ThinkingSparks

Workshop on Positioning; March 24

This coming thursday I will be one of the speakers at the Women Event, an event for female entrepreneurs in The Netherlands. Check out the other speakers too: Annemarie van Gaal en Coco de Meyere (Dutch link only).

I will be doing a workshop on positioning in which we will do a quick scan of the positioning of the entrepreneurs' organization. There will be some homework to do and I will give each and every participant written individual feedback.

So if you are in The Netherlands and want to know if you have laid the foundations of your organization correctly come and join me.

What happens if a partnership network doesn't share values

The other day I wrote about how to deal with a corporate brand in a partnership network. My view on it is that shared goals are not sufficient. You also have to share values among the partners. Be it a traditional supply chain, a network, a lateral partnership or a multilevel marketing organization.

Share goals and values increase congruent and thus consistent behavior in the network. Consistent behavior is needed to build a consistent brand during all moments of truth.

I came across an intersting article in USA Today. It talks about Amway and organizations like it. The whole question of them being MLM organizations or pyramid schemes isn't my point here. The relevance of the story is that Amway claims to have a code of conduct and apparently some of their distributors do not behave according to this code. It is similar to having laws and people breaking these laws.

Codes of conduct are nice but if people do not subscribe to the values that are the foundation of this code of conduct, they will have trouble living by these rules. It shows that sharing values as well as sharing goals is important.

Read the story for yourself. It is a good illustration of what happens when you do not share values within a partnership network.

Why everyone in corporate branding should read Schein

Yesterday I wrote about the strategic character of organizational culture. Just now - by chance - I came across the following quote. As I consider myself to be a follower of Edgar Schein's thought leadership, I could kick myself for not knowing this wonderful quote.

“The only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture.”

-Edgar Schein, Award Winning Author and Professor MIT Sloan School of Management

 

Schein is a real guru who has been attributed with coining the term "organizational culture". I had the honor of taking a week of classes with him in the summer of 2004 and not only is he briliant, he is also inspiring.

I can recommend all his work, but this one is especially interesting with the strategic aspect of organizational culture and a leader's responsibility for it.

I believe and know from my head to my toes that succesful organizations and thus corporate brands are rooted in a healthy organizational culture. Branding for too long has focussed solely on external communication. Promissing the moon, but not being able to deliver that said moon.

Everyone in corporate branding should familiarize itself with the insights Edgar Schein has to offer.He is the expert on organizational culture. After the week of classes I took with Edgar Schein I had the chance to talk with him briefly and tested my view on the relation between corporate brands and his theory on organizational culture, with him. He said: "That is absolutely right.", and continued to elaborate on it. I still feel like a balloon about to pop when I think about it.

So if you are in corporate branding read his work. As a matter of fact, anyone who works in organizational change or development should be familiar with Schein's views. But I'll settle for the branding folks today.

Let me know if you think of Edgar Schein's views on organizational culture.

 

Why organizational culture is not solely the domain of HR & Communication

The other day I was reading this book on the process of positioning. A very useful book from two renowned authors. There were a couple of thing in the book that I see differently though. I polled one of them via Twitter.

The authors state that "business orientation", "core competences", "vision" and, "mission" are aspects of strategic management and are usually formulated by the board of an organization. "Organizational culture", "organizational values" and, "customer values" are the domain of HR and (Internal) Communication.

The poll was on the second sentence about culture and values being the domain of HR and Communication. I didn't receive hundreds of responses, even less than ten, but they were all unanimous in disagreeing with the second sentence.

I believe that organizational culture and organizatonal and customer values are strategic too. If you want a succesful positioning and a strong brand you need consistent organizational behavior at every moment of truth. Organizational culture influences organizational behavior and vice versa.That makes it a strategic issue. One that the leader of an organization certainly holds responsibililty for.That doesn't mean that HR and Communication can contribute their expertise, but they are not solely responsible.

To me this is a clear and shut case. But that may be because I believe in culture based brands.

Do you believe in culture based brands?

Positioning is all about making choices

The other day I argued agains a blog post that stated that positioning is an outdated practice. This post drove a stick right through my professional heart as to me positioning is all about making necessary choices. Necessary as without clear choices there is no focus and without focus there can be no succes.

The choices are strategic choices about how you want to position you business with regarid to your organization's identity in relation to your environment: competition, market, stakeholders/customers etc. Just to name a few choices:

• Who do you want to be as an organization?
• Is that possible with regard to your abilities and organizational culture? 
• How can you distinguish yourself from your competion?
• How can you be relevant to your customers or stakeholders?
• How will you deal with developements in the market and society?
• And eventually how will those choices influence your brand positioning.

With the immense availability of different products and services (who hasn't stood in the shampoo isle at the store and hoped for less choice?) of comparable quality and price it is more important than ever to distinguish your product brands or corporate brands from those others available.If we thought the marketplace was overcrowded back when Al Ries & Jack Trout wrote their classic, it is even more the case now.

 

 

With smarter and more unpredictable customers who have the world at the social networking fingers it hasn't become any easier. The necessity to be consistent through all channels and media demands for a sharp positioning rooted in organizational culture. Especially if your organization is in the services business. And which organization isn't nowadays?

The proces of positioning is an exercise in analysis, thinking, reflection and making decisions. Of course it is hard to free up time for a good think in organizations. Being busy and x-ing of items on the to-do list seems to be valued more than shared time with the feet on the desk. But a time-out for some reflection is something that should happen frequently. A breather from doing to see if you are on track and make choices if you aren't.

It has been a long time since the days of Ries & Trout but I think that positioning as a discipline has evolved. Just as other disciplines have. Branding originally started with products. The concept is now more widely applied; from organizations to people. Strategy insights have evolved over time and so has marketing and many other disciplines. So positioning in my mind has become more interesting and more important. Also harder maybe, but definitely not obsolete.

But then I may be stuck in an era gone by. What do you think?

 

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!

Leave before the gospel

According to the Church of the Customer ‘positioning is a marketing facade that paints a picture idealized by the marketer, not necessarily the customer’. The power of customer evangelism is, according to the author, many times greater then anything dreamed up by marketers.

They use OwenBloggers.com to illustrate their point. Students at Vanderbilt University’s Owen Graduate School of Management found themselves enrolled in a better school than they had expected. They decided they could promote their school better than the marketers of the school itself and started a weblog.

Reading the post of the Church of the Customer I wonder about several things:

• Isn’t customer evangelism simply an extreme form of word of mouth where Web 2.0 makes creates possibilities that customers didn’t have before?
• Isn’t the Vanderbilt example just an example of poor positioning, poor marketing, and poor management of expectations?
• If there is no positioning or no marketing, how does the customer know that there is something to evangelize?

To me positioning is making a choice of what and where you want to be. And subsequently as an organization you give everything within your power to get there. When you do it right, your customers join you and help you reach your goals. Customer evangelists then sing the gospel of your brand and praise the dreams of the marketer. When you poorly execute the positioning, your choir of evangelist will have left before the gospel.

(Post in Dutch)