Table of Contents
For my parents
Dramatis Personae
All narratives are driven by characters; the following is the list of characters who were generous enough to share their time, thinking, and ideas on the brands they had been involved with. This book would not exist without them.
| The Interviewees | Their brand or company |
|---|
| Andrew Sanders | Puccino’s |
| Bob Gill | Pringles* |
| Brian Lanahan | OK Soda* |
| Candy Tree | Crunch |
| Charlotte Semler | Myla |
| Chris Hawken | Skoda† |
| Colleen Barrett | Southwest Airlines |
| Dalia Saliamonas | Camper |
| Dave Hieatt | Howies |
| Dave Illingworth | Lexus |
| David Atter | Tango* |
| David Magliano | easyJet* |
| David Nelms | Discover Financial Services |
| David O’Hanlon | independent consultant |
| Doris Mitsch | independent consultant |
| Hans Snook | Orange* |
| Ian Benton | Yorkie |
| Jamie King | Leo Burnett |
| Jeremy Kantor | Unilever* |
| Jeremy Woods | Pot Noodle* |
| Jim Nordgren | Mountain Dew |
| John Dempsey | M.A.C. |
| Kristin Krumpe | Yoo-hoo |
| Lizzie Palmer | Orange* |
| Lorenzo Fluxá | Camper |
| Luke Lewis | Lost Highway |
| Marina Tosin | Diesel |
| Merrill J. Fernando | Dilmah |
| Michael Abrashoff | US Navy* |
| Michelle Feeney | M.A.C. |
| Mike Harris | Egg |
| Neil Munn | Axe |
| Nick Graham | Joe Boxer |
| Paula Moss | Hovis |
| Renzo Rosso | Diesel |
| Richard Reed | innocent |
| Roger Kirman | Unilever |
| Sam Ellison | Yorkie |
| Scott Lutz | 8th Continent* |
| Shubhankar Ray | Camper |
| Simon Clift | Unilever |
| Theresa Fatino | W Hotels |
| Tim Little | Tim Little Shoes |
| Tom Birk | Crispin Porter Bogusky |
| Tom Brown | Yoo-hoo |
| Tony Margolis | Tommy Bahama |
| Wilbert Das | Diesel |
| *have since left that brand or company, |
| † has left brand but still within parent company |
Where these people are quoted, I have drawn directly on my interviews with them.
I would also like to thank the five interviewees who asked not to be named, but who provided valuable information about other brands mentioned in the course of the book.
The Relationship of This Book to Eatbigfish, and The Challenger Project
The Challenger Project is an ongoing study of Challenger brands, and what it has taken for them to succeed. It is qualitative in nature, and consists of interviews with individuals at the heart of those brands during the key time in their challenge. We have now looked at over a hundred such brands.
The first output of The Challenger Project was the strategic process outlined in Eating the Big Fish (Wiley, 1999). Since I wrote Eating the Big Fish, the book has fostered a business – eatbigfish Ltd. At eatbigfish, I and my partners continue to develop the thinking around this strategic process. We nurture our understanding through a continuing commitment to the Challenger Project, which means at least three to four days per month spent researching new Challengers. We also run workshops in which we directly apply the thinking to brands that want or need to think like Challengers themselves.
This book is designed to complement Eating the Big Fish, without requiring the reader of The Pirate Inside to be familiar with the previous book. Eating the Big Fish looked at the commonalities in 50 Challenger brands around the globe, and identified the eight underlying Credos that seem to unite the way that Challenger brands think and behave. In The Pirate Inside some of those same themes are revisited but with a much deeper look at the personal qualities and skills required to help Challenger brands and Challenger cultures thrive – sometimes against the odds.
In the third and final book in the series about Challengers, Fugitive Indigo, we will look at how Challengers approach Innovation; it will be published in 2006.
If you would like to find out more about how eatbigfish, our own company, is working with other brands and companies to apply the thinking in this book and the previous one, you can visit our website at , or contact us directly on pirates@eatbigfish.com.
Introduction: Necessary Pirates
‘It’s more fun to be a Pirate than to join the Navy.’
Steve Jobs
Enough. I have had enough.
