Tag Archives: Jack Trout

Why Spin-offs? How Diversifications destroy the company, brand and profit?

I’ve been raising my voice in the favor of spin-offs and multi-brandings, and getting through the concept that how diversification destroy the company, brand and profit. That applies to corporate, products, services and persons.

I’ve found amazing facts for it from Al Ries, the world’s top marketing guru, author and consultant. So thought to share it up with readers:

Decades of mergers, acquisitions, hostile takeovers, and alliances have created scores of hydra-headed corporate monsters. How do you focus one of these mastodons?

In concept, it’s easy. You just spin off some of the heads. Divide and conquer. Easier said then done.

Read more

GM’s bankruptcy, lessons: What NOT to do!

GM Bankruptcy logo

Before GM’s bankruptcy Al Ries, Laura Ries and Jack Tout have been warning GM to take seriously their marketing. I can’t wait to post Jack Trout’s recent article after its bankruptcy.  Before reading is article, do watch this video. This presentation was made way before its bankruptcy.

Toyota is about to pass General Motors’ seven-decade reign as the world’s largest car producer by volume. That’s right 70 years of leadership coming to an end. Today, Toyota has America’s best selling car, the Camry, and GM is struggling to make dwindling brands, such as Buick and Pontiac, mean something to consumers.
When something like this happens to a company of this stature, it’s important to discover why this occurred. These are important lessons as George Santayana warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I mentioned the GM brand schizophrenia problem in an earlier column. Here’s a more detailed analysis of what went wrong.
When Alfred Sloan joined GM in 1924 as operating vice president, he inherited what he called an “irrational product line”–one that had no guiding policy for the marketing of its many brands. The company’s only objective was to sell the cars. The brands stole volume from each other and, with the exception of Buick and Cadillac, all lost money.
Sloan immediately realized that GM had too many models and too much duplication and lacked a product policy. In one of the earliest examples of market segmentation, he reduced GM’s offerings to five models, separated them by price grades and emphasized individual brand image to entice customers into the GM family and move them up.
These distinct and strong brands allowed GM to capture more than 57% of the U.S. market by 1955. Aware that pursuing more market share could lead to antitrust actions and the threat of a breakup, GM fatefully shifted its strategy from making better cars to making more and more money from a relatively stable number of sales.
Nothing dramatized this new direction more than the concept of “badge engineering,” or selling identical vehicles under different model names. This invention of GM’s finance staff was a way to increase profits through uniformity, by, among other things, making parts interchangeable. Slowly but surely, the different brands lost the individual personalities that the company had so painstakingly established. At the same time, to improve their numbers (and bonuses), the GM divisions began to push the boundaries of the product policies that defined their brands: Chevrolet went up in price with fancier models, as did Pontiac. Buick and Oldsmobile offered cheaper versions. In time, GM was once again producing multiple cars of different brands that both looked and were priced alike. For GM, it was 1921 all over again, with brands that look alike and are priced alike.
Like BMW, Toyota (nyse: TM – news – people ) pushed one brand in many forms. All these cars benefited by sharing in one powerful differentiating idea: reliability. And when they went up into the super-premium category, it became a Lexus with all “Toyota” identity carefully eliminated. Also, they are quick to invest in new innovations such as the hybrid (Prius) and, coming soon, the wheelchair friendly Porte, aimed at Japan’s elderly population.
The bottom line is that in the branding business, less is more.
A successful brand has to stand for something. And the more variations to attach to it, the more you risk standing for nothing. This is especially true when what you add actually clashes with your perception. If Altira’s Marlboro stands for cowboys out in Marlboro Country, how can it sell Marlboro Menthol or Marlboro Ultra Light cigarettes? Real cowboys don’t smoke Menthols or Ultra Lights.
If Coca-Cola is the company that invented cola and the owner of that special formula, how can it be the “Real Thing” when the company offers a parade of new things including one called “Zero”? Why change that unique formula?
Should Wal-Mart Stores try to sell more up-market products to compete with Target? No, that’s not its market.
Should Porsche risk its sports car image by selling SUVs? No, it’s an iconic sports car brand.
Should Dell try to sell home electronics to compete with the Japanese and Koreans in this category? No, it sells computers directly to businesses.
Until companies come to grips with the simple fact that they don’t really have an inordinate need to grow, but an inordinate desire to grow (because of Wall Street), bad things will continue to happen. Slowly but surely, brands will lose their meaning as they try to become more.
What is happening to General Motors should be a lesson to all companies no matter how big and powerful they are. You cannot be everything for everybody, and the more you try, the more you risk sinking the ship.As I say to many senior executives as a reminder of what can happen, put a simple sign on the wall that reads: Remember the Titanic.
By Jack Trout
Read more

What Marketing is NOT?

Commonsense image

Marketing students (MBA, BBA) and professionals are still confused about marketing and its application in the real world. Dear friends, your precious education and experience are not an easy one to learn, trust me, it has been adapted as an exclusive tool. In this article, I will try to resolve a major misconception about marketing.

This article will provide guidance to young marketers and students of marketing and business, who have been asking simple questions about marketing definition and after completion of course, ending up no where. However, before understanding the definition of marketing, we have to understand the most important part of marketing. I call it “______”. I’ll tell you later, I promise! Keep reading.

Read more

How Adsells Advertising can dominate its market leadership?

Adsells Logo

Branding opportunities do not lie in the serving of existing market. Branding opportunities lie in the formation of new market. To make a powerful brand one needs to be first in the market with a new category. Adsells Advertising knows it well.They were first in outdoor advertisement category.(Even if they weren’t.It doesn’t matter! Adsells has positioned it self in the mind of consumer as a leader and that’s what all count in market leadership)

Adsells Advertising is Pakistan’s leading outdoor advertising company. 

If there is any company in Pakistan which did not loose its focus, perhaps it’s only Adsells. 

Read more