Jeremy Owyang from altimeter shared an interesting observation by diffrenetiating three types of companies.

 I’d like to add a “brand perspective” on this
The three kind of companies he describes are also the three stages of development of a strong brand. Ther is an evolution behind what Jeremy observes. The 3 stages are the following:

- legitimacy: new comers entering a market have to be perceive as different but of quality. They won’t be considered by consumers if they can deliver the generic benefit of the category with a very different approach. iTunes did deliver music in a very diffrent way.

- proximity: once considered by a few people, the brand has to decide how it wants to grow. Two options mass or niche market while still being different. In both case it has to attract the right prospects buy building bridges ( relevancy, shared values and purpose) with them.

- leadership: if it does well the brand will grow further and lead the market. The penalty of leadership is that it still will have to stay relevant there where most leaders rely on their laurels.

The three stages are also closely linked to awareness levels. And that’s where social media bring some big changes in the way brands are managed. Let me explain.

Brans stages of development and awareness.

The Three Types of Companies: Biggest, Better, and DifferentI want to share with you, I’ve found there are only three types of companies. Once you understand the three variations, you’ll be a better consumer, marketer, or leader.

I take a lot of briefings from companies, in fact, hundreds every year. I also meet with many different corporations who are our clients for longer term engagements and have found a clear pattern in just about every industry. In fact this doesn’t just apply to the brand, but also the specific products within a market. And deep down, when you look carefully, you’ll find this applies to siblings too.

The Three Types of Companies:

1) Biggest.
This company or product, will always make the claim they are the biggest, largest, have the most customers. You’ve heard of how McDonalds’ has served billions of Hamburgers, or how Microsoft has sold the most software licenses, or how Ford was the first auto manufacture, or Coke is the top beverage brand on the planet.. You’ll also know these companies as they’ll tout their rankings on Fortune 100, or financial growth. Often, these companies are the standard, and all others measure up to them, “We are the largest, the first, the wealthiest”. We often find these products fit the masses, but may lack in other areas such as specialization or variety.

2) Better.
This company or product, is locked in a second place position against Biggest. For example, you’ve heard of how Burger King offers variety of their menu, or how Dell offered the customized on the web products over 10 years ago, or how Toyota challenge big cards during the gas crises decades ago, or how Pepsi wants you to take their taste challenge. They will differentiate by making their products better than the competitors, by changing variety, pricing, or customization, “We’re better than the other guys, who can’t serve everyone’s needs”. We often find these companies to offer premium alternatives, suiting for more than mainstream appetite.

3) Different.
This company or product will distinctly position themselves as an alternative to the the first two by offering a complete different option. Perhaps you’ve tried In-N-Out Burger, or seen how Apple wants you to think different with their products, or how Mini wants you to drive their unique cars, or how 7up positioned themselves as the UnCola. They will attack the primary model of the first two, and suggest they are only for a certain type of buyer. “be different, stand out, and we’re only for distinguished tastes”. These companies have specific offerings, that buck the trend, and will go out of their way to stand apart.

A few rules of the road: It goes without saving that multiple companies and products can all fit in one category, we often see multiple companies claiming to be the top dog. And also we should expect to see companies traverse these three different categories, and all of that is normal.

Now that you know the three types of companies, you can start to be a better buyer, marketer, and leader. Know where they fit in the your selection process, and know where you fit between Biggest, Better, and different.

Bel exemple de cette vieille culture belge qui prétend qu’il faut vivre caché pour vivre heureux. Fin 2012, 60% de la population mondiale aura un accès mobile au web. Tous, sauf une petite ou deux petites communautés qui résisteront à l’envahisseur: les flamands et les wallons. Chouette. On croit rêver. Exclure les extrémistes n’on fait que les renforcer. Exclure l’ouverture, favorisera les brêches. En discutant avec un ami ce midi, on s’étonnait de cette euro-centrisme qui fait qu’on se réjouit de l’apport des réseaux sociaux au printemps arabe et qu’on les condamne quand la révolte gronde chez nous. Le refus d’ouverture se retourne toujours contre leurs auteurs. Le monde des afaires s’en rend compte dans le monde, mais y-a-t-il encore un monde des affaires en Belgique.

n’ont pas accès aux réseaux sociaux au travail

Les entreprises belges sont réticentes à ouvrir l’accès aux réseaux sociaux à leurs travailleurs.  Seulement 40% d’entre eux ont un accès à Facebook, Twitter, … sur leur poste de travail, selon une étude d’Insites Consulting. C’est en deçà de la moyenne européenne. L’étude souligne que la plupart de ces personnes n’ont qu’un accès limité à Facebook et consorts.

