D/P/A: a model for Marketplace Differentiation

In today’s crowded and confused market of changing purchase/consumption habits, with a wildly changing media/messaging landscape, the importance of brand differentiation has never been more important!  I have written recently about the outmoded concept of “Brand Loyalty” (http://fylegacy.blogspot.com/2014/11/brand-loyalty-dangerous-and-outmoded.html) and in that dynamic, the need to regularly (possibly daily) refresh your businesses/brand’s “Marketplace Differentiation” is required for survival and success.

In a recent client discussion, we dove into this exact topic.  This company is a young, emerging/disruptive organic food company driving great growth across retail.  Even though they are only a few years old, there are now even “younger” emerging competitors working to take their market-share and consumers.  Rather than grumble and complain about that reality (imitation is a form of flattery), I worked them through the “D/P/A” model to see if it might help.

D: “Distinctive”.  Early on in my career, I had the chance to play a number of roles within the marketing organization at The Coca Cola Company.  At that time, Sergio Zyman was CMO, a larger than life marketing thought leader across the company, and someone who was not shy about sharing his ideas/beliefs.  I remember a meeting where he asked a group of young marketers to identify our competition.  Immediately, voices called out Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Tropicana, Starbucks, to name just a few.  In a fast and furious response of “NO!!”  he said that the primary competitor/opponent of our marketing work at Coke was “sameness.”  He pushed us to see that in a sea of marketing and branding ideas/messages, it was terrifically easy to get lost in the clutter of mediocre, easily forgettable “sameness.”  Our job was to work ceaselessly to find “distinctive” insights/concepts/messages/images to break through that clutter and create a “distinctive” spot in the landscape.

P: “Preferred.” Here is where we need to keep two concepts in mind.  When I say, “preferred”, I mean that we need to be “preferred” vs. competitive alternatives by the “core user” and the “primary shopper/purchaser” for our business/brand.  These are two different constituencies often with very different considerations. 

I will take a personal example of my family’s usage of Bolthouse Farms juices and smoothies.  My wife and I are the primary shoppers for our family, often sharing the duties on a busy weekend.  We weekly buy multiple Bolthouse Farms juices/smoothies for the entire family.  My daughter loves the strawberry banana smoothie and drinks it every morning as part of her morning routine. While she has tried other brands, she loves the Bolthouse Farms version, clearly “preferred” by the “core user.”  When our local Publix grocer store discontinued the Bolthouse Farms Strawberry Banana in the 32 oz. size, only having the single serve size available in that flavor, we had “shopper preference” issues.  The primary competitors all had a 32 oz. option in that flavor, just not Bolthouse Farms.  We now had “shopper” value issues, since the larger bottle was a better price/oz. offering. 

I share this story not to illuminate the juice dynamics in my family, but to illustrate the important balancing act of insuring “preference” vs. competition for both key constituencies.

A: Advantaged.  This final element pushes us to look at then entire “value chain” for a brand/business, looking deeply at the “demand chain” and the “supply chain” components, to insure that we have a brand/business and a business model that is “advantaged” vs. competition. 

I recently met with some folks working to compete in the highly competitive bottled water category.  Having spent 18 years at Coke, and being part of the launch of Dasani water, I know a few things about this business.  While the Coke system has some amazing advantages on the “demand chain” side of things (amazing bottler DSD network, focused and prioritized marketing efforts/investments, unparalleled revenue management/pricing capabilities to name a few), the Nestle waters company/system has tremendous “supply chain” advantages that allow them to be the case cost leader in bottled water.  Knowing this it was clear that this bottled water competitor was NOT “advantaged” in either the “demand chain” or the “supply chain” side of the category.  Having limited competitive advantage in ANY competitive marketplace is an early and dangerous warning sign!

Hopefully this “D/P/A” model will be helpful to you.  Use it regularly, push yourself to refresh your thinking and marketplace understanding constantly, and drive growth and success through clear/strong marketplace differentiation and insuring that your brand/business is “Distinctive, Preferred & Advantaged”!

Building Brands, a daily regimen

At the center of my career are brands, brands that matter to consumers and shoppers, and brands that have grown over the decades. I have had the pleasure to work on a number of large, growing, expanding brands that have really stood the test of time, ranging from Kleenex, to Breyers Ice Cream, to Coca-Cola, and to Bolthouse Farms. Brands are precious and valuable, and like children, are also fragile and needing of care. Brands aren’t static, they are never in “pause mode” with the consumer or shopper; they are either gaining or losing relevancy in the lives of their consumer franchise.

Not only have I had a chance to work on and represent some amazing brands, I have also had the chance to work with a number of brands that I have watched crumble over time. In my customer management roles over the years, I worked closely with the executive teams at Blockbuster, Circuit City and Woolworth. All three WERE major brands and strong retailers in their respective spaces, and today not one of them exists in the consumer landscape.

