Know-How Exchange : Strategy

There's a proven advantage to any claim/word that can be modified with FIRST, BEST or ONLY and still be true.

Crest was the FIRST cavity-fighting toothpaste. Volvo is the BEST car if all you care about is safety. MarketingProfs is the ONLY online marketing resource with more than 320,000 members. Etc.

Very often the positioning difference is not just a product feature, but the way it is presented and perceived. People THINK Duracell is long-lasting because (a) its name starts with DURA-, (b) they tell you how long lasting it is in their advertising, and (c) they've made the copper-top a symbol of long-lasting and they "own" that mnemonic device (even if there are copy-cats).

Here are two of my highly Mutable rules:

1 For every rule there are a thousand examples of success breaking it . . . . and since it's Marketing, you'll never know until you try.

2 Sometime rules are wrong.

Trout and Ries describe an approach . . . and it's a good one. But it's not a recipe. If you can't fit something into one word, use as many as you like.

There are a huge number of examples of the use of single word or short phrase positioning statements where you have Yin, but no chance of Yang. For example, "Tasty" Lancashire Cheese is self defining but no one would think of marketing "Tasteless Lancashire Cheese" and "High Impact" anything denies the right of "Low Impact" anything to be impressive, unless it is an ecological or green product when it is the reverse!

My own feeling is that they have made a gross over simplification in the book!

Dear pfeng5,

In order to obtain (and indeed, retain) a market position one must first condition the thinking of one's customer so that your goods, services, or products are the logical first choice when the prospect of customer has need of them.

Just my humble two cents' worth.

Gary Bloomer
The Direct Response Marketing Guy™
Princeton, NJ, USA

There isn't always a clear leader over just being first. In fact, according to a very widely respected white paper, Coloonizers vs consolidators " The individuals
or companies that create radically new markets
are not necessarily the ones that scale them into mass
markets. Indeed, historical evidence shows that in the
majority of cases, product and service pioneers are
almost never the ones to conquer the markets they create."

https://www.strategy-business.com/media/file/03306.pdf.

Check it out-- Amazon wasn't the first online book seller. Neither was Etrade or Charles Schwab the first to offer online stock services.

Hence Gary is right on. "Since the new product or service does not meet an immediate, well-articulated need, it is likely that a long period of time will pass before customers adopt it. Hence, one can expect adoption rates to be slow. Since there are no well-articulated needs, it it is impossible to be sure of the right design of a new product or service built on the new technology."

Also take in consideration the culture of the org-- colonizers are risk takers-- consolidators move slow. There is a positive and negative to both cultures. But as we know from business starts and the % of success, risk takers may have the disadvantage. But when you are right-- I believe you are paid by the amount of risk you take.

Hi pfeng5,

Ries and Trout’s positioning theories were born out of packaged goods case studies in the 60’s and times have changed. As mgoodman points out, Crest was the “cavity” toothpaste and Volvo was the “safety” automobile, in perception as the advertisements claimed way back then.

Al Ries has continued to write (along with his daughter Laura Ries) as if brands could still make simple claims that will hold up with consumers. It rarely works. As Carol points out, Crest and other major toothpaste brands of today claim every possible benefit thus diluting the original differentiations. But then again there is Sensodyne claiming the word “sensitivity”. And there is the Twiiter claiming “short text” (ok two words, but still a focused territorial claim).

For me, Ries and Trout’s theories remain fundamental touchstones during brand strategy development sessions. Not perfect, not as contemporary, but still worthy guides for branding goals - clarity and claim of brand territory within a segmented competitive landscape.

hope this helps,

Steve

It's impressive. Well, I agree with what Steve said, sometimes it's hard to define the focus and it's all depending on which perspective you are looking from. I mean, taking the Crest for example, from the perspective of Cavity in toothpaste, Crest has diluted the original differntiations. But from the point of the whole term--toothpaste, even though Crest selling the whiten feature, Crest still keep focus, because Crest still doing toothpaste, rather than going to sell shampoo or books. So I think everything is relative, especially in the changeable market area.

Well, Positioning theory was born in 60s, quite long long ago. But it's still a good guide to refer. There is a interesting thing. I have a friend from China. He's done many years as marketing manager in a big local company. He told me that Positioning theory by Jack Trout is increasing popular in current China, cos the current Chinese market situation is similar with the American condition in 60s and some local companies made huge success in short time after using this theory. I'm not sure that... LOL Just sharing this information. Do anyone have any idea about it ?