I’m currently reading Blue Ocean Strategy, which explains how companies like Cirque du Soleil and Southwest Airlines create success by redefining their business strategy. Instead of trying to compete in the “red ocean” of the same old companies with the same old cost-price battle, they redraw boundaries and concentrate on providing value.

I’m partway through the book and one big lesson I’ve already taken away so far is question your assumptions. The companies profiled questioned assumptions and things taken for granted about their industries, and reshaped them by providing products and services that gave the same value but in a different form.

For instance, Cirque du Soleil did away with the conventional wisdom of star performers and circus animals, and instead decided to work with theatrical and entertainment value. They realised that their main competition wasn’t other circuses, but other forms of entertainment like theatre, sports, and media. Similarly, when women-only gym company Curves started, the health industry was mainly made up of full-service high-tech gyms or home gym equipment. They realised there was a market for women who would only be motivated to exercise if they were in a separate environment from home, but who were not comfortable with exercising in front of men or dealing with complex equipment they don’t need.

What sort of assumptions am I making about creative productions and the fringe arts?

• Producers of indie/fringe/alternative acts and productions do not have enough money or revenue to pay themselves, let alone pay anyone else
• The people with the money are corporates; however, they are after people with more experience and polish
• Creative artsworkers will need to “pay their dues” for many years in smaller amateur circuits before they are able to work in more professional areas
• Fringe artists are not comfortable with “suits jargon” or typical business/marketing/MBA speak
• People with money tend to look down on indie/fringe/alt creators as being “kooky” or “unrealistic”
• To be a legitimate artist, one must either make billions of money and tons or awards, or be penniless
• Value can only be communicated in currency
• There are unspoken rules and hierarchies that need to be observed and adhered to in the arts world
• You need to make a name for yourself before anyone will come to see you
• Image, appearance, and sex appeal ultimately wins out before anything else, even for alternative acts
• Most business resources available are out of reach for creative types

Already I can find a few ways to question those assumptions:

• There is bound to be a middle ground of people that have jumped off from the complete-amateur circuit and are able to support themselves comfortably, therefore being able to pay for assistance
• Corporates may be open to contractors that may not be totally polished but make up for it in available skill, ingenuity, innovation, and character
• One can always opt to work outside “arts politics” while still keeping professional and respectful to all that they meet, redefining their own relationships
• Value can be communicated in other ways - you don’t need to be paid with money
• It is possible to be involved with the “professionals” in other ways besides their core area. For instance, a professional performer may be open to semi-professional or pro-am assistant staff.
• The definition and criterion for “professional” does not always have to hinge on money or years of experience
• There is a market for useful business information and resources that are framed and made accessible for more creative types that don’t respond to jargon
• People’s concept of “image” change from person to person
• There are no set standards for legitimacy; it is variable and relative

How else am I making assumptions? How else can these assumptions be broken?