The Incumbent's Dilemma

Why Market Leaders See the Future and Still Miss It

Here’s the uncomfortable truth about Blockbuster: they saw Netflix coming.

Not vaguely. Not in retrospect. They saw it clearly enough to attempt an acquisition in 2000. They saw it clearly enough to launch their own DVD-by-mail service. They saw it clearly enough to explore streaming partnerships years before the technology matured.

Blockbuster didn’t fail because they were blind to the signal. They failed because when they ran that signal through their interpretation filters, the filters were corrupted.

This is the incumbent’s dilemma. And it’s not about vision. It’s about interpretation.

The Myth of the Blind Giant

We love the story of the oblivious incumbent. The taxi companies that didn’t see Uber. The hotels that didn’t see Airbnb. The retailers that didn’t see Amazon.

But the narrative is wrong. The taxi commissions absolutely saw Uber. Marriott studied Airbnb extensively. Every major retailer had entire teams tracking Amazon’s moves.

They didn’t miss the signals. They misinterpreted them.

I’ve spent twenty years watching this pattern play out. I was one of the first 2000 users on Twitter back when my professors dismissed social media as “studying what people eat for lunch.” I built an agency helping Fortune 500 companies navigate digital transformation before most of them had a social media strategy. The difference between companies that capitalize on change and companies that get crushed by it is never access to information. It’s always interpretation.

These days my work is all about turning timing into competitive advantage. This requires three things: seeing signals before they become obvious, interpreting what they mean for your specific situation, and acting before the window closes. Most incumbents are excellent at seeing. They have research departments and competitive intelligence teams. They see the signals just fine.

Where they fail is interpretation. And they fail in a specific, predictable way.

How Success Corrupts Interpretation

When you’re winning, your interpretation system gets calibrated to your current game. Every new signal gets filtered through questions that are subtly, fatally biased toward protecting what already works.

Through my research, I’ve come up with six questions every organization should ask when they spot a market signal. With this caveat: success often corrupts each on if you don’t actively challenge your own assumptions and filters.

“Does this help us reach our goal?”

Incumbents often define goals around their current model, not their actual purpose. Blockbuster’s stated goal wasn’t “deliver entertainment convenience.” It was “grow DVD rental revenue” and “maximize late fee collection.” Streaming didn’t pass the filter. It threatened DVD rentals. It eliminated late fees entirely.

The signal was real. The goal was wrong. Always step back and look at the bigger need you are trying to solve.

“Do we have a unique advantage here?”

The incumbent’s advantage IS the old model. Blockbuster’s unique advantages were their 9,000 stores, their real estate portfolio, their supply chain for physical media. When they asked “what makes us special here?”, the answer pointed backward.

Kodak’s advantage was film chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica’s advantage was their salesforce. When the signal requires abandoning what made you special, it feels like corporate suicide.

“Would we be upset if a competitor did this first?”

Incumbents assume competitors are trapped the same way they are. Blockbuster didn’t lose sleep over Netflix because Netflix wasn’t a “real” competitor. No stores. No brand recognition. A tiny mail-order company with a weird subscription model. This question only works when you honestly assess who your competitors might become, not just who they are today.

The Risk Calculation Trap

The final three questions all get corrupted by the same force: success makes the status quo feel safe.

“What’s the cost of being wrong versus being slow?” When you’re generating billions in revenue, caution looks like prudence. The board doesn’t fire executives for moving carefully. But the math is asymmetric. If you’re wrong about a new technology, you lose a few quarters of investment. If you’re slow on a platform shift, you lose the company. Blockbuster had the resources to be wrong ten times over. They only got to be slow once.

“What’s the realistic downside if we act?” “Why risk a $6 billion revenue stream for an unproven model that might generate $200 million?” This was the actual argument inside Blockbuster. And Kodak. And Nokia. The question sounds reasonable until you realize it ignores trajectory. The $6 billion stream was shrinking. The $200 million opportunity was growing. But the snapshot view always favors the status quo.

