Stephen King on Gap Analysis & Positioning Spaces
In one of the very first posts in this blog I wrote about my doubts about the usage of "positioning crosses" to find a "free positioning space". Now I'm glad to have found someone important who also has something to say about it. That's why I give you both texts: Stephen King's one and then my old post below if you are interested in recapitulating it.
Stephen King, in "A Masterclass in Brand Planing", 2007 - originally held as a speech in 1982:
"Brands of shampoo are plotted on two scales - a strong/gentle scale and a medicated/cosmetic scale. You can see that there are three brands seen by people as strong and medicated, four as gentle and cosmetic, one as gentle and medicated and one more or less in the middle.
But there are none in the strong and cosmetic sector; therefore says Gap Analysis, that is your opportunity. But it seems to me that however much this is all dressed up with phrases like "n-dimensional concept space", the main reason for most of these gaps is that no one actually wants something in that combination. If we are not careful, Gap Analysis is a very elaborate machinery for saying that if there is already a market for hot coffee and a market for cold coffee, the gap for us is in selling warm coffee."
My text from 2010 or so:
"Here is a summary why positioning crosses are stupid. First of all: what's good about them? Everybody understands them quite instantly if the axes make sense. What's bad then? Same answer: Everybody "understands" because the axes make sense. So you try to make them make sense, don't you. Junior Planners keep coming and offer solutions and you go "no, give this one another name", "what about this brand here, it doesn't fit the logic", etc. So basically you do not think about reality any longer. You just try to make the axes fit the brand logos somehow. You make things up. That's alright if everyone is aware of its fictional character but no one ever is.
It's important to understand four things about such crosses.
1) The world is not two-dimensional; a powerpoint slide is.
2) It might very much be the case that the particular slice-of-world you are looking at is not dimensional at all! This means that positioning might not be about finding a space on a continuum or being "somewhere between A and B". Simply because there is no "space" with a coordinate system similar to the physical space we live in. An example might help here: Seeing your DYI market as a place with widest product range & best advice (OBI) is simply a different kind of thing than seeing it as a transformational offer for personal development (Hornbach). There simply IS NO continuum between them to slide along, and if you make one up it will not help much. Just like there is not much land to build your house on between Ireland and Iceland. (I hope this is geographically right.)
3) The axes are derived from the objects / brands analysed. So they vary depending on which brands you throw in. This is even more striking if you have crosses derived by quantitative methods (MDS, Factor Analysis etc.) They simply vary with every brand you add or take away. But what the picture of the cross suggests to the viewer is something different: it says "there is a space prior to the objects located in it". That's just the metaphor of "space" working in our brains: Space must be prior to and independent of objects. Well, that is exactly the way a positioning cross is not be read!
4) By using such a cross you just build a box you then try to think outside of. So beware of positioning crosses when you see them! Be much more sceptical if market researches present them ... as valid representations of reality, of course. We actually don't need a space between brands. Just care about the chunks/clusters more than about the dimensions inbetween. Al Ries just picked a wrong word. What he meant is "owning a concept in people's heads". By calling it "positioning" he evoked the space metaphor which does not help much."
http://account-planning-confessions.blogspot.de/2010/01/mistrust-crosses.html
Stephen King, in "A Masterclass in Brand Planing", 2007 - originally held as a speech in 1982:
"Brands of shampoo are plotted on two scales - a strong/gentle scale and a medicated/cosmetic scale. You can see that there are three brands seen by people as strong and medicated, four as gentle and cosmetic, one as gentle and medicated and one more or less in the middle.
 |
My text from 2010 or so:
"Here is a summary why positioning crosses are stupid. First of all: what's good about them? Everybody understands them quite instantly if the axes make sense. What's bad then? Same answer: Everybody "understands" because the axes make sense. So you try to make them make sense, don't you. Junior Planners keep coming and offer solutions and you go "no, give this one another name", "what about this brand here, it doesn't fit the logic", etc. So basically you do not think about reality any longer. You just try to make the axes fit the brand logos somehow. You make things up. That's alright if everyone is aware of its fictional character but no one ever is.
It's important to understand four things about such crosses.
1) The world is not two-dimensional; a powerpoint slide is.
2) It might very much be the case that the particular slice-of-world you are looking at is not dimensional at all! This means that positioning might not be about finding a space on a continuum or being "somewhere between A and B". Simply because there is no "space" with a coordinate system similar to the physical space we live in. An example might help here: Seeing your DYI market as a place with widest product range & best advice (OBI) is simply a different kind of thing than seeing it as a transformational offer for personal development (Hornbach). There simply IS NO continuum between them to slide along, and if you make one up it will not help much. Just like there is not much land to build your house on between Ireland and Iceland. (I hope this is geographically right.)
