Better branding through rivalry
Sometimes I write about things I’m fairly certain about. This isn’t one of those things. This is not well thought out, but I really want your thoughts on this.
Do rivalries help brands excel? And I suppose when I say rivalries, I mean having one or two primary competitors. My initial thought is that through competing with a clear rival, a brand is able to more definitively define itself. But, while I think rivalries help brands, I don’t think they are required for the building of strong brands.
In sports, a rivalry is generally considered a great thing for both parties involved. And naturally, if a rivalry doesn’t exist, the media will attempt to create a rivalry through hyping the closest thing to a rivalry that exists.
Examples? Tiger Woods is in his own league as a player. In this era of golf, he is dominant. But for years, the media and fans of the game have looked for a rivalry to develop with another player. Does Tiger really need a rivalry? No. He defines greatness pretty well on his own. But people want to see how competition elevates the game of rivals. Sergio Garcia, Vijay Singh, and Phil Mickelson have all failed to live up to rival status.
A classic example of a rivalry that helped both players excel was John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. The world of tennis fans and even non-tennis loving sports fans could get into that rivalry and understand what each player was all about. Their strengths and weaknesses. Their personalities. Their exciting moments and frustrations. Now Roger Federer has Rafael Nadal.
So why would a rivalry facilitate branding? Well, let’s think about a brand without a clear primary competitor. If this brand is already the market leader, you may say that they are doing pretty well for themselves and don’t need a competitor. But in this instance, you will often see a company defining itself by its attributes. But attributes can be replicated by other companies. A brand’s value is that value above and beyond the physical attributes of a company’s offering. I first thought seriously about this idea when in a class taught by Sam Bradley. He said that Coca-Cola is just made up of ingredients, but the brand equity is that value you’d have to pay for above and beyond the physical ingredients, properties, machinery, etc. if you were to attempt to purchase Coca-Cola.
So when two competitors offer virtually the same or very similar physical attributes (product or service), it is the branding that separates them. The personalities of the brands can be held in contrast to each other. We treat brands like people. One person is easier to describe when you can compare that person to another.
So is it any coincidence that some of the world’s greatest brands have very impressive rivalries?
Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Nike and adidas. Mac and… PC?
That brings up a great example. Apple and the Mac computer decided to create a rivalry and it has paid dividends. PC was not a brand. Personal computers are a general category made up of numerous computer brands. So Mac creates a personality for itself and also for PC to help differentiate itself from anything that is non-Mac. And it worked beautifully.
Now this idea of rivalries in branding is far from the rule, or a necessity. Disney is one of the world’s strongest brands. Who is their rival? They are an enterprise and exist in many different industries. They may have a theme park rival, a children’s television rival, and a rival in whatever other industries they’re in, but as far as I can tell, they don’t have one primary competitor.
I really want to know what you think. This is something that has really been on my mind this week, and I’d love to know your thoughts.
Is it better branding, or does is merely necessitate positioning?
Do clearly defined positions automatically equal better brands?
Tim,
I think establishing a rivalry is a great idea–if your brand is #2 or lower on the depth chart. Take Burger King’s ad campaign with the Whopper vs. Big Mac. Burger King has a lot to gain by being mentioned as the top fast food restaurant next to category-leader McDonald’s, so accordingly they create a campaign to elevate themselves to the leader’s status. Same goes for Apple’s Mac vs. PC campaign. Despite Apple’s strong brand, sales are still much lower than PC computers. Consumer perception ranks them equal or even reversed based on the brand’s equity and advertising though.
On the flip side, it makes less sense for an industry-leader to elevate a competitor’s presence for them. It’s like a championship match–the winner doesn’t want a rematch, they’ve already proved themselves and have nothing to gain by playing the 2nd place team again. Microsoft’s ad campaign in response to the Apple attacks seemed a little desperate–especially after Apple mocked the product and Microsoft’s ads even more. I’d argue Microsoft solidified Apple’s credibility even more by trying to play their game.
Seems like our thoughts align closely, but I thought the brand’s position is an important aspect to consider in a rivalry campaign.
- Kevin
Funny, the first rivalry that I thought of was Pepsi and Coke. Then you brought up Tiger Woods. I am not sure that rivalry is necessarily the correct word. Strong competition may be a better way to put it. Everyone has competition, but who is capitalizing on it by using it to their ‘branding” advantage? In Coke and Pepsi’s case, there are a number of ways that they distance themselves from each other. Creating an individual “brand.” Yet every time that one of the two puts out a new product, (i.e. Wild Cherry Pepsi, Pepsi Vanilla) the other does virtually the same thing. (i.e. Cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke) I have two thoughts on this. One says that they do it to diffuse the impact of the other’s new product on the market, and the other says that they don’t want to miss out on a potential new market. Maybe it is both. If we take a look at Tiger Woods, he does indeed have competition. Whether it is the golf course, the injury, or the records that he is trying to break, the media finds a way to put him up against something. It naturally drives more people to the product. I feel the same is true of any good company. So, I believe that although the rivalry or competition is not a necessity, it is desirable. If you want to grow your “brand,” put it out there against someone, something, or some company.
Do clearly defined positions automatically equal better brands? No. There are many ways to position a company. Plenty of positioning occurs in establishing a place in the market. That alone does not build a brand. But I think clearly defined positions for personality, values, etc. do build stronger brands. I just think that a rivalry makes defining these easier, or maybe just more likely to occur.
Kevin, I see your point about maybe it doesn’t make sense for a market leader to elevate a competitor. But I would argue that a market leader on top of the mountain with little perceived competition is actually quite vulnerable because they may not be putting in the work to create a brand that is greater than the sum of their tangible offerings.
Tom, great points.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Leave your response!
Archives
Tim on Twitter
Tim on del.icio.us
Categories
Blogroll
Most Commented