planning for the future (5): less talk, more action

We all know that actions speak louder than words.

But many brands still focus the majority of their marketing spend on talking.

It’s time to redress the balance.

Rationale

Advertising does a good job of telling people things.

That’s fine if we want to raise a bit of awareness.

However, advertising frequently behaves like the pseudo-tailors in ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes‘.

This clip sums up the reality of far too much marketing:

But in today’s hyperconnected communities, this ‘massive hyperbole’ approach no longer works.

No amount of advertising will make a bad product good.

It’s just too easy for people to spot a ‘naked’ brand, and to tell everyone else about it too.

More often than not, advertising isn’t the answer.

People want proof; not just claims.

So how can planning help?

We need to broaden our perspective.

We need to help brands understand what people really want, and then to identify the most profitable ways of delivering it to them.

We need to add value, from end to end: from informing R&D to inspiring customer service.

Key Benefit

If we give people what they really want, we won’t need to persuade them of anything; they’ll experience it for themselves.

Key Action

Allocate a minimum of 90% of your brand’s resource to identifying what people really want, and creating a solution that delivers it.

Use the remainder to demonstrate your brand experience to the people who are most passionate about its benefit.

If you’ve done the first bit right, they’ll do the rest for you.

Shaping the Future

Throughout this series on planning for the future, there’s been a recurring theme: how we can add real value.

If planning is to remain relevant, its role must evolve from promoting brands to actually delivering their benefits.

The new planning manifesto is simple:

The Rest of the ‘Planning for the Future’ Series

Introduction: a new planning manifesto

Use communications to deliver value: moving from advertising to adding value

It’s all about the benefits: a simple example of how to deliver a brand’s core benefit with a TV ad

Add CSR to everything you do: how contributing to the greater good can help your brand too

Blend the mix: towards more strategic distribution

Want to know more about planning for the future? Get in touch here.

planning for the future (4): blend the mix

As we saw earlier this week, brand communications have the opportunity to evolve from a promotional tool, into a new avenue to deliver brand benefits.

However, this opportunity isn’t limited to communications; it can easily extend to the rest of the marketing mix too.

Rationale

When it comes to branding, everything communicates: packaging, purchase experience, and after-sales support all play critical roles in shaping people’s perceptions of our brand.

However, brands often approach these elements as distinct activities, and deliver a range of different experiences as a result.

To address this issue, brands need to adopt a more holistic perspective, aligning everything they do to a common objective.

This isn’t about image consistency; it’s about maximising the opportunities to actually deliver what people really want and need (another case of starting from your audience, not the brand)

As we move towards a more holistic approach to marketing, planners need to think beyond ‘advertising’ to identify the ways we can help marketers to blend the various ‘Ps‘ into a truly seamless mix.

Let’s start by looking at distribution.

Take it to them

One way planners can help is to fundamentally re-think the role brands play in people’s lives.

A big part of this is helping to shift the marketing mindset from selling products to selling benefits.

Let’s take FMCG brands as an example.

The vast majority of these are sold through conventional retail channels – supermarkets, drugstores, etc.

Withing these channels, many even have their own dedicated category ‘aisles’.

Until recently, our concept of ‘innovation’ in distribution has been to locate brands in different parts of the store, like putting men’s toiletries next to the beer.

This is a good start, because it starts to think about people as they think about their needs.

But brands don’t belong to just one distribution environment.

Indeed, many FMCG brands have evolved beyond their core product offerings to become ‘lifestyle’ choices, and consequently, their relevance extends far beyond the supermarket shelf.

For this reason, I’d argue that a brand like Axe would be much more at home in a Diesel store than it is in the aisles of Walmart.

Furthermore, it could really come to life in nightclub bathrooms and gym locker rooms.

So what does this have to do with planners?

The answer lies in value delivery.

Getting involved in distribution strategy doesn’t fall into the traditional planner’s realm of influence, but demonstrating and delivering the brand’s benefits at the times of greatest relevance lies at the core of a new planning manifesto:

Identifying the most relevant and engaging times and places to deliver specific brand benefits, and the most efficient and effective ways to deliver those benefits in that context.

If planners are to help brands create real value, they need to get involved with all aspects of the marketing mix.

