When evaluating performance, marketers often make two mistakes: (1) relying solely on technical testing to evaluate performance & (2) too narrowly defining the performance window.
Most marketers trying to make a superiority claim end up spending an inordinate amount of time with their legal department. The legal department requires technical proof that a product performs significantly better on a performance dimension (e.g., cleans better) than competition. Elaborate test are concocted and conducted to validate this performance, many of which are built to favor one brand over another. And in the end, it can still be irrelevant. Why?
Technical superiority is irrelevant if the consumer cannot tell a difference. Great brands are not built on false claims. If you claim to be superior, the consumer must recognize and experience the superiority. In building a brand on performance superiority, go the extra step of testing consumer perception of performance. Product development teams HATE this, because it raises the bar. But in the end, who matters? A lab tech, a lawyer or your consumer?
The second mistake is to too narrowly measuring performance. Brand experience begins even before purchase and ends with disposal. If you are going to claim superiority you have to understand the entire experience cycle and measure performance across the cycle. You may not have superiority in all aspects, but are you deficient anywhere? Is it important to overall experience? It's not about making the technical claim, its about perception.
In reason years packaging has become an increasingly important component of brand experience. Package design, functionality and environmental impact can significantly influence experience and perception. For years packaging was something to be cost optimized and standardized. In some categories, packaging has become a key secondary point of consideration.
Superiority is a very powerful platform, but difficult to achieve and maintain. If you make this claim, be sure you fully understand how the consumer evaluates the brand and make sure they experience superiority. Great brands are not built on lies.
There is an additional reason why spending time with the legal department on superiority claims can be a poor use of resources. Depending on the category, a parity claim can outperform a superiority claim. Why? Believability. A superiority claim states, "our brand is superior to all others" or "our brand is superior to a specific brand / leading brands." By contrast, a parity claim states, "no brand is superior to ours." This is a much easier bar to hurdle -- just ask all the competitors who are unsuccessfully wrangling with their legal departments getting turned down on their attempts at superiority claims. However, phrased like this, the parity claim sounds like a superiority claim to the consumer -- and potentially does so in a much more believable fashion.
ReplyDeleteMy mobile provider for my Blackberry is Sprint. Their clever little slogan is, Rated for SprintSpeed. It appears on the screen when I boot up the blackberry.
ReplyDeleteI'll skip past the irony that it displays while I am WAITING for the device to start and go directly to the reality that their service is slow as mud on mobile internet and not that reliable on basic phone reception.
Not so sure how you obtain the coveted "Sprint Speed" rating but it must not take much. Performance claims are slippery slopes.