When the digital blitzkrieg stalls: why the clash between giants and startups doesn’t end like it does in the pitch decks

The Hook: the day after defeat

Imagine we’re not in 2024, but in the corporate equivalent of Dunkirk.

The evacuation has already happened.

• Banks have closed half their branches but haven’t gained loyal digital users: they’ve just swapped physical queues for call center queues.
• Traditional retailers have launched online stores that nobody visits, while large platforms squeeze their margins.
• Hospitals have bought expensive software that staff hate, and patients are still waiting months for an appointment.
• Mobility companies have launched questionable apps: they neither compete with global platforms nor satisfy the regulator.

The digital offensive, sold as a technological blitzkrieg, has turned into a war of attrition. Lots of sunk costs, little territory gained.

As a historian of conflicts, I don’t start by asking “what do we do now?” but “where was the campaign lost?” Just as in 1940 the French trusted in the Maginot Line while the panzers went around it through the Ardennes, many incumbents believed it was enough to reinforce their fortresses and hire consultants, while startups found narrow passes through the regulatory and technological terrain.

This text starts from failure and works backwards to reconstruct the strategy that could have avoided that scenario. Sector by sector, battle by battle.

Genesis: how we ended up at a stalemated front

The official narrative talks about “disruption,” “ecosystems,” and “win‑win collaborations.” In reality, what we have looks more like a long war in the style of the First World War: tactical advances, retreats, uneasy alliances, and many leaders with no clear vision of how the conflict should end.

At the origin are two radically different ways of understanding economic war:

• Traditional industry thinks in terms of defensive borders: market share, branch network, regulatory licenses, physical assets, historical relationships. Its logic is to hold positions and optimize internal logistics.
• Startups operate like mobile guerrillas: they attack specific weak points, initially avoid the heaviest regulated zones, use cloud technology as light weaponry and venture capital as fuel.

The data show the technological offensive is real, but not linear:

• In 2023, the U.S. ACH network processed 31.5 billion payments worth $80.1 trillion, with growth of 4.8% in volume and 4.4% in value versus the previous year. Same Day ACH payments grew 22.3% in volume and 41.2% in value, reaching $2.4 trillion (Nacha).
• In Spain, Bizum moved over €51 billion in 2023, averaging 30 transactions per second, and e‑commerce merchants combining Bizum and BBVA doubled their turnover to €685 million (+105% year‑on‑year) (EFE).

These numbers don’t yet represent a crushing victory for startups, but a reconfiguration of the artillery: traditional payment rails are evolving, fintechs are embedding themselves into them, and banks no longer fight alone.

Meanwhile, the same strategic pattern repeats across sectors:

• Incumbents organize to avoid losing what they already have.
• Startups organize to capture something that doesn’t exist yet.

That difference in mission colors business model, technology, and user experience. And it determines who advances and who gets stuck in their own trench.

The Invisible War: the conflict almost no one is watching

In debates about “banks vs fintechs” or “retail vs e‑commerce,” we usually look at the visible weapons: apps, features, marketing campaigns. But long wars are won by logistics and doctrine, not by the shine of the uniform.

The invisible conflict, transversal to all sectors, is threefold:

1. What is considered “territory”: for incumbents, territory is the sector (banking, retail, health, transport). For startups, territory is the user’s problem: paying for something, receiving something, getting cured of something, moving from A to B.
2. What is considered “victory”: incumbents measure victory in terms of current share and profitability. Startups measure victory in terms of growth and learning, even at the cost of current profitability.
3. What is considered “critical infrastructure”: traditional industry protects branches, warehouses, hospitals, fleets. Startups protect technology platforms, data, and user communities.

When both sides meet, negotiations (partnerships, corporate venture, acquisitions) often fail because each one thinks it’s saving the other, without realizing they’re competing on different maps.

Within this context, we’ll analyze, sector by sector, how business models, technology, and user experience compare; what advantages and risks each side has; and what strategic scenarios are plausible in 5–10 years.

Block I – Financial services: from walled fortress to logistics corridor

1) Business models: from banking cathedral to pluggable module

Traditional banks and insurers look like European absolute monarchies: they centralize all power, from front‑office to back‑office.