Key Benefit

Developing a distribution strategy around delivery of brand benefits helps build brand equity at the same time as expanding sales and revenue opportunities.

It also enables brands to develop mutually beneficial partnerships with other like-minded brands.

Alongside these growth opportunities, a unified ‘one brand‘ approach allows brands to reduce costs by harnessing operational synergies.

Key Action

Rather than limiting our thinking to conventional retail norms, we should re-examine the times and places where our brands’ benefits have the greatest relevance, and use this as the basis for developing distribution strategies instead.

Previous posts in the ‘planning for the future’ series

Introduction: a new planning manifesto

Use communications to deliver value: moving from advertising to adding value

It’s all about the benefits: a simple example of how to deliver a brand’s core benefit with a TV ad

Add CSR to everything you do: how contributing to the greater good can help your brand too.

planning for the future (3): add CSR to everything you do

Monday’s introduction to planning for the future highlighted an exciting shift in advertising’s role:

“Rather than simply interrupting [people's] escapism, we now have greater scope to make [their] lives better.”

Today’s suggestion – to incorporate an element of CSR into everything you do – continues this logic:

If brands are to become a meaningful part of people’s lives, they need to enrich those people’s lives too.

Rationale

“Give, and you shall receive”

This applies equally well to brands as it does to people; indeed, many of the world’s great brands were born on the principle of cooperation.

Lever Brothers built the foundations of today’s Unilever on the principle of ‘doing well by doing good’.

Similarly, Cadbury created an entire social eco-system for its workforce around the company’s factory in Bournville – an approach rooted in the Quaker ideal of mutual benefit.

For some reason, this ‘considerate’ approach to business went out of fashion for many years, reaching a low point in the corporate greed of the 1980s.

However, a renewed focus on ‘Corporate Social Responsibility‘ (CSR) became popular in the 90s, and brands today cannot justify a lack of broader conscientiousness.

But CSR isn’t just a ploy to enrich the company’s annual report.

Indeed, simply throwing money at a charity can often seem more like an acknowledgment of guilt than genuine concern.

For CSR to be effective, brands must demonstrate a real commitment to driving change and helping people.

This is most effective when the area of CSR focus relates to the brand’s core purpose and expertise, and integrates with the brand’s overall marketing.

For example, while I’d applaud a petroleum brand that donated 10% of its profits to feeding the poor, I’d admire and celebrate that brand much more if they invested the same amount of money in developing ecologically balanced sources of energy that ensured a brighter future for everyone, not just their shareholders.

However, it’s often difficult to justify that kind of longer-term CSR to shareholders, who invariably demand results today (and not 30 years down the line).

The good news is that CSR is a powerful and effective way to build a successful brand – a financial benefit that even myopic shareholders can relate to.

This is because CSR has the ability to create much deeper connection and engagement than broadcast advertising ever could; by helping communities and society at large, brands can demonstrate that they’re on the side of the people, and that helps to establish a more powerful bond.

So how can brands make best use of CSR opportunities?

Let’s return to the Run London example from yesterday’s post.

Nike incorporates a significant ‘community’ element in each iteration of this event (and indeed in much of its broader marketing).

For starters, all participants are encouraged to raise money for charity through sponsorship.

Other initiatives, such as Nike’s ReUse-A-Shoe Program, take the concept of CSR even further:

Benefit

Feeling good about a brand makes it much easier for people to justify choosing it over alternatives.

Furthermore, genuine CSR inspires people to talk about the brand, driving word of mouth and amplifying ROI.

Action

Identify as many relevant opportunities as you can for your brand to give something back to its communities, and assign a meaningful portion of your brand’s resource – money and effort – to delivering these contributions.

Previous posts in the ‘planning for the future‘ series

Introduction: a new planning manifesto

Use communications to deliver value: moving from advertising to adding value

It’s all about the benefits: a simple example of how to deliver a brand’s core benefit with a TV ad

planning for the future (2): use communications to deliver value

In yesterday’s introduction to planning for the future, we saw that planning is evolving into:

The process of identifying the most relevant and engaging times and places to deliver specific brand benefits, and the most efficient and effective ways to deliver those benefits in that context.

