（賣家必須使用）的費用。YouTube 從其內容創作者產生的廣告收入中抽取 $45\mathrm{\%}$$45\mathrm{\%}$45%45 \% 。正如遊戲製造商 Epic Systems 在最近針對蘋果和谷歌的法律訴訟中所辯稱的那樣，無論有多少收入通過應用程式流動，他們的費用都是不可協商的。 ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5} 包括 Spotify 甚至 Microsoft 在內的其他公司似乎也加入了對應用商店擁有者實施的嚴格規則的批評。

The fee controversy is only the tip of the iceberg. Platforms have almost godlike powers. They are gatekeeper, rule maker, judge, and jury. For businesses dependent on a platform, this creates a dangerous situation. The platform is motivated by traditional business goals: It wants to grow revenues and profits and increase its market power. Just as important, it is constantly experimenting and evolving unilaterally in ways that are beneficial to itself. The businesses transacting on it can only accept the platform’s rules, adapt to them strategically, or exit.
費用爭議只是冰山一角。平台幾乎擁有神一般的力量。他們是看門人、規則制定者、法官和陪審團。對於依賴平臺的企業來說，這造成了危險的情況。該平台的動機是傳統的商業目標：它希望增加收入和利潤並增加其市場力量。同樣重要的是，它不斷以對自身有利的方式單方面試驗和發展。在其上進行交易的企業只能接受平臺的規則，戰略性地適應它們，或者退出。

In other words, a platform’s power dramatically constrains the freedom businesses possess to devise and pursue competitive strategies. Since the 1980s, our understanding of strategy has been dominated by Michael Porter’s definition of the sources of competitive advantage. To Porter, good competitive strategy creates unique value for a particular set of customers (in other words, differentiation). That uniqueness is derived from companies’ ability to control three key sources of competitive advantage: a distinctive value proposition that is designed for a particular set of customers and is delivered through a particular configuration of activities difficult for competitors to replicate. The more ways in which an organization can differentiate its sales, services, features, production, distribution, design, and marketing, the greater its ability to establish and defend a strategic position.
換句話說，平臺的力量極大地限制了企業制定和追求競爭戰略的自由。自 1980 年代以來，我們對戰略的理解一直以邁克爾·波特 （Michael Porter） 對競爭優勢來源的定義為主導。對波特來說，良好的競爭策略為特定客戶群創造了獨特的價值（換句話說，差異化）。這種獨特性源於公司控制競爭優勢的三個關鍵來源的能力：為特定客戶群設計的獨特價值主張，並通過競爭對手難以複製的特定活動配置來實現。組織區分其銷售、服務、功能、生產、分銷、設計和行銷的方式越多，其建立和捍衛戰略地位的能力就越強。

But platform owners don’t only reduce the degrees of freedom a company has over each of these sources of competitive advantage; at the same time, they advance their own interests.
但平臺擁有者不僅降低了公司對這些競爭優勢來源中的每一個的自由度;同時，他們促進了自己的利益。

For instance, the same reach that enables companies to find customers on Amazon enables the platform to recognize growth opportunities and
例如，使公司能夠在亞馬遜上找到客戶的相同覆蓋面使該平臺能夠識別增長機會和
quickly respond. According to a report from Coresight Research and DataWeave, Amazon more than tripled the number of its own house-brand products from 2018 to 2020, to more than 23,000 offerings that now compete with other products on the site. Amazon (and other platforms) can upend traditional forms of strategic differentiation simply by identifying and replicating product features, prices, market position, and whatever else can make its own products more competitive and attractive. And the same complex, often opaque, algorithms that connect online buyers and sellers can be massaged by platforms in ways that can produce sudden drops in sellers’ search rankings and sales.
快速回應。根據 Coresight Research 和 DataWeave 的一份報告，從 2018 年到 2020 年，亞馬遜自有品牌產品的數量增加了兩倍多，達到 23,000 多種產品，現在與網站上的其他產品競爭。亞馬遜（和其他平臺）只需識別和複製產品功能、價格、市場地位以及任何其他可以使自己的產品更具競爭力和吸引力的東西，就可以顛覆傳統的戰略差異化形式。連接在線買家和賣家的同樣複雜且通常不透明的演算法可能會被平臺按摩，從而導致賣家的搜索排名和銷售額突然下降。

Given increasing evidence that platforms are likely to use their enormous powers for their own benefit, businesses need a clear understanding of the implications of operating on a platform in order to avoid becoming subordinate entities. ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} Competing effectively in these markets requires businesses to recognize the ways platforms limit the control they have over the three sources of competitive advantage.
鑒於越來越多的證據表明平臺可能會利用其巨大的權力來謀取自身利益，企業需要清楚地瞭解在平臺上運營的影響，以避免成為從屬實體。在這些市場中有效 ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} 競爭需要企業認識到平臺限制其對三個競爭優勢來源的控制的方式。

Platforms limit construction of a unique value proposition. Developing a company’s value proposition and presenting it to a target customer segment is core to competitive strategy. But for many plat-form-dependent businesses, the unique attributes and presentation of their offerings online (such as search terms, product descriptions, images, and product reviews) are dictated by the platform, whose goal is to allow customers to compare competing offerings easily. This can happen only if products share common search terms and are presented to consumers in nearly identical ways.
平臺限制了獨特價值主張的構建。制定公司的價值主張並將其呈現給目標客戶群是競爭戰略的核心。但對於許多依賴平臺形式的企業來說，其在線產品的獨特屬性和呈現方式（例如搜索詞、產品描述、圖像和產品評論）是由該平臺決定的，其目標是讓客戶輕鬆比較競爭產品。只有當產品具有共同的搜索詞並以幾乎相同的方式呈現給消費者時，才會發生這種情況。

Moreover, platforms can constrict strategic pricing flexibility. For example, Amazon punishes publishers on its Kindle platform selling at prices lower than $\mathrm{\$}2.99$$\mathrm{\$}2.99$$2.99\$ 2.99 or higher than $\mathrm{\$}9.99$$\mathrm{\$}9.99$$9.99\$ 9.99 by halving their revenues from $70\mathrm{\%}$$70\mathrm{\%}$70%70 \% to $35\mathrm{\%}$$35\mathrm{\%}$35%35 \% of the sales price. ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} In setting this rule, Amazon believed it could sell more e-books and, just as important, discourage other online booksellers from entering the market. While pleasing customers, this slashed publishers’ margins.
此外，平臺可能會限制戰略定價靈活性。例如，亞馬遜通過將收入減 $70\mathrm{\%}$$70\mathrm{\%}$70%70 \% $35\mathrm{\%}$$35\mathrm{\%}$35%35 \% 半 $\mathrm{\$}9.99$$\mathrm{\$}9.99$$9.99\$ 9.99 來懲罰其 Kindle 平臺上以低於 $\mathrm{\$}2.99$$\mathrm{\$}2.99$$2.99\$ 2.99 或高於銷售價格的價格銷售的出版商。 ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} 在制定這一規則時，亞馬遜相信它可以銷售更多的電子書，同樣重要的是，阻止其他在線書商進入市場。在取悅客戶的同時，這削減了出版商的獲利率。

Because the platform is always considering its own interests, it can and will take actions detrimental to the interests of its dependent businesses.
因為平臺總是在考慮自己的利益，所以它可以而且將會採取有損其依賴企業利益的行動。