Positioning, part two


A couple of respondents to this blog (and thank you all for commenting) have used Coke and Seven up as examples of successful positioning strategies. I appreciate they are great brands and they were built up over time but that was during an economy that no longer exists. Many sugary drinks launched in more recent times using similar positioning strategies to build the brand have failed to make a significant impact or even failed completely. Even those launched during the mass economy era, when positioning was considered the holy grail, failed.

One example is Pepsi One, a diet cola lauched in October 1998. Sales were healthy enough to begin with thanks to a hugely expensive positioning campaign and Pepsi One soon had 2% market share. However, it didn’t take long for consumers to realise that it tasted much like Diet Pepsi. Pepsi One’s market share dropped to about 1% and never moved.

New Coke was launched in April 1985, it was an unmitigated disaster and in fact, it is considered by many to be the ‘biggest marketing blunder of all time’. This despite a huge advertising budget funding a massive positioning strategy. Remember in the 1970’s, Coke had been positioned as ‘The Real Thing’ and at the time of the New Coke launch, the tagline for Coke was, ‘Coke Is It.’ So basically, Coke tried to position it as ‘The New Real Thing’ or worse, tell consumers, ‘Sorry, Coke wasn’t it, this is it.’ Al Ries said it best, ‘It was like trying to introduce a new God.’ Even Mecca cola, that should really be the number 1 cola in any muslim dominated country, hardly sells anything outside of a few cities in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

BTW Coke is acknowledged as the world’s most popular soft drink, with about 50% of the global market. I would argue, and this is really setting the cat amongst the pidgeons, that what built the coke brand was not its positioning strategy and its iconic advertising, but actually its brilliant use of the supply chain via its franchise system and its ability to distribute to just about every nook and cranny in 200 countries and territories on the planet.

Other problems I have with positioning, and I didn’t really go into this in the earlier piece, is that developing a positioning strategy is extremely expensive and impossible to measure. So essentially you spend a small fortune to play a guessing game. If you are a multi national, like Coca Cola, then this may be an option, although if I owned, the stock, I would do my best to resist such an approach. If you are a small business, or even a large Asian organisation looking to develop a global brand strategy, you are simply wasting valuable resources in the hope that consumers or other businesses will take note, remember and buy your product or service. However, as Rick Page said, ‘Hope is not a strategy’.

One person commented that lower valued brands don’t occupy any position in the minds of consumers. If by lower valued brands, he means smaller sized companies, then he is right, they generally don’t occupy any position in the minds of consumers, because 1) In today’s fast paced, complex and cluttered world, most consumers don’t have any space in their minds for anything and 2) because the communications or content do not resonate with them.

Another comment was related to who is responsible for the brand, strategic development or the creative department. Well, brand building is a strategic endeavour not a creative exercise.

Luxury branding in Malaysia & Asia


Despite the global economic meltdown, the development of the retail sector in Malaysia continues at a phenomenal pace with over 1,000,000 square foot of additional mall space becoming ready this year. Passing almost unnoticed however is the proliferation of international luxury brands in many of those malls. Familiar international names such as Asprey, Giorgio Armani, Prada, TOD’s, Van Cleef and Arpels and so on, have all entered the local market in recent years, encouraged by the success of exclusive names such as Bulgari, Cartier, Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Rolex and other famous names already familiar to KL shoppers.

Unusually in Malaysia, The Pavilion has clustered its luxury boutiques into a high profile area facing Bukit Bintang. Globally, this clustering of stores is nothing new. For centuries stores have organized themselves into districts based on what they sell – think Saville Row in London (tailors), Faubourg Saint-Honore in Paris (designer boutiques), Deira in Dubai (jewelry), and so on. The cluster approach allows the rich and famous to be dropped off in front of the store, rush in and make a purchase that would make a small African country drool and then rush out into the safety of the limousine without having to rub shoulders with the rakyat.

With its double story street facing façade the luxury section or ‘couture precinct’ of the Pavilion is an exciting development in the evolution of the retail sector in Malaysia. But there is one thing missing from this development. That is a luxury Malaysian brand.

And as Malaysia moves from an Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) economy to an Original brand manufacturer (OBM) economy, and the government rams home the need to move up the value chain, the retail sector, where so many Malaysian OEM cut their teeth, should be at the forefront of this step up the value chain. Especially as according to the MasterCard Worldwide Insight report, the value of the market for luxury products and services in the Asia-Pacific region will jump from US$83.3 billion in 2007 to US$258.7 billion in 2016. Not a bad segment.