The first step in this evolution involves a fundamental shift in how we view brand communications.

Rather than merely promoting other forms of value delivery like products, brand communications can become a viable means to deliver benefits of their own.

Rationale

People don’t actually buy products or brands; they buy things that enable them to achieve specific aims.

As a consequence, brands that help people to achieve their aims more comprehensively are more attractive, and therefore more valuable.

Planning can help add to this value by enabling brands to create more opportunities to satisfy.

Our challenge is to turn every single interaction – including communications – into an opportunity to help people achieve their aims.

Nike already champions this approach.

It understands that people don’t buy ‘sportswear’; they buy things that enable them to participate in sporting activities.

So the brand focuses on creating more opportunities for people to enjoy those activities.

Run London is a great example, creating deeper engagement not just with the brand, but also with running:

Run London doesn’t just build engagement either: over 30,000 participants pay to take part, and the event generates more than £1million in revenue.

Given this, it’s easy to understand why Nike employs the same approach in football with Joga3, and in fitness with the Rockstar Workout.

Benefit

When everything a brand does helps people to satisfy their wants, needs, and desires, it becomes a much more valuable part of their lives.

Action

Identify the core benefit that your brand offers, and then identify ways to deliver it through every interaction – including communications.

planning for the future

Planning is the process of identifying the most efficient and effective ways for brands to share the things they want with the people that matter to them most.

Until recently, that has translated into identifying the most compelling ‘big brand ideas’, and then broadcasting them to apparently homogeneous audiences through conventional mass-media.

However, this approach no longer delivers the results we need.

Contrary to the laments of the media industry, this is not because attention has become more scarce; indeed, people actually have more free time now than they used to.

The real issue is that people have more opportunities to participate in a wider variety of activities, and unsurprisingly, they are choosing to focus their attention on those activities which offer them the greatest rewards.

In place of some of the time they used to spend ‘fire gazing’ – escaping the boredom and drudgery of everyday life – people are increasingly harnessing their cognitive surplus to learn and grow.

This more varied behaviour means that ‘audiences’ are increasingly dispersed: fewer people are doing the same thing at the same time, and mass-media are increasingly less ‘mass’ as a result.

However, this actually presents more opportunities than it does problems.

Rather than simply interrupting people’s escapism, we now have greater scope to get involved and make their lives better.

But, in order to achieve this, we need to rethink our approach to brand communications.

We need to move away from planning that centres on people’s ‘media habits’, and focus instead on the things that people are trying to achieve through those habits.

In other words, we need to ask why people do what they do, not just what they do.

Once we understand people’s motivations, we’ll find it much easier to find more relevant roles for our brands:

If people want passive entertainment, how can we help with that?

If they want to learn something new, what role can we play?

If they have a challenge, how can we help them solve it?

Brand communications can evolve into a means to deliver actual value, rather than simply a means to promote other forms of value delivery.

The benefit offered can be as simple as passive entertainment, but interactive experiences, education, and even corporate social responsibility (CSR) hold even greater potential.

In line with this evolving quest for people’s hearts and minds, planning’s role needs to evolve too, becoming

The process of identifying the most relevant and engaging times and places to deliver specific brand benefits, and the most efficient and effective ways to deliver those benefits in that context.

Over the next few days, I’ll share some ideas that can help make that future a reality.

orchestrating success

Marketing is similar to conducting an orchestra: our role is to bring all the different pieces of a story together into one, harmonious experience.

I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but this superb TED talk from Itay Talgam helped to bring those thoughts together:

Itay’s points have relevance to many areas of business, but they seem particularly pertinent to today’s world of participative brand relationships.

Let’s explore his points in a bit more depth.

Be as one

Itay begins his talk by observing that, until the conductor arrives, the orchestra is just making noise.

Some of that noise may stand out above the rest, but ultimately, the noise lacks a coherent structure.

A conductor’s role is to establish that structure:

“The conductor enables eveyone’s story to be heard at the same time.”

It’s important to remember that brands only exist in people’s minds, and their perceptions differ depending on individual experiences and context.

Some people hear different parts of our brand’s music in different ways, and those differences lead to differing perceptions and preferences.

