Ready to drive more business?
Start your journey to driving more business today by simply completing your details on our contact form below.
In their 1981 book, Positioning: The Battle for your Mind, Al Ries and Jack Trout describe how positioning is used as a communication tool to reach target customers in a crowded marketplace. Jack Trout published an article on ‘positioning’ in 1969, and regular use of the term dates back to 1972 when Ries and Trout published a series of articles in Advertising Age called “The Positioning Era.” Not long thereafter, Madison Avenue advertising executives began to develop positioning slogans for their clients and positioning became a key aspect of marketing communications.
Positioning: The Battle for your Mind has become a classic in the field of marketing, and is still entirely relevant today. The following is a summary of the key points made by Ries and Trout in their book.
Ries and Trout explain that while positioning begins with a product, the concept really is about positioning that product in the mind of the customer. This approach is needed because consumers are bombarded with a continuous stream of advertising, with advertisers spending several hundred dollars annually per consumer in the U.S. The consumer’s mind reacts to this high volume of advertising by accepting only what is consistent with prior knowledge or experience.
It is quite difficult to change a consumer’s impression once it is formed. Consumers cope with information overload by oversimplifying and are likely to shut out anything inconsistent with their knowledge and experience. In an over-communicated environment, the advertiser should present a simplified message and make that message consistent with what the consumer already believes by focusing on the perceptions of the consumer rather than on the reality of the product.
The easiest way of getting into someone’s mind is to be first. It is very easy to remember who is first, and much more difficult to remember who is second. Even if the second entrant offers a better product, the first mover has a large advantage that can make up for other shortcomings.
However, all is not lost for products that are not the first. By being the first to claim a unique position in the mind the consumer, a firm effectively can cut through the noise level of other products. For example, Miller Lite was not the first light beer, but it was the first to be positioned as a light beer, complete with a name to support that position. Similarly, Lowenbrau was the most popular German beer sold in America, but Beck’s Beer successfully carved a unique position using the advertising,
“You’ve tasted the German beer that’s the most popular in America. Now taste the German beer that’s the most popular in Germany.”
Consumers rank brands in their minds. If a brand is not number one, then to be successful it somehow must relate itself to the number one brand. A campaign that pretends that the market leader does not exist is likely to fail. Avis tried unsuccessfully for years to win customers, pretending that the number one Hertz did not exist. Finally, it began using the line,
“Avis in only No. 2 in rent-a-cars, so why go with us? We try harder.”
After launching the campaign, Avis quickly became profitable. Whether Avis actually tried harder was not particularly relevant to their success. Rather, consumers finally were able to relate Avis to Hertz, which was number one in their minds.
Another example is that of the soft-drink 7-Up, which was No. 3 behind Coke and Pepsi. By relating itself to Coke and Pepsi as the “Uncola”, 7-Up was able to establish itself in the mind of the consumer as a desirable alternative to the standard colas.
When there is a clear market leader in the mind of the consumer, it can be nearly impossible to displace the leader, especially in the short-term. On the other hand, a firm usually can find a way to position itself in relation to the market leader so that it can increase its market share. It usually is a mistake, however, to challenge the leader head-on and try to displace it.
Historically, the top three brands in a product category occupy market share in a ratio of 4:2:1. That is, the number one brand has twice the market share of number two, which has twice the market share of number three. Ries and Trout argue that the success of a brand is not due to the high level of marketing acumen of the company itself, but rather, it is due to the fact that the company was first in the product category. They use the case of Xerox to make this point. Xerox was the first plain-paper copier and was able to sustain its leadership position. However, time after time the company failed in other product categories in which it was not first.
Similarly, IBM failed when it tried to compete with Xerox in the copier market, and Coca-Cola failed in its effort to use Mr. Pibb to take on Dr. Pepper. These examples support the point that the success of a brand usually is due to its being first in the market rather than the marketing abilities of the company. The power of the company comes from the power of its brand, not the other way around.
With this point in mind, there are certain things that a market leader should do to maintain the leadership position. First, Ries and Trout emphasise what it should not do, and that is boast about being number one. If a firm does so, then customers will think that the firm is insecure in its position if it must reinforce it by saying so.
If a firm was the first to introduce a product, then the advertising campaign should reinforce this fact. Coca-Cola’s “the real thing” does just that, and implies that other colas are just imitations.
