Mischief and Diabolical Moves

Guy Kawasaki's blog post on The Art of Driving Your Competition Crazy brings up thought-provoking  and timely questions for professional service firms -- especially if the PSF marketplace hits another economic downturn.  Below is my version of a point - counterpoint. 

• Kawasaki says, "Before you can drive your competition crazy, you have to understand what your company stands for. Otherwise, you'll only succeed in driving yourself crazy." This sounds too one-step, two-step to me.  First, how can a firm know what it "stands for" in a vacuum?   I admit I love his simple challenge to figure out the core of our firms.  He uses Apple as an example -- it stands for "cool technology."  But, quick, can you sum up your professional service firm that easily?   And really, can any firm do that without a competitive context?  SO, why do our firms spend so much time trying to figure out who they are and how they are different?  How come they don't already know this? 
• He says, "You cannot drive your competition crazy unless you understand their strengths and weaknesses. You should become your competition's customer by buying their products and services."  Most PSFs literally can't buy their competitors' services, but Kawasaki's implied point is still valid.  For the sake of this discussion, let's assume most PSFs do a good job of understanding their competitors (they don't, but bear with me).  Kawasaki calls on us to drive our competition crazy.  Come on, does any professional firm think this way - even if it's a great idea?   The answer is NO for most, because it requires a healthy dose of marketplace confidence, a dash of strategic vision, and a dollop of proactivity. In fact, there's way too much competitive passivity and reactionism in professional service firms.  (And I don't agree that merging with and acquiring smaller foes is necessarily strong evidence of competitive savvy)  Admit it, marketers:  how many times have you been frustrated because your firm dragged its feet just a little too long on announcing that new study, or that new senior hire, or that new thought leadership seminar, only to see your rival announce something so similar as to make your firm look like an also-ran?  SO, why aren't more professional firms taking more proactive steps to address their competition?  Why are so many so passive? 
• Kawasaki urges us to "have some fun with your competition--that is, to intentionally play with their minds."  Some of his examples recount delightfully diabolical moves -- like the Korean War U. S. Army dropping "extra large" condoms on the Communist Chinese but labeling them "medium."   But, geez, if PSFs were to do this, they'd have to know who their firms really are and who their foes really are.  (And of course, they'd have to be mindful of the ethical boundaries and possible outcome of their actions if they planned to mess with their competitors' minds like this.)  But let's be honest:  most large professional firms cross-pollinate themselves so deeply with the talent from their competitors that it waters down the distinctions between them.  And the rest aren't nearly as confident as they should be about what makes their competitors tick to able to get under their skin.  SO, why aren't more professional firms capable of this level of mischief proactivity?