As marketers, we need to ensure that the important instruments stand out, but also that they all come together in one, harmonious melody.

Communications should work as an ensemble

When combined effectively, a full orchestra delivers a far richer experience than any one instrument can on its own.

The same principle applies to communications channels (i.e. media): we can use the power of a ’solo’ where appropriate, but relying too heavily on just one instrument can limit your potential.

Our task is to take the beauty and power inherent in each instrument, and weave each of them together into a rich symphony.

Audience participation is a double-edged sword

The clip Itay shows of the Viennese audience clapping along to the music is a great example of audience participation.

Rather than ‘interfering’ with the performance, their contribution adds to the ’story’ and elevates the experience.

However, such participation would have ruined a rendition of Mozart’s Moonlight Sonata:

Where it’s relevant, audience participation can play a valuable part in the experience, but it’s critical to remember that it’s not always relevant.

Our task is to identify when it makes sense to harness participation, and then influence and guide it to ensure that it doesn’t become an unwelcome distraction.

Inspiration vs. control

Itay tells the story of the conductor at La Scala, who was forced to resign because he was overly commanding.

As Itay notes, trying to control with an iron fist removes the possibility of partnership – a loss that would have serious consequences in a world where participation is becoming increasingly important.

If we try too hard to command the conversations surrounding our brands, we risk suffocating them.

Instead, we need to shift our focus from control to guidance – as Itay suggests,

“Open a space for players to add in another layer of interpretation — their own.”

We can guide the conversation along a particular path, but we need to allow that conversation the freedom to evolve of its own accord as well.

Immerse yourself

Quite early on in his talk, Itay notes that:

“success comes from happiness”

I’ve mentioned this before: if you want to be the best at what you do, you’ve got to love doing it.

Most importantly, you’ve got to get involved.

A means vs. the end

For me, the most salient point in Itay’s talk is when he contrasts interpretation with execution.

As marketers in a social world, our role is to inspire; not to control.

That will inevitably lead to some unexpected results; sometimes, people will interpret our efforts in a way that is markedly different to what we’d intended.

However, as long as the the results are still favourable, there’s little reason to worry: there are many different routes to success, and it’s arriving at the destination that counts.

All the right notes…

I’ll conclude with a point I’ve made a few times before: success in marketing depends on them, not you.

Sometimes, even if you play all the right notes, you can’t guarantee you’ll achieve success.

Take it away Eric, Ernie, and André…

Thanks very much to John for sowing the seeds of this post in my mind, and to Inaki for introducing me to Itay’s TED talk.

a world of great advertising

Something alarming struck me as I read AdAge’s  Top 100 Advertising Campaigns of all time.

They’re all American.

And they’re all TV or print campaigns.

That doesn’t seem right; I’m sure great advertising exists beyond the realm of US print and TV.

But, when I started to think about it, I realised that I don’t know many non-US examples.

And that’s probably because I rarely get to hear about them.

That needs to change: diversity of influence is a critical ingredient in continued innovation.

So I need your help.

I’d like to hear about your ‘rest of the best’: brand communications from the rest of the world, from any channel, that dramatically improved a brand’s success, or that significantly improved our approach to advertising.

Simply drop your suggestions into the comments section below, along with a few details and a link to the relevant work wherever possible, and I’ll consolidate them into a best of list.

Here are a couple of suggestions to get things going:

Nike’s ‘RunLondon‘ (W+K, United Kingdom, multichannel, starting 2001)

Tourism Queensland’s ‘Best Job in the World’ (Sapient-Nitro, worldwide, online PR-led, 2008)

What else deserves to be on that list?

get the message?

Simon Law shared some thoughts in response to the recent measures of success post that alluded to another interesting question:

“Does advertising always need a message?“

Much like ‘big ideas’, advertisers increasingly question the validity and relevance of ‘messages’.

But I believe much of that criticism is unfounded.

Every advert – and indeed, every communication – needs a message.

The issue in advertising is not the relevance of messages, but what the word ‘message‘ has come to mean.

People use it arbitrarily to mean a variety of different things: slogan, tagline, theme,…

Strictly speaking, however, it’s none of those.

Defining the term

Communication is all about exchange.

The word’s linguistic root means “to make common” – i.e. to share.

