What happens when there are an ever-increasing number of brands, each aiming to be different? We turn the domain into a complex labyrinth of differentiated positions within an inch of a distance from each other, if not overlapping. People are noticing that many of these strategically positioned brands are just lies. Lies clever enough to look like the truth. All is fair as long as we succeed in being differentiated? Was. For all the resources we spent in understanding the consumer, we failed to consider where these clever half-truths would leave us in the minds of the consumer in the long run. That run seems to have reached its maximum length. All this while businesses put the onus of making the right choice entirely on the buyers while they trained energies on growing business at all costs. Today, at the end of the run, distrust has become certain – no matter the celebrity endorsing it, no matter the heart-tugging story being narrated, no matter the entertainment being provided. People are paralysed by the analysis they have to do before making every last purchase. It is time to add the missing lesson to the very foundational textbooks of running a prudent business aimed at sustainable growth.
The lesson is definitely not that we stop differentiating our offering. But, it does point to a need for a change in approach to it. The lesson is that we need to stop or minimise to the maximum, lying just because we found a legal loophole. TG (target group) as a concept is problematic in the new scheme of things. We need to stop targeting our audience and serving them instead. In an ecosystem where nothing is more punished than hoodwinking the audience, it is perhaps necessary to avoid creating an illusion that our product is what it is not. We have to find other ways to win customer hearts. One of those ways would be to focus on differentiating the brand’s value system, if the product per se is not outstandingly different. Brands need to proactively invest in initiatives to live out the value system they claim to uphold. Perhaps, we could shift focus from differentiation per say to the intent behind our differentiation. If we did that, it may lead us to identifying and solving actual audience pain points – which let me assure you, there are enough of. What we need to do is pick one relevant to our domain/category and champion it. An attitude or value system that people need support to advocate. But wait! What if everyone became ‘meaningfully’ differentiated? Then what?
Here’s the kicker: we are moving into times where it’s ok to not not be differentiated and instead belong to a certain league. The league of well intended brands backed by good people. To be considered and advocated for, brands need to share some expected common attributes. Sincerity of intent, lived out purpose, sustainable choices, helping the end consumer make sustainable choices, inclusivity, being kind employers – these things need to be non-differentiated. And non-negotiable. Brands need to focus on identifying an area to champion, whether or not it is a differentiated stance.
It is okay if there are other brands which already own the cause we stand for. If it’s a space that your brand cares about, it shouldn’t matter that other brands are also advocating for it. We live in an era of collaboration and community – not competition and cut-throatism. Brand wars are amusing for the audience but we see an increasing number of cases of brand collaborations – which mirrors the audience reality of social networking and enabling. Messages and branding that are relevant, honest and most importantly lived-out, are taken seriously while the rest are ignored – differentiation notwithstanding.
The views and opinions published here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher.
Be the first to comment on "‘Differentiation’ Is Different Today"