What’s more, there’s already a ready made market because the largest number of tourist arrivals to Malaysia is from ASEAN countries, followed by Japan and China with India and the Middle East not far behind. And the burgeoning middle classes from these countries are notoriously brand conscious.

This interest almost obsession with brands is likely to continue according to Radha Chadha, author of “The cult of the luxury brand”. She believes that the Asian interest in luxury products is because of the massive changes – social, cultural, economic and political that have been affected by the traditional attitudes to who you are and where you are in the societal food chain.

She believes that over the past 50 or so years, many of the traditional cultural indicators of social standing in Asia – profession, family, clan, caste have been eroded by the onset of globalization, migration and education. Free of rigid social hierarchies, mass migration and the development of urban areas, more people are making money and making it faster. The way to differentiate oneself is by purchasing a luxury product that shouted, “I’ve got money, respect me.”

Displaying one’s status through outward appearances of rank and wealth is nothing new but Asians seem to have taken to it like the proverbial duck to water. And those LV bags, Chanel suits, Jimmy Choo shoes aren’t simple female indulgences, they are part of a new world order that identifies the wearers position in society. Indeed, these luxury brands are a modern set of symbols that Asian consumers are using to redefine their identity and social position.

The Japanese have been devouring brands for years. 94% of Japanese women in their twenties own a Louis Vuitton bag. In fact, the Japanese as a whole are the most brand conscious and a staggering 92 per cent of Japanese women own a Gucci bag, 57 per cent own a Prada one, and 51 per cent own a Chanel bag.

In fact, Japanese passion for luxury brands is so huge that they account for over 40 per cent of worldwide sales for most major luxury brands. Meanwhile, Asia accounts for a third of Louis Vuitton sales worldwide whilst Cartier depends on the region for half of its worldwide sales.

And what of China? According to the China Brand Strategy Association, 175 million Chinese people can now afford to buy luxury products. By 2010 their number is projected to reach 250 million. Already, Chinese consumers are responsible for about US$10 billion of global luxury sales. Following the announcement of the US$586 billion stimulus that is expected to encourage increased spending, 70% of consumers confirmed that they will spend more in the next 6 months than they did in the previous 6 months.

Rolls Royce, the iconic British luxury brand owned by BMW, expects to double annual sales volume from 1,000 to 2,000 when the new, smaller ‘Ghost’ is launched in 2010, many of the early enquiries for the yet to be launched model are from Asia. Not bad considering each car will cost over US$200,000.

So, with all this new found wealth in Asia, the time is ripe for the development of Malaysian luxury brands. And the good news is, Malaysian firms know how to manufacture quality products. They’ve been doing it for years for iconic brands such as Apple, GAP, Guess, Ralph Lauren and other well known global brands.

But developing a luxury brand is also like raising a family – it requires a long-term commitment and investment, attributes that don’t sit well with corporate Malaysia. It also requires limited production, value over volume, even with a successful line. It also requires quality, not only in production but also in marketing and service, especially service. Training of staff is key. Walk into the Cartier store in Kuala Lumpur and the staff will assess you based on a number of pre-determined factors. Pass the test and they’ll offer you a bottle of champagne to anesthetize the pain of the purchase!

Ongoing research is also critical to the long-term success of the luxury brand. Back in 1837, when Hermes was building its brand, the founders lent new products to customers to get feedback on how the products could be improved. Zara applies the same tactics today. If a new line doesn’t sell, it is pulled off the shelves immediately and replaced with a new range based on customer feedback on styles.

One mistake many brands make is that they ignore existing customers, preferring to always acquire new customers. The successful luxury brands have an ongoing relationship with their best customers who become brand ambassadors and grow the family.

And for those cynics who don’t think Malaysians can build luxury brands or that there is any money in luxury brands, think of Jimmy Choo, the closest Malaysia has come to a luxury brand. Six years after Jimmy Choo sold his 51% stake in his own company for US$25 million, TowerBrook Capital Partners recently paid more than US370 million for ownership of the iconic brand named after the charming cobbler born in Penang in 1961. And with annual sales that have grown since 2001 at a compounded rate of over 45% to more than US130 million today, the purchase looks like good value.

