--- title: "Marketing Management Personnel Series Part 6: Strategy or Details Determine Success?" description: "This article uses the game Plants vs. Zombies as an analogy to discuss the importance of strategy, tactics, execution, and systems in marketing management. It argues that neither strategy nor details alone determine success, but rather a systematic approach that integrates all elements is crucial." author: "蒋军" publisher: "New Distribution" email: "zhaobo258@gmail.com" telephone: "+8615854817671" published: "2014-12-26" language: "en" canonical: "https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/marketing-management-personnel-series-part-6-strategy-or-details-determi-2815c0c0/" markdown: "https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/marketing-management-personnel-series-part-6-strategy-or-details-determi-2815c0c0.md" original_source: "https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/e9MRCEOkk5zcXxGfJEyYmw" translation: "https://xinjignxiao.com/zh/articles/%E8%90%A5%E9%94%80%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E4%BA%BA%E5%91%98%E7%B3%BB%E5%88%97%E8%B0%88%E4%B9%8B%E5%85%AD-%E6%88%98%E7%95%A5%E8%BF%98%E6%98%AF%E7%BB%86%E8%8A%82%E5%86%B3%E5%AE%9A%E6%88%90%E8%B4%A5-2815c0c0.md" attribution: "New Distribution — https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/marketing-management-personnel-series-part-6-strategy-or-details-determi-2815c0c0/" usage_policy: "https://xinjignxiao.com/ai-policy.txt" --- # Marketing Management Personnel Series Part 6: Strategy or Details Determine Success? > This article uses the game Plants vs. Zombies as an analogy to discuss the importance of strategy, tactics, execution, and systems in marketing management. It argues that neither strategy nor details alone determine success, but rather a systematic approach that integrates all elements is crucial. Friendly reminder: Click the blue text above to follow "FMCG Distributor Professional Consulting" for more marketing and distributor internal management content. Plants vs. Zombies is a highly strategic game. At first glance, it seems simple, but in reality, it is quite difficult to play well. The game demands a lot from players: first, strategic thinking; second, tactics to implement the strategy; and third, systematic thinking. For example, in the survival mode "Pool Endless," strategically, you must collect enough "sunlight" in the early levels; tactically, it involves a wide range: plant combinations, battle formations, and whether to fight or defend when plants meet zombies—all these fall under tactics. Correct tactics are key to winning battles, but choosing the right tactics requires analyzing the situation first, then making decisions. Finally, improving tactical skills also means improving the ability to analyze situations systematically, knowing when to change tactics, and ensuring strategy-tactics alignment and coordination. This game offers valuable insights for marketing managers in thinking about strategy, tactics, execution, and systems in business management. A few years ago, a book titled "Details Determine Success" used numerous cases to argue the importance of "details" in management. Later, "Strategy Determines Success" and many other "copycat" versions appeared. In my opinion, in certain aspects, strategy, details, and execution can all determine success or failure; lacking any one of them is not enough, but having only details or only strategy cannot lead to success either. Strategy, tactics, and execution are all indispensable; that is, only through a "system" can goals be achieved. Some might say that strategy is for large enterprises and top management. As for marketing managers, they mostly execute, so they don't need to think much about strategy. Is that true? On the surface, it seems reasonable, but upon closer thought, it may not be. Take a regional market as an example. A regional manager needs strategic thinking, strategies and tactics, and systematic integration to do well in a market. Can they just wait for the company to formulate everything, then copy it mechanically in so-called execution, and expect the market to open up? Of course not. A regional market leader is undoubtedly the formulator of regional strategy and tactics and the first person responsible for execution. Of course, this regional strategy and tactics are under the company's overall strategy and policies. Regional managers who closely link the two will thrive and excel. Strategy is direction. Jack Welch once said: Strategy is choosing a direction and then implementing it with all your might. Mintzberg's 5P definition of strategy includes "position," which also means "identifying direction." First is direction; second, after direction comes goals. To establish the fundamental long-term goals of the enterprise and take necessary action sequences and resource allocation to achieve them (Chandler). Setting goals requires a balance between possible and impossible goals. Goals should be grand and ambitious, but also realistic and oriented toward business interests; they should be specific, as overly distant, idealistic, or unrealistic goals are harmful to the enterprise. Why have goals? Simply put, without goals, direction becomes unclear and lacks appeal. American scientists once conducted an experiment: they divided 30 people into groups A, B, and C, and had them walk to a village 50 kilometers away. Group A: no small goals, no knowledge of distance or village name, just followed the guide. As a result, after one-fifth of the distance, everyone began to complain; before halfway, they started grumbling; after three-quarters, they were angry; after completing the journey, they were all in low spirits, took the longest time, and were miserable. Group B: had a big goal (knew the village name), knew the route and destination, but no milestones, time, or speed; they estimated based on experience. As a result, halfway through, some started asking; after three-quarters, everyone was generally low-spirited; finally, they were exhausted and took a relatively long time. Group C: not only knew the direction and destination, but also had milestones along the way, and the guide had a watch and knew their speed, clearly indicating the remaining distance. Along the way, they chatted and laughed, some sang, and they completed the journey in a happy mood. As a result, they took the shortest time and were the happiest group. What does this story illustrate? 1. The more specific and detailed the goals, the easier they are to achieve. 2. If people clearly know the action goals and progress speed, they can consciously overcome difficulties and strive to reach the goal. 3. Not seeing the goal can easily cause fear and anger. 4. Simplifying and lightening goals makes them easier to achieve. 