Marketoonist Creator and Insightfully Funny Keynote Speaker
“The Growth Fairy” - new cartoon and post https://lnkd.in/ga_AK7EW I was struck by an observation from J. Walker Smith, Chief Knowledge Officer at Kantar: “The foundational prerequisite of growth is the courage to grow. Impediments to growth sit within a company itself. Growth is rarely hostage to the marketplace.” I like the idea that a brand is not “hostage to the marketplace” — that marketers can take agency for brand results separate from what’s happening in the outside world. There has always been myth-making and wish-casting in what it actually takes for a brand to grow. Thanks to the work of Kantar and others, we have more data-driven resources to help guide our approach. A few months ago, Kantar released the results of a giant research study into what they believe drives brand growth — an analysis of 6.5 billion global attitudinal and shopper data points from the last 10 years. Kantar’s big takeaway is that “brands that are ‘meaningfully different’ to ‘more people’ command 5X penetration today and real advantage in penetration growth over the next two years.” They expand this into three simple rules for growth: 1) predispose more people, 2) be more present, and 3) find new space. It’s been 14 years since Byron Sharp of Ehrenberg-Bass wrote “How Brands Grow” and famously challenged the idea of “meaningful differentiation”: “Rather than striving for meaningful, perceived differentiation, marketers should seek meaningless distinctiveness. Branding lasts, differentiation doesn’t.” I find it interesting that Kantar reaches a different conclusion than Ehrenberg-Bass on the importance of differentiation. In marketing, like other areas of business, reasonable people can disagree. It’s a reminder that ultimately there’s no one-size-fits-all strategy for growth. But it’s all better than placing our hopes on the Growth Fairy. For related cartoons and all the links in this post, click here: https://lnkd.in/ga_AK7EW To sign up for my weekly marketoon email newsletter, click here: https://lnkd.in/gteDRRTd #marketing #cartoon #marketoon
Love the cartoon, Tom Fishburne, and the article even more. I always found "How Brands Grow" gives only one version of the truth and that the right marketing strategy will always be situational. I always felt Sharp's POV focused too much on the success levers demonstrated by large incumbent brands. Useful if this is your situation, hard to apply if it's not. For challenger brands, differentiation is critical, not just for the consideration by then end shopper, but also in order to secure distribution in the first place. I believe this differentiation can be in any of the 4 Ps however, though some sources of differentiation may be more transferable as the business grows and expands. I.E. a differentiation based in a DTC distribution model might become irrelevant when trying to expand to traditional retail. If you're going to win on price, you better also be able to win on cost or your model isn't sustainable. Some product differentiations are sustainable based on patents or network effects and others are not. And back to "How Brands Grow", it's not that differentiation isn't important for big winning brands, it's that their differentiation is the strength of its brand.
I am 100% on board with the 3 rules of growth, but in order for that to work, I personally believe Brand must include: 1. a differentiator, which I find a lot of local brands fail to genuinely identify because they don't even know, so they make claims that others can also claim rendering them meaningless, 2. a why care, with the billions of other things and brands clamoring for my attention at the same time, 3. and a motivator, why should this be stored in my brain attic for use at a later time, near future or now You can predispose to more (reach), be more present (consistency, freq), and add new space, but without a differentiator, reason to care, or motivator its just spending money with the growth fairy for low returns
I think that back when that book came out Byron was intentionally contrarian to try to cut-through a marketing culture obsessed with "love brands" and loyalty at the time, screaming "differentiation doesn't matter" helped to reach us, as it's all we thought about. Of course differentiation makes a difference, but there is much more to do until it does. If no one even notices you then there is no difference to be made, if you haven't any awareness or distribution, then there is no difference to be made. Be noticed first, then be remembered.
My favourite ‘growth fairy’ would arise when a business would reformulate beloved products to cheaper, inferior specs while raising consumer price points and reducing ad spend… and then model out a growth scenario to show those impressive paper-based profit gains (that were never realized in reality).
Almost all companies, and many non-commercial organizations, claim to grow. But growth is a life stage, not a permanent experience. Adult entities evolve, they do not grow. And how they evolve is through change, which is what they hate. And, when they do discuss growth, they emphasize innovation (organic growth) - when in fact mostly what they are doing is the far less glamorous M&A (so-called inorganic growth). Practically no one keeps growing organically.
Growth and profitability are two very different things. People who talk about brand growth never look at margins.
Hi Tom I always enjoy reading these posts. As someone who works with challenger brands I've always found that meaningful differentiation is a key component to getting the conversation started. Buyers are more like risk managers these days, so data such as that provided by Kantar is crucial in demonstrating the unmet need any meaningfully differentiated product answers. Distinctiveness is also a key component and combined with differentiation makes a strong proposition but in my experience, in the world of challenger brands, meaningless distinctiveness alone isn't enough.
Love the cartoon! Many years ago, I sat in a meeting where the company leadership presented information not too dissimilar to that, setting the targets for the employees. When I raised my hand to ask what the plan was to achieve that forecast, it was like they didn’t understand the question. When I clarified by asking what are we going to do differently to achieve those ambitious new trajectory numbers, I got a totally nonsense response, something along the lines of ‘the same, but more!’ I heard afterwards that I was seen as the villain for asking such a ‘difficult question’. 🙄 I stayed two years for my CV, then hotfooted it out of there!
Once again Tom Fishburne, your humorous take reflects a global truism. Your assertion that growth takes courage (and insight) underpinned the work of Clayton Christensen in his seminal book "The Innovator's Dilemma" - without courage and insight, most companies take incremental and low-risk strategies that spell their doom - it is the corporate way. Unseen and unproven business cases typically take a back-seat to incrementalism and more-of-the-same because the decisions are mostly taken by people who are more vested in avoiding the downside than building the upside (Boeing versus SpaceX is a great case). And marketers can only market what the product/service team create, and if nothing, then nothing can only come from nothing. Simple. Yet overlooked.
Professor at Tuck, Senior Advisor at Innosight, passionate about helping individuals and organizations develop the capacity to thrive in today’s world of never-ending change
1moGreat one Tom! Reminded me of this idea from McKinsey & Company … hockey stick fantasies and hair back realities!