Start-up, this little cheeky ...a large company view?

For a large company, the entrance of a start-up in one of its markets lights up a micro-alert, often adding unnecessary stress

But not always ...

A start-up is small, highly motivated and moves fast. Certainly its means are unsignificant, but also extremely focused.

For a business unit manager, is a new start-up representing a threat? What are its capabilities? What is its purpose? Will it boost all sales or destroy margins by giving irrational price references to customers? Will it run out on its own? Who runs it?

The start-up nature is focused, and even if its means are limited, it will pursue its goal without worrying about its history, past negotiations, its past investment, its sleepy team. It will not hesitate to take risks, to shake market common sense references, washing margins established over the years because the overall volume of its revenues does not (yet) need to support a large back office, or a team that played the salary range competition. If it reaches the market, it will change the old rules of the game.

Therefore, what are the weapons to fight this threat, how can large companies behave when a bold start-up want to change the rules?

Controlling the game clock

High power tool against a start-up: the financial strength gives the time to wait for things to fall in order: natural depletion of the start-up due to lack of funds.
Cost of weapon: very low, unless the start-up explodes. Worry about it when it raises seed capital, what will happen if it wins its first business deals.

Use the radio

Networking with misinformation, creating a reputation on the start-up known weaknesses: random reliability, stability, financial strength, security, critical mass, fragile partnerships.
Cost of weapon: low on a short term, but very risky: the counter-reputation can be fatal, and hurt the image.

Counterfeit

Imitating its movements, copying its products but with the strength of an established network.
Cost of weapon and risk are high: large company teams are not sized for this speed. Intellectual property raises the legal risk, and customers will be surprised that the new benefits were not proposed earlier. So will be the usual competitors.

Trojan-like

Getting on the bus by building a business or technology partnership (even if it means sacrificing a sector), build trust and information, evaluate the potential performance. In a nutshell, investing the house to better measure its speed, strength, and scope of the threat on revenues. And by the way, the slow it down if necessary, by diverting its attention from its focus.
Cost of weapon: average, low risk and  potentiel ownership of a success share at low cost, by a co-investment in its innovation.

Visionary-like

Investing in its dynamics, take part of its capital, and facilitate the start-up access to a very competitive business battleground (which would be abandoned anyway), negociating complementary licensing agreements, bringing technical support and a few HR high-potential managers (bored anyway), financial guarantees, and preparing to fund the final deal. 
Cost of Building a future subsidiary sized to innovate and reinvent the marketplace: priceless?
The sooner the cheaper. And the announcement effect of the investment will be positively explosive for the start-up (which is like a box of dynamite without a wick), and will sound strange for competitors.

Best position requires observing the start-up acceleration

The strategic response to this new threat is in the right analysis of acceleration signals: Captain's reputation, fundraising, recruitment, early deals, publications of patent applications, public support, and contests.