• Incumbents: live off interest, fees, and charges. Much of their cost base is anchored in branches, ATMs, staff, and regulatory compliance. They’re highly diversified (accounts, mortgages, insurance, investments), but each product is usually managed in silos. Scalability is limited by physical assets and regulatory capital.
• Fintechs: resemble special forces units. They focus on one phase of the journey: payments, consumer lending, SME banking, treasury management, etc. They generate revenues from transaction fees, subscriptions, margins on originated credit, and in some cases monetization of aggregated data. Their cost structure is lighter: technology, digital talent, and marketing.

The rise of players like Bizum shows that joint platforms can capture value for incumbents and startups at the same time: Spanish banks keep the regulated, trust‑based relationship, while the user experience layer is standardized and speeds up transactions.

Internationally, examples like Craftgate, which processed around €1 billion in transactions in 2023, reflect models focused on “orchestrating” payment methods for third parties rather than owning the end customer (CincoDías).

Tactical conclusion: in finance, the battle is not so much bank vs fintech as who owns the critical module in the value chain: customer acquisition, payment infrastructure, risk analysis, advisory.

2) Technology: heavy legions vs airborne forces

• Incumbents: mainframes, monolithic core banking systems, on‑premise infrastructure, complex integration layers. Changing an onboarding flow can take months.
• Fintechs: cloud‑native, microservices, open APIs, event‑driven architectures, intensive use of data, AI and machine learning for scoring and fraud prevention.

Innovation speed is asymmetric. While many banks plan quarterly releases, fintechs iterate weekly with constant A/B testing. That difference in cadence is like that between a 19th‑century sailing navy and steamships: sooner or later, the wind stops blowing in favor of the old guard.

Even so, basic rails (like ACH in the U.S.) show that “old” infrastructure can also evolve: the strong growth of Same Day ACH shows incumbents can modernize their artillery without demolishing it.

3) User experience: from form to gesture

Opening a bank account at a traditional bank still resembles conscription for a mass army: endless forms, repeated identity checks, fuzzy timelines.

• In‑branch or semi‑remote onboarding, with physical documents.
• Fragmented interfaces (web, app, branch) that don’t share context.
• Communication designed to meet regulatory requirements, not to be understood.

The average fintech is closer to voluntary enlistment in an elite unit:

• 100% digital sign‑up, verification in minutes.
• Polished UX, simplified language, real‑time notifications.
• Products configured based on usage patterns (limits, virtual cards, spending categories).

The result: while the traditional bank boasts about solvency, younger users feel the fintech gives them their time back.

4) Advantages, disadvantages, and competitive dynamics: alliances of convenience

Advantages of incumbents:

• Guaranteed deposits and regulatory reputation.
• Access to capital and liquidity.
• Large customer bases, extensive historical data.

Disadvantages:

• Organizational and technological rigidity.
• Internal incentives geared toward avoiding risk.
• Culture poorly suited to experimentation.

Advantages of fintechs:

• Agility in product design and rollout.
• Focus on underserved niches.
• Flexible technology architecture.

Disadvantages:

• Dependence on external funding.
• Difficulty achieving sustainable profitability.
• Fragility in the face of regulatory changes.

Competitive reality points to a coalition model:

• Santander is pushing the IPO of its fintech Ebury for 2025, valued at around €2 billion, combining financial muscle with specialization in international payments (CincoDías).
• Spanish fintech Embat is acquiring U.S. firm Necto to strengthen its treasury and real‑time banking connectivity offering, expanding its footprint among corporate clients (CincoDías).

There’s no unconditional surrender here: there’s a gradual exchange of officers and field manuals.

5) 5–10 year scenarios

• In payments and value‑added services (expense management, advances, treasury), fintechs may displace banks from the visible layer, even if banks remain the underlying infrastructure.
• In complex, heavily regulated products (mortgages, life insurance, corporate banking), we’ll see structural alliances and consolidation.
• The winner won’t be whoever “owns the bank,” but whoever controls the user touchpoint and contextual data.

Block II – Retail and e‑commerce: from brick walls to digital trade routes

1) Business models: shops as fortresses vs platforms as trade routes

Traditional retail was organized like walled medieval cities: physical stores as consumption hubs, inventory piled within the walls, guards at the gates (salespeople, promotions).

