How you do it

Had a one-day branding session with a client yesterday. Small company, lots of potential. They wisely selected a niche market to target initially, because they're in a crowded space. So right now, they can say to prospective customers that they're the only widget software designed to meet the needs of "x" market.

This is a terrific way for most businesses to get a loyal following: pick a niche and own it. Then pick another one. And another. (I wrote previously about this here and here.) BTW, this can't be a marketing trick; your product really needs to be designed to meet the specific nuances of that niche.  But the challenge is, you can't build your company brand on being the 'Niche X Widget Provider' for two reasons:

1. The 800-pound gorillas finally notice you and think, "Hey, that's a great idea. We'll do that too." And they've got the resources to eat your lunch pretty quickly (or they buy you, which isn't always a bad thing).
2. You're too successful, run out of customers in Niche X and want to adapt your product to Niche Y.

So you build your brand not on what you do, but how you do it. There will always be somebody else doing what you do. If not today, then just wait a couple months. I disagree with Al and Laura Ries; you can't "own" a product category... but you can own a way of doing business.  The computer industry is a great example of this:

• Dell makes computers. Big deal; so do a lot of other companies. But they've built their brand on how they do it. Customized and mail-order. Now, do they have to stick with computers? Not if they leverage their "how."
• Apple makes computers. It's their "how" that's given them a cult following. It's their "how" that they extended to the iPod. There are a lot of other music players out there. It's iPod's "how" that sets it apart.
• Gateway makes computers. How? Hmm... like everybody else. Oh, and they have something to do with cows. Once you pull off the cow suit, their products and service are pretty generic. This is why branding is the executive team's job, not marketing. Marketing can work with customers to determine the opportunity in your space, but it's got to be translated into an operational "how" before it's turned into an ad campaign.

What is your "how?" Are you faster, better, cooler, more innovative? More connected with your customers? Or, asked another way, how do you inspire emotion in your customers? Do they feel liberated? Hip? Special? In control? Connected?

Own a "how" in your industry, and you'll have a path for future growth as the market and competitive set changes.

Comments

[auto]

i fully agree with the post above, is much more important the how than the what

[Derek Woolverton]

The How is also a better way to come up with a company name. I made that mistake my first time out, naming my company for the what instead of the how: Video Bits. Ended up a bit awkward after I moved out of video services & computer graphics. Next company was much better, me and a partner formed: Twin Forces. Basically wide open for types of projects we could do.

[Bruce DeBoer]

Nothing about running and marketing a business is that simple. We can never hope to distill strategy into 3 paragraph posts.

My take on Jennifer's original thougt was as a simple reminder not to forget to consider how you do business when consider your positioning; good advice.

Apple is cool isn't it?

[Alain Jourdier]

Youve got to have damn good what and how to make a brand. I agree that cows don't build computers but I disagree that it's only the executive team's job for the branding. In an ideal world it's everyone's job to be a brand manager, but if marketing is going to do the job it has to have an operational focus because if the how doesn't work to build and enhance the brand, then it doesn't make any difference how stellar the marketing is...sure marketing talks with customers but when the promise is made to the marketplace they've got to know how the operational side is going to come through and to be part of the conversation on the steps to do it. Without understanding the how, you can't market the what. Branding shouldn't be just top down, it needs to engage everyone in the endeavor otherwise cows build computeres and pigs fly.

[jennifer rice]

Ah, I see where we got the Apple=innovation comment. Both are right. Apple's core value is innovation. But their "how" to customers is cool. the two ideas are intrinsically linked. Apple won't be able to retain its cool unless it continues to innovate. And its method of innovation is what makes it cool. This is probably the subject of another post...

[jennifer rice]

Um, I don't believe I said that Apple's "how" is innovation. It's all about cool.

Second: I work with a lot of tech companies and they'll get into the "how" of the tech specifics. Let's not go there! I'm talking about a singular "how" that's really important to customers. You can make software; great. But "how" you do it in a way that impacts my life, makes me a hero, gives me immediate gratification, etc etc. is the real important issue. Dell's "how" of customized and mail-order means that I get a computer the way I want. It resonates with the need for control. The "how" should always translate into a primary emotional benefit for the customer.

Mike: you're exactly right. Someone asked me yesterday to sum up brand strategy in a sentence. I replied, "do what you say you're going to do." Don't just put on a cow suit, or make promises that are really a lie (like Blockbuster's no late fees). The point of difference must be intrinsically built into your business.

