Lessons from a 27 Year Old Marketing Book

And why it’s still relevant even if it’s older than you

The book I am referring too is called “The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing” by Al Ries and Jack Trout. Every so often there is a book that strikes a chord and instead of keeping its gems in my handwritten notes, I wanted to share some of the takeaways.

Written in 1993 some of the examples seem to hint Nostradamus was an ancestor of the authors. Others give some room to breathe for most of us in the sense that brands apparently can recover from a streak of bad management/strategical decisions or less than successful branding/product campaigns.

The book in itself is fun to read, filled with examples and you’ll fly through it in roughly 2 hours.

Rather than give a listicle of the 22 laws I would like to share the 3 core themes I noted down as being the most insightful.

The main lessons I took from the book were:

Marketing is a battle of customer perceptions

This means you are working to make sure your brand name has a positive, distinct perception with your audience. Preferable for a very distinct product or product category.

The one brand to have it all approach is flawed by design (there are a number of laws that explain the fallacy in this book). Shifting from gaming machines to business computers is hard (Commodore Amiga), branching out to categories with existing clearcut leaders is often just throwing money down the drain. Even if you are well respected in your own category.

Heinz is a ketchup brand, yes they can create a mayo product, but they will not become the winner in that category since the link was already created in the minds that Heinz is Ketchup and Hellmann’s is mayo. Likewise putting a Kraft stamp on any food product category is not a clear winning strategy neither. Creating a new subcategory and labeling Philadelphia on the other hand did work wonders for them.

It also implies you should not focus on features, or ‘better’ services when trying to build your brand. Remember the feature lists of PC’s, MP3 devices of the past? And how Apple got rid of all that by focusing on the perception you should have of their brand first?

You should focus on clearly linking a positive, winning, perception into your audience regarding your company/brand. The notion that a hero product (meaning better features than a competitor) will always win by default is a flawed concept.

Perception is reality. Everything else is an illusion.

The authors give examples of differences in customer perceptions between brands. The qualitative differences between product vendors (like car manufacturers), brands becoming household names like Xerox, Kleenex, Coke, or Pampers.

If you pair these laws and study the examples given (since it was written 27 years ago it has proven that it held its worth), and additionally delve into Cialdini’s principles I can only state that I do believe that focusing on customer perception and buyer psychology is the correct approach to most branding and marketing strategies.

It’s better to be first than to be better

We collectively remember who was first on the moon, who flew over the ocean first. Coming up with the number two’s is harder, even for these very strong feats.

You do however remember the 3rd person to fly over the ocean. You probably just know her under the subcategory of being the first female to do so (Amelia Earhart). Hence the reason you should try to be the first in a category. Meaning that in a category that already has a distinct leader with a solid brand, you should try to create your own subcategory rather than settle for a lesser rung on the brand perception ladder.

If you are not certain who was first in their category it often is true that replacing first by leading gives you the exact result. The first college founded in the US is also still the leading college (Harvard) in the general perception.

It’s much easier to get into a customer’s mind as being the first than to try to convince someone you have a better product than the one who got there first and thus defined the market.

The single most wasteful thing you can do in marketing is try to change a mind.

The reasoning behind it is that people, by default, do not want to change their minds. So you are actively combatting a perception rather than focusing on installing a positive one of your own.

This leads to the next takeaway:

Fight the leader by being their opposite

Don’t fight them over features or to convince/change opinions on why you should have the top rung ladder in the mind of your prospect. Instead, focus on what makes you different and thus a new point of view.

In general, a mind only accepts new data that is consistent with its brand ladder in that category. Everything else is ignored.

So instead of trying to outdo the leader on what they do, try to come up with a feature set that gives the consumer an alternative.

Coca Cola has been the leader in Coke. So what you should avoid is to challenge them on their strong position (taste for example). Instead, focus on what is their weakness. Everyone drank Coke, so Pepsi went for a focused approach and singled out the younger people and went for a Pepsi Generation setup.

By dividing the market between young and old Pepsi and Coke created a market split in two, which duped the third player into a name that is no longer a household name (Royal Crown Cola).

The second on the ladder (and you should investigate what your position is within your sub-category because everyone seems to think they lead) should be brutal to avoid someone from overtaking their position.

For example, Scope took on Listerine by focusing on the ‘Medicine Breath’ that Listerine gives you. They went for the aggressive approach and focusing on the weakness of Listerine installed a positive alternative in the minds of the consumers. A good tasting mouthwash. Another big player Micrin focused on the strength of the leader by going for the scientific virtues and withdrew from the market after the market got split in 2 between scientific and well tasting.

The other example involved the feud between Burger King and McDonalds in which Burger King took an aggressive stance and effectively started to gain market share. After some management changes, they became more prudent and started focusing/copying the strengths of McDonalds and went in the decline. We can clearly see that they are back at it again in recent times.

Personal takeaway

The general feeling I took out of the book is one that I also found in Seth Godin’s The Infinite Game. When building a brand or developing a brand/marketing strategy you should focus on the long term, the infinite game, the vision behind your current product range, and how you as a brand want to be perceived not just this quarter but for years/generations to come.

Extending your line range and becoming the company that delivers it all does boost your ebitda and growth for a short period of time. Probably even the median tenure of most senior managers, yet it will not nurture a brand that can withstand time.

The current trend of focusing on quarterly results, with variable pay/bonus systems in place to reward short term results are often offset with an OKR like NPS to hint towards some customer-centricity as a core value. However to be able to support the leadership and vision needed to create a brand that will survive for generations to come we will need a wave of visionary leaders that want to build brands and companies that will survive them for years to come and with a goal that people want to root for. Leaders that do not build companies with the end goal of an IPO, leaders that do not cost cut at every expense to meet quarterly profitability goals. Leaders that create a company that aims to do good, not just in terms of flexibility to withstand downturns, but in terms of leaving the world a better place.

Do let me know in the comments what you got out of the book or which ‘older’ marketings/management books you highly recommend.