Another British based private equity group, Permira, paid US$3.5 billion a couple of years ago for the Valentino Fashion Group. This was one of the most talked about acquisitions of the year because although Valentino is a well respected brand in Europe, it does not have the penetration in Asia of say Giorgio Armani. This is reflected in the global sales of US$340 million for Valentino compared with US$3.1 billion for Giorgio Armani.

There is also a strong argument to suggest that luxury brands are recession proof. At the end of last year, when the American economy was in free fall, Saks Fifth Avenue had a massive sale, offering huge 70% discounts on iconic brands such as Manolo Blahnik and even Prada. However, at the Louis Vuitton shop inside the luxury department store, nothing was reduced. Recently, Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton announced that sales in its fashion and leather goods division, which includes Louis Vuitton, increased by 11% to $2.1 billion in the first quarter of 2009.

So, as the average tourist spends only 22% of his budget on shopping in Malaysia compared with 50% in Hong Kong and Singapore, the time is ripe for Malaysian firms to start building brands that can take pride of place alongside Canali, Ermenegildo Zegna, Jean-Paul Gaultier and Versace in places like the Pavilion, Star Hill and other prominent malls in KL.

Is it time to put positioning to bed?


40 years ago this year, Jack Trout published his first article on positioning. But the term didn’t really become advertising jargon until his articles entitled “The Positioning Era”, were published in Advertising Age in the early 1970’s.

There are numerous definitions of what positioning is today but to ensure we’re all on the same page, I propose this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positioning_%28marketing%29

But in today’s marketplace, positioning has multiple problems:

1) Positioning is immeasurable: You can’t say “our positioning has improved our sales by 5 % or as a result of our positioning strategy, our brand is 12% better than competitions. Furthermore, it is impossible to measure the ROI or benchmark positioning.

2) Positioning is only suitable for mass markets. Yet branding today is about segmentation and communicating and engaging with those segments via relevant channels and with messages that resonate specifically with those segments or niche markets. Does this mean that a company should develop different positioning for different niches?

3) Positioning is suitable for mass markets with limited competition and limited consumer access to media and information. Today, consumers can get any information they want on anything from anywhere.

4) The wikipedia definition is a top-down, company knows best, hierarchical marketing approach. Yet we live in a C2C environment in which consumers define brands.

5) Positioning is one-way. The company knows best and you must listen to us. We tell you how our products are positioned. But today, if you are not entering into 2 way conversations with consumers you are about to join the brand graveyard.

6) Positioning was developed for the US mass market of the 1970’s. But we’re in a globalized world now, with much more competition and more knowledgeable consumers.

7) Positioning is competition, not customer driven. The basic premise of positioning is that you want to be number 1 or number 2 in a category in a prospect’s mind. If you can’t be number 1 or number 2 in an existing category because of competition, you make your own category. In today’s congested marketplace, the investments required to develop a new category are enormous. Furthermore, besides the difficulty and expense of creating your own category, you are also letting your marketing be driven by the competition rather than consumer demands for value.

8) Positioning is dated. With limited competition (by today’s standards) in most categories, positioning was a compelling theory. The problem is that the world has changed a little since 1969. Yet agencies continue to recommend positioning as the foundation for any brand strategy.

9) Positioning uses mass market channels such as TV and billboards to reach as many consumers as possible using repetition to create interest. Yet ask yourself, what do you do when the commercials come on? Surf? Put the kettle on? Go to the bathroom? Text a friend? Surf the web? Basically, do anything but watch the commercial. Same with billboards. How many billboards can you remember from your morning commute?

10) Positioning requires massive, and I mean massive budgets that few companies have. If you do have a massive budget and you do execute your campaign across multiple channels for say six months, what happens if it doesn’t work?

So my question is, what are agencies doing recommending a theory that was developed before the PC was invented? I welcome your comments.

Is this the dumbest question ever asked by a marketing publication?


Media Magazine is asking this question:

“Should clients be spending more on tracking effectiveness?” “This year effectiveness is at the top of the agenda. But are clients investing the money they need to to track the performance of campaigns properly?”

I had to read it twice to make sure I understood the question. My initial response is that effectiveness should be at the top of the agenda this year, last year, next year and every other year! If it isn’t, what is? And where is effectiveness on the agenda? Is it on the agenda? It certainly is in FusionBrand discussions. In fact, if it isn’t at the top of the agenda, we tear up the agenda and put it at the top of the new agenda. And we believe every other agency or consultant should do the same. If they don’t, you need to find a new agency.

