The BATTLE for your mind

Positioning is getting a right old kicking at the moment.

On the one hand you have Byron Sharp saying the concept is over-rated because it isn’t what drives growth.

On the other you have Mark Ritson saying the current practice is, to quote, “a shitshow”.

Bearing in mind their recent love-in at Cannes, it’s tempting to think they’re now singing from the same songbook.

But it doesn’t sound like it.

Sharp’s view is based partly on a rejection of Philip Kotler’s. He always talks about positioning in the context of the classic STP approach: Segmentation – Targeting – Positioning.

So you do segmentation analysis, identify segments, choose one to target and develop a positioning to appeal to that group of people. And what should then happen is a brand’s growth comes mainly from that segment.

But the evidence shows that that when brands grow they pull from every segment and share customers with all the other brands in the market.

At least he acknowledges this is weird.

Mind you, Sharp fixed his sights on positioning a long time ago. In How Brands Grow Part 2, written with Jenni Romaniuk, he was arguing that strong brands don’t rely on a single proposition, they are mentally available across a wide range of category needs. Hence Category Entry Points, hence Distinctive Assets.

The argument is then taken one step further to say positioning is created by your marketing efforts, particularly advertising because of its potential for wide reach.

Which does beg the question: here’s the cart, where’s the horse?

Mark Ritson’s perspective on positioning is driven by his criticism of the processes used, particularly the models. The overlong and jargon-filled Powerpoint presentations.

For him a positioning is a small number of associations you want to build and maintain for your brand, supported by a small number of distinctive assets.

It’s not Differentiate or Die, it’s about relative differentiation. Similar in most ways to the competition, but different in one or two.

And then consistency. His go-to case study is Kit Kat, who’ve used ‘Have a break. Have a Kit Kat.’ since 1957, when it was written by Donald Gilles at JWT London. It was originally inspired by the ‘elevenses’ break in factories.

Mark has a single chart to put this across, which simultaneously makes the point about being clear and concise. The Kit Kat logo, red colour, product shape and strapline all sit underneath a proposition, a belief – ‘Breaks are good for you’.

Of course, this positioning example makes other points too.

It is about a Category Entry Point but a broadly defined one that embraces all manner of stressful situations.

There’s a link to the product, the sound of breaking off a Kit Kat finger.

It’s single-minded about the emotional benefit offered and owning that space ahead of the competition.

And it’s clearly not about targeting a single segment in the sweet snacks category. We all sometimes need a break.

So really Sharp and Ritson’s positions on positioning are like chalk and cheese.

Their common ground is based on the importance of a brand coming to mind in the first place and how that’s often the bigger job to do.

Mark also sometimes shifts his focus to product positioning, although I’m sure that Kit Kat brand example still features prominently in his miniMBAs.

But surely they can’t both be right.

It all comes down to what is actually going on in your mind as a consumer, not just as a marketeer.

Is it about coming to mind, pop and it’s there?

Or is it about coming to mind because that’s the one for you?