The notion of ‘meeting the market’ in terms of business offering is a core idea I use in my practice. I often describe in the context of being good enough.

The description of the idea is often accompanied by the simple, single-dimensional illustration:

Note there is no x axis. The y axis represents a conceptually linear measure of capabilities of an offering, such as ‘fit’ or ‘features.’ The model results in three zones for offerings: inferior (below the good enough line), superior (above the good enough line), and then those offerings that sit perfectly on the line – they are good enough. I generally illustrate the good enough line as a band to allow for the typical ambiguity and variation of how good enough may be measured or perceived.

But if we add time as the second dimension, we see that capabilities of offerings get better over time, as do the market’s expectations of good enough. The good enough line is a slope. Obviously, this improvement is rarely linear, but the illustration makes the core point.

The rate of improvement of the capabilities of an offering can be driven by a number of reasons, often in combination. Common drivers are a change in production-related technology, competitive tension (e.g., initially seeking competitive advantage, then for others, competitive necessity), regulatory requirements, and customer demand.

In some cases, the rate of improvement can actually result in the market splitting, separating those that want the more capable (and rapidly improving) offering from those that are willing to accept a less capable (and typically less expensive) option. We saw such a bifurcation in the airline industry in the 1990s, with the establishment and growth of the budget airlines offering a lower-cost, simpler travel experience, compared to the more expensive full-service providers.

This ability to create a new market ‘below’ the normal market requirements is described by Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma and his subsequent books as disrupting the market. The archetypical disruption described by Christensen sees the original market trajectory (and in most cases, the providers of those offerings) being displaced by the new, replacement trajectory – often being led by new market players.

In Christensen’s original description of The Innovator’s Dilemma, the inferior offering improved more rapidly than the original offering, causing the market disruption and driving the former market leaders to bankruptcy (the case of Walmart vs Kmart and/or Sears being a commonly quoted example), which is why the disruptive idea was such a threat. Splitting the market is still disruptive, and results in two distinct markets (or market segments), with distinct competitive landscapes.

For me, this is an example of the utility of the underlying idea of good enough (aka Meet The Market). It is quite a versatile lens to use when considering competitive dynamics in markets.