What is better- INNOVATION OR IMITATION??????

You might be thinking this is a very simple question to answer and the definite answer to the question is "innovation".But it is not always true. Sometime copying with efficiency and efficacy leads to greater success than the innovation itself.(creative imitation).

Even the regulatory bodies allows copying without the breakage of law. Everything cannot be invented.Many companies are running successfully just because they can copy well.

Studies showed that imitators do at least as well and often better from any new product than innovators do. Followers have lower research-and-development costs, and less risk of failure because the product has already been market-tested.

Legal Imitation: When you can copy the product but without involving the name of the company.Sometime the process cannot be imitated ,sometimes the product depending upon the law and rights initiated.

And who says that only small companies or startups copy.Even big companies like Apple have copied .The iPod was not the first digital-music player; nor was the iPhone the first smartphone or the iPad the first tablet. Apple imitated others’ products but made them far more appealing. The pharmaceutical industry is split between inventors and imitators.

 Some innovators, such as Pfizer, have joined the copycats, starting generic-drugs businesses themselves. The multi-billion-dollar category of supermarket own-label products is based on copying well-known brands, sometimes down to details of the packaging. Fast-fashion firms have built empires copying innovations from the catwalk.”

Today is the world of who can present their product well and the product is able to justify itself in the eyes of the customers.It should provide benefits to the customer and then your product whether it is innovated or imitated will be a success.

Also there is a limitation to innovation but not to imitation as imitation doesn't just mean copying. It requires skills because it might be possible that the company that is innovating may not be so good in its product and you come out with a better version of it in terms of quality,preferences,benefits ,stability,durability etc.

 There is another point to this that, Innovators as a group get only a small fraction of the value of an innovation. Typically, the better returns go to business people often derided as copycats.For Example, innovated new products but lost out in the marketplace to others afterward. Among them, Diners Card created credit cards but lost the market to MasterCard and Visa , EMI created CAT scans but the market today is dominated by General Electric.

                                     

Coming to the Emerging countries like India  etc it is said that they should go for imitation rather than innovation because innovation requires lots of investment along with a lot of time and India is just beginning to mark its economic growth and its better to have something rather than nothing and We have seen earlier that most of the successful companies have copied in an efficient way and have made them Market leaders.

Imitation also gives you the benefit of lower risk of failure as the risk has been subdued by the innovating company.So if you are low on investment you can go for imitation rather than innovation.

All these points are not to deny that innovation does not work.

Innovation is the seed which on nourishment will let a plant(copiers) grow upon it.If there is no innovation there cannot be anything to copy.Innovation requires resources,time,skill ,competencies etc and once these grow as core competency of the innovating company no copier can take its position.

So both are good in two different situation.Check out which one will you prefer.