• Revenues: direct product sales.
• Costs: rent, inventory, staff, poorly optimized last‑mile logistics.
• Linear scalability: open more stores, hire more people.

E‑commerce startups act like maritime trading companies:

• B2C, B2B, and C2C marketplaces, transaction fees, seller subscriptions, targeted advertising.
• Cost structure tilted toward technology and digital marketing.
• Exponential scalability: the marginal cost of adding a seller or buyer is low.

Both models have tried to imitate each other, often without understanding the other’s logic: when a retailer launches e‑commerce without redesigning its logistics, it’s like a landlocked kingdom building ships without learning navigation.

2) Technology: heavy ERPs vs modular platforms

• Traditional retail: point‑of‑sale (POS) systems integrated with ERP, rigid catalogs, difficult integrations with external apps.
• E‑commerce startups: cloud platforms, microservices, APIs for logistics providers, AI‑based recommendation systems.

The speed of experimentation in e‑commerce (price tests, layouts, promotions) contrasts with inertia in physical stores, where changing a planogram takes weeks and coordinating an omnichannel campaign can overwhelm the organization.

3) User experience: from aisle to feed

Journey examples:

• Purchase in a traditional physical store: the customer compares products by sight, depends on local stock, queues to pay, gets a printed receipt no one uses.
• Online purchase from an e‑commerce startup:
  • Recommendations based on past browsing.
  • Sophisticated filtering, reviews, user‑generated content.
  • Flexible delivery options and real‑time tracking.

Where traditional retailers often fail is continuity: the customer who checks a product online and then goes to the store finds different prices, inconsistent promotions, and staff with no access to the customer’s history.

4) Advantages, disadvantages, and competitive dynamics

Advantages of traditional retail:

• Physical presence and proximity.
• Established relationships with suppliers.
• Ability to generate instant trust (see and touch products).

Advantages of e‑commerce startups:

• Access to global markets without physical presence.
• Data‑based personalization.
• Ability to scale catalog almost without limit.

Risks for both:

• Retail: getting stuck with rising fixed costs and declining foot traffic.
• E‑commerce: price wars, dependence on a few logistics providers, high customer acquisition costs.

Hybrid models have proliferated in recent years: stores functioning as micro‑fulfilment centers for online orders, marketplaces opening showrooms. As in the Napoleonic wars, armies learn from the enemy: infantry incorporates light cavalry, fleets develop marines.

5) 5–10 year scenarios

• Further platform consolidation: a few marketplaces dominate traffic, while mid‑size retailers specialize or plug in as “mercenaries” within those platforms.
• The weight of data (preferences, behavior, context) will become the new prime real estate, more valuable than the best storefront on the best street.

Block III – Health: the front where no one can afford to lose

1) Business models: hospital‑fortresses vs healthtech as recon units

Health is the most sensitive front, equivalent to supply and medical lines in the middle of a war. Here, defeat is measured in lives, not margins.

• Hospitals and traditional insurers: models based on fee‑for‑service, beds occupied, annual policies. Highly capital‑intensive physical and human infrastructure.
• Healthtech startups: focused on telemedicine, remote monitoring, scheduling optimization, chronic care, AI‑based image analysis. They monetize through B2B or B2C subscriptions, software licenses, and in some cases device sales.

Healthtechs rarely fully replace hospitals; instead, they introduce layers of efficiency or new modes of contact.

2) Technology: clinical legacy vs data platforms

• Traditional systems: monolithic electronic health records, heterogeneous integrations, interfaces that are unfriendly to staff.
• Healthtech: cloud, APIs, interoperability (where regulation allows), AI for diagnostic support and prioritization.

The core problem here is interoperability: many healthcare systems resemble improvised military coalitions, with radios that can’t talk to each other. Startups that can integrate scattered information without breaking privacy rules will be the military intelligence of this front.

3) User experience: from waiting patient to self‑managing citizen

Typical journeys:

• Booking an appointment in a traditional system: phone calls, long waits, little visibility into alternatives.
• Booking via healthtech: app or website with visible schedule, choice of doctor, automatic reminders, integration with records.