I have had enough of corporate rules. Of enforced mediocrity. Of doing it this way or that way, because this way or that way is the way we always do it round here. I have had enough of being a prisoner of my category’s history. Of being handcuffed by my company’s culture. Of being hamstrung by benchmarks and processes and so-called ‘best practices’ into becoming just another kind of establishment brand.
I read the most depressing article in the Harvard Business Review this morning. Apparently some study looked at 340 prime time commercials and found that there was a differentiating message in only 7% of them: 7%. Is my brand really any different? Really? My God, what am I doing in this job? And why do I feel that much of the time my company’s culture is dampening, rather than igniting my ability to change those statistics?
So I want out. Well, kind of out. I want to take the brand out and see what it could do if I had a little open water. I want to try doing things a different way. Try a little liberating lawlessness, frankly. Find my piss and vinegar, and see where that takes me. I look at the great marketing pirates like Jobs and Branson, and I think, yes, I’d like some of that. Some freedom – I could do something with that. The freedom to make up my own rules for a change.
Oh, we have dabbled with doing things differently, my company and my brand and I. We know at one level, some of us, that we have been sailing under the wrong flag, that we have been following the charted course when we should have been finding our own way.
For a while we pushed for Chinos Theory. The belief that the mere act of wearing light-coloured trousers at work would help us think more creatively. That attending offsites and using scented magic markers would propel us magically free from the box we had never previously been able to escape from. We agreed that there is no ‘I’ in team, and that if we came up with Horizon 3 ideas like retail outlets and theme parks (even if we were a cheese spread), those things meant that we were thinking big.
But now. But now.
But now I keep coming back to that idea of Steve Jobs, that whole thing about being a Pirate rather than in the Navy, and what it really means. Why it really matters.
You see, what is interesting to me is that he doesn’t talk about processes; he talks about a type of people. He doesn’t talk about saying; he talks about being. And I find those two distinctions interesting and important. The idea that perhaps it’s the kind of people that we are or choose to be, individually or collectively, that will make the difference to our futures. Perhaps we shouldn’t focus so much on the processes we use, or the tools we have, or the architecture we discuss, or the organizational structure we find ourselves in but on who we are and how we behave. If it is people who create great brands, then it is who we are, and how we choose to be – our qualities and behaviour – that count, at any stage in the process.
And I recognize that this is not just an interesting conceptual exercise; I recognize that, for many of us, underneath the flippancy of the word ‘fun’ in Jobs’ celebrated saying lurks the clarion call of necessity. We will have to be Pirates, to some degree: we keenly recognize that getting the positioning right is the very least part of creating success – the brand and brand team will probably need to go to market in a wholly different way if we are to create the step change we need. We will need to understand we are going to have to live outside the codes of the Navy, for a while at least: find our own way of keeping clear of the corporate round holes that will slowly blunt all the fine sharp edges of our square peg. We will need to live by a set of rules for what is right for us and our brand at this particular time, and not be confined by the category conventions laid down by the establishment player, on the one hand, or our own internal corporate culture, on the other.
And, yes, we are going to have to be a little less compliant to the admirals if necessary – we are not simply going to salute and follow each order as it comes our way.
And, yes, we are going to have to bring people with us, whether they initially want to or not.
And, yes, that it would be enormously energizing, indeed liberating, for them to sail this different course, and we acknowledge that this degree of energy and commitment, this ‘intangible’ is going to be at least as important to my success as getting the strategy right.
But.
But. It is frightening, isn’t it, the power of that little word? And yet it does rear its head at this point.
Because here’s the thing. When I look at who actually said that thing about Pirates, that’s where the heady desire to be a real Challenger within the context of my company hits the cold, cold water of reality.
Because the ‘but’ is this: ‘It’s easy for you to say, Steve.’
For while we may admire the man, the fact remains that his position and perhaps character are not ours, and his type of company (for better or worse) is not our type of company. He is, let’s face it, a charismatic and publicity-hungry CEO of a single brand company, his own company, which seems to have in its very DNA a commitment to difference and finding an alternative way of going up against the Market Leader. And that’s great. And we are the first to applaud all that Apple has done to build a desirable brand, even accepting that its perceived functional incompatibility limits its consequent share. But what blunts our enthusiasm about just taking Jobs’ philosophy and running with it is that his situation is a long, long way from our own.
