Challenging the idea of being a challenger

If anyone asks me what strategy books to read, one of the top three is always Eating the Big Fish. I still think it's a great way of looking at how a minnow can out think the big boys. 

(Or just read a book on Judo)

But at face value, it's still about single minded repetition of the same position, vision or whatever the brand babblers like to call it these days.

This is good, this is important. Being consistent, in a way that stands out, that helps people not to think too hard about you (they don't want to), that makes them instinctively believe you're better pays back in spades. That's great. 

But it's not the only way. 

And perversely, when you can't move for 'Challenger' or, God help us, 'Disruption' strategies, adopting challenger strategies is pretty, erm, conventional. 

Especially when big companies take a challenger approach to stay ahead. 

 

In other words, it may well be that it's time to challenge being a challenger. 

The other book I'm getting folks to read is the actually a chapter. The bit on 'Winning' in Messy. 

Basically, the quicker you can understand what's REALLY going on and act on it, against slow and ponderous organisations, the better.

If you can keep them guessing while you're at it, disorient them over and over again, you're on to a winner.

It's really why Trump won.

It's how Amazon destroyed Barnes and Noble - and Toys R Us.

All this depends on having the will.

Being up for a different way of thinking about brands and stuff. In fact, scratch that. 

Being up for jettisoning models that approximate real life (that's what brand theory is, come on, be honest) and actually engage in real life.

Because real people don't live life in campaigns or quarters, they live in moments.

They value genuine surprise and delight above predictability.

Just look at the plot twists and rug-pulls in any successful modern drama. Compare that with the formulas of the massive hits of yesterday, like Columbo or even Bond movies. You were watching the same thing over and over again.

We don't want that now.

The trick is to make lots of little acts add up to one big picture.

Some of that is Byron Sharpe's 'distinctive assets'. MdDonalds can do what the hell they like as long as there is lots of red, a golden arch and that sonic 'I'm lovin it thing'. 

Much of it is sticking to the same point of view, the same backstory, no matter what you're doing. 

The quicker you can get into what is really happening in life, removing the layers of research that doesn't tell you anything and needless process, the more successful you'll be.

Because many organisations won't move until the research picture matches the picture they want, not the picture it is.

So if you can remove layers of 'strategy' to justify what they already want to do, and provide clarity on what they SHOULD do, you'll do well.  

I just don't buy the IPA data on the gap the payback for being creative with between long term campaigns v short term campaigns. We all live lives where lots of todays add up to a year, or a decade. The more brilliant today's you create, the more brilliant year you have. 

Anyway

 

Comments

[Tofan]

I like that you wrote on how people don't live life in campaigns or quarters, they live in moments.

And the fact that nowadays people are consuming media through their gadgets during those very moments, make what you wrote about "the trick is to make lots of little acts add up to one big picture" made much more sense.

Great post, as always :)

[Rob]

Great books - especially messy.

It is interesting how the industry grasps onto new approaches that claim to achieve disproportionate attention and then don’t realise that by having everyone do it, it becomes the opposite of what it is supposed to achieve.

Hijacking for example.

Once a great approach for a brand to have a conversation with culture and now, is so expected, that it not only fails to garner attention but actively puts people off.

We can be quite pathetic at times can’t we.