Friday, November 20, 2009

Begging to differ.

After a week of forehead-smackingly circular debates, I would like to propose that we ban differentiation. I’d like to suggest that all brands immediately refrain from this dangerous and archaic practice, and that there be some sort of penalty for failing to do so. I’m thinking something like, say, being exclusively distributed by Walmart. Just spitballing , here. We can discuss this detail another time, but the issue is, I have suddenly realized, pressing.

Like most evil things, it started out innocently enough. The idea that a brand has to be distinct from its competitors is hard to dispute, and it’s so deeply embedded in the DNA of marketing orthodoxy that a sane person would question it no more than they would gravity. Trout and Ries, the great sages of positioning, would nod solemnly at this from whatever Olympian sanctum they now inhabit. Free marketeers would add piously that the quest for differentiation is an incentive for continuous improvement of the things we buy, and that it preserves the sacred artifact of consumer choice. There is hardly a phrase less likely to invite argument in a boardroom than, “we have to stand out from the clutter.”

But differentiation, it turns out, is like a Pop Tart. Excellent as part of a balanced diet, but probably fatal if it’s all you eat.

For one thing, I am increasingly doubtful that differentiation, in isolation, even has commercial value anymore. In the marketing world, we tend to visualize our brands as being lined up on a metaphysical store shelf alongside their competitors like a bunch of hookers in a red light district. When you look at it that way, it makes sense that you have to stand out first if you’re going to do any business. Except that I’m not sure that’s the metaphysical space most brands compete in anymore. I think brands more often are nodes on an infinite grid of what people want and who can give it to them. In a searchable world, it seems to me that ‘different’ is well on the way to becoming quaint, as is the idea of clutter.

Meanwhile, the monomania for differentiation, for those marketers so afflicted, is turning brands into narcissists. By definition, they become self-obsessed and inward looking, oblivious to the world. In clinical terms, narcissism has a couple of cautionary aspects worth thinking about here: One is that it’s a short walk from there to sociopathy, and a brand without a conscience would be a scary thing. And the other is that narcissism is sure sign of controlling parents. If you don’t cut your brand some slack and let it out to play, nobody will like it and it will never develop its own character. Which, at the end of the day, is about the only kind of differentiation worth having.

Now ask yourself: Do I really want my brand to be a sociopathic hooker with unresolved parent issues? No, I think you do not.

So, until I can convince the government to make differentiation illegal (which I acknowledge may take some time), I’m going to boycott it myself. From now on, if someone wants me to help them make their brand awesome, I’m only going to help them make it relevant. I will refuse to talk about how their brand is different; I’m only going to talk about whose life it intends to make better.

Join me. There’s still time to stop this scourge.


simon billing said...

Once again a desired result is confused for a strategy (like the tedious 'viral'). Differentiation is what happens when you succeed at being useful, relevant, enjoyable to be around, etc. etc.

And please can we leave the awesomeness thingummy where it belongs - with teenagers.

BrandCowboy said...

Couldn't agree more, Simon. So much 'strategic thinking' anymore is like trying to make a car go faster by twisting the needle on the speedometer.

For future reference, I always use 'awesome' sarcastically ; )

Thanks for the comment!

CrowDogs said...

Ever since I’ve read The Orange Code (great book by the way) I’ve read your blog with great interest… If not for any other reason I often learn new words. Spitballing. I like that--and your posts.

BrandCowboy said...

Thanks, CrowDogs! For the kind words about my blog, and even more so about The Orange Code. I'll keep doing my best to deserve the praise. Appreciate the visit!

Anonymous said...

Nice article you got here. It would be great to read a bit more concerning this topic.
By the way look at the design I've made myself High class escorts

Caroline Eveleigh said...

Kinda interesting. I saw a poster the other day for The Smile Specialists and wondered what was wrong with a dentist calling themselves a dentist. I mean that's where I go when I want my teeth fixed. I go to the Channel counter when I want my smile noticed. I think you might be onto something ...

BrandCowboy said...

Great comment, Caroline. That kind of semantic game happens all the time in marketing, sadly. I wonder whether everybody - dentist and patient alike - wouldn't be better off if this guy had just given some thought to why he's the best dentist and for whom, as opposed to how he isn't actually a dentist at all. Thanks for reading!

Anonymous said...


Burosys said... :: We have been in the business of chairs long before many of you even sat on one. During a time, when people in India sat cross-legged, a time when it was a luxury to ‘take a seat’- A time way before our country gained its independence. That is when our founder Kakubhai Pitroda started a unit to manufacture parts related to chairs such as wheels, arms and other such mechanisms. And in no time, we became the singular source for quality hardware all over India.