Positioning : A Battle for Credibility?

When the book “Positioning : The Battle For Your Mind” was launched in the 80’s, authors Jack Trout and Al Ries were quick to market their “new” concept and the arrival of the “positioning era.” Positioning is about managing where a brand sits in consumers’ minds. It’s about defining a brand’s expertise and values so as to be distinct among many competitors.

All fine and well at Marketing 101 level, but not something I’d take to graduate school. Positioning is a fundamental truth, but is far too simplistic as a cure-all for all marketing ills. I recall being terribly agitated while reading it, and here’s why.

One, they had promoted themselves as the authors of a “new” idea, when in fact many others before them had put the same discipline into practice. Advertisers and marketers had long known the importance of articulating a clear brand imagery. They just did not give what they did a fancy name like ‘positioning.’

Second, Trout and Ries over-played the importance of a brand name’s relevance. They used Newsweek as an example of a better name than Time, because “News” and “weekly” was a clearer product descriptor.

Trouble is, at the point of my reading, Time was doing better than Newsweek. The notion just looked lame to me then, and more so now, when many seemingling random names such as Google, Yahoo and Skype are doing well.

Third was their caution that when a brand steps outside its expertise, it is likely to fail. Levi’s failed in shirts because Levi’s stood for jeans, they said. Xerox stumbled in its foray into computers because Xerox was long-positioned as a copier.

Hey, if that’s true, how come Panasonic is known for television, air-conditioners, rice-cookers, toasters and fridges? In fact, in Japan, (where it is still known as National), it sells everthing from kitchen sinks to tiles. I think it was at this point I tossed the book out the window, which is probably why I can’t find it anymore on my shelves.

Trout and Ries produced a lot of American brands as evidence of their theory. But they failed to explain the success of many Asian and European brands in crossing product boundaries.

Nokia, as one example, started as a paper company. They then moved into tyres and shoes before evolving into the world’s largest maker of handphones. Rolls-Royce isn’t just a luxury car, but a maker of jet turbine engines.

Many Japanese and Korean brands contradict the argument for positioning. How is Canon, a camera brand, equally adept at copiers and business equipment? How is Samsung both a construction and electronics company? How did Yamaha, a maker of musical instruments, get into the business of motorcycles and ski-mobiles? ? Indeed, what is 3 tuning forks as a logo doing on a racing bike? Nothing could be more different than a piano and a motorcycle.

I later found solace in the book, Business The Richard Branson Way : “Branson is critical of the traditional Western view of branding. He likens Virgin’s approach to that of some Japanese companies.”

No surprise, coming from the man who took the Virgin name from music to an airline, railway, wines, car rental and radio station.

Says Branson “They think brands only relate to products and that there is limited amount of stretch. They forget that no-one has a problem playing on a Yamaha piano, having ridden a Yamaha bike the same day, or listening to a Mitsubishi stereo in a Mitsubishi car, driving past a Mitsubishi bank.”