Central Theme

Central Theme

Hill.

Central Theme

Marketing has changed, transitioning from the age of creativity to the age of product and image competition, and now positioning. In Ries and Trout’s (2000) definition of positioning, they emphasize the importance of capturing a slot in the prospect’s mind and making them associate a market niche with a company. The authors give an example of Coca Cola, which has positioned itself as the best cola and thus making any other brand second to it. The authors’ main point is that communication today is misunderstood. Firms still invest millions in advertisements, hoping to gain a competitive advantage over a well-positioned organization, yet this strategy often fails. Similarly, investment in research and design sounds quite a plan but is less effective if a corporation is not perceived differently by the customers. Ries and Trout (2000) argue that the focus should shift from the product to the consumer. Therefore, changes made on the product do not have a significant impact on the sales compared to strategic alteration in packaging, brand, prices, and name. The current society is bombarded with information such that advertisements that try to sell a producer’s quality to upset pre-established market hierarchy fail. The book explores ways to make a concise message in marketing, which can get to the audience and make them hold the product at the highest regard among competitors. One clear emphasis is that an establishment that comes in first is always the best positioned. Brands are advised to compete for the consumers’ affection, taking the literal analogy that the first love will always have command of the intended unless they mess up and let the prospect consider the second in line.

Taking out an established brand is not easy as it takes repositioning rather than out-competing it for the top rank. The number two’s attempts to portray itself as better often falls short. According to Ries and Trout (2000), the stiff competition and what they call an “overcommunicated society” has made the consumers’ mind to resort to simplified decision making based on prior knowledge. The first manufacturer to take the top position in the market, for example, IBM in the computers market, keeps the lead regardless of the competitors’ effort to communicate. Therefore, it is proposed that the runners up should find a niche within the same market to take advantage of and become first in to take its market share. The authors mention that the perception that a company’s brand markets the product is wrong as the inverse is true. A competitor must establish a unique product ISO to come first and lock out competition. Another doomed strategy is adding more extensions to a brand with the aim of positioning. The market has information overload, so the brand’s identity may be lost in the process as the customer does not associate it with any particular product. The authors present the harsh truth about modern competition and why several marketing strategies fail. The ultimate goal is to take up a unique slot, referred to by Ries and Trout (2000) as “creneau,” in the mind of a prospect. Therefore, proper positioning entails practices such as establishing market leadership, identifying unexplored markets, rebranding, selecting better names, and repositioning.

Critical Analysis

The concept of positioning as contrasted with product advertising and product change presents the reality of modern markets. Consumers indeed accept market-leading products based on their existing reputation as the best. In my study of marketing, I have often encountered a strategy comparison between Nike and Adidas. Since I have read about positioning, I believe the main card Nike holds is that it was here first and thus established a connection with the consumer that is hard to break. This comparison relates much to the Ries and Trout’s (2000) claim that no one cares about who comes second. I have heard arguments that Nike uses price as a tool for competitive advantage. This assertion is partly true as they are market leaders and can take advantage of a small profit per unit but maximize quantity sales. However, reflecting on it, even if Adidas cost cheaper than Nikes, no one would trust them, and they would only sell to the budget niche. Ries and Trout (2000) claim that a competitor entering such a market should find its unique niche, which can resonate with consumers as the first. Connecting this fact to Adidas case, the firm should find a loophole to fill where Nike is yet to focus on and beat it to that. This example gives a situation where the concept called the covering strategy works as competitors fill slots to have a competitive advantage (Ries & Trout, 2000). The observation that the follower’s strategies should be different from those of a leader is similarly valid. When Nike established sports partnerships as a source of competitive advantage, the technique worked because its brand already positioned itself as the first on the ladder. Competitors have tried the same, but the tactic backfires on them.

 

Another concept that rings true from the market is line extension being logically attractive yet ineffective in practice. Ries and Trout (2000) maintain that companies that try to use the name of a market-leading product to venture into a new market fail to consider the consumers’ perspective. The authors conclude that a product is associated with its name in the prospect’s mind. Therefore, a new commodity by the same name creates confusion. In my view, the item that is being introduced could sell if it is closely related to the first. Samsung is one company that has successfully extended its line as it uses its smartphone popularity to venture into new markets. I recently saw a smartwatch from the company, and I immediately associated it with the quality of other Samsung products, such as smartphones and computers. I think the secret to successful extension is in positioning. Samsung has not positioned itself in the consumers’ mind as one item, but instead based on technology, which gives it a leeway to venture into any form of electronics. Ries and Trout (2000) are right in concluding that consumers reason differently from manufacturers. Therefore, the reason why line extensions often fail is that a firm misjudges the position it has as a company brand rather than the prospects’ product perception. Another risk associated with the line extension is that the manufacturer puts itself at risk of being lost in the advertisement trap. An organization will create contradicting or confusing advertisements. According to Ries and Trout’s (2000) argument that products sell a company, advertising new goods or services has few chances of convincing consumers as it is contrary to what it has associated with the name. A company will waste money on advertisements whose effect is insignificant, so it gets a better chance of success if it uses a new name for a new item. Earlier in the book, Ries and Trout (2000) clarified that proper positioning entails finding a window in the prospect’s mind amid the information overload. In competition today, you are either the first in or lost with the rest. When launching new commodities, companies should not use existing names, hoping to extend their success. The best advice given here is to have a unique and fitting name and market it to address an issue that makes it the first of its kind. I fully concur with the authors that there is no substitute for being first.

Main Takeaways

Creativity may remain essential to brand quality, but it hardly works as a source of competitive advantage. From Ries and Trout’s (2000) arguments, it is safe to conclude that creativity in entering new markets should entail finding a gap to fill as following an existing commodity does not work no matter the quality of the newcomer’s product. The argument is that the manufacturer will get stuck in a queue similar to the one where asking the way up meets the answer “you cannot get there from here” (Ries &Trout, 2000). This fact leads to the second realization that competition for market share while focusing on the goods and services provided is bound to fail. A number two cannot increase its market share by advertisement. This attempt is just another effort to find a route where there is no entry. The third and most important take away is that brand positioning should be the main focus in marketing. If creativity does not matter anymore, then a competitive advantage is gained by establishing the product first. The perception that improving the goods and heavily investing in advertisement could result in more sales is misguided. Ries and Trout (2000) term it as thinking inside out. Many marketers focus their efforts in the wrong direction as they think like manufacturers. The best strategy is to view products from a prospect’s mind and see if it gets at the top of the ladder or is in the positioning deadlock.

 

Finally, brands work for a specific product, line extensions do not work, and a catchy name is an added advantage. When a manufacturer gets to the top first, they have an advantage over everyone in the industry. How to get there requires getting it right the first time as it is now clear there is no climbing up the ladder. The name is what marketers sell as they advertise, and this method adds to the positioning strategy. Ries and Trout (2000) advocate for unique and catchy titles. There is a general misconception by successful companies that their position is a result of marketing prowess. This way, the firms try to extend the same strategy into other markets and result in failure as they are not first in the new market. According to Ries and Trout (2000), such companies make the mistake of thinking they could use marketing to trick consumers. Positioning favors organizations that are faithful to their brand, rather than those that attempt to get into other many products, yet they master none. The advice is to strive to be first or reposition the producer in that position. The first and most crucial step is to develop the most relevant name that prospects will associate with the product rank in their mental ladder.