In the market place, different firms take different strategy stances. This is but natural. As long as their situational designs and consequently their specific requirements of strategy differ from each other, they will evidently follow different strategy stances. This is especially true in the case of Internet marketing tools.

One firm may find it appropriate to have a direct confrontation with the market leader; another may find it appropriate to keep aloof for some time from the heat of competition; the third may find it relevant to chalk out a strategy of sheer survival. It is essential to understand while planning Internet marketing strategy that there is no universally valid strategy stance. It is so because the various firms do not share the same situational design. Companies draw relevant elements from both price and differentiation routes and forge unique strategies to suit their unique situational design and relative position in the industry.

Offensive strategy also known as confrontation strategy is a strategy of aggression. A firm that is not presently the leader, but aspires to leadership position in the industry usually employs an offensive strategy. It is normally the number 2 or number 3 or a new contestant in the industry who resorts to such a strategy. The crux is that the firm adopting an offensive strategy automatically assumes the position of the challenger; the leader mostly, is its target of attack. The challenger aggressively tries to expand his market share and utilizes all the elements of the marketing mix in attacking the leader.

On the other hand a defensive strategy is usually employed by the leader who has the compulsion to defend his position against the confrontation of powerful existing competitors or strong new entrants trying to dislodge the leader from his topmost position. The leader has to maintain constant vigilance and defends its position against the attack of the challengers because challengers keep appearing.

Article Source: www.businesshighlight.org