Modern definitions have evolved to encompass a slightly broader context; this is dictionary.com’s perspective:

“The imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.“

It’s clear from this that communication should always involve some kind of sharing.

And that’s where ‘messages’ come in.

Sharing what?

In an advertising context, the message is whatever we hope to share: thoughts, opinions, information, etc.

Put more simply, the message is

“The subject of communication.“

However, this is still a little too ambiguous.

The role of a message

We’ve seen before that the purpose of brand communication is:

“To create a shared understanding between a brand and the people it wishes to influence.“

In that context, the ‘subject‘ of brand communication is the understanding that we want to share.

So, fundamentally, a message is

“The thing we want people to think, believe, or perceive as a result of experiencing our communications.“

So why do we need one?

Some people have suggested that a ‘message’ isn’t necessary – that advertising can work perfectly well without one.

But that makes no sense.

All advertising must have a purpose: an objective that relates to the brand’s success.

Furthermore, that purpose will always involve sharing something with an audience that will influence their attitudes and / or behaviour.

So, in light of how we’ve defined ‘message‘ above, it’s logical to conclude that all advertising must have a message.

Deciding the message

Deciding exactly what that message should be is a lot more complex.

As always, the most appropriate message depends entirely on what the brand wants to achieve, and whom it’s talking to.

Let’s look at an example that many detractors cite when asserting that advertising doesn’t need a message:

I’ve heard many people suggest that ‘Gorilla‘ doesn’t have a message.

But, together with a group of very intelligent people*, I worked on the strategy that inspired Gorilla (and the subsequent ‘Trucks‘ and ‘Eyebrows‘ films), so I can confidently assert that it did have a message.

The expression of that message even appears in the clip, albeit subtly.

At the time we began development of this strategy, the Cadbury Dairy Milk brand faced an interesting dilemma: although it was still the nation’s favourite chocolate, it had become a category generic: Cadbury Dairy Milk was ‘chocolate’, and people didn’t perceive it standing for much beyond that.

Meanwhile, competitors were gaining ground with highly targeted positionings that appealed to specific audience desires.

A thorough exploration of the Cadbury Dairy Milk brand revealed that there was a generosity that ran through everything the brand did – from its cooperative roots, to the fact that Cadbury continues to use fresh milk in the production process.

Coincidentally, we already knew that the audience aspired to be more optimistic: they were tired of the constant cynicism that surrounded them, and they wanted to break free from that by surrounding themselves with more optimistic people.

We saw a relevant connection between generosity and optimism.

Then, when we reflected on the brand’s heritage of ‘a glass-and-a-half of milk in every half pound‘ (a well-known claim used in much of the brand’s historic advertising), the somewhat obvious line was too good to ignore:

“See the world as a glass-and-a-half full.“

The play on seeing the glass half empty versus half full is obvious: Cadbury Dairy Milk offers people an exceptionally optimistic outlook that counters the cynicism that pervades their lives.

It’s not rocket science, but then, choosing a brand of chocolate isn’t too complicated either.

I wasn’t involved in the specific development of the Gorilla film,  so can’t comment with authority, but I think the intended ‘message’ is pretty clear:

“Cadbury Dairy Milk’s communications bring you a moment of optimistic joy – just like Cadbury Dairy Milk chocolate.“

Simple, but very effective.

Conclusion

Communications always need a message: something that the brand wants its audience to understand, and that will help it achieve its objectives.

That message doesn’t need to be complex, and it doesn’t need to be expressed explicitly.

But we’ve always got to share something.

Even if that’s just a moment of joy.

*As a consultant at ascension strategy consulting, I helped to develop the proposition and subsequent positioning for the Cadbury Dairy Milk brand. Publicis were Cadbury’s agency at the time of this development, although the brand’s account subsequently moved to Fallon, who created the Gorilla film featured above.

looking back

Russell posted a recording of Hyperland a few days ago. It’s an amazing documentary from the early 1990s that foretells the advent of the Web.

Faris has a fantastic review of the film and lots of background over on TIGS – I highly recommend taking a look. You can watch the film there too.

