ThinkingSparks

I disagree with the claim that positioning is an outdated concept

No "normal blogpost today. Instead my response to Brand Consultant Asia's blogpost that states that positioning is not a valid concept in this day an age.

I think the concept of positioning still holds true even though the world has changed greatly over the last 40 years. There are still competitors, there are still customers. Customers have changed and markets have too. That doesn't make the concept of positioning obsolete. It makes it harder and more necessary than ever.

In my response I tell it like I see it (which after moderation can hopefully can also be read below the original blogpost; January 31, 8.42 PM):

 

-------------------------

This is an interesting read but I one that I disagree with wholehartedly. I address each reason you presented below:

Ad 1)

You state chat a model that was developed for the US mass market in the seventies is not applicable to other countries or through time. Why does a market have to be similar in order for a model to work? All markets have the same elements (competitors, customers, manufacturers etc.) don't they. If you extend your statement to other theories it is the same as saying that economic theories cannot be applied in Malaysia because they were thought up by Americans or English in another era. This reasoning in my opinion is flawed.

 

Ad 2)

Bad claims or outrageous claims developed by agencies for the clients doesn't mean that the concept of positioning is no good. It means that agencies did poor work.

 

Ad 3)

I am not sure what you mean by your statement that positioning is only suitable for mass markets. As long as there is competition and there are customers you can use the concept. Even if there is no competition you can still position your company or your brand.

 

Ad 4)

Mission and vision, values, BHAG's; there are tons of stuff in business that are immeasurable. Or they are measurable but aren't measured. Does that mean that the concept doesn't hold? I don't think so.

 

Ad 5)

Wikipedia is no official standard. It could be my opinion or yours; whoever comes last. So dimissing positioning because you do not like the definition in Wikipedia is a sophism. Skipping that and going back to Ries & Trout, the wrote a book on bottom-up marketing and always had the consumer/customer/prospects in mind.

 

Ad 6)

You state positioning is one way communication. The company is telling the customer how the products are positioned. I think that you are confusing claims with positioning again. I hope companies would be smarter than to communicate their positioning to their target audience. Who cares?

 

Ad 7)

To me positioning is both competition and consumer/customer driven. That is the way I work and I know that others do too. And Ries & Trout say the following: "To find a tactic that will work, you have to leave your ivory tower and go down to the front where the marketing battle is being fought. Where is the front? In the minds of your customers and prospects".

 

Ad 8)

Of course the world has changed significantly over the last 40 years but that doesn't mean that theories and models aren't true or usable anymore?

 

Ad 9)

You state that positioning uses mass market channels. To me positioning is a strategic concept and not equal to marketing communication. So what you really seem to be saying here is that mass market channels aren't of this day and age. I agree with you there, but it has nothing to do with the concept of positioning.

 

Ad 10)

Advertising can cost a lot of money. You are equaling positioning and advertising. Positioning is a strategic concept and Advertising is a possible form of execution of the strategic positioning for a company or a product.

 

Ad 11)

Of course tennis rackets have changed throughout the years because of the possibilities technology offer, but since 1873 tennis has been played with a racket. The concept of the tool is still the same. People still play tennis with a racket. If I apply this analogy it would mean that the  theory of positioning can be innovated and developed throughout the years, and still be a tool to be used.

 

You state some undeniable facts. Markets and consumers have changed. Communication channels are of another era. But your arguments for positioning being outdated and unusable are - in my opinion - flawed and have not convinced me. I also miss an alternative. It would be great positioning for your agency: The brand agency with the alternative to positioning!

Consistency beats authenticity

Two days ago I shared the questions I had on consistency vs. authenticity when it comes to branding.

What is more important when building a brand? Consistency or authenticity? Or is authenticity an easy - and only? - route to consistency? Is it the need for consistency that drives the quest for authenticity? And does social networking make it easier to build a brand or harder because of more touchpoints and moments of truth?

Wikipedia gives the following meaning of authenticity:

1. Authenticity refers to the truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions.
2. Authenticity is a technical term in existentialist philosophy, and is also used in the philosophy of art and psychology. In philosophy, the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. Authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite these pressures.

The only applicable definition in Merriam-Webster is the similar to the philosophical definition.

Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore in their book Authentity use the following criteria for authenticity:

1. Is the offering true to itself? This describes the relation between the organization and its output.
2. Is the offering what it says it is? This describes the relation between the organization and its customers.

Check out their Real/Fake Matrix in the vote box (right side; look for explanation)..

From a philosophical perspective it would seem that in order to be authentic one has to withstand external pressures. Keeping customers in mind, which is what most companies should do, in itself clashes with being authentic.

I like to believe that most independent artists (painters, photographers, writers, poets etc.) are authentic. They produce what they think they should without taking into account if there is a market for it. Of course if there isn't they will be the stereotype of the starving artist. With this definition it is clear that any organization with stakeholders cannot ever by authentic.