3) The axes are derived from the objects / brands analysed. So they vary depending on which brands you throw in. This is even more striking if you have crosses derived by quantitative methods (MDS, Factor Analysis etc.) They simply vary with every brand you add or take away. But what the picture of the cross suggests to the viewer is something different: it says "there is a space prior to the objects located in it". That's just the metaphor of "space" working in our brains: Space must be prior to and independent of objects. Well, that is exactly the way a positioning cross is not be read!
4) By using such a cross you just build a box you then try to think outside of. So beware of positioning crosses when you see them! Be much more sceptical if market researches present them ... as valid representations of reality, of course. We actually don't need a space between brands. Just care about the chunks/clusters more than about the dimensions inbetween. Al Ries just picked a wrong word. What he meant is "owning a concept in people's heads". By calling it "positioning" he evoked the space metaphor which does not help much."
http://account-planning-confessions.blogspot.de/2010/01/mistrust-crosses.html
Ten types of challenger narratives
Challenger Type: The Real & Human Challenger
A ‘real’ people brand in a faceless category. Real people visible behind the brand. Often accompanied by the perception of ‘small’ in stature.
What is it challenging? The impersonality and facelessness of the market leader or category.
Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘At last some real people who understand what I am all about’.
Challenger Type: The Missionary
A challenger fired up with a view about the world it has to share, wearing a strong sense of purpose on its sleeve.
What is it challenging? The belief system or foundations underpinning the category the way the category has thought and behaved to date.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Identification with the challenger’s beliefs about category (and the way category ought to fit within the wider world).
Challenger Type: The Irreverent Maverick
Poke beige in the eye.
What is it challenging? The complacency and narrow-mindedness of the status quo and those who keep to it.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Engagement with its attitude, character and irreverence.
Challenger Type: The Game Changer
A brand and product with an entirely new perspective on the possibilities of a category, which invites the consumer to participate in the category in a whole new way.
What is it challenging? The fundamental drivers and codes of the category to date. Not the beliefs or values – more the dimensions of the consumer experience it has played up and played down.
Why does its consumer respond to it? They are engaged by fresh perspective on a familiar market: ‘Wow, I’d never thought of this experience like that before’.
Challenger Type: The People’s Champion
A challenger that consciously sets itself up as on the side of the consumer, often specifically against the ‘cynical’/ fat cat market leader.
What is it challenging? The motives and interests of the market leader.
Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘They are fighting for me; if they win, I win’.
Challenger type: The Democratiser
A challenger that takes something previously exclusive (stylish, luxurious, expensive, hi tech), and makes it much more broadly available to the masses.
What is it challenging? ‘Elitism’, the idea that something should be available only to the privileged or wealthy.
Why does its consumer respond to it? The brand has given them access to a world that they hadn’t thought accessible to them.
Challenger Type: The Next Generation That was then, but this is now. New times call for new brands and services.
What is it challenging? The relevance of the Market Leader (and perhaps every other existing player in the market) to the modern world, or to the current generation.
Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘New times call for new brands, and I as a person am part of the new times’.
Challenger Type: The Enlightened Zagger
The enlightened brand deliberately swimming against the prevailing cultural or category tide.
What is it challenging? A prevailing and commonly/ unthinkingly accepted aspect of contemporary culture.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Through being provoked and stimulated by the surprising stance the challenger takes.
Challenger Type: The Visionary
Sets out higher vision of the brand benefit that transcends category nature.
What is it challenging? The mundanity of the way the category thinks about its (functional) nature and role.
Why does its consumer respond to it? A personal identification with the aspiration set out in the vision.
Challenger Type: The Feisty Underdog
Stick it to Goliath.
What is it challenging? The dominance of (and unthinking consumer preference for) the market leader.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Everyone loves an underdog – Oh, and given the choice between those two options, that does look like one to try…
(from http://eatbigfish.com/challenger-brand-narratives)
A ‘real’ people brand in a faceless category. Real people visible behind the brand. Often accompanied by the perception of ‘small’ in stature.
What is it challenging? The impersonality and facelessness of the market leader or category.
Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘At last some real people who understand what I am all about’.
Challenger Type: The Missionary
A challenger fired up with a view about the world it has to share, wearing a strong sense of purpose on its sleeve.
What is it challenging? The belief system or foundations underpinning the category the way the category has thought and behaved to date.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Identification with the challenger’s beliefs about category (and the way category ought to fit within the wider world).
Challenger Type: The Irreverent Maverick
Poke beige in the eye.
