Against differentiation
Following up last week's blog, I wanted to address a counterpoint to the principle of Radical Differentiation as described by Marty Neumeier in his book, Zag.
Just to recap, Neumeier argues that it is your consumer – not your company – that defines your brand and then seals that definition into a sort of mental box. In order to disrupt its competitor's position and all the pre-existing anchors in the mental brandscape, a company must engage in radical differentiation. This means moving beyond traditional feature/benefit promotion towards a completely new market space that becomes own-able and defendable.
And now the counterpoint: enter Byron Sharp.
Originally from New Zealand, Professor Sharp is the prophet of anti-differentiation. As the Director of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science at the University of South Australia, he has been driven by the perspective that most brand theory is just that: theory. His mission is to apply empirical science to branding methodology, which has led him to some rattling conclusions.
As outlined in his book, How Brands Grow, Sharp observes that statistically, the majority of buying decisions are made without intentional thought at the most basic level – by our emotional, "mammalian" brain. While most marketers believe that the average consumer operates in a considered way, he suggests that principles like segmentation, brand differentiation, and personality amount to wasted effort. His research implies that buyers don't perceive brands as having a significant difference when buying.
A key example is Coke and Pepsi. While enormous amounts of money and effort have been poured into the branding of both companies to establish key tribal associations, the numbers don't lie. 72% of consumers that declare themselves loyal to Coke will readily purchase Pepsi. Coke's triumph over Pepsi in the cola wars is more about availability than its "Happiness" message edging out Pepsi's "Choice Of A New Generation."
The majority of revenue generated for many major brands come more from "light" buyers acting on impulse, not tribalists or "True Fans." The key driver in Sharp's research is how ubiquitous or available a brand is, not its tribal resonance.
He concludes that the most important aspect of a brand is its mental and physical availability, not its differentiation.
Sharp offers an amazing anecdote in one of his blogs, about a surge in growth that UK supermarket Sainsbury experienced over the 2010 Christmas season. The primary driver was due to the fact that the company purchased 12,000 tons of salt to insure that their parking lots would be accessible – available – through wintry weather.
Rather than chasing after potentially elusive radical differentiation, Sharp's Availability Principle suggests that brands focus on developing simple, consistent brand assets that are easy to remember, serving to trigger instinctive responses with sensory and semantic cues. Therefore, the goal should be Distinction, not Differentiation. Distinction includes the basics, like consistently applied logo, tagline, jingle, color, and packaging.
Sharp's conclusions also derail the tenet of segmentation. His research demonstrates that the most successful brands have universal appeal and the biggest customer base. The implication is that the recent trend towards pursuing smaller, segmented audiences (niche or die!) is actually moving in the wrong direction. Instead, a successful branding strategy would pursue all-inclusiveness, advertising to a broad audience.
In addition, he questions the principle of pricing promotions. While they often lead to a peak in short term sales, they have little impact long term. In this regard, he is more aligned with Neumeier, who also derides the practice of special sales and pricing discounts. Neumeier is more colorful, describing them as a "death spiral" that degrades the value of a brand.
All of this is a sobering challenge for the world of marketing and branding, and prompts controversy. I recently listened to a debate between brand guru Chris Do and Stef Hamerlinck in which they discussed Sharp's proposal. Do is a disciple of Neumeier, while Hamerlinck points to Sharp's research. It's a fascinating discussion.
In it, they discuss what we should conclude from real world examples like online D2C disruptor brands Dollar Shave Club and Harry's stumbling as they try to push in on Gilette's market dominance. Is it because their business models included inherently limited availability (online only), or is it just growing pains?
Personally, I would prefer to subscribe to Neumeier, but Sharp's research is difficult to dismiss. Listen for yourself.
By the way, Amie Weller offers a very helpful SlideShare synopsis of Professor Sharp's book here.
Image courtesy of Jan Huber on Unsplash