It is obvious that Pine and Gilmore adapted the meaning of authenticity to their needs by adding the second criterion. A criterion that makes sense. As an organization you want to keep your promisses. Be it your brand promiss of the promiss of quality or price, service etc. It is important because if you don't keep your promisses your customers will be gone before you know it.

I however, think that that is more a question of consistency than authenticity. Harmony of conduct or practice. In other words: practice what you preach in all those moments of truth. Of course authentic behavior leads to consistency. But the question is if there are other ways to consistency.

Being authentic in itself means nothing. Being true to one's own personality, spirit or character, means that you should be true to the good and the bad in you. But it is the bad or negative charactertraits of a person or organization that can lead to not making true on our promiss. Authenticity has a downside too. Although excentricity to an artist may be a plus.

Being authentic with flaws and excentricities gives a competitive advantage as it is hard to immitate such traits. And every organization or person even, is looking for a competitive edge. At the same time however, there are umpteen thousand books, articles, classes, workshops etc. etc. to improve and change ourselves and our organizations. Is that being true to oneself? Somehow it doesn't feel that way.

So being truly authentic in the sense of being true one's personality, spirit and character is not always desirable. It leads me to prefer the term consistency to authenticity.

Have I answered my own questions now?

1. What is more important when building a brand? Consistency or authenticity? I think we are looking for consistency and are confusing that with authenticity.
   
2. Or is authenticity an easy - and only? - route to consistency? I think authenticity is a route to consistency but it is not an easy one as the content of authenticity has many shapes and sizes. How do you control the dark side of your authenticity? Should you control the dark side of your authenticity?
   
3. Is it the need for consistency that drives the quest for authenticity? Maybe. I don't know. Maybe the term authenticity is misused and hyped. Maybe we like to believe that everything is possible and makeable; even authenticity. Which is a contradiction in itself: makeable authenticity.
   
4. And does social networking make it easier to build a brand or harder because of more touchpoints and moments of truth? Social networking may offer a whole new range of possibilities but consistency is harder when there are more touchpoints.
   

This is what I think. What do you think?

Consistency or authenticity?

What is more important when building a brand? Consistency or authenticity? Or is authenticity an easy - and only? - route to consistency? Is it the need for consistency that drives the quest for authenticity? And does social networking make it easier to build a brand or harder because of more touchpoints and moments of truth?

All these questions in my mind. My answer is likele to pop out any day now. What do you think?

75 tweets in 23 hours ... and counting

Yesterday I blogged about things I didn't get about social networking. One of the things I didn't get is following 50.000+ people on Twitter. It may look like you're hip and happening, but how is it social? How much interaction is there really possible?

Then I noticed that this particular person send out a lot of tweets; 75 in the last 23 hours to be precise. Woah! Information overload, I say!

I am sure that in this networked times new rules apply, but does that mean that old rules do not apply anymore at all? In an "old world" we wouldn't dream over imposing such an overload of messages. Why is that now acceptable? I don't find it acceptable. It is too much. Way too much. And tiresome...

 

So who can shed a light on this for me? Please enlighten me.

 

9 things I do not get about social networking

Last month I did a selfimposed crashcourse in social networking. Read the books, the blogs, the tweets and there are just some things I do not get. Don't get me wrong I like to use social networks but from a personal and professional (marketer's) view I just don't get certain things.

Twitter:

1. Why is it practice to follow someone back who follows you? (Unless you are a celebrity of course, then you follow hardly anyone.) I really do not want to follow everyone who follows me. Especially if the tweets are limited to the summing up of daily activities. Who cares!? Some people you suspected  really had something interesting to say, turn out to be incredible bores...
2. I get that in order to promote yourself you want a lot of followers, but why would you want to follow 50.000+ people? You are never going to pay attention to all of them. It is very unauthentic and unbelievable. And as a personal brand (I hate that term) you definitely do want to be authentic.
3. And is it just me or are some tweets just unintelligble? One person I followed when I restarted Twitter again seemed to be using some kind of secret language. How inviting is that to read? NOT! I bet there are copywriting classes for Twitter already. Copyblogger probably has 10 or 43 tips on how to write catchy tweets.

Blogs:

1. Why are there so many blogs on social networking? There should be a good blog on that topic and then some other with different opinions, so as a reader you can form your own opinion. All these thousands of blogs seem to blur into one another and they all say the same. The repeat themselves and others. How do you stand out if you parrot one another?
2. And what is with the incredible number of posts (or tweets for that matter)? The advice from all those blogs on social networking mentioned in (1) is that you have to be prolific. For me as a reader it is about the quality not about the quantity. I do not want to open my Google Reader to 4 new posts per blog every day. It gives me less time for a wider variety of blogs. I think consistency and a regular frequency are more important than quality. Think about it. It is like bombarding your audience with (advertising) messages.
3. Some SM blogs suggest that you have to give your audience what they want. How does that match with working from your own values, your vision, your expertise, the story you have to tell? Of course you want to have an audience, but should you change the content you think is worthwhile because you do not have an audience? You want to remain true to yourself now don't you? And if you have no audience then there is no demand. Tough but a fact of life. Go do something else.
4. Whatever happened to trackbacks? I loved Trackbacks (after I finally understood what it was and how it worked) but they seem to have disappeared while they are such good ways to connect on content.
5. Blogs filled with absolute truths are being presented. Things are being claimed and stated for which there is no proof. It is all anecdotal or based on lifelong experience. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but combined with # 6 there are some uncontrollable "memes" being created. Blog lemmings! Who would want to be a blog lemming?
6. The last thing I wonder about is the critiquelessness of it all. Everyone seems to have had the same feedback training. It is all so positive that I can almost smell the roses coming out of my laptop. And stardust too. And happy thoughts.... All these readers seem to gobble up what they are being fed. An independent mind or a realistic critique are very seldom seen. One does rather not say anything. So comments vary from: "this is so deep", "this is excellent", "this is the best I have ever read".... Really? Go to a university library and read a book.