Another strategy that a leader can follow to maintain its position is the multi-brand strategy. This strategy is to introduce multiple brands rather than changing existing ones that hold leadership positions. It often is easier and cheaper to introduce a new brand rather than change the positioning of an existing brand. Ries and Trout call this strategy a single-position strategy because each brand occupies a single, unchanging position in the mind of the consumer.
Finally, change is inevitable and a leader must be willing to embrace change rather than resist it. When new technology opens the possibility of a new market that may threaten the existing one, a successful firm should consider entering the new market so that it will have the first-mover advantage in it. For example, in the past century the New York Central Railroad lost its leadership as air travel became possible. The company might have been able to maintain its leadership position had it used its resources to form an airline division.
Sometimes it is necessary to adopt a broader name in order to adapt to change. For example, Haloid changed its name to Haloid Xerox and later to simply Xerox. This is a typical pattern of changing Name 1 to an expanded Name 1 – Name 2, and later to just Name 2.
Second-place companies often are late because they have chosen to spend valuable time improving their product before launching it. According to Ries and Trout, it is better to be first and establish leadership.
If a product is not going to be first, it then must find an unoccupied position in which it can be first. At a time when larger cars were popular, Volkswagen introduced the Beetle with the slogan “Think small.” Volkswagen was not the first small car, but they were the first to claim that position in the mind of the consumer.
It most likely is a mistake to build a brand by trying to appeal to everyone. There are too many brands that already have claimed a position and have become entrenched leaders in their positions. A product that seeks to be everything to everyone will end up being nothing to everyone.
Sometimes there are no unique positions to carve out. In such cases, Ries and Trout suggest repositioning a competitor by convincing consumers to view the competitor in a different way. Tylenol successfully repositioned aspirin by running advertisements explaining the negative side effects of aspirin.
Consumers tend to perceive the origin of a product by its name rather than reading the label to find out where it really is made. Such was the case with vodka when most vodka brands sold in the U.S. were made in the U.S. but had Russian names. Stolichnaya Russian vodka successfully repositioned its Russian-sounding competitors by exposing the fact that they all actually were made in the U.S., and that Stolichnaya was made in Leningrad, Russia.
When Pringle’s new-fangled potato chips were introduced, they quickly gained market share. However, Wise potato chips successfully repositioned Pringle’s in the mind of consumers by listing some of Pringle’s non-natural ingredients that sounded like harsh chemicals, even though they were not. Wise potato chips of course, contained only “Potatoes. Vegetable oil. Salt.” As a resulting of this advertising, Pringle’s quickly lost market share, with consumers complaining that Pringle’s tasted like cardboard, most likely as a consequence of their thinking about all those unnatural ingredients. Ries and Trout argue that is usually is a lost cause to try to bring a brand back into favor once it has gained a bad image, and that in such situations it is better to introduce an entirely new brand.
Repositioning a competitor is different from comparative advertising. Comparative advertising seeks to convince the consumer that one brand is simply better than another. Consumers are not likely to be receptive to such a tactic.
A brand’s name is perhaps the most important factor affecting perceptions of it. In the past, before there was a wide range of brands available, a company could name a product just about anything. These days, however, it is necessary to have a memorable name that conjures up images that help to position the product.
Ries and Trout favor descriptive names rather than coined ones like Kodak or Xerox. Names like DieHard for a battery, Head & Shoulders for a shampoo, Close-Up for a toothpaste, People for a gossip magazine. While it is more difficult to protect a generic name under trademark law, Ries and Trout believe that in the long run it is worth the effort and risk. In their opinion, coined names may be appropriate for new products in which a company is first to market with a sought-after product, in which case the name is not so important.
Margarine is a name that does not very well position the product it is describing. The problem is that it sounds artificial and hides the true origin of the product. Ries and Trout propose that “soy butter” would have been a much better name for positioning the product as an alternative to the more common type of butter that is made from milk. While some people might see soy in a negative light, a promotional campaign could be developed to emphasize a sort of “pride of origin” for soy butter.
Another everyday is example is that of corn syrup, which is viewed by consumers as an inferior alternative to sugar. To improve the perceptions of corn syrup, one supplier began calling it “corn sugar”, positioning it as an alternative to cane sugar or beet sugar.
Ries and Trout propose that selecting the right name is important for positioning just about anything, not just products. For example, the Clean Air Act has a name that is difficult to oppose, as do “fair trade” laws. Even a person’s name impacts his or her success in life. One study showed that on average, schoolteachers grade essays written by children with names like David and Michael a full letter grade higher than those written by children with names like Hubert and Elmer.