Internal healthcare culture is often oriented toward clinical processes and avoiding legal risks, not toward smooth experiences. Many healthtechs are born from the frustration of professionals who see clinical time consumed by admin tasks.

4) Advantages, disadvantages, and competitive dynamics

Advantages of incumbents:

• Physical infrastructure, professionals, legitimacy.
• Relationships with regulators and public funders.

Advantages of healthtechs:

• Specialization in specific problems: waiting lists, treatment adherence, remote follow‑up.
• Rapid iteration on digital flows.

Risks:

• Healthtech: dependence on contracts with a few health systems, difficulty proving clinical effectiveness at scale.
• Incumbents: demand overload, cost pressure, internal resistance to change.

Here, total‑war logic doesn’t apply: we won’t see a startup “conquer” an entire health system, but we will see brutal asymmetries between systems that integrate technology well and those that use it as mere veneer.

5) 5–10 year scenarios

• Expansion of hybrid models: mixed consultations, hospital‑at‑home for certain conditions, remote follow‑up with connected devices.
• Greater weight for longitudinal data (the patient’s full history), with startups acting as guardians of health intelligence, while hospitals focus on complex procedures.

Block IV – Mobility and logistics: from vehicle columns to coordinated swarms

1) Business models: rigid fleets vs orchestration platforms

Traditional mobility (public transport, regulated taxis, large logistics operators) was organized like supply columns: fixed routes, set schedules, long‑term contracts.

• Revenues: ticket sales, logistics contracts, fixed rates.
• Costs: fleets, maintenance, staff, logistics hubs.

Startups in shared mobility and delivery operate like swarms of small units:

• Platform models connecting drivers, couriers, merchants, and end users.
• Revenues from commissions, dynamic pricing, premium services.
• Costs focused on technology, user acquisition, and often cross‑subsidies in early stages.

2) Technology: static planning vs real‑time orchestration

• Traditional operators: relatively static route‑planning systems, limited integration with real‑time data.
• Mobility startups: cloud‑native apps, dynamic assignment algorithms, fleet optimization, detailed reporting.

It’s like moving from paper maps to real‑time command‑and‑control systems.

3) User experience: from timetable on the wall to ETA in your pocket

• Traditional transport: the user adapts to the system; checks fixed schedules, waits without precise information.
• Mobility platforms: the system adapts to the user; you see estimated time of arrival, choose routes, pay without friction.

In B2B logistics, startups offer portals for tracking and proactive communication of incidents, while many traditional operators still inform by email or phone.

4) Advantages, disadvantages, and competitive dynamics

Advantages of incumbents:

• Licenses, concessions, physical infrastructure.
• Deep knowledge of local regulations.

Advantages of startups:

• Flexibility to test models (subscription, pay‑per‑use, dynamic fares).
• Speed entering new markets.

Risks:

• Startups: regulatory pressure, dependence on subsidies, and contentious labor conditions.
• Incumbents: loss of relevance among younger segments, difficulty modernizing infrastructure.

Deals between retailers, logistics operators, and delivery platforms are creating hybrid chains where each actor provides part of the route.

5) 5–10 year scenarios

• Greater multimodal integration: a single app combining public transport, micromobility, and private services.
• In logistics, end‑to‑end visibility as standard: the unknown will no longer be acceptable.

The strategic scoreboard: who wins what, and at what cost

By now, the battle looks less like a “single winner” and more like a map of mutual concessions.

Table 1 – Structural scorecard: incumbents vs startups

Table 2 – Timeline of a possible collapse (if no course correction happens)

This is the defeat scenario we started from.

The strategic maneuver: pulling back a line to win the campaign

Wars are lost when generals refuse to redraw their mental maps. To avoid the Dunkirk‑style scenario we described at the outset, incumbents and startups both need a disciplined retreat and repositioning.

Maneuver for incumbents

1. Redefine territory: stop thinking “we’re a bank / retailer / hospital / operator” and start thinking “we solve payments / shopping / health / movement.” That means reorganizing teams around end‑to‑end journeys, not around products or departments.
2. Decouple technology: prioritize core modularization, open APIs, move parts to the cloud where it makes sense. This isn’t a fad; it’s the logistics that lets you move troops fast.
3. Revise internal incentives: reward not only financial results but demonstrable improvements in user experience and delivery speed.
4. Choose digital battles: don’t try to copy every startup; decide which stretch of the value chain you want to lead and where you’re willing to be an “invisible provider.”
5. Deepen smart alliances: use corporate venture capital, joint ventures, and acquisitions not as PR campaigns but as real capability integration.