5. Goals need to be continuously refined (milestones, small goals). 6. Direction is more important than effort, and happiness is also productivity. Although many enterprises place great emphasis on setting various "goals," their methods are "primitive," i.e., directive decomposition. Directive decomposition means that before decomposition, there is no consultation with subordinates; leaders determine the decomposition plan and issue it in the form of directives, instructions, or plans. Think about it: is this how we do it? This decomposition method tends to form a complete goal system, but it also makes some goals difficult to implement, and it is not conducive to motivating subordinates or developing their abilities. Another decomposition method is consultative decomposition. Consultative decomposition involves full discussion or negotiation between superiors and subordinates on the decomposition of overall goals and the implementation of hierarchical goals, reaching consensus. This method is rarely used in enterprises because most leaders believe it does not demonstrate seriousness and authority; they are not at ease and fear it will be compromised. The result of this method is that goals are more likely to be implemented, and it is also conducive to motivating subordinates and developing their abilities. Unfortunately, most enterprise decision-makers dare not use it because they are accustomed to top-down commands and lack confidence in "consultation." Finally, there is "implementing it with all your might." Thus, the "three elements" of strategy include "action," and as Jack Welch said, "implement it with all your might." So, strategy is not about formulating a few nice plans, making them into beautiful brochures, and then displaying them or shelving them. Details are the guarantee. Strategy, tactics, execution, and details are inherently inseparable. At a certain level, people may focus on different aspects, leading to debates like "strategy determines success" or "details determine success." Let me give another well-known example: during the War of Liberation, Mao Zedong formulated the strategy of "encircling the cities from the countryside" for the Chinese revolution. Was this strategy important? Of course, because without understanding China's national conditions at the time, if one were like Wang Ming, occupying big cities and imitating the Soviet model, success would be impossible; even with perfect details, failure would still result. But what about having only strategy? Can you win by just setting a direction without methods and pathways? Of course not. Mao's tactic was "overthrow the local tyrants and redistribute the land." Land was the lifeline of farmers at that time; only by obtaining land could they live and work in peace, and finally have a sense of pride and belonging as masters. Finally, tactics and execution, i.e., details. Mao's method was "build party organizations at the company level" to ensure execution. Therefore, we cannot view the importance of strategy versus details in isolation. Moreover, details, as a factor ensuring strategic success, must be constrained and guaranteed by "systems." Systems are key. What are the main problems in Chinese enterprises today? Anyone in management can list many: weak brand influence, unattractive products and product portfolios, low profits for channel members at all levels, single or chaotic channels, insufficient promotion and publicity, inadequate internal management and incentives, insufficient staff training, etc. These are all problems that need solving, but not one at a time; treating symptoms rather than root causes will lead to inefficiency or management chaos. This reminds me of the "Shenzhen Traffic Violation Penalty Regulations" that took effect on August 1. These regulations are hailed as the strictest traffic violation penalties in Shenzhen's history: 50,000 yuan for using fake plates, 6,000 yuan for defacing or not properly mounting plates, 500 yuan for running red lights, 200 yuan for illegal parking... The "replace management with fines" approach is too obvious to mention. But illegal parking is worth discussing. For example, many private car owners taking children to the hospital park on the roadside because they cannot find parking spaces. Of course, parking like that is wrong and deserves fines, as it causes traffic jams, affects everyone's passage, and infringes on others' rights. There is nothing to say about the fines themselves. However, the relevant departments or traffic authorities should find places where people can park; otherwise, what can they do? They can only violate the rules. You could also restrict license plates and produce fewer cars, but you cannot, on one hand, encourage production and car purchases to maintain high GDP growth, and on the other hand, restrict driving. That seems unreasonable. Moreover, when the media exposes the issue, traffic police come to direct traffic and issue fines; when the media leaves, the police leave too. Isn't this a typical case of treating symptoms rather than root causes? Can it solve the fundamental problem? What is the reason? It is not a lack of strategy (planning), nor a lack of tactics (fines), nor a lack of execution (patrols), but a lack of systematic solutions. They check when they want, fine for a few days, and everything becomes a "campaign," which inevitably leads to recurrence and the situation of "beaten but not eliminated." It is not just the traffic department; are there not many such examples in other functional departments and enterprise functional departments? Enterprises have strategies, policies, systems, and teams, but when it comes to relevant functional departments, they become several "skins," with everyone shirking responsibility. Strategy and tactics mean nothing to them. They only care about what is in their own "plate": strategy is the boss's and senior management's business; they do what they can, occasionally looking at the "pot" to see if they can grab something, but they do not care about what is planted in the field, as they do not know if there will be a harvest, and even if there is, they may not get it. In a word: it is not strategy or details that determine failure; it is systematic thinking that determines destiny! Daonong recently opened a public account specifically discussing how traditional enterprises can do WeChat marketing. If you are interested, you can follow it. Search for the WeChat ID above or scan the QR code below to follow. \-------------------------------------------- --- ## Copyright and AI use This article is sourced from New Distribution. Search, quotation, summarization, and model training are permitted, but every use must credit New Distribution and retain the canonical source URL. Contact: zhaobo258@gmail.com · +86 158 5481 7671