As I was re-watching this wonderful piece of web history, I was reminded of a significant upcoming ‘birthday’: the anniversary of the first internet banner ad:

The banner, for telco AT&T, appeared on the HotWired site on October 24th, 1994.

15 years ago.

From some perspectives, that feels like yesterday.

But considering how much things have changed, it also feels like a lifetime ago.

Back in 1994, my prized possession was a Walkman cassette player. I had to decide which cassette I’d take with me when I left the house. My music collection was vast, and one whole wall of my bedroom was covered in shelves full of CDs, cassettes, and vinyl.

We had a VHS player connected to an enormous box of a CRT TV that dominated one whole corner of the living room. We only had 4 free-to-air TV channels.

Most people didn’t own computers, and many of those who did had black-and-white monitors (although our home computer was an awesome Apple Mac Classic).

If you got lost, you had to ask someone for directions. They had whole sections on how to do that in foreign language classes at school.

And because a telephone was something that was wired into the wall in your house, you had no way of letting people know you were lost and were going to be late. Friends stood around, with nothing to do, waiting for hours for their mates to arrive.

Social groups stayed in touch by letter. We had penpals.

Photography was cumbersome. Most people sent their camera films off to be developed (and Kodak adverts were everywhere). You had to stick all your developed photos into an album and cart it round to your granny’s house.

If you needed to research something, you had to go to the library to look in the encyclopaedia. Those nice people at Britannica used to come knocking at the door, trying to sell 30-volume editions that would fill a room in your house.

But today, my iPhone brings all of that – and much more – to my pocket.

As Iain pointed out recently, the world today is amazing

I honestly can’t imagine what things will look like 15 years from now.

But looking back at how far we’ve come in the past decade-and-a-half, I’m excited.

And I’ll be raising a glass in honour of that first HotWired banner next Saturday.

differentiating brands

One of marketing’s key tasks is differentiation: helping a brand to stand out from the crowd of other options.

There are many different ways to differentiate a brand, but there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer; it’s simply a case of understanding what works best for your brand and the kinds of people you want to attract.

Rob has a great introduction to differentiation techniques on his semantic argument blog, so I thought I’d share some additional thoughts on aspects of the marketing mix you might want to explore when expressing what sets your brand apart. I’ve tried to make it as straightforward as possible, to ensure it’s accessible to those without a strong marketing background.

I don’t pretend that it’s a comprehensive guide to the topic, but together with Rob’s posts and other web resources, it should at least provide some useful stimulus when it comes to defining or sharpening your differentiation.
.

Price Differentiation

This is the most basic form of differentiation, although there are a few variations on the theme:

Super Discount

Differentiation based on being the cheapest. It’s clear to see why it appeals to consumers, but it’s a cul-de-sac for the brand: ever-eroding profit margins and constant compromises on quality make it difficult to sustain.

Highest Price

People sometimes use price as a proxy for determining ‘quality’, particularly in complex or technical categories. This technique interprets that insight to suggest that a high price is actually desirable in certain circumstances.

This is particularly true in the pharmaceutical and child-care categories, where brands often play on people’s fears of the perceived ‘compromise’ they associate with cheaper brands.

It is also a favourite technique amongst luxury brands, who use exaggerated pricing to transform their offerings into status symbols and badges of wealth and success.

Mid Point

Adopting a price point that lies between the prices of existing competitors establishes a safe, ‘middle-of-the-road’ positioning that neither offends nor excites anyone. It appeals to people who want to compromise, and as a consequence, it rarely delivers meaningful differentiation.
.

Quantifiable Superiority

The brand differentiates its offering via measurable attributes, e.g.:

The speed of a computer processor
The amount of legroom on an airline
The number of years a malt whisky has been aged

This approach works well for brands that can deliver superior functional performance over time.

However, the brand risks losing its differentiation if another brand can deliver similar or superior performance, or if another brand succeeds in changing the basis for comparison to a different product or brand attribute.

It’s worth noting that brands can celebrate any attribute they choose, regardless of whether that attribute contributes significantly to its offering’s core performance, provided it can justify the relevance of that attribute.

