Marketing Memos

Receive Marketing Memos via Email

vicodin

February 17, 2010

Positioning Power

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Growing your market in the modern age without knowing your positioning is like driving motorcycle down an Interstate while blindfolded.  You will lose and the resulting splatter will not be pretty.

Positioning is simply establishing where on a competitive map your products are in the eyes of the market.  The concept is quite simple if you ignore for a moment the complicating factors of market maturity, multiple segments many buyer genotypes, or 3,274 other elements.  To determine one’s position you simply have to identify the issues that are of primary concern to your buyers, and either measure their attitudes about competing products and perform a realistic evaluation of all the entrants.

Sounds simple, but it isn’t, and often leads to awkward issues.  Here’s an unfunny example.

Silicon Strategies Marketing recently performed a series of investigations for a client to determine what the market felt was important about a services offering and where the various competitors stood in the eyes of the market (since the quality of services are subjective, surveying the market was essential).  In our surveying we discovered that three issues were of primary importance to buyers, and that our client was a market leader (happiness) but in a tight cluster with two top competitors (unhappiness).  What this particular analysis showed was that in the eyes of the market, there was little differentiation between the top contenders.  This is a dangerous positioning because in the absence of differentiation, price becomes a negotiation tool for the buyer.  In these situations you must either explain with utter clarity what actually makes you different and better than your competition, or invent a new and meaningful differentiation, or both.

Standing still is not an option.

Refining market messages is a perpetual activity, but urgent when you discover that your position lumps you together with competitors.  Reviewing all messaging in light of the principle buyer motivations will gain good short-term benefits as well as getting everybody inside your company to focus on what is truly essential in their daily work and outreach.  However, agile competitors may well realize they are in the same cluster and face the same positioning issues, and clone your messaging.  Thus, over the long run, you must invent new capabilities that are meaningful to buyers.

This leads to the second aspect of positioning, namely how to work around your competitors.  Going toe-to-toe with competitors is slow motion suicide.  It is expensive, produces few sales, and depletes your staff’s enthusiasm.  However, finding a path around your competitors not only generates revenue, but also starts what the Chasm Group defines as the “bowling alley” process.

This is where positioning gets complicated and fun (well, fun is you are a slightly masochist marketing guru … like me).

Segmentation, the process of dividing your entire market into small, manageable pieces is based on finding groups with common expected outcomes (“needs”, though that term is somewhat misleading).  Instead of attacking the entire market, an effort that will fail, you attack one segment until you dominate it, then move on to the next.  If you evaluate each possible segment with clarity, obvious paths to market-wide dominance will appear as you identify segments where your product is or can be made strong, where there is revenue, and where there is extensible similarity of need from your current segment.

Which gets back to positioning.  Your position in segment ‘A’ is not the same in segment ‘B’, ‘C’ or ‘Zed’.  It is one thing to map your position against a whole market, and another to map it within each segment.  Both are valuable, but only the latter leads to a segment-by-segment growth strategy.  If you are not planning a segment-by-segment growth strategy, you can only grow as big as your current segment.  That is good enough for some businesses, especially those that are led by calcified founders.  It is not good enough for Silicon Valley and investors.  None of that crowd likes leaving money in other people’s pockets, but unlike politicians and other professional pickpockets, The Valley prefers to earn their income.

The marketing lesson herein is to map your entire market, segment it, identify and position-map what segment you are in and which ones you should be in next, then march through them like Marines through Tripoli.

February 9, 2010

Anti-Oracle

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

I’m starting an Internet wide office pool – pick the date and place a dollar ante on when antitrust will be filed against Oracle.

Seriously, Larry is all but begging for it.

With the integration of Sun into Oracle, many executives – including Ellison – said that Oracle was the IBM of the new millennia.  They waxed techno-poetically about how Oracle, and only Oracle, could provide complete iron-to-apps IT, that they owned the middle of the datacenter.  They claimed their ability to cross-integrate every element of the stack provided Oracle power that no other vendor could offer.

Those statements were followed by amused FTC lawyers grunting.

IBM was the original and last computing monolith.  As Ellison’s Archangels echoed, the IBM of the 1960’s provided everything a customer could want and that IBM’s floor-to-ceiling solution sets created impenetrable barriers to competition.  That is precisely why the federal government sued IBM, and for thirteen bone-grinding years prosecuted Big Blue for allegedly violating the Sherman Act by attempting to monopolize the general purpose business computer system market.  Indeed, the only reason litigation was abandoned was that the market, IBM and computing technology all changed over thirteen years, and IBM was no longer in monopoly mode (though some people slightly less cynical than me believe Ronald Reagan simply ordered a halt to the Federal Lawyer Full Employment Act).

Would we believe today’s FTC and Justice Department would not view Oracle with the same suspicions?   Even under more business-friendly administrations, Oracle faced government intervention when they swallowed PeopleSoft and JD Edwards in a single gulp.  Back then rather feeble justifications, citing SAP as a major competitor, were offered.  With stagnant net profits and leadership changes at SAP, this argument rapidly vanishes.  Toss in Oracle aiding and abetting NetApps (which is positioned to handle the SMB market while Oracle dominates the high-end) and the temptation for the government to intervene will simply grow too great.

It is not a matter of if but when the government decides that Oracle is indeed the IBM of the new millennia.  They will pick a fight, though it is unclear if Larry would lose.  If nothing else, the PeopleSoft acquisition shows Ellison knows how to stand-up to government regulators and win.  The question for the rest of us is when to buy and when to bail out of Oracle stock.  Left alone, Oracle stands to make major money given their dominance.  But like IBM, a decade of litigation will weaken them and their share price.

Me?  I’m going to get rich on my Internet office pool.

 
Contact    Site Map    Search    Privacy    Copyright