Diversification as a growth strategy: Porter's 3 tests for successful expansion
HP split in 2015 - a sign of failed diversification. But not all diversifications fail. Michael Porter defined 3 tests that determine whether diversification creates or destroys value. Investors know these tests better than you.
- How to understand porter's 3 tests of diversification and use it for your capital strategy
- How to understand test 1: attractiveness – is the market attractive? and use it for your capital strategy
- How to understand test 2: cost of entry – how much does entry cost? and use it for your capital strategy
- How to understand test 3: better-off – do you create synergies? and use it for your capital strategy
Porter's 3 tests of diversification
Michael Porter, the god of strategy research, defined it in 19873 critical tests, which determine whether diversification creates or destroys value:
- Attractiveness Test:Is the target industry attractive enough to justify the cost of entry?
- Cost of Entry Test:How much is admission? Can you get started cheaper than your competitors?
- Better-Off Test:Do you create synergies? Will both businesses benefit from the combination?
If you only say “yes” to test 1 or 2, but “no” to test 3 – then diversification is a mistake.
Test 1: Attractiveness – Is the market attractive?
The first test usedPorter's Five Forces. Ask:
- How profitable is the industry in the long term?
- Which macro trends are driving growth? (PESTEL)
- Are the barriers to entry high enough that only a few competitors get in?
Example (positive):Coca-Cola diversified into water & juice drinks - all profitable categories with stable margins.
Example (negative):HP diversified into servers and software services - markets with declining margins and intense competition.
Test 2: Cost of Entry – How much does entry cost?
Even if the market is attractive, if you have to get in too expensive, you will still destroy value. Examples:
- Organisches Wachstum:Slow, expensive, long wait until profitability
- Akquisition:Fast, but often overpayment, integration risks
- Joint Venture:Middle way, but loss of control
Test 3: Better-Off – Do you create synergies?
This is the most critical test. Synergies can be:
- Kosten-Synergien:Joint procurement, production, sales
- Revenue-Synergien:Cross-selling, co-branding
- Strategische Synergien:Faster market entry, shared know-how
"Most failed diversifications don't fail on Test 1 or 2. They fail on Test 3 - there are no real synergies and administrative overhead increases."
– Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage (1985)Related vs. Unrelated Diversification
Related diversification(e.g. Coca-Cola → juice) has higher synergies.Unrelated diversification(e.g. Samsung → semiconductors + ships + insurance) has less synergies but risk reduction.
Rumelt (1974)showed: Related diversified companies outperform pure specialists – but unrelated conglomerates underperform.
The HP case: failed diversification
HP was focused on printers & workstations in 1990-2000. CEO Mark Hurd (2005-2010) diversified aggressively:
- Purchase of Compaq (2002) – Servers & PCs
- Purchase of EDS (2008) – IT Services
- Internal development of software services
The tests failed:
→ Test 1: Markets with falling margins (PC market competitive, servers/services dominated by competition)
→ Test 2: Massive Overpayments (EDS: $13B for a services company with falling margins)
→ Test 3: No synergies - HP didn't bring printer expertise to servers, and servers didn't bring printer sales
Result: 2015 split into HP Inc. (hardware) and HPE (enterprise).This split created ~€30B of value as focus returned.
Conglomerate discount and chaebols
“Conglomerate discount”is an empirical phenomenon: diversified companies are valued by markets at a 15-20% discount vs. focused companies (EV/EBITDA).
Exception:Asian chaebols (Samsung, Hyundai) and Japanese keiretsu. They work because:
- Family control (long horizons, not short-term gains)
- Relationship network instead of market (internal transactions have real synergies)
- Macroeconomic integration (chaebols are mini-economies)
Diversification in investor assessment
When you come to an investor and plan diversification – be ready for these questions:
- How attractive is the target market? (growth, profitability)
- How expensive is entry vs. organic growth in existing markets?
- What specific synergies are there? (Not “scaling” – that’s too vague!)
- Do you have management capacity for two different business models?
- How does this affect your exit? (Is the combination more or less attractive to a PE buyer?)
Family officesandPE investorsprefer related diversification or focus.VCis less interested in diversification (too distracted from the core).
Akademische Quellen
- Porter, M.E. (1987). From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business Review.
- Rumelt, R.P. (1974). Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance. Harvard Business School Press.
- Grant, R.M. (1995). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Blackwell.
Let us analyze your financial viability
Find out how CANVENA can help you succeed in a free strategy discussion.
What you now know — and how to use it
- You know the core concepts and can apply them directly to your situation
- You know which mistakes to avoid — saving you time and capital
- You understand how this building block fits into your overall strategy
Ready for the Next Step?
In 30 min, Daniel Huber shows which capital strategy fits your situation.
Found this useful? Add Canvena as a preferred source on Google - our analyses will then be highlighted in your Search and AI results.
Add Canvena as a preferred source