In fact, we go as far as to say that if it can’t be tracked and measured, there has to be a very good reason why it is being recommended. If the justification is flawed, it doesn’t fly.

Despite global economic situation, FusionBrand continues with bold expansion plans


For immediate release Contact: Marcus Osborne
29th April 2009 FusionBrand
marcus@fusionbrand.com

FAST GROWING STRATEGIC BRAND CONSULTANCY EXPANDS AGAIN TO MEET NEEDS OF FINANCIAL SECTOR

KUALA LUMPUR – After exhaustive qualitative and quantitative research, FusionBrand, Asia’s leading data-driven brand consultancy has identified a significant disconnect between the offerings of Malaysian banks and financial institutions and the evolving requirements for value of customers. As Bank Negara implements the last phase of the 10 year financial sector masterplan, this disconnect will impact significantly on the ability of local banks and financial institutions to compete with international competitors. In view of this, FusionBrand is creating a specialized department to work with banks and financial institutions to build profitable & sustainable brands using data driven brand strategies.

In the recent study of 1,000 Malaysians, 65% of respondents stated that they rely on financial advice from family and friends rather than relying on financial service institutions. Over 50% of respondents also stated that they are stopped from saving or investing money because of lack of good advice, lack of products they can understand, and lack of trust.

“Communication strategies using cluttered channels of media that promote products crammed with technical jargon to consumers already struggling in troubled economic times are not going to help the financial services industry compete in an increasingly liberalized space.” says Marcus Osborne, managing director of FusionBrand. “Our financial services industry needs to focus more on developing relationships with consumers and engaging those consumers with content that resonates with them and builds trust. This must be supported by a shift in mentality that moves the focus away from one of acquisition to one of retention and be backed up by excellence in customer service.”

FusionBrand predicts that the next round of liberalization will bring with it a wave of innovation that will put the customers requirements for value at the heart of financial sector brand development. Local banks and financial institutions that do not embrace these developments will struggle to survive. Responding to this impending demand, FusionBrand has set up a new team with specialized expertise from the financial services industry.

“In these challenging and increasingly competitive times, leading Malaysian financial institutions cannot be satisfied with creative driven one-size-fits-all branding solutions that concentrate on advertisements and expensive image building rather than development of true customer focused propositions that include needs based advice services, staff trained in relationship building and products that deliver recognised value to customers.” says Marcus. “Financial institutions demand partners with specialized marketing expertise to help connect and engage with new prospects and existing customers more profitably. With our extensive international experience in developing customer focused institutions we provide the skills, knowledge and experience banks and other financial institutions are looking for.”

The Volkswagen Malaysia Brand experience


I’m a big fan of VW. When I was a child, long car journeys were shortened by playing silly games. These included cricket, where you scored runs for each vehicle you spotted (I was a child in the sixties so there weren’t yet that many cars on the roads!). A common British made family saloon like a Morris Minor was worth 1 run, a less common one such as a Mini van (not to be confused with a Moke) two runs, an MGB four runs and so on. A wicket might be a Jag and a six was a Bentley.
We also used to play spot the Bug (Bug was the nickname given to the VW Beetle – Bug) because Bugs were still relatively unusual in the UK. The first person to see a VW Beetle and shout out ‘BUG’ won a sixpence.
Some years later, my third car was a Bug. The year was 1981 or 1982 and I was living in London. I saved up the money to buy a 1965 left hand drive Bug imported from Belgium. It was a six volt which meant the battery went flat every two or three months.

I put up with flat batteries for about a year as it was my first and only experience of an air cooled car. However, I’d had enough after I found myself scraping ice off the windscreen with an umbrella at 6.30am on a cold and miserable February morning. Of course, as time goes by, the bad times are forgotten and the good memories survive.

Which is why, almost 30 years later I’m wandering around a VW showroom at the Curve just outside Kuala Lumpur. This time I’m not looking for a car for myself. I’m looking for a car for my daughter. We promised her a Mini if she managed to secure 5 A’s in her SPM exams, the Malaysian equivalent of UK O levels. She’s a bright girl but she was going through a difficult period so we needed to offer some incentives aka bribes. She responded magnificently and secured not 5 but 7 A’s. An outstanding performance and one worthy of a mini.