Maybe someone can explain it to me. Give it your best shot I say! And if you do not agree, please vocalize it!

Trapped in the illusion of makeability

When years ago I started my Master of Philosophy of Management & Organization I had a rocky three months. Everything I believed in I questioned.

Having studied Business Administration, International Management and Strategic Marketing I had always been taught that everything is makeable. Not explicitely but it was implied. And that seems logical because that is wat management sciences are about. Trying to control the uncontrollable. Becoming masters of our own and our organization's destiny.

In order to become a master there always seem to be a list to follow or an X number of steps toward greatness. I never saw those lists as gospel as I am one of the most critical people I (and lots of other people) know. At least I was until I met all these philosophers. They were even more critical than I was. So compared to them I found myself to be a believer in makeability. Confronted with other insights and thought I had a bit of a crisis and discarded my naieve belief that everything is makeable. Makeability is an illusion. It was the answer I gave my students when they asked why change programs failed, big plans didn't work out or mergers resulted in a desillusion of its own.

It is a fata morgana everyone seems to be chasing though. Just now I read this blogpost "125 tips for buildiging an Irresistible brand". No doubt that these are great suggestions but the sheer number also illustrates how hard it is to make that irresistible brand. The critiqueless comments and the popularity of this particular blog illustrates that people want to believe in makeability and are hungry for lists.

After my baptism into the church of disbelief of makeability I for some time didn't know how to do deal with that. Eventually it came to me. As long as you know and accept that things aren't makeable you just give all that you can to influence actions and contexts. And you accept that you cannot influence everything. And be critical of lists and develop your own approach that you improve upon based on your experience and adapt based on different contexts. Just do not stay trapped in a critiqueless illusion of makeability.

But that is just my point of view on this topic. What is yours?

The depersonalization of YOU

After the umpteenth blogpost on personal branding I realized that all this talk of personal brands make my skin crawl. First I have to admit though that about 9 years ago for a writing class, I for the first time used the word personal branding. (And my classmates ate it up.) So I am not without sin. It seemed logical to me to speak of personal brands as we all were trying to put personal traits to brands and the similarities were obvious. After 20 years in branding, the omnipresent use of the word "brand" is starting to bug me. It has bugged me before but with the use of the word brand for people I think we have gone too far.

Don't get me wrong. All the things that are being said about being authentic, consistent and working from your values etc. etc. ring true to me. And I am fine with taking a professional approach to developing once career or once one (wo)man show. Apply the business principles that are useful and valuable and help you become more successful. Use the tools that are available to do your thing and be the best at whatever you want to be.

There are two major problems I have with using the word brand for a person. First of all it seems to be directly and solely related to the use of social networks. The blogpost I refered to at the beginning even states: "If you are an individual or business that has not started to use Social Media, you will not be successful." Really? Four questions play through my head:

1. Can a brand only become successful through social networking?
2. Can a professional only become successful through social networking?
3. Of all the millions of people who are using social networks how many are truly successful?
4. Of all of the successful people how many owe their succes to social networks? Think Madonna, think athletes, think of some successful corporate hotshot who doesn't even know how to use his email.

So even if a person is a (successful) brand, social networking is not the only contributing factor to that success. Of that I am pretty sure. Social networking is a tool. It is a tool I like but I think every individual or organization has to find and use tools that work for them.

The second and biggest problem I have with using the word brand for a person is that it depersonalizes or dehumanizes you. In a worst case scenario you may become invisible.

Definitions of “brand” state that the brand exists in the mind of the consumer or any other member of the target group for that matter.

• Does that mean that you are what someone else thinks you are? Is their perception your personal reality? I should hope not with all the misconceptions people tend to have about one another.
• Does it mean that you may be nothing because you as a brand do not exist in other people's minds?

I think a person is a person and should be called a person; or by his or her name. Not a brand. Calling ourselves brands shortchanges our identity. Because if the brand is the driving concept, will you let your personal and professional life be driven by your brand? I don't think anyone would want to have his or her private life dominated by their brand. Not the employee, but also not the one (wo)man business that works 24/7.

But that are just my thoughts on this topic. What do you think?