Pepita, I don't disagree with you. But I wrote this post because too many people will only focus on the 'what.' Yes, it is a combination of what and how. The more multidimensional you make your brand, the more solid it becomes and the more opportunities you have for future growth.

[Pepita]

I think it is a very interesting position to say that is the 'how' and not the 'what'. But to me that is too simple and reeks of 'brand myopia'.

I think it more holistich then that and that it is a combination of how, what and for who (or is it: for whom?). And it has to do with strategic fit. Read the excerpt of Porter's in HBR on Strategic Fit if you want to know what I mean: http://www.francianeulaf.com/gurus/porter/strategy_effectiveness.htm

If the brand really is an ecosystem then the what and the who also define the brand. There is no way around that I think.

Pepita

[Mike Bawden]

It's not just "how" you do things, brands are built by making sure "how" you're doing things squares with what you've told your customers they can expect. Gateway, in fact, has provided me with a great case study in how to blow your brand equity by consistently falling short of expectations.

Check out my weblog entry:
http://brandcentralstation.blogspot.com/2005/02/building-brand-value-from-inside-out.html to see what I mean.

Thanks,

Mike Bawden
Brand Central Station

[Howard Mann]

I totally agree about owning "the How." The hardest part I find, after a business finally gets the power of owning a niche, is to get them to really understand and articulate the various steps of their "how." So many businesses have done by doing for so long that they have forgetten or can't easily explain all of the steps that their process has evolved into.

FedEx and Dell can tell you, in incredible detail, each step in their process. Then they can look at each detail to continuous make it better.... while their competition is busying trying to copy the old version.

Keeping a companies focus while non-niche revenue is still tempting them is the old catch 22.

[Jake]

Suspect move from Google? I don't think I've seen any, but maybe I'm not clear on what you're talking about.

Google, I think is doing a great job of the "own the 'how'" concept outlined here - theirs being quickly finding what you're interested in, whether web pages, desktop stuff, movies, word definitions, specific items in your email, etc. I think they are so brillant because of exactly the great point Jennifer outlines here. Very nice Jen!

[David Foster]

"Innovation is their core value" re Apple is, IMNSHO, too broad. I think their core value is design, incorporating both internal software design (ease of use) and packaging aesthetics.

[Bruce DeBoer]

This is what I love about our industry: strategy talk. I’m going to wimp out here and say both you and Laura Ries are right. OK … You’re more right than her but she beats you on the Porsche thing. In my opinion they are killing the brand with an SUV. Remember: “Porsche, there is no substitute.” Well, there is now: How about the BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Land Rover, etc. SUV? Is your Mom going to take the grand kids on the race track in her new Porsche SUV? Is Dad going to race up the side of a mountain, beating Jeep to the summit? Mid-life crisis guy isn’t going to dream of a Porsche SUV as a chick magnet choice. Sorry – I got carried away. Please excuse my digression but its way off strategy.

I do love your point about the marketing trick; e.g. the cow boxes. Since marketing strategy is much more than the marcomms, (something many of us tend to forget) the brand positioning has to be a meaningful competitive advantage and there is no doubt that the meaningful advantage can be a method of doing business. In fact, I think the method can be nearly the whole business. Isn’t that true with Amazon? Isn’t it attempted by the airlines (granted most are miserable attempts)? When selling a commodity the HOW is all you have.

I also agree that a brand can be successfully extended using different branches. I think Apple is a great example. I’ve read many criticisms of their new entry level machines and speculation that the iPod will fragment their base. Innovation is their core value. Even their sister company, PIXAR, reflects the same values. The iPod is a great fit. As for the entry level machines, I view it as a healthy profit model to lure young users into the Apple ranks through cheaper but still innovative machines.

The company that I have my eye on now is Google. They are extending their brand like mad while, for the first time, have stock holders to satisfy. It’s a very tough transition and I have seen some suspect moves. Any thoughts?

[Wendy]

I believe you are saying it is not education, it's not getting people to know more things - gain more awareness; it's not just changing brands through an advertising campaign - changing behavior or manipulating the media through PR...

In order to move past the engineered approach to marketing, to move to a new mantra, we must instill an integrated knowledge and desire. And desire is an emotion, an emotion that evokes a future life/place, one more satisfying, healthy, attractive and safe; one that uses your imagination and creativity...mooooo!