What is it challenging? The complacency and narrow-mindedness of the status quo and those who keep to it.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Engagement with its attitude, character and irreverence.
Challenger Type: The Game Changer
A brand and product with an entirely new perspective on the possibilities of a category, which invites the consumer to participate in the category in a whole new way.
What is it challenging? The fundamental drivers and codes of the category to date. Not the beliefs or values – more the dimensions of the consumer experience it has played up and played down.
Why does its consumer respond to it? They are engaged by fresh perspective on a familiar market: ‘Wow, I’d never thought of this experience like that before’.
Challenger Type: The People’s Champion
A challenger that consciously sets itself up as on the side of the consumer, often specifically against the ‘cynical’/ fat cat market leader.
What is it challenging? The motives and interests of the market leader.
Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘They are fighting for me; if they win, I win’.
Challenger type: The Democratiser
A challenger that takes something previously exclusive (stylish, luxurious, expensive, hi tech), and makes it much more broadly available to the masses.
What is it challenging? ‘Elitism’, the idea that something should be available only to the privileged or wealthy.
Why does its consumer respond to it? The brand has given them access to a world that they hadn’t thought accessible to them.
Challenger Type: The Next Generation That was then, but this is now. New times call for new brands and services.
What is it challenging? The relevance of the Market Leader (and perhaps every other existing player in the market) to the modern world, or to the current generation.
Why does its consumer respond to it? ‘New times call for new brands, and I as a person am part of the new times’.
Challenger Type: The Enlightened Zagger
The enlightened brand deliberately swimming against the prevailing cultural or category tide.
What is it challenging? A prevailing and commonly/ unthinkingly accepted aspect of contemporary culture.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Through being provoked and stimulated by the surprising stance the challenger takes.
Challenger Type: The Visionary
Sets out higher vision of the brand benefit that transcends category nature.
What is it challenging? The mundanity of the way the category thinks about its (functional) nature and role.
Why does its consumer respond to it? A personal identification with the aspiration set out in the vision.
Challenger Type: The Feisty Underdog
Stick it to Goliath.
What is it challenging? The dominance of (and unthinking consumer preference for) the market leader.
Why does its consumer respond to it? Everyone loves an underdog – Oh, and given the choice between those two options, that does look like one to try…
(from http://eatbigfish.com/challenger-brand-narratives)
Some useful questions for improving or inventing products & services
- Can the job (the consumer is trying to execute by using the product) be executed in a more efficient or effective sequence?
- Do some customers struggle more with executing the job than others (for instance, novices versus experts, older versus younger?)
- What struggles or inconveniences do customers experience because they must rely on multiple solutions to get the job done?
- Is it possible to eliminate the need for particular inputs or outputs from the job?
- Is it necessary that the customers execute all steps for which they are currently responsible? Can the burden be automated or shifted to someone else?
- How many trends affect the way the job is executed in the future?
- In what contexts do customers most struggle with executing the job today? Where else or when else might customers want to execute the job?
Opportunities at the step level
- What causes variability (or unreliability) in executing this step? What causes execution to go off track?
- Do some customers struggle more than others with this step?
- What does this step’s ideal output look like (and in what ways is the current output less than ideal?)
- Is this step more difficult to execute successfully in some contexts than others?
- What are the biggest drawbacks of current solutions used to execute this step?
- What makes executing this step time-consuming or inconvenient?
When people do things, they do them in 8 steps.
According to the so called "jobs-to-be-done" framework of positioning and product innovation, every "job" carried out by a person when using a product has the following 8 stages:
1. Define: Customers determine their goals and plan resources.
2. Locate : Customers gather items and information needed to do the job.
3. Prepare : Customers set up the environment to do the job.
4. Confirm : Customers verify that they’re ready to perform the job.
5. Execute : Customers carry out the job.
6. Monitor: Customers assess whether the job is being successfully executed.
7. Modify : Customers make alterations to improve execution.
8. Conclude: Customers finish the job or prepare to repeat it.
1. Define: Customers determine their goals and plan resources.
2. Locate : Customers gather items and information needed to do the job.
3. Prepare : Customers set up the environment to do the job.
4. Confirm : Customers verify that they’re ready to perform the job.
5. Execute : Customers carry out the job.
6. Monitor: Customers assess whether the job is being successfully executed.
7. Modify : Customers make alterations to improve execution.
8. Conclude: Customers finish the job or prepare to repeat it.
Evaluation of Brand & Service Experience
http://landor.com/#!/talk/articles-publications/articles/measuring-brand-experience/
Don't market to your best customers! Not exactly to them at least.
Quoted from "Drinking from the fire hose" by Frank @ Magnone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