We are not the CEO. We may not be in a single brand company. We don’t perhaps even have a sufficiently sharp and unified sense of who we are as a brand, certainly not outside the marketing department. We may not have either the large advertising budgets, nor access to the kinds of stage (and therefore forums for publicity) that he seems to be able to reach. Fortune magazine is not waiting on the phone to interview us any time soon. And piracy, well, much though we love the romance of the sound of it, we are very process and best practice orientated around areas like research in our world. Talk of Necessary Piracy is going to sound a little too much like unleashing the Beast of Chaos to cut much ice with those above us.
And the result of all these ‘buts’ is that while we admire the sentiment that someone like Jobs espouses here, when it all comes down we cannot really believe it is possible to live by it in our organization; so while we lock the quote away somewhere and bring it out now and again a little wistfully at offsites or in the bar, its implications are not something we honestly believe we can live and die by in practice. And certainly not something we can use as ammunition to persuade other people to slip their ropes and come with us.
Which brings us to the purpose of this book.
The Purpose of the Book
We are going to take what one could regard as a slight but engaging quote by Steve Jobs and explore it very seriously indeed. The book will explore what it means to be a Necessary Pirate: unpacking the behaviours and personal qualities necessary for individuals and teams of people working on brands who need to be Challengers – and how to use those behaviours and qualities to bring out a more active Challenger culture within our organizations. It is going to argue that if we understand what Necessary Piracy really means, then all the reasons that we find put forward by others about why ‘it’s different for Apple’ and why ‘we can’t think like that here’ are simply excuses – they are, in fact, one of what we will call ‘the Six Excuses for the Navy’. And we will look at each of these six excuses one by one, and strip them away.
The book is intended to be useful. As such, it will include at the end of most chapters some challenges and exercises to stimulate fresh thinking and behaviour, and an overview section in Chapter 14 for those interested in applying some of the learning to their teams and brand.
The Articles: The Binding Code of Piracy
I am going to start by suggesting that if we pull this metaphor of Jobs out, then the first problem that marketing ‘Piracy’ has to overcome is the perception that it is the same as lawlessness. This perception is wrong: in fact, in these situations, where one needs to leave the confines of the Navy (whether one defines the Navy as ‘the category rules’, ‘our own corporate culture’ or ‘an establishment parent’), one is not moving outside the law, but from one law to another. This book will argue, in effect, that creating or fanning a Challenger culture or subculture (if we live within a larger organization) is not, as is sometimes the concern from senior management, about lawlessness but about the deliberate move from one less suitable and successful personal and cultural model to another that is more appropriate to the opportunity for the brand. Furthermore, we will argue that even when it comes to large multi-branded organizations, as long as this transition from one ‘model’ to another is properly understood by both the parent ‘Navy’ and the ‘Pirate’ subculture, both sides will not only be comfortable but can actually benefit from the establishment of such a subculture. What is then critical, of course, is establishing exactly what that new model is. And to understand the transition we need to make, first humour me in allowing a brief discussion about two important aspects of real Piracy.
The first is the fact that Piracy, at its most successful, was not the same as anarchy; it was a way of doing things that had its own code. The reason that we think of it as lawless is because our perspective on pirates is largely formed by Hollywood and Disney, and these two cultural sculptors have carved a very clear (and not altogether unappealing) idea in our minds as to what piracy was like – a life of wild carousing, gambling, fighting, and lawlessness, enjoyed by an ill-disciplined rabble who were held together by the will and pistol of a ruthless despot with a large beard and larger laugh.
But while a romantic and in some ways apparently liberating notion, this idea of simply living outside any law and doing whatever you want, wasn’t actually the case with pirates. The great age of piracy in the Western world is usually regarded as lasting from 1650 to 1725: at this time pirates were, in effect, commercially motivated teams of people operating in very high risk, high return environments, and to succeed in those kinds of high risk, high return commercial ventures they needed to have clearly understood rules of their own. These were different kinds of rules from the Navy, certainly, but rules – and fiercely enforced rules – all the same.
These rules were called the Articles, and they bound every participant in the joint venture. Each pirate captain had their own set of Articles, but common across all of them were certain key principles – those governing the distribution of profit, for instance, and certain fundamental rules of behaviour.
The following is an example of some Articles that were used by the pirate Bartholomew Roberts and his crew:
1. Every man has a vote in Affairs of Moment; has equal title to the fresh Provisions, or strong Liquors, at any Time seized, and use of them at pleasure, unless a Scarcity make it necessary, for the good of all, to Vote a Retrenchment.