There are a few variations on the Quantifiable Superiority approach:

Size Matters

This approach focuses on a comparative maximum or minimum of size, irrespective of how this impacts actual value – i.e. quantity over quality:

The hotel with the most rooms
The cable plan with the most channels
The smallest phone on the market

A parallel to this is the ‘blanket advertising’ approach, where the brand attempts to differentiate by shouting as loudly as it can, so that people simply can’t ignore it.

These approaches are neither pretty nor  subtle – they are the marketing equivalent of a man measuring his appendage – but their use is still widespread.

However, such popularity does not denote effectiveness.

Safety in Numbers

This approach harnesses the ‘herd instinct’, using rational claims to overcome more subjective concerns:

“Millions of satisfied customers can’t be wrong”
“The nation’s favourite”
“We work with more Fortune 500 brands than any of our competitors”

This works well in categories where measures of performance are more subjective; where people aren’t sure what really matters; or where competing brands emphasise a variety of unconnected attributes.

Interestingly, brands can also harness the opposite approach – ‘small for a reason’ – to equal effect, e.g.:

“For those who know the difference”
“Think different”
“Go your own way”

This is ultimately a volume limiting strategy, but the approach supports premium pricing that can offset lower unit sales.
.

Distribution

The places where you make your brand available will play a strong part in establishing and reinforcing your positioning. However, distribution can also be used as a differentiation strategy in its own right.

Brands like Avon, Tupperware, and even Dell managed to break free from the traditional confines of their categories by making their brands available through new and relevant channels.

There are two broad routes to differentiated distribution:

Wherever, whenever

Although it may not the key pillar of the brand’s differentiation, this approach is most famously adopted by Coke, with their ‘always within arm’s reach‘ philosophy. Quick-service restaurants and mobile communications networks often emphasise it too.

It requires considerable commitment to introduce and maintain, and it’s fairly obvious if the brand doesn’t  achieve it (“they’re everywhere, except when I need them!”).

However, when implemented successfully, it creates ‘monopoly through ubiquity’; although it might not be a person’s favourite brand, they will continue to choose it because it’s always there when others aren’t.

Exclusivity

Conversely, restricting the supply and availability of your brand can help to make it more desirable, particularly in categories like luxury and ‘gadget’ technology.

It can work well for high-quality brands if used in conjunction with other approaches – notably highest price -  but basing an entire differentiation strategy on restricted availability will most likely just frustrate people and accelerate the brand’s demise.
.

Heritage

This approach plays on the belief that longevity is a reliable indication of experience and trustworthiness; e.g.:

“Established in 1823”
“A family recipe handed down over the generations”
“The original…”

Although not as extreme, this approach suffers from issues similar to Safety in Numbers: it is very effective in situations where people don’t know much about the category, or where it’s difficult to compare competitor claims, but it loses its advantage as soon as a competitor establishes a more compelling basis for comparison.
.

Rational Advantage

The brand demonstrates or claims superiority through a rational benefit of its offering, e.g.:

Saves you time
“Won’t let you down”
Simple enough for anyone to use

This approach shifts the focus from the functional attribute to the benefit that the attribute delivers, but it suffers from risks similar to those associated with the Quantifiable Superiority approach, and consequently may not be sustainable.

Augmented Product

Effectively a derivative of the Rational Advantage approach, this approach highlights advantages offered by features other than the core product, e.g.:

The purchase experience
After-sales support
Distribution or delivery

When used correctly, these features become more important than the product offering itself, and help to establish deep and lasting relationships with the brand’s customers.
.

Outstanding Promotion

Although common and seemingly attractive, this approach is highly risky, because it encourages people to focus on superficial aspects of the brand that have little to do with the product’s core benefit.

While this may be acceptable in spontaneous, low-risk purchase categories such as snacks, it is rarely sustainable elsewhere.

However, attractive packaging, beautiful merchandising, and slick advertising all help to solicit attention that enables the brand to introduce more complex or substantial dimensions of differentiation.
.

The Secret Formula, or Magic Ingredient

This approach bridges functional and emotional claims by harnessing what could be termed ‘irrational functional’ claims:

“A formula known only to 3 people in the world”
“With patented compound Q16e”
“A secret blend of 11 unique herbs and spices”

Brands that have used this approach to varying degrees of success include KFC, Kellogg’s Frosties, as well as numerous cosmetics brands.