At the center of my philosophy on building brands is the concept originated by A.G. Lafley, Chairman and CEO of P&G, where he described the “First and Second Moments of Truth for a Brand.” Now more than ten years ago, I saw Lafley give a keynote speech at the FMI convention where he introduced this idea that a brand must “First” win at the point of demand, at the retail shelf. The “Shopper” needs to see the brand as a winning option. Once that hurdle is accomplished, the brand must then win a “second” time when it is used or consumed by the consumer.

A 2003 Bloomberg Businessweek article describes it well:

As CEO, Lafley hasn't made grand pronouncements on the future of P&G. Instead, he has spent an inordinate amount of time patiently communicating how he wants P&G to change. In a company famed for requiring employees to describe every new course of action in a one-page memo, Lafley's preferred approach is the slogan. For example, he felt that P&G was letting technology rather than consumer needs dictate new products. Ergo: "The consumer is boss." P&G wasn't working closely enough with retailers, the place where consumers first see the product on the shelf: "The first moment of truth." P&G wasn't concerned enough with the consumer's experience at home: "The second moment of truth."
Lafley uses these phrases constantly, and they are echoed throughout the organization. At the end of a three-day leadership seminar, 30 young marketing managers from around the world present what they have learned to Lafley. First on the list: "We are the voice of the consumer within P&G, and they are the heart of all we do." Lafley, dressed in a suit, sits on a stool in front of the group and beams. "I love the first one," he laughs as the room erupts in applause.

This idea that brands are precious, fragile, and ever changing, and that they are built on these two “moments of truth” is at the center of my beliefs and approach. I deeply believe that while brands matter deeply, brand loyalty is an outmoded and potentially dangerous idea (see previous blog essay) and that a consumer’s “brand preference” and hopefully “brand advocacy” has to be built, rebuilt and re-earned every day, truly a daily regimen!

Brand Loyalty, a dangerous and outmoded marketing principle

Like so many things in business today, the speed and acceleration of change is having an amazing widespread impact. Across the past thirty years of my business career, I have experienced the advent and explosion of technology across a wide number of fronts. It’s hard to imagine that in my first marketing role in 1985, there was one fax machine shared in our BUILDING, one PC that was shared by my DEPARTMENT, no use of cell phones, no concept of a tablet, and no idea of what a “world wide web” might mean to any of us, personally or professionally. Clearly the distant past!! While it seems clear that the dramatic impact of technology has changed many elements of how we get our work done, it is interesting for me to see how these changes have also affected a number of the foundational principles of business and marketing that I was taught in business school. One such example has to do with the concept of “Brand Loyalty,” and the overarching “Brand Adoption Model,” which I was taught as a student over thirty years ago and unfortunately remains in many b-school curriculums today.

This “Brand Adoption Model” was a foundational element in all b-school marketing classes, and typically was depicted as a ladder or across a horizontal spectrum, linear and clear in each distinct step of the process. It usually looked something like this:


Unaided Awareness -> Aided Awareness-> Trial-> Repeat-> Preference-> Loyalty


While I have critiques across the board and at the end of this essay will offer an alternative to the model as a whole, the really dangerous idea of this approach is the concept that “Brand Loyalty” is the destination of this model, the end point of the marketing efforts, and seemingly the unassailable hill of your marketing efforts. Well my experience over the past thirty years and most importantly over the past ten years teaches me that you are never “done” as a marketer, and that the consumer may be loyal today/this moment, but tomorrow is a different story.


The reality of the “promiscuous consumer,” is prevalent across so many categories. We all have more choices for every possible purchase decision, and more information at our fingertips giving us input, ratings, suggestions, discounts, and opinions/reviews for each and every commercial choice. Whether choosing a car, a hotel, a restaurant, a doctor or a seasonal beer for a party, there is a deluge of information and input vying for the consumer’s attention. There should be no surprise that consumers may seem a bit “promiscuous,” so many choices, so little time!!

It is specifically this reality that makes me deeply question the idea of “brand loyalty,” and makes me consider it dangerous and outmoded. No marketer should EVER think about consumers as being “loyal” to their brand. Every day we need to wake with the fear and concern that some other product or brand is out there working hard to capture the interest and imagination of our brand’s consumers, and will not sleep until they divert their attention and purchases to their brand or product. There are so many examples of big brands losing their franchises over the past few decades, just remind yourself of the current status of Blockbuster, Pontiac, Kodak, or Myspace; all at one time leaders in their fields/categories, now all gone (or almost gone) from the landscape of consumer choice. There was certainly no residual “brand loyalty” that insured their success. Quite the opposite, over time consumers explored new choices in those specific categories and found alternative brands/products that better met their needs/wants/desires.