2. Every man to be called fairly in turn, by List, on Board of Prizes, because, they were on these occasions allowed a Shift of Cloaths: but if they defrauded the Company to the Value of a Dollar, in Plate, Jewels, or Money, Marooning was their punishment.
3. No Person to Game at Cards or Dice, for Money.
4. The Lights and Candles to be put out at eight o’clock at Night: if any of the Crew, after that Hour, still remained inclin’d for Drinking, they were to do it on the open Deck.
5. To keep their Piece (i.e. weapon), Pistols, and Cutlass clean, and fit for Service.
6. No Boy or Woman to be allowed amongst them. If any Man were found seducing any of the latter Sex, and carried her to Sea, disguised, he was to suffer Death.
7. To Desert the Ship, or their Quarters in Battle, was punished with Death, or Marooning.
8. No striking one another on Board, but every Man’s Quarrels to be ended on Shore, at Sword and Pistol. (I suppose this is what management consultants would call taking it offline these days ...)
9. No Man to talk of breaking up their Way of Living, till each had shared a 1000. If in order to this, any Man should lose a limb, or become a Cripple in their Service, he was to have 800 Dollars, out of public Stock, and for lesser Hurts, proportionably.
10. The Captain and Quarter-Master to receive two Shares of a Prize; the Master, Boatswain and Gunner shall have one Share and a half, and the other Officers, one and a Quarter.
You are probably humouring me at this point – thinking we are involved in an entertaining little piece of detail early in the book before getting back to the serious stuff. Well, let us just seriously consider a couple of interesting points here before we dismiss the Articles that quickly.
The first point relates to the nature of this as a contract. The key point here is that the Articles were all agreed with the crew, each of whom was then required to physically sign them before they were allowed to join the ship, and the ship set sail. What the Articles represented was, in effect, a group contract: not just the kind of vertical contract we tend to have in our companies between an individual and some notional employer or superior, but a horizontal one between an entire team embarking on a common goal. One of the lesser known aspects about the pirate ships in the Caribbean, unlike any Western country of the time, is that they were democracies: the crew elected the captain and the crew chose the destination – and the captain could be replaced at any point in the journey if the crew voted so. (As modern democrats, in fact, it has been noted that they pre-dated the French Revolution by over a century.) Hence the need for the Articles, which reflected in turn a different set of priorities from the Navy, one based on the nakedly commercial imperative of the ventures they were engaged on. Pirates were, after all, strictly ‘payment by results’: if you didn’t achieve your objective, you didn’t eat.
The second point of interest in the Articles relates to the comparison of the specific points of content in their set of rules when compared with ours. We, after all, also find ourselves engaged in high risk, high return environments, and yet how many of us have a contract that specifies that if we have a conflict with one of our fellow team members that we take it offline and don’t come back until we have sorted it out? Or a contract in which everyone knows how the profits will be distributed if the mission is successful? Or one where everyone is forbidden to even talk of doing things in a different way until the goal we have collectively set ourselves has been reached?
In other words, putting both these points together, which kind of contract do you think would give you a better chance of succeeding if you were embarking on doing something different with your brand – the kind you have at the moment, or the kind represented by the Articles? I would suggest there is no comparison: not only do the Articles show that piracy has a different, well-formed way of doing things of its own, but also that this way could be much more useful to us than those we have at the moment. This is because the Articles’ objective was to bind a group of people to a common purpose, and treat any act that limits the group’s chance of achieving that purpose very seriously indeed.
Pirates and Perspective
I said that there were two key aspects of Piracy we needed to understand before we started. The first was that they had a code and contract of their own. The second is that the definition of who was and wasn’t a pirate was always relative to one’s point of view: it depended on whether one’s government took the view that the individual was acting in or against the national interest. So, for instance, Sir Francis Drake, an English hero of schoolboy history, is known in Spain as ‘El Pirata Drake’ – ‘the Pirate Drake’. Why? Because he filled Queen Elizabeth I’s coffers with gold that was taken at swordpoint from ships belonging to the King of Spain. So while one side derided him as a pirate, the other made him a knight of the realm. Technically, in fact, there was a difference between a pirate and a privateer in a case such as Drake’s – the difference being that a privateer had a commission from the sovereign (called a Letter of Marque) to attack ships belonging to an enemy nation, as long as the sovereign got a share of the money.