But as we discussed her having a car and I remembered my years of driving a Austin Healey Sprite with a bench seat in the back similar to that of the Mini, I thought that maybe she should look at four door cars that are as cool as the Mini which is why I found myself in a VW showroom on a Sunday afternoon.

As we entered the minimalist showroom I realised that we as a family are actually looking for two cars because my wife is also looking to upgrade her six year old BMW 3 series. Within minutes of setting foot in the showroom my daughter was squealing with delight as she sat behind the wheel of the Golf GTI. I had a puzzled look on my face because I was unable to find the Tiguan advertised boldy on the window to the left of the entrance.

I spotted 2 sales reps in the showroom. One caught my eye but she was attending to a customer. As she looked at me I knew that she wanted to help but was unable to do so. The other rep wandered around the showroom as aimlessly as I. I caught his eye a couple of times but he just ignored me.

After 14 minutes we left the showroom. A prospect in the market for 2 cars allowed to wander in, look around for 15 minutes and then wander out without so much as a “Hello, how may I help you?”

With vehicle sales in Malaysia forecast to drop by over 12% this year, the sales force, the brand guardians in the automotive sector, has to be on top of its game and take every opportunity given to qualify prospects and develop relationships with prospects otherwise the brands will not just be unable to compete, they will simply disappear.

Telekom Malaysia International rebranding exercise


Recently TM announced their new brand for TMI. Lot’s of full page ads and reports in the trade and consumer media on the ‘rebranding’ exercise. Most of the ‘re-branding’ exercises in Malaysia have consisted of a new logo or tagline or similar. Of course branding is much more than that. The organisation is the brand and a brand development or re-branding exercise is more than a new name, logo etc it’s also about matching corporate attributes with the customers need for value, and in particular in the telecoms sector, the service and speed and efficiency with which customer issues are dealt with.

Although this particular exercise involves TMI, a brand must not neglect its home base as it pursues international growth so we hope that the new brand will be corporate wide.

Based on the two interactions I have had with TM in the last couple of days, my initial thoughts are that TM may have made this an organisation wide exercise.

A massive storm, even by tropical standards had destroyed my telephone line, telephone and internet connection. It also blew out two apple airports, the mother board on both my electric gate and alarm system and a computer monitor. Trust me, when you have three kids, one of whom is a teenage girl, life is hell without Internet or phone!

So I needed to move fast. Firstly I contacted TM about the phone (I assumed, wrongly, that the Internet was OK). I emailed them the morning after the storm via the website complaint option but did not get an automatic response. This made me uneasy so I called TM about 8pm the same evening and reported the problem. My call was attended to within a couple of minutes and the details were taken and I was promised a response within 24 hours.

The next morning before 9.30am I got a call from a technician stating that he was on the way to check the problem. Around lunchtime he contacted me to tell me that he had fixed the problem but nobody was answering the phone in the house. I told him that I suspected the phone had also been affected. So he promised to go to my house and check it. He called me an hour later from my house to inform me that the cordless phone was indeed broken. Throughout the process he was polite and professional.

Once the phone was working I was able to check the Internet and now discovered that it was also affected. I called TM immediately. I had to wait nine minutes before I was attended to. It was late so I think this is borderline acceptable however, during the wait the same jingle played asking me to buy something that expired in 2007! When my call was finally attended to the representative went through the usual process of asking me to switch off the modem for a minute and so on. My only issue with the process was that she wanted me to hang up and call back which would have meant another wait, perhaps shorter, perhaps longer than the initial nine minutes. However when I insisted she wait, she didn’t argue. We couldn’t fix it so she made a report and gave me the report number.

We’ll wait and see how I get on. Traditionally, when the Internet is down it takes longer to be repaired than the phone.

Neverthless, at this stage TM as a (new, re-branded) organisation, has performed well and the signs are promising that this re-branding exercise is more than a new logo.

AD AGENCY WANTS TO BE A CONSULTANT


I tried to respond to this article in media magazine on the site but it wouldn’t let me, claimed my verification code (4 digits, even I can get that right!) was entered incorrectly.

So heres my response
Chris
You are right the agency business has been commoditised but you only have yourselves to blame because you all got yourselves into this mess because agencies lied to clients for so long which meant a price war was inevitable.

And you are right, there are some consultants out there making nice margins, but I’m not gloating.

But all that will change if you and your agency friends start to pass yourselves off as consultants. I beg you please don’t do it! You’ll ruin the consulting business just like you’ve ruined the creative business!

More on this later