Summary: 
What can incumbents specializing in products do when facing more innovative Big Tech firms as new competitors? A recent Journal of Management Studies article by Reischauer, Engelmann, and Hoffmann reveals how a leading European carmaker strategically reframed the future – not by using business arguments like “higher profit” but through politicized framing rooted in public policy discourses. The study offers a compelling new lens for how mature ecosystem leaders can encourage innovation among suppliers and complementors and not lose them to new entrants whose ecosystems are more innovative. 

The Battle Isn’t Just Technical—It’s Narrative 

Today’s innovation challenges are arising solely in R&D labs or on the factory floor. They are also contested in boardrooms, media spaces, and increasingly, public discourse. In fact, today’s business battlegrounds aren’t always between individual firms – they’re between ecosystems, which are cooperation structures amongst interdependent firms. Especially for mature ecosystems, such as automotive, home appliances, or healthcare, innovation is a collective act involving hubs (typically large incumbents) and their network of key suppliers and complementors. 

But what happens when de alio entrants – established firms from other sectors – enter with more innovative ecosystems and better technology, as exemplified by Google, Amazon, or Apple? This is the kind of “Goliath versus David” competition mature incumbents increasingly face. 

In their new study, Reischauer, Engelmann, and Hoffmann examine how one firm, pseudonymously referred to as InnoCar, met this challenge. In the face of competition from Google’s Android-based ecosystem, InnoCar managed to inspire innovation across its ecosystem by framing the future in politicized terms. 

Two Framing Strategies to Ignite Innovation 

Unlike traditional framing strategies that emphasize profitability, the authors identified two distinct strategies of politicized framing that the carmaker used in response to different forms of competitive threats: 

1. Visionary Politicized Framing of the Future (2014–2018) 

When Google launched Android Auto (complement attack), a direct threat to InnoCar’s proprietary customer-facing apps (e.g., navigation and routing), InnoCar responded with a narrative of sovereignty and independence. This framing consisted of two tactics: 

• Alerting: Portraying a future where reliance on Big Tech would make the industry overly dependent and vulnerable. InnoCar warned that surrendering digital infrastructure to Google would turn automakers into “mere hardware providers.” 

• Augmenting: Reimagining the ecosystem’s future around self-driving cars and digital sovereignty. InnoCar emphasized the deep expertise its ecosystem already had in sensors, maps, and connectivity—positioning these as stepping-stones toward a shared future of autonomous mobility. 

This form of visionary framing mobilized suppliers and complementors to innovate with respect to enabling technologies—such as ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems), lidar, and high-definition mapping. These are complex, interdependent innovations requiring long-term collaboration, and the framing offered a powerful reason to invest despite Google’s entry. 

2. Idealistic Politicized Framing (2019–2021) 

Later, when Google expanded its reach by attacking vehicle operating systems (component attack), InnoCar changed its framing to emphasize the moral and functional superiority of a European approach to digital mobility. Two tactics were used: 

• Alerting (again): But now, the warning was about the loss of a “desirable future”—one grounded in European values embedded in EU regulation, such as data privacy, and broader ambitions like strengthening technological sovereignty by avoiding dependency through potential lock-ins.  

• Authenticating: InnoCar backed its vision with realistic, achievable plans and product roadmaps, demonstrating that an alternative to Google’s model was viable and rooted in technical expertise. 

This framing helped spur innovation in modular technologies, such as in-car apps. The appeal was no longer just strategic—it was idealistic and civic-minded. 

What Fueled Both Framing Strategies? 

Interestingly, the study finds that InnoCar’s framing did not rely on traditional business narratives like profitability or market share to spark innovation. Instead, it tapped into broader European technology policy discourse, particularly the narrative of sovereignty –the idea that Europe should retain control over its digital infrastructure, data, and standards in the face of U.S. and Chinese dominance. 

In this way, InnoCar was not just making a competitive argument. It was positioning itself and its ecosystem as guardians of a European technological future – a framing that resonated deeply with complementors, suppliers, and even regulators. 

From Theory to Takeaways 

This research makes several important contributions: 

1. Framing Innovation Is a Strategic Lever 
   In regulated, interdependent ecosystems, how leaders talk about the future shapes who participates and how they innovate. Firms should not underestimate the power of language, especially when facing asymmetric competitors such as Big Tech. 

2. Use the Power of Policy Discourses 
   Public narratives around sovereignty, fairness, or sustainability can be repurposed for strategic use. Incumbents have an edge here—they often operate in tightly linked policy environments and can use these narratives to mobilize action beyond profit-driven appeals. 

3. Different Threats Require Different Frames 
   The study shows that how a mature firm frames innovation depends on the type of threat it perceives. Complement attacks lead to inspirational visions; component attacks call for more concrete, idealistic justifications. Understanding this distinction can help leaders adapt their communication tactics more effectively. 

Who Should Read This? 

If you work in strategy or innovation management, our insights help you understand the forces that drive innovation in digital markets, especially where close collaboration with partners and customers is crucial. This is particularly relevant when innovating physical products and delivering high-quality digital services like car apps. As digital technologies challenge established roles and reshape market dynamics, our framework offers fresh impulses to rethink your innovation strategy and regain direction amid rising competitive pressure from ‘digital natives’. It’s designed to reframe the conversation, spark innovation, and reinforce your position in today’s fast-moving digital economy.