When it harnesses a relevant truth, or is executed with appropriate humour, this approach can be highly engaging.

However, beware of relying on shallow claims, particularly in relation to pseudo-science; while you may fool people for a short while, if people discover or perceive that your brand is all ‘hot air’, you won’t have any equity left.
.

Implied Superiority

Exaggerating or downplaying other elements of the marketing mix can infer superiority on the product itself.

We’ve already seen how outstanding promotion or unexpectedly high pricing work, but downplaying such elements can also work when carefully implemented:

Purposely bland packaging in a category where extravagance is the norm
“A well kept secret – the specialist connoisseur’s brand”
“We don’t need to advertise; this product sells itself”

This approach can afford high margins, but is not without risk.

In particular, it suffers from the ‘emperor’s new clothes’ dilemma: it works brilliantly provided there’s real substance behind the exaggeration.
.

Subjective Superiority

The brand asserts its superiority based on subjective measures that are difficult to measure:

“Best-tasting brand”
“Probably the best lager in the world”
“If your pet could choose, they would buy this brand”

This approach is often carefully controlled by law to prevent misleading advertising.

However, provided the brand stays within relevant guidelines, and as long as the execution fits clearly with the brand’s overall personality, it can successfully engage audiences.

It seems particularly effective when used with irreverent humour.
.

Emotional Appeals

The brand highlights how it makes you feel, rather than what it does:

“Open happiness”
“A glass and a half full of joy”

This is an exceptionally powerful route to differentiation, because it allows the brand to break free from the limitations associated with functional product features, and instead focus on areas that foster more enduring bonds.

The brand can emphasise any emotion it likes, but those emotions that people commonly associate with the product’s functional benefits are often the simplest to establish.

It’s worth noting that brands can still gain an advantage over competitors by harnessing emotions that are generic to the category, provided they are the first or most credible claimants.

Flattery and Justification

This approach is more of an advertising technique than a unique differentiating approach, but deserves mention due to its ability to engage specific groups:

“Because you’re worth it”
“You deserve it”
“Go on, indulge yourself”

There are many variations on this theme, but they all pander to some sense of inner insecurity.

Although not particularly subtle, this approach can establish a deep bond, and is therefore worthy of consideration.
.

Affinity Plays

This approach is more about establishing a differentiated brand personality than it is about demonstrating tangible product differentiation.

The simplest approach is to highlight things that the brand has in common with the people it wants to engage – just as people who are meeting for the first time do. This is one of the main uses of sponsorship: brands attempt to connect with people by demonstrating shared ‘passions’.

A more difficult, yet potentially more engaging approach is to create a new focus for people’s attention. Red Bull has employed this strategy for a number of years, and has enjoyed considerable success with activities such as its Flugtag and Air Race events.

Despite their simplicity, Affinity Plays are difficult to implement successfully, because it’s very easy for the brand to come across as a me-too brand that’s trying too hard.

However, brands that succeed enjoy lasting success, because they establish meaningful relationships with people beyond the tangible and functional qualities of their products.

The key is to demonstrate early and lasting commitment to the area of focus; arriving late to the party makes it much more difficult for the brand to establish credibility.

The Choice Of…

A slight variation on Affinity Plays, this approach highlights the choices of people or groups that the brand believes its target feel an affinity towards.

It builds affinity by association:

By appointment to the Queen
George Clooney’s choice
The choice of a new generation

The approach is similar to Safety in Numbers, but emphasises emotional appeals over measures of sheer magnitude or volume.
.

Further thoughts

Many brands  combine a number of these approaches in order to establish and express their differentiation.

However, it’s often better to focus on one principal dimension at the outset, because it makes it easier for people to understand what makes your brand different and special.

Don’t forget that competitors won’t stand still either – as you define your differentiation and change market dynamics, so competitors will change their approach. Consequently, the task is never complete: you’ve got to keep building and reinforcing it.

Above all, remember that differentiation takes time. It isn’t a ‘campaign’ job – you’ve got to live it and demonstrate it in everything you do.

As I mentioned earlier, this is by no means an exhaustive guide, so I’ll pass the baton on.

What’s missing? What would you add or remove?

The comments section is waiting for your thoughts and feedback.