Even within the same side, one’s perspective could change. Some pirates proved too hard to catch, and were pardoned in exchange for some of their gains. Henry Morgan (no relation), who made a fine living from being a buccaneer in the Caribbean in the 1600s, who at one point led two thousand men in the capture and sack of Panama City, and who would seem to have been technically a pirate on a number of occasions under international law, was eventually knighted by the British Government. He had made sure that he always set sail with a ‘commission’ from the Governor of Jamaica, however dubious its validity was in reality and, besides, you can’t argue with success. And we will see that of the Pirate/Challengers whom we discuss within large organizations, some were knighted (so to speak), some were effectively suppressed, and some left to pursue their ambitions elsewhere. We will argue that often the loss of such individuals and the enterprises that they have embarked on is a business loss as well as a personal loss to the organization, and we will be looking at a model that supports a more active ‘commissioning’ of such Necessary Pirates before they begin.
Having drawn out these two aspects of Piracy, I should make it clear that I am not proposing to endlessly play out the pirate analogy throughout the book; although I am sure there is a book that could be written that draws entertaining parallels for marketing with every dimension of parrots and planks, it is not this one. Nor is the intention here to hopelessly romanticize organized crime, or to suggest in any way that Pirates were noble and honest and misunderstood. On the whole, we are simply using Jobs’ notion of being a Pirate as a metaphor for being a certain sort of person who finds themselves wanting or needing to be a Challenger, working on a Challenger brand (and in this regard I will be using the terms ‘Pirate’ – or ‘Necessary Pirate’ – and ‘Challenger’ interchangeably in the book). But at the outset we should note three points:
1. The move from being the Navy (i.e. behaving like everyone else in our company, or category) to being a ‘Pirate’ (i.e. doing what is imperative for the task we have set ourselves, regardless of the ‘wisdom’ we are offered from those around us) is frequently a matter of necessity, not fun or iconoclasm. As such, the need to be a Pirate in this sense is not in itself an act of defiance, let alone aggression. It is about recognizing that things need to be done in a different way if the opportunity is to be grasped, and getting a team together to start setting that new way of doing things in motion. At the same time this new way may lie outside what your superiors apparently want you to do, and the historical best practices of the brand or company.
2. Success in being a Pirate (i.e. an individual or group who chooses to seek their fortune along a path other than that of the Navy) does not lie in having no rules. It is about moving from one set of rules, one model, to another. One that is more suited for the task in hand.
3. This different model governs both individuals and teams.
The bulk of the book will consist of looking at examples of such brand ‘Pirates’ and the lessons we can draw from them in each of these three regards.
Six Excuses for the Navy
Along the way we will tackle the six excuses people put up for staying in the Navy – doing just the same as everyone has always done, even if they are not hitting their performance targets in doing this. The six excuses for the Navy are:
1. ‘But my consumer doesn’t seem to want anything different in the category.’
2. ‘But I do not have a large advertising budget.’
3. ‘But I am in packaged goods – I don’t have a lot of opportunities for brand communication.’
4. ‘But my category doesn’t reward brand building.’
5. ‘But that leaves me very exposed.’
6. ‘But I am not in a single brand company with a charismatic founder at the helm. I am in a big multi-brand company with a conservative culture, and I am just another marketing director or manager.’
In attacking these excuses we will necessarily uncover an underlying issue that runs through many of these, namely ‘Does one need a founder to be a successful Challenger?’ We will see that the answer is that, while it certainly helps, there are enough examples of brands without founders making it work to show that it is not necessary – as long as we have a consistent core team, with this very particular set and combination of personal qualities and behaviour. And as long as you have at the heart of that team what we will come to call a Denter.
The Brands and People Discussed
We are deliberately going to look at a wide range of brands – from luxury cars to dehydrated noodle snacks, from Spanish shoe brands to US chocolate milk. In terms of people, we will move from iconic single brand companies and individuals you will have heard of (Ingvar Kamprad and IKEA) to marketing directors and managers and brands that you will be entirely unfamiliar with. As such, these brands and people are not intended to be a definitive list of modern Challengers or Pirates, but a range of examples across all kinds of categories and company sizes, from the largest advertiser in the world (Unilever) to brands that are, in effect, a single person. We are going to look for common threads across all these varying people and brands, and along the way demonstrate that being a Challenger or Pirate is not necessarily easier (as many think) in a single brand company, and indeed it is quite possible to be one in a large conservative company – as long as we understand how we can maximize our chances of success.
