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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks !