Economies of small

Image via WikipediaEconomies of scale are well understood. Bigger factories are more efficient, bigger distribution networks are more efficient, bigger ad campaigns can be more efficient. It's often hard to defeat a major competitor, particularly if the market is looking for security and the status quo.

But what about the economies of small? Is being bigger an intrinsic benefit in and of itself?

If your goal is to make a profit, it's entirely possible that less overhead and a more focused product line will increase it.

If your goal is to make more art, it's entirely possible the ridding yourself of obligations and scale will help you do that.

If your goal is to have more fun, it's certainly likely that avoiding the high stakes of more debt, more financing and more stuff will help with that.

I think we embraced scale as a goal when the economies of that scale were so obvious that we didn't even need to mention them. Now that it's so much easier to produce a product in the small and market a product in the small, and now that it's so beneficial to offer a service to just a few, with focus and attention, perhaps we need to rethink the very goal of scale.

Don't be small because you can't figure out how to get big. Consider being small because it might be better.

Related articles

• Potential synergy and advantages of the horizontal merger (wiki.answers.com)
• Solar Cheaper Than Coal by 2013 in Parts of Europe (treehugger.com)
• Do You Have Any Large-Scale Artwork in Your Home? (casasugar.com)
• Why Are Textbooks So Expensive? (neatorama.com)
• Porter five forces analysis for Tata Steel (wiki.answers.com)
• Small businesses can offer best value for Whitehall (telegraph.co.uk)
• Do You Use Large-Scale Art in Your Bedroom? (casasugar.com)
• UnitedHealth Acquires Doctor Group (ritterim.com)
• Who's afraid of the AT&T merger? (salon.com)
• BIT Companies Acquires California MedTech (CMT) (prweb.com)

Posted in: the latest news