Steven Van Bellenghem, manager au sein d’Insites consulting, déplore cette situation : « Je comprends pourquoi certains employeurs ne donnent pas accès à leur collaborateurs aux sites de réseaux sociaux. Mais cela devient de plus en plus difficile d’arrêter les gens. Les smartphones donnent l’occasion aux travailleurs de surfer sur certains sites de n’importe où. Au lieu de mettre leur véto, les entreprises feraient mieux d’encadrer leurs collaborateurs et de leur donner des formations sur cette matière ».

J’ai suivi la plupart des annonces et puis, je suis tombé sur cet article du New Yorker que vous pouvez découvrir ci-dessous. 

En le lisant, je me suis dit que nous avons deux géants qui s’affrontent. Google+ a forcé Facebook a s’adapter. Les deux sont entrés dans une escalade de surenchères mais celui qui cache le moins ses envies de domination, c’est Facebook. Facebook ambitionne de rassembler la plus grosse masse de consomateurs à qui il offrira tous les services du web à sa sauce. Un système ouvert qui vise un seul objectif:  rassembler le plus grand nombre de gens en m

leur offrant ce qu’ils veulent: du bonheur et pas de souci. 

Facebook est un incroyable succès parce qu’il offre ce que le citoyen moyen de tous les pays souhaite: le sentiment d’appartenir à un groupe qui l’apprecie et lui donne ses instants de gratification immédiate. Cliquer sur j’aime, c’est la tape dans le dos que se donnent tous les americains même sans se connaître ou s’apprécier. Un artifice qui rend heureux dans un univers formaté.

Ce qu’ils oublient chez Facebook, ce sont les lois inexorables et incontournables de la courbe d’adoption. Il y a 85% de gens sur Facebook qui suivent mais n’agissent pas. Il y en a 15% qui agissent, pensent et influencent les autres 85%. Ces 15% là, n’accepteront pas qu’une entreprise leur dicte l’usage qu’ils doivent avoir du web parce que leur motivation dans tous leurs actes, c’est le contrôle. Ils sont ceux “à qui on ne la fait pas! “ 

Ils sont à l’origine d’une chute de 35% de l’utilisation des applis Facebook, par exemple.

À force de vouloir attirer des masses pour avoir de la pub ( et satisfaire les investisseurs qui croient à ce modèle et valorisent les entreprises en fonction dudit modèle) Facebook va perdre en pertinence ( relevance disent les américains) et les 15% se désengageront trés vite. Les autres suivront. Je ne suis pas devin mais l’histoire regorge de cas qui montrent qu’en perdant ce fameux segment des control freaks, on finit dans le rouge. Le challenge d’un leader, c’est de montrer la voie ( facebook le fait bien), c’est d’être un acteur important ( il l’est), c’est d’être influent ( il l’est moins. Il devient réactif) et de rester pertinent auprès du public influent, les 15% en question.

Lisez cet article. 

  Qu’en pensez-vous? Accepteriez-vous de vous contenter de leur vision du web ? Zuckerberg n’essaie-t-il pas de marier ce qui est inconciliable: faire du Bill Gates et du Steve Jobs?

NewYorker:  What Facebook Really Wants
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/09/what-facebook-really-wants.html

Patrick Willemarck

Dialog Solutions

It’s not about getting more likers or followers or even customers than your competitors. This leads to the red ocean, this leads to the creation of thin value , unsustainable growth and weak relationships with your customers. Read this article. Think about the catalina marketing survey showing that an average fmcg product makes 80% of its sales with 2,5% of its shoppers. Those are your best prospects, don’t waste time or money on the others. Leave them to your competitors.

Focus your ressources on the creation of big value in everything you do while engaging with them. While working 25 years long with most of the fmcg companies in the world, the one who last and develop sustainable competitive edges are the one who didn’t play tricks. They did behave like human beings who wanted to deserve their customers and did act accordingly. I remember long discusions with my a mineral water client where we finally convinced them to position themselves around one concept: “when men protects water, water protects men”. In today’s world of interconnection, interaction and shared responsibilities, I think it would still be the statement of a unique brand behaviour. Which is better than all the USPs some are still thinking they need.