“Does this align with how we operate?” The new move never fits the incumbent’s DNA. Streaming required completely different capabilities than Blockbuster had built: content licensing, server infrastructure, recommendation algorithms. “This isn’t who we are” becomes the final filter that kills transformation. And it’s true. The move doesn’t align with how you operate. That’s precisely why it matters.

The Incumbents Facing This Right Now

If you want to see the incumbent’s dilemma playing out in real time, walk into McKinsey, BCG, Bain, or Slalom.

They absolutely see AI coming for their business model. They see that a 24-year-old with Claude can now produce a market analysis in 20 minutes that used to cost a client $40,000. They see their clients asking why they’re paying $500 per hour for research that AI can approximate for free.

But watch how their interpretation filters corrupt the signal:

Does AI help us reach our goal? Their goal is partner profitability, which depends on leverage ratios and billable hours. AI threatens both. The partners making these decisions are often five to ten years from retirement. They have no incentive to cannibalize their billable hours for an AI model that benefits the next generation of partners.

Do we have a unique advantage? Yes: relationships, brand prestige, and access to executive suites. But those advantages are built on delivering human expertise. The more AI commoditizes the analysis, the more those relationship advantages have to carry.

Would we be upset if a competitor did this first? They assume other consulting firms face the same constraints. And they’re right. Bain can’t move faster than McKinsey because Bain has the same partner economics to protect. But the real threat isn’t Bain. It’s a startup that never had partner economics in the first place. It’s the former McKinsey associate who left to build an AI-native consultancy with a completely different cost structure.

The signal is clear. The interpretation is corrupted. And the partners approving the strategy will be retired before the consequences arrive.

Breaking the Corruption

The incumbent’s dilemma isn’t inevitable. But escaping it requires deliberately corrupting your own filters in the opposite direction.

Define your goal around purpose, not your current model. Blockbuster’s purpose was entertainment convenience. Netflix understood this better than Blockbuster did. What’s your actual purpose, stripped of how you currently deliver it?

Build advantages you don’t have yet. Don’t just ask what makes you special today. Ask what capabilities the new landscape will reward. Blockbuster had the capital and customer relationships to build streaming infrastructure. They chose not to. (Kudos to firms like Manatt, with a very forward thinking leadership team, who asked me to address much of this head on in my keynote for them.)

Look for competitors who don’t look like you. Your most dangerous competitor probably doesn’t look like a competitor yet. They’re not trapped by your economics, your assets, or your assumptions. That’s what makes them dangerous.

Treat slowness as a risk, not a safety net. Every quarter you wait, the window narrows and the new entrants build momentum. Measure the cost of delay, not just the cost of action.

Measure risk against where you’re headed, not where you are. A 10% revenue hit now might be worth it to avoid a 90% revenue collapse later.

Treat discomfort as a signal you’re on the right track. If the new move fits perfectly with how you operate, it probably isn’t transformative enough. The right move should feel uncomfortable because it challenges what got you here.

The Real Lesson

The next time you hear that some incumbent “didn’t see” a disruption coming, be skeptical. They almost certainly saw it. What they didn’t do was interpret it correctly.

Their success had corrupted their filters. The very thing that made them winners made them incapable of processing a signal that threatened their winning formula.

The incumbent’s dilemma isn’t a seeing problem. It’s an interpretation problem. And interpretation can be fixed.

That’s what Strategic Urgency actually is. Not moving fast on everything. Not chasing every signal. It’s building the discipline to interpret signals honestly, even when honest interpretation threatens what’s currently working.

The companies that will win the next decade aren’t the ones with the best research departments. They’re the ones that can look at a signal, run it through uncorrupted filters, and move before the window closes.

The signals are already here. The question is whether your interpretation system is broken.

—

If you’d like me to speak to your team about this, you can inquire here: team@shamahyder.com. Currently booking for 2026 and 2027.