Monthly Archives: September 2017

Proof. Or Bluff and Bluster.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

Yesterday I went off a bit on Trout and Ries, saying a brand Claim is akin to a brand Position, but the process, pre-idea and post-idea are different. You can plot a position. You can only cultivate a claim. A claim requires care and feeding. Marketing either strengthens or weakens a claim. A position is less animate.

When Marilyn Laurie a famous AT&T marketer used to say advertising either put a “deposit in the brand bank or a “withdrawal,” she was referring to an animated process.

Branding is simple. Don’t let brand nerds marko-babble you into thinking it’s this complex “only we understand” science.  If you land on the right “Claim” and support it with the right “Proof” planks (3), you can easily build your brand — knowing when you’re making deposits and withdrawals.  

Claim gets the branding glory but Proof is the work horse. Proof is the day job of a brand strategy. Proof is the day job of brand managers. And agents. (The guys hanging off the I-beam with his helmet attached by Super Glue is Proof.) Proof is what convinces consumers. Bluff and bluster do not.

Peace.  

 

Position Versus Claim.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

Trout and Ries turned me on to Positioning with their book Positioning: The Battle For Your Mind. It’s very hard to disagree with Jack and Al.  The logic is dead on. It addresses many marketing ills. But the thing about strategy is it is best when reverse engineered – a wonderful practice for book writers and theory writers.  It’s easy-ish to look in the rearview mirror and ‘splain why success happened. Positioning does work for some forward thinkers, but it’s a practice and process. An activity. Find a position in the minds of customers.

I prefer to rally around Claim rather than Position. A brand Claim is a strategic statement of customer value married to brand feature or function.  While Claims are malleable and organic, Positions are finite and immobile. If you Position a house by the river and the river moves, you’re toast.  If you Claim fertile soil and rich yield, that’s future-friendly.

One can argue that Coke’s brand claim of “refreshment” is both claim and position. I would agree.  So it’s not like they can’t work together. But mostly Positioning is process-focused. And Claim is product-focused. Therein lies the difference.

Peace.

 

Targeting in Branding.

By
Steve Poppe
-
0

target

One of the oldest problems in the pantheon of marketing problems is targeting. Everyone who wants to sell something wants as many people as possible to buy. Laudable. However, when it comes to brand strategy it’s message-limiting to be everything to everyone. (I call this the “fruit cocktail effect.”)

The tighter the target the tighter the brand.

That said, I worked on a branding assignment for a web startup targeting artists, art buyers and art sellers (e.g., galleries). Three targets. All were important and needed to be part of the strategy.

On an assignment for a physician group built after the Affordable Care Act was passed, targeted physicians, patients and payers (insurance companies.) Also a broad target. Each constituent group needed to be part of the strategy.

When the targeting gets broad the work gets harder because value props are often less shared.  Targeting is a conscious decision. If you go broad don’t do it out of avarice or laziness. Do it because the product and experience dictate.

Peace.

 

12Page 2 of 2
© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv