Positioning : A brand name dilemma...

About technology, business & management issues..

Recently it was discussed a lot about the theories put forward in the marketing classic  from the 80's (or 70's)? called Positioning: The battle for your mind written by Al Ries and Jack Trout. The book caused a stir during its time for considering their ideas expressed were against the status-quo of the time and in particular- then obscure concept of brand positioning- a concept that while it had been discussed previously it was not considered a subject with enough depth research and scientific rigor to take it seriously.

A point of discussion among marketers was whether  Ries and Trout's ideas were still in force in the current market. It is a well – known fact  that the world of marketing and many other disciplines is constantly changing especially considering that many of his concepts are based on perceptions and ideas promulgated by people with different backgrounds: academics, marketing, and professional psychologists.

In his book, Ries and Trout stated that the best way to position a brand, product, service, company or even a person in the subconscious of the public was to be the first to reach its own mind, therefore filled  the "hole" in the customer's mind and move on to the idea that the gap which had already been filled first was extremely difficult if not impossible to change. The book mentions and several classic examples: Coca-Cola, IBM, Xerox, McDonald's, etc.

In the same terms Ries and Trout mentioned the lack of effectiveness  by extending the generic name of the company or brand to set a range of products. Examples of Menen, Bayer, Chevrolet, Ford are typical of how, according to the authors, generic brands have filled the subconscious of the client . Even though from the perspective of the marketers it would be beneficial to "extend" the name to other products (non-aspirin Bayer, Bayer Analgesic, Kleenex Tissues, Kleenex diapers) it actually proved to damage the image of the label and that adding the product range with an extended- brand name only causes confusion for consumers that now do not know what those products stand for    ( Is it klennex a handkerchief or a baby's diaper?) .

Anyway, authors accept that there are exceptions to the rule that when a product is innovative or has a weak competition in the current market then you can create a generic name extension on new products and to have moderate success in the market, at least in the short term. But say it is a matter of time for competitors to find this weakness and exploit it properly ending this competitive advantage.

Much of the discussion focuses on whether these ideas are still valid or whether Ries and Trout actually ever had a real basis for implementation. Companies like Apple and Virgin have made their mark across an idea in the minds of their customers and have sought to extend their names to different products or services that have had, evidently not all the time, favorable results.

For Virgin, a conglomerate owned by always-exotic- Richard Branson, has sought to extend the Virgin name to all businesses, profitable or not, ever ventured. From his music production company (Virgin Records) through his airline (Virgin Air) the name Virgin has earned a place in customer´s mind. According to Ries and Trout in this case Virgin brand should have been lost by now and would have resulted in a decrease in its value as this approach confuse  customers with many products and services associated with a name (What does Virgin do well, finally?). On the other hand, Apple is the case that while developing its early products with their own brand name rather than their generic name (Apple), it could not resist extending its name to an endless array of products and services based on a successful name (in this case the "i", so that way we now have ipods, ipads, icloud and what follows). Many wonder if this has caused surprise and confusion among consumers. Statistics show that far from causing damage to initiate their products " i " it has helped to consolidate the products in the minds of users.

Perhaps the reasoning is that Apple remains one of the most innovative, if not the most dominant in this sense, company  to create markets and products that did not exist in the minds of people, so in this particular case it doesn{t really matter whether  your product is called "icloud" or "ibarney" as it automatically fills  the conceptual gap that  already existed (or created?) in the mind of the customer. Would you agree on the latter ?.

www.clarensyst.com.mx

Keep It Simple.....

KIS (Keep It Simple)



During the first meetings the whole team had to begin developing Clarensyst ´s Web application that would eventually become  Aberys, people  always asked the  same questions (which eventually came up as the development of Carleon CRM went on):




- How to create a simple and intuitive interface that virtually anyone, even those without a technical background in the use of web browsers or general-purpose software, could use it without feeling lost?




- How to design it in such a way that does not require external assistance,  also generate basic information and exchange vital information with other users within projects (collaboration) without creating a graphical interface disaster in the attempt?



Unfortunately in Mexico, and I dare say that in the rest of the world, it is difficult to integrate a team where the outcome exceeds initial expectations. On the one hand, programmers can be very technical and dogmatic but many of them lack the experience to understand what end users expect from the web tool, much less have ideas of business processes that involve the industry which the app is intended for.




Additionally, graphic designers find it difficult to capture the idea that managers or developers of the tool got in their heads and often abused graphic resources in terms of colors, and font sizes instead of analyzing the aspects of aesthetic intuition of the design. We have repeated to exhaustion: the Web application should be as simple, pleasant and intuitive that even a chimpanzee drinking a glass of wine could use it while watching t.v.




Finally comes the case of the project manager: if you have a purely technical background is a dead end: hours and weeks of work and  useless code before achieving their "killer app". However, if the director has no technical background then runs the risk of underestimating the work of programmers and technical risks, even more latent, to perpetuate the process of development as they do not understand that it is better to land a preliminary application and then tune detail that never even set it at all.




In their books and blogs founders of 37 Signals have contributed many ideas to make it a point of thinking about the development process of web applications. Many might agree or not with them, but in particular we in Clarensyst believe is an interesting and liberating approach  in many ways compared to the expectations that applications can build the team internally and externally to the market general.




Within its mantras, 37 Signals pragmatic approach condense many ideas have been around for some time:




1.-Always think of the end user, not the manageror the owner of the company. The tool must be desired by end users but should be useful enough for principals decide to pay for it.




2 .- Do not try to do much the first time. It is better to have a simple and user-friendly  tool that solves the main problems of the companies (communication, sales tracking, information transfer, instant messaging) rather than having a complex hodgepodge (as many applications of the "big" software companies) that it is completely useless for the purposes of users. We are here to make your life easier, not more complicated than it already can be.




3 .- Manage a single development team , although specific roles and responsibilities must be assigned. This removes bureaucracy, endless meetings, professional egos and speed up decision-making and exchange of ideas between team partners.We must remember that unlike other places here the cooperation of all affects the final product.




4 .- Avoid help from VC´s or  capital partners. Their money would only bring you problems. They´d seek to interfere in your management decisions at all times and you will waste time on endless meetings. You can do a lot with very little in the technology industry.




5 .- Do not get bogged down by the future of business ... at least not yet. The technical aspect tends to create anxiety. How do we scale the application in the cloud when we have 5000 users?-Is a recurring question. As my grandfather would say "Let's worry about crossing the bridge when we get to the bridge ..." NO technical issue is a matter of life or death, white or black. Many technological ventures never get to reach those heights and if they do, which is the type of problems that every company wants, there is always opportunity to address it diligently.

In reviewing the mantra of the people of 37 Signals it seems as though everything is a joke or they would not mind to care: quite the opposite!. In our case we try to adopt this attitude because in the end , one of the ideas that  37 Signals  embraces  has to be the most accurate of all:
"If you enjoy the process, you enjoy the challenge and face difficult time with  energy and passion  as it will be reflected implicitly in your web tool."
www.clarensyst.com.mx