Unleashing Success: The Power of Effective Differentiation

Mark Ritson proclaimed during his latest Mini MBA webinar that differentiation and distinctiveness do not have to be seen as competing concepts. In the seminar titled "Defending Differentiation," our esteemed columnist from Our Website argued that marketers have strayed too far from differentiation in their pursuit of distinctiveness, when in reality, they should strive to achieve both simultaneously.

Ritson clarified that differentiation and distinctiveness should not be confused as being the same thing. He emphasized that even though they may have similar definitions in a dictionary, this should not be the basis for developing a marketing strategy.

Furthermore, Ritson addressed the issues that differentiation has faced in the past, particularly its association with an excessive fixation on being "unique." He highlighted the exaggerated significance placed on differentiation, as seen in Jack Trout's book, Differentiate or Die. Ritson pointed out that discovering something truly unique is extremely challenging, and even when it is achieved, it can be easily replicated in some form or another.

He argued that we veered off track 25 years ago by focusing too heavily on esoteric theories like archetypes and confusing positioning, as well as purpose. In contrast, Ritson suggested a more measured approach called "relative differentiation." Rather than aiming for uniqueness, the goal is to have a higher level of certain attributes or associations compared to other brands in the same category. Ritson advised marketers to prioritize attributes and associations that matter to their target consumers, which will be sufficient to influence buying decisions. He acknowledged that this approach may be less intense in terms of differentiation, but it is more attainable. "Differentiation is not about being unique, but about being different," he emphasized.

However, according to Ritson, in recent years, marketers have veered too far in the opposite direction and prioritized distinctiveness at the expense of differentiation. He cited the ideas put forth by Byron Sharp's book "How Brands Grow" and the research conducted by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, which argue that differentiation is outdated and distinctiveness is the way forward.

Ritson argues that this shift in strategy is akin to going from one extreme to another and ultimately puts marketers in a disadvantageous position.

He proceeded to present his argument for achieving the ideal balance between the two. He began by emphasizing the importance of strategic positioning and effective tactical execution in differentiation. According to him, marketers should focus on a single positioning concept, regardless of its nature, but ensure its limitation. Adding more concepts results in diluted chances of representing something and gaining relative differentiation.

Ritson suggests that even with a single positioning concept, it is crucial not to have an excessive number of attributes, specifically 25, to showcase it. He advises being cautious and selective, taking advantage of category entry points, and utilizing the 3Cs framework. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of tracking the position over time using data once satisfaction is achieved.

When it comes to execution, Ritson suggests that brands should avoid overcrowding their messages with too many attributes. Instead, it is better to say less more frequently and allocate resources to media. According to Ritson, by emphasizing a few key attributes and repeating them more often than competitors, brands can achieve relative differentiation.

Furthermore, he emphasizes the importance of delivering messages with distinctiveness, as it complements the strategy mentioned above. Both elements, distinctiveness and frequency, are always present and while their importance may vary depending on the category, they should be intertwined in the overall communication strategy.

Marketers once exaggerated the concept of differentiation, as Ritson noted, and then shifted their focus to distinctiveness. Instead of choosing one over the other, marketers should embrace both elements and allow them to collaborate synergistically.

A different perspective

Jenni Romaniuk, a research professor at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, held a contrasting viewpoint on LinkedIn following the seminar. Although she agreed with 60% of Ritson's statements, she felt that 20% consisted of unwarranted criticism towards her colleague Sharp, based on selective examples that failed to represent the entirety of How Brands Grow. The remaining 20% revolved around three distinct areas of discrepancy, which she condensed into empirical examinations.

“Differentiation involves establishing a distinct advantage that sets you apart, enhancing your reputation or recognition,” Romaniuk explained. “While Ritson hesitated when asked if this meant superiority, I interpret it as a psychological edge. The idea is that you must possess a significant mental advantage in a critical aspect valued by buyers in order to thrive.”

She added: “It is advisable to focus on promoting a single characteristic, as Ritson argued that a focused network of brand associations in consumers' minds is preferable to a broader network.”

Romaniuk added that maintaining focus over time, with a mentality of selecting winners and sticking with them, is crucial. This approach allows companies to establish a strong reputation in a particular area and differentiate themselves from competitors in the long run (referred to as the Volvo=Safety model). Moreover, Romaniuk mentioned that Ehrenberg-Bass will be releasing data on the first two points in the near future and is actively working on the third point.

Mark Ritson teaches about differentiation and distinctiveness in the Mini MBA in Brand Management. The next course starts in September. Click here for more information.