Maneuver for startups

1. From guerrilla to logistics: understand that scaling requires processes, regulatory compliance, and operational discipline. Garage heroics don’t move millions of users in critical sectors.
2. Seek profitability before “total war”: build reasonable unit economics in specific niches before trying to conquer the whole map.
3. Design for interoperability: think APIs, standards, and regulatory frameworks from early on. The future won’t be “startup‑only”; it will be a terrain shared with incumbent infrastructure.
4. Build trust, not just experience: especially in finance and health, app aesthetics matter less than the perception of security and solvency.

The big map: what this war says about the future

If we had to condense the lessons from these fronts into a single historical image, it would be the shift from 20th‑century mass armies to 21st‑century modular, connected forces.

• Startups have redesigned the value proposition around user experience: fewer queues, fewer forms, less uncertainty. They’ve understood that the real battlefield isn’t the isolated product but the user’s time and anxiety.
• Technology has changed the rules by pushing marginal cost toward zero in many interactions: processing a payment, showing a personalized catalog, sending a notification is almost free at scale—if the architecture is built for it.
• Data have become supply roads: whoever controls and interprets data flows well not only knows the terrain but can anticipate the moves of both enemy (competition) and ally (user).

For incumbents, the challenge is not to “look like startups” but to learn to manage time differently: shorten decision cycles, open up systems, and experiment without jeopardizing their trust base.

For startups, the challenge is not to “topple giants at any cost,” but to avoid the trap of attrition warfare, where funding rounds are burned without consolidating structural advantage.

The coming campaign won’t be blitzkrieg or trench warfare; it will be a series of combined operations. Winners will be those who master three capabilities:

1. Reading the user as a dynamic map, not a static statistic.
2. Turning technology into strategic logistics, not fireworks.
3. Cold‑bloodedly choosing which battles to cede and which to fight to the end.

The rest will keep reinforcing Maginot Lines while someone quietly slips through the digital Ardennes.

References

1. Nacha. “ACH Network Records Strong Growth in 2023; Same Day ACH Surpasses 3 Billion Payments Since Inception.” 2024. https://www.nacha.org/news/ach-network-records-strong-growth-2023-same-day-ach-surpasses-3-billion-payments-inception?utm_source=openai
2. EFE. “Bizum movió más de 51.000 millones de euros en 2023 y ya es usado por casi toda la banca.” 2024. https://efe.com/economia/2024-01-17/bizum-aplicacion-movil-banca-mueve-51-000-millones-euros/?utm_source=openai
3. CincoDías (El País). “La startup de pagos Craftgate lanza sus servicios en España, como punto de apoyo para su internacionalización.” 2024. https://cincodias.elpais.com/companias/2024-11-21/la-startup-de-pagos-craftgate-lanza-sus-servicios-en-espana-como-punto-de-apoyo-para-su-internacionalizacion.html?utm_source=openai
4. CincoDías (El País). “El Santander avanza para lanzar la salida a Bolsa de su ‘fintech’ Ebury en 2025.” 2024. https://cincodias.elpais.com/companias/2024-12-23/el-santander-avanza-para-lanzar-la-salida-a-bolsa-de-su-fintech-ebury-en-2025.html?utm_source=openai
5. CincoDías (El País). “La ‘fintech’ Embat adquiere la estadounidense Necto para reforzar sus servicios bancarios.” 2025. https://cincodias.elpais.com/companias/2025-02-25/la-fintech-embat-adquiere-la-estadounidense-necto-para-reforzar-sus-servicios-bancarios.html?utm_source=openai
6. Tangram Consulting. “Startup o empresa tradicional: más allá de los tópicos.” https://tangramconsulting.es/noticias/startup-o-empresa-tradicional-mas-alla-de-los-topicos?utm_source=openai
7. Wikipedia. “Modelo de negocios de cebo y anzuelo.” https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modelo_de_negocios_de_cebo_y_anzuelo?utm_source=openai