Within these brands we will, particularly in Chapter 2 and onwards, focus on the importance of personal contributions, individual acts, and how they influence the bigger picture. We will draw on success stories we think we know quite well, and see what lies beneath them. Lexus, for instance, we know as the extraordinary US success it has become, and there is almost a temptation to see it now as an inevitable thrust into the luxury category and a success naturally driven by the engineering and sales might of Toyota. But we shall look at two key interventions by individuals along that path which exerted a profound influence on the existence and success of Lexus. On the other side of the Atlantic we will see that the iconic brand Orange might well have been called Microtel if there had not been an individual within the team – and not initially the CEO – who was prepared to fight tenaciously for his vision of the brand. And do we think a brand called Microtel would genuinely have reframed the communications business?
PART I
Behaviours that Stimulate Challenger Brand Cultures
Part I will outline a set of four behaviours that we need to commit to as individuals if we find ourselves in the position of wanting or needing to be Brand Pirates – and the standard behaviours in brand building that we will need to think about differently as we move through the strategic development process.
Chapter 1 Outlooking: A Different Kind of Insight Seeking
There are two kinds of Insight a Challenger needs to distinguish between: Insights that frame the problem and task (Reflective Insights), and Insights that identify where we might build the future (Insights of Opportunity). Outlooking is a way of describing how Challenger individuals seem to find the latter, and the first behaviour we need to bring out in ourselves and our team.
Chapter 2 Pushing: A Different Kind of Approval
Their need to stand out and genuinely reframe the consumer’s perception of them or the category means that the team on a Challenger brand need to be prepared to ‘Push’ an emerging idea in order to make it powerful enough. This represents a different kind of ‘approval’ of ideas emerging in the strategic process: merely being a good idea on brief may not be sufficient – our first questions should be ‘Has it gone far enough? What would happen if we pushed it further?’
Chapter 3 Projecting: A Different Kind of Consistency
This chapter explores the behaviours a Challenger brand team should foster in terms of communicating their pushed idea, once it has emerged. It argues that we have far more media at our disposal than we think we do, and we need to use the potential power of each medium by thinking in terms of consistently ‘projecting’ our identity – evincing a strong sense of who we are and what we stand for – rather than simply relying on the more conventional concept of ‘messages’.
Chapter 4 Wrapping: A Different Kind of Communication
This chapter argues that successful Challengers offer a differentiated culture that their consumer can participate in, and proposes that we should develop a new behaviour to propagate such a culture: ‘Wrapping’ our brand in the belief system, language, customs, rituals and iconography that are the constituents of a distinct culture, and then letting that culture – and the people behind it – be an integral part of our relationship with our consumer.
The Four Behaviours
1
Outlooking: A Different Kind of Insight Seeking
Figure 1.1 Outlooking
We open on Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of IKEA, at an open food market in China. Imagine the sensory energy of the scene: the traders clamouring for our attention in a language we don’t understand, the unusual colours and foreign textures of unfamiliar foods, the rituals and negotiations of money changing hands, the smell of food being cooked at a local stall somewhere just out of sight. Ah, this is what one travels for.
It is not clear what Kamprad is doing there from a business point of view – while IKEA have a restaurant, they don’t actually sell food: they are in the furnishings business. But here he is all the same, and while the market is full of all kinds of produce and people noisily selling all those kinds of produce, what Kamprad is looking at is plucked chickens. Rows and rows and rows and rows of plucked chickens.
Now there are presumably a number of questions we could be asking ourselves at this point if we were in Kamprad’s shoes. ‘Isn’t it about time for a competitive store visit?’ says the consummate professional in us. ‘Where can I check my emails?’ says the networker. ‘What time is lunch?’ says the bon viveur.
But Kamprad isn’t asking himself any of these questions; he is asking himself something completely different.
He is asking himself this: ‘What do they do with all the feathers?’