Clearly I think the idea of “Brand Loyalty” is outmoded and dangerous, and correspondingly I think it is time to consider a new “Brand Adoption Model.” Instead of a linear model, I believe that it needs to be circular and dynamic, always working to refresh itself as consumers and marketplaces change and flow over time. And instead of “adoption,” I want to advocate the idea of “Brand Advocacy” as the central defining premise.




Brand Advocacy: whether you want to think that this model begins or ends in this idea, it is vital and central to my thinking. A marketer and a business leader is working to have strong and growing advocates for their brands, and today sharing their pictures (Instagram) or ratings (Yelp) to their personal networks. The most potent way for anyone to consider a new brand / product choice is to have their friends “tell them” about it … otherwise advocate for it!

Brand Relevancy: Once advocated, is the brand relevant in my life and in my set of choices. Recently I had a friend share how much they love a specific SCUBA resort destination in the Caribbean, inclusive of pictures and specific hotel room reccos. While fascinating, I am not interested in SCUBA and thus the advocacy was irrelevant. In the sea of input, ratings and reviews, all consumers process through this “filtering” step.

Brand Action: think of this as “why act now.” Once advocated and relevant, something must trigger some sort of action. This might be an offer for a sample, a discount or a direction of where to find a certain option. Recently I was hosting a friend that not only loves craft beers but looks forward to all of the “Oktoberfest Beers” that hit the market every fall. Well this year I checked reviews on line and while reading a review for Sam Adams Oktoberfest, a pop up ad appeared, highlighting it on special at my local Publix. As a loyal Publix shopper, I was intrigued, and that little spark moved my decision making along.

Brand Purchase: Ultimately all good things need to result into a commercial action. I am a firm believer of A.G. Lafley’s first and second moments of truth for a brand (I will share that idea on a future essay) and that the fist moment of truth for any brand occurs at the point of demand. For many brands/categories that moment is at the retail shelf. Is the brand ready to win at the point of demand, to turn “advocacy, relevance, & action” into a purchase moment? Following up on my Oktoberfest beer example, on my next visit to my local Publix store, I encountered Sam Adams Oktoberfest beer in three environments in that specific store. In the deli, a small display was setup next to an area featuring brats and sauerkraut. In the beer aisle, it was clearly available and nicely merchandised and in stock and cold. Finally, towards the back of the store, there was a nice size display of a family of Sam Adams beers, clearly featuring the Oktoberfest seasonal beer. Three points of brand interaction and a number of clear calls to action at the point of demand, clearly a winning formula for the first moment of truth.

Brand Preference: Well we have come this far, how does the product actually perform to your expectations. Does that brand purchase exceed your expectations, or does it fall below your expectations? How many times have you tried a restaurant with a yelp score of 4+ stars and a sample size of n>= 200, only to be disappointed by the food or the experience? Brands need to win at the point of demand (as highlighted above) AND win at the point of consumption. What was fascinating about my Oktoberfest beer loving friend, he had dismissed Sam Adams as being to mainstream and had never bought it for himself. Once he tried one at my house, he loved it and became a quick advocate!

REPEAT and REPEAT Quickly!!


This model ends as it begins with “Brand Advocacy.” Is your brand experience good enough to make you a fan, a “raving fan,” good enough to make you a "brand advocate??" That is the destination, and hope of every marketer and business leader; that every day, you are creating more “brand advocates” than you did yesterday, more than your known competition, and you always watching the consumers and the marketplace to make your brands/products more relevant every day! This never ending cycle operates at a very high tempo, with technology accelerating the cycle over time. One needs a healthy sense of paranoia as a brand leader today; always scanning the marketplace, working to build your brand's “advocates” one day at a time, every hour and every day!

The "Gravity" of Blockbuster

As an addendum to my recent essay “The Gravity of Success,” this week’s headlines regarding Blockbuster warrants a quick note. It was reported this week that as of January the last of Blockbuster’s stores, along with their DVD mail service, will close. After declaring bankruptcy in 2011, the enterprise once known for offering families all across North America a “Blockbuster Night” will shutter its last remaining doors. The amazing thing about this story is not the ultimate success of on-line vs. traditional retail models (though this is a great example of that dynamic,) but the speed of this decline and my personal experience with it that began at a dinner in Dallas in May of 2002.


Now more than eleven years ago, I was in a role that oversaw the Blockbuster relationship for The Coca-Cola Company. We had a team of bright and talented sales and marketing executives working on that business and we looked upon it as a very strategic commercial and marketing relationship. I remember quite clearly being in Dallas for meetings at Blockbuster’s Headquarters in late May of 2002, working on key partnership marketing plans and it was in that bar, now more than eleven years ago, that I witnessed a live version of the concept “The Gravity of Success.”