Another example is Patagonia selling outdoor clothes. 20 year agos long before social media, communities and web2.0 did invade marketing departments, they did explain where the fabrics were coming from, who made them, why and how to take the best and longest lasting benefit of them. These people met the sense of belonging their customers needed while showing they didn’t just want to sell but to help and deserve their customers as customer. They were creating more than thin value. Twenty years later, their brand is famous and they keep caring about outdoors, hence the environment. Have look at their blog and tell me what you think.

What do you think ?

I’ve got some doubts about it. Collecting and even sharing badges don’t last unless it shows how performing you are as individual against well respected values or principles, unless it gives you valuable emotional or financial rewards. But even then, as a marketer, the chances are great that you will enter into another red ocean of also ran marketing ideas delivering smaller and smaller margins: thin value. 

No comqpany can afford any longer to build sustainable competitive positions with thin values.

We need to think about the value products, services and apps offer in the daily life of the best prospects and customers we want to keep deserving.

What is Foodzy doing with its apple and android apps ? Will this last ? What do you think ? Let’s discus it here or on twitter #thinvaluegamification

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/05/foodzy-turns-healthy-eating-into-a-game-launches-ios-and-android-apps/

—
Sent from Zite personalized magazine iPad app.
Available for free in the App Store.
www.zite.com

Sent from my iPad

I’ve got some doubts about it. Collecting and even sharing badges don’t last unless it shows how performing you are as individual against well respected values or principles, unless it gives you valuable emotional or financial rewards. But even then, as a marketer, the chances are great that you will enter into another red ocean of also ran marketing ideas delivering smaller and smaller margins: thin value. 

No comqpany can afford any longer to build sustainable competitive positions with thin values.

We need to think about the value products, services and apps offer in the daily life of the best prospects and customers we want to keep deserving.

What is Foodzy doing with its apple and android apps ? Will this last ? What do you think ? Let’s discus it here or on twitter #thinvaluegamification

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/05/foodzy-turns-healthy-eating-into-a-game-launches-ios-and-android-apps/

—
Sent from Zite personalized magazine iPad app.
Available for free in the App Store.
www.zite.com

Sent from my iPad

I’ve got some doubts about it. Collecting and even sharing badges don’t last unless it shows how performing you are as individual against well respected values or principles, unless it gives you valuable emotional or financial rewards. But even then, as a marketer, the chances are great that you will enter into another red ocean of also ran marketing ideas delivering smaller and smaller margins: thin value. 

No comqpany can afford any longer to build sustainable competitive positions with thin values.

We need to think about the value products, services and apps offer in the daily life of the best prospects and customers we want to keep deserving.

What is Foodzy doing with its apple and android apps ? Will this last ? What do you think ? Let’s discus it here or on twitter #thinvaluegamification

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/05/foodzy-turns-healthy-eating-into-a-game-launches-ios-and-android-apps/

—
Sent from Zite personalized magazine iPad app.
Available for free in the App Store.
www.zite.com

Sent from my iPad

C’est un mythe qui profite à beaucoup de soit-disant experts en social media de dire que l’engagement à la marque se crée sue les média sociaux, c’est faux et prétentieux. Une étude Gallup démonte ce mythe. Je vous livre l’étude ci-dessous. Elle démontre la justesse de ce que nous prônons depuis toujours chez Dialog Solutions: une relation engagée avec vos clients. Cela ne peut pas se limiter au media social ni à un nombre de like ni à un net promoter score index.

Le relation aux produits ou services se vit dans la vrai vie et si les gens sont passionnés dans la vrai vie, ils vous le rendront sans doute sur les média sociaux. Le contraire est rarement vrai.

C’est pour cela que la suite de solutions que nous offrons s’organise autour de trois choses:

1. Comprendre la nature et la qualité de la relation du public à vos produits, services, marques en étant le plus proche possible de leur vie quotidienne. C’est ce que nous faisons avec nos panels permanents qui deviennent les vôtres, contrairement aux instituts qui grdent les leurs. Votre avantage : comprendre vos publics cibles, saisir leur motivations, identifier les personnes les plus engagées et après, les engager socialement pour créer de la valeur et da la fidélité.

2. Monitorer et Gérer les conversations sur les média sociaux ensuite avec toute la connaissance de leurs motivations.

3. Aggréger toutes les conversations des réseaux sociaux sur votre site en amplifiant celles qui témoignent du plus bel engagement, en les plaçant éventuellement à des endroits differents de votre site, bref en optimisant les flux. 

Social Media: The Three Big Myths
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/148694/Social-Media-Three-Big-Myths.aspx
Sent from Zite personalized magazine