You are the head of public affairs at a digital platform in Bogotá. The cities where you operate are threatening to regulate you into suffocation or ban you outright. The team's instinct is to fight: keep operating regardless, challenge the fines in court, win by force. But pure confrontation wins battles and loses the war: the strategy that endures isn't beating the regulator, but building a coalition that makes banning you politically costly.
The situation
The non-market strategy consists of shaping the political and regulatory environment, not just competing in the market. You have three levers: confrontation (operate despite the rule, litigate, "ask forgiveness, not permission"), lobbying (spend money pressuring officials), and coalition (mobilize those who benefit from you —users, drivers, hosts— and engage in constructive dialogue). Uber and Airbnb used all three against cities, with very different results depending on the mix.
Here's the trap that tempts your team. Confrontation is fast and satisfying: you operate now, you grow, you win headlines. But "move fast and break the rules" triggers regulatory backlash —bans, vetoes— and leaves you without a license to operate. Pure lobbying smells like capture and is fragile. What gives you a durable license is building a genuine coalition of beneficiaries: when hundreds of thousands of users and drivers defend your service, banning you becomes politically costly for the regulator. The speed of confrontation is a mirage; the legitimacy of the coalition is what endures.