Eastern Airlines was an example of a company limited by its name. Air travel passengers always viewed it as a regional airline that served the eastern U.S., even though it served a much wider area, including the west coast. Airlines such as American and United did not have such a perception problem. (Eastern Airlines ceased operations in 1991.)
Another problem that some companies face is confusion with another company that has a similar name. Consumers frequently confused the tire manufacturer B.F. Goodrich with Goodyear. The Goodyear blimp had made Goodyear tires well-known, and Goodyear frequently received credit by consumers for tire products that B.F. Goodrich had pioneered. (B.F. Goodrich eventually sold its tire business to Uniroyal.)
Other companies have changed their names to something more general, and as a result create confusion with other similar-sounding companies. Take for instance The Continental Group, Inc. and The Continental Corporation. Few people confidently can say which makes cans and which sells insurance.
People tend use abbreviations when they have fewer syllables than the original term. GE is often used instead of General Electric. IBM instead of International Business Machines. In order to make their company names more general and easier to say, many corporations have changed their legal names to a series of two or three letters. Ries and Trout argue that such changes usually are unwise.
Companies having a broad recognition may be able to use the abbreviated names and consumers will make the translation in their minds. When they hear “GM”, they think “General Motors”. However, lesser known companies tend to lose their identity when they use such abbreviations. Most people don’t know the types of business in which companies named USM or AMP are engaged.
The same applies to people’s names as well. While some famous people are known by their initials (such as FDR and JFK), it is only after they become famous that they begin using their initials. Ries and Trout advise managers who aspire for name recognition to use an actual name rather then first and middle initials. The reason that initials do not lead to recognition is that the human mind works by sounds, not by spellings.
Most companies began selling a single product, and the name of the company usually reflected that product. As the successful firms grew in to conglomerates, their original names became limiting. Ries and Trout advise companies seeking more general names to select a shorter name made of words, not individual letters. For example, for Trans World Airlines, they favored truncating it simply to Trans World instead removing all words and using the letters TWA.
A company introducing a new product often is tempted to use the brand name of an existing product, avoiding the need to build the brand from scratch. For example, Alka-Seltzer named a new product Alka-Seltzer Plus. Ries and Trout do not favor this strategy since the original name already in positioned in the consumer’s mind. In fact, consumers viewed Alka-Seltzer Plus simply as a better Alka-Seltzer, and the sales of Alka-Seltzer Plus came at the expense of Alka-Seltzer, not from the market share of the competition.
Some firms have built a wide range of products on a single brand name. Others, such as Procter & Gamble have selected new names for each new product, carefully positioning the product in a different part of the consumer’s mind. Ries and Trout maintain that a single brand name cannot hold multiple positions; either the new product will not be successful or the original product bearing the name will lose its leadership position.
Nonetheless, some companies do not want their new products to be anonymous with an unrecognized name. However, Ries and Trout propose that anonymity is not so bad; in fact, it is a resource. When the product eventually catches the attention of the media, it will have the advantage of being seen without any previous bias, and if a firm prepares for this event well, once under the spotlight the carefully designed positioning can be communicated exactly as intended. This moment of fame is a one-shot event and once it has passed, the product will not have a second chance to be fresh and new.
Line extensions are tempting for companies as a way to leverage an existing popular brand. However, if the brand name has become near generic so that consumers consider the name and the product to be one and the same, Ries and Trout generally do not believe that a line extension is a good idea.
Consider the case of Life Savers candy. To consumers, the brand name is synonymous with the hard round candy that has a hole in the middle. Nonetheless, the company introduced a Life Savers chewing gum. This use of the Life Savers name was not consistent with the consumer’s view of it, and the Life Savers chewing gum brand failed. The company later introduced the first brand of soft bubble gum and gave it a new name: Bubble Yum. This product was very successful because it not only had a name different from the hard candy, it also had the the advantage of being the first soft bubble gum.
Ries and Trout cite many examples of failures due to line extensions. The consistent pattern in these cases is that either the new product does not succeed, or the original successful product loses market share as a result of its position being weakened by a diluted brand name.
Despite the disadvantages of line extensions, there are some cases in which it is not economically feasible to create a new brand and in which a line extension might work. Some of the cases provided by Ries and Trout include:
The concept of positioning applies to products in the broadest sense. Services, tourist destinations, countries, and even careers can benefit from a well-developed positioning strategy that focuses on a niche that is unoccupied in the mind of the consumer or decision-maker.
Al Ries and Jack Trout, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind
Start your journey to driving more business today by simply completing your details on our contact form below.