Quite coincidentally earlier that day, in late May of 2002, Netflix had announced their plans to go public. At that time, Netflix was just a few years old, primarily a mail order DVD rental company, which had never generated a profit. The “dot-com” bubble had recently burst, and many on-line startups were failing. I remember everyone gathering at the bar and the Blockbuster team toasting and laughing about the breaking news regarding Netflix. One of their team laughed that with over 9000 stores , spanning towns large and small across North America and across numerous other countries, who would want to wait for a DVD to come by “snail mail” when you could stop by at your local store and enjoy a “Blockbuster Night.”


In hindsight we all laughed and toasted what seemed to be the folly of that day. But now, just eleven years later, Blockbuster will close the last of their 9000 stores, and Netflix is soaring and innovating to new heights. It’s amazing in hindsight to see how wrong we all were, and how influenced we were by the historic drivers of success at that moment. In 2002, those 9000+ stores seemed like a huge barrier of entry for others, and that the physical experience of stopping by at your local Blockbuster was a convenient and entertaining part of your weekly routine. For Coke, all of those stores, and all of those coolers, and all of those shoppers were pure gold, both commercially and as a marketing resource. None of us that night took a second to think about the “virtual currency” that Netflix or other on-line media sources would someday dominate. We all missed it that night; we were all caught in “The Gravity of Blockbuster.”


I share this story not only to connect to this week’s headlines, but to reinforce that we all need to learn from history, and sometimes form our own history! The memory of that night in Dallas makes me humble and attentive as I reflect on my current work world and our current levels of success. The memory makes me want to be more critical of our current business drivers, and it is pushing me to try to “look over the horizon” at the possible drivers of our current success, our “9000 stores” that may be our Achilles heel in the years ahead. Equally I am attentive to watch the competitive landscape more attentively. Eleven years ago Blockbuster wrongly dismissed Netflix as a competitive threat. Wrongly dismissed to their detriment and demise! What new innovative small businesses and brands am I being too casual and complacent about? Reflect on your own realities as you read this essay and be mindful and active about lessons you can learn from “The Gravity of Blockbuster.”

The Gravity of Success

I had the chance this weekend at a very busy industry trade event to reconnect with many friends across our business. It was a huge success for our enterprise, certainly a new “high water mark” in our journey of dynamic growth and profitable expansion. It was at a small dinner last Saturday night that I had the chance to slow down and enjoy a wonderful dinner with a number of friends, deep industry veterans, where an interesting conversation emerged around the idea of managing success.


One of my tablemates shared that he had recently been at a conference where the chess champion Gary Kasparov was the featured speaker. He shared that Kasparov talked about his early success, winning his first world grand championship at the age of 22. When asked whether that was his toughest challenge, he quickly replied no. It was after a number of consecutive World Grand Championships that Kasparov was faced by a huge challenge that he described as “the gravity of success.” It is the reality that continued success is not inevitable, but has to be “re-earned” in each successive match, practice event, or work session. What made him successful in a past match would not be the key to his success in future matches. He is quoted as saying “winning creates an illusion that everything is fine ….. that after a victory we want to celebrate, not analyze.”


These comments from a chess champion made me reflect back on my own experience, and on my situation today. I have had the chance across my career to experience many businesses and brands that at one point seemed impenetrable and were ultimately found vulnerable. Now almost ten years ago, I was at dinner with executives from Blockbuster on the day that Netflix was launched. At dinner that night in Dallas, they laughed at the idea that anyone would go through the hassle of ordering DVD’s through the mail rather than visiting one of their more than 5000 convenient Blockbuster stores. To put it simply now ten years later, Netflix is now a major factor in the on-line entertainment landscape and the last Blockbuster store near my home was converted into a Smoothie shop years ago. Blockbuster had seen many months, quarters, and years of success, but somehow the “gravity of success” was too strong to enable Blockbuster to find success today.


While there are many examples across the landscape, (i.e. Woolworth, Kodak, Howard Johnson, Web Van, Pets.com, etc.), the conversation made me reflect on my immediate reality. Our business has had a great run, driving profitable growth quarter after quarter for a number of years now. We have built capabilities and competencies as we have grown, realizing that business processes and systems are required in order to support historic growth and enable future success. Now with all of that said, were we becoming complacent? Were we getting lost in our “illusion” that everything was fine? Was the “gravity of success” lurking around the corner?


While it is clear that no one is immune to the tug of that “gravity,” the dinner conversation prompted me to take action on an immediate moment of success. As I said we have just finished a very successful trade event for our company, clearly exceeding past experiences and even our high expectations. Regardless of that reality, the dinner conversation prompted me to call for a “debrief conference call” this week, so we could review the experience in detail and while we will celebrate the “wins,” we will work hard to uncover and identify the opportunity areas form the past week. Kasparov said, “question the status quo at all times, especially when things are going well.” It is with that advice that I am taking action this week; I am appreciative that an innocent and pleasant dinner conversation has led to my awareness of, and respect for, “the gravity of success!”