The Two Kinds of Insight
While we probably tend to think of a call to Piracy as primarily about unconventional marketing and communications, the reality is that we have to start much earlier in the process than this. The fact is that, long before we begin developing communications, Necessary Pirates or Challengers need to find new kinds of opportunities in their categories to compete and survive. They cannot compete head-on with the superior firepower of the Establishment brand, so they have to find a territory that is fresh and new. And to find the opportunities for such strategic territories, Challenger individuals and teams need to have a very different way of looking for insights.
Now it can often be hard to find these kinds of new opportunities for our brands, and this chapter will argue that this is because much of our searching for insight is consciously or unconsciously an ‘Inward’ examination of our brand and the relationships it currently has with the category and the other brands around it.
But Challengers tend not to look inward in this way, because such a perspective usually leads to the creation of small or incremental differences, which are insufficient for a brand or individual with high ambitions and relatively small resources. Instead, they tend to ‘look out’, so to speak – to draw inspiration and ideas for sources of opportunity not from within their consumer’s relationship with their own category, but from all kinds of different categories around them.
As individuals they do this naturally after a while – but we do not, yet. And so, because this may well even run counter to the way we have been naturally taught to do things, perhaps we need to replicate what such Challengers do naturally by the relatively formal assembly of a new lens to look through, which will help inculcate this new behaviour in us; start us systematically seeing things the way Challengers do. We will call this lens Outlooking.
So let’s go back to Kamprad and his chickens, whom we have left suspended in that market in China. Why does he ask that question and what does he do with it? Well, the reason he asks it is because he is Outlooking. He is constantly looking for opportunities, because that is the way someone constantly looking to create a highly differentiated consumer offer naturally thinks. And what he discovers when he asks this question is that what the chicken people do with all the feathers is discard them; they are treated as something of no value, as rubbish. And what does he do with that answer? He makes millions of IKEA feather duvets at prices well below duck and goose. A huge business opportunity for IKEA, and a win for the customer. This is something of a habit for Kamprad: in the early days he used to go into wood factories and look at the offcuts – the timber that was going to be thrown away as waste – and ask himself what furniture he could make with that waste. He knew by taking materials that were not just cheap but of no value to its current owner, he could produce not just wellpriced products but extraordinarily priced products. Something that would create a very high degree of competitive difference, right from the start.
So our first step as Necessary Pirates is going to be to change our behaviour in terms of how we look for Insight. In particular, we are going to recognize that although we tend to talk about Consumer Insights as if they are of one kind, there are two importantly different kinds of insight we can look for, one which we are probably doing well enough now, and the other which we need to further develop our abilities in through Outlooking. We are going to call these two different kind of insights Reflective Insights and Insights of Opportunity. Let us look at Reflective Insights first.
Reflective Insights
Reflective Insights are those that reflect or shed light on the
current status of a category, the consumer and the brands within it. Insights that, for instance:
• describe a consumer profile or segmentation;
• outline current market drivers;
• delineate the current relationship with competition;
• unpack a given brand’s rational and emotional equities.
The domain of Reflective Insights is within the relationships described by a fairly straightforward triangle, explored in qualitative or quantitative research (see ).
The Reflective Triangle
Now these are of course important relationships to understand, but they very much reflect the present or the past – the consumer’s historical relationship with the category, and the brand’s current relationship with the consumer and its competition. As such, Reflective Insights are potentially excellent for:
• identifying key problems in the current relationships;
• framing the overall task for the business, the brand, and marketing;
• identifying the ‘Brilliant Basics’ that one should consider addressing.
But they are of course necessarily limited by being rooted in the past, and therefore are rarely useful for indicating the way we might want to go forward, particularly if we are looking for large, opportunistic leaps, or even to reframe a profitable portion of the category in our favour.
So let us turn our attention to the other kind of insight.
Insights of Opportunity – Thinking Outside the Triangle
The second kind of insight we need to look at are Insights of Opportunity. Useless at framing the current problem (and therefore being complementary to Reflective Insights rather than alternatives), they instead outline possible opportunities for the brand and category, and in particular how to drive a greater degree of difference between our brand and the competition.
We are going to look at four different examples of these kinds of Insights of Opportunity, each of which comes from looking outwards rather than inwards:
• Emotional Insertion;
• Overlay;
• Brand Neighbourhood;
• Grip.
In a few pages time we will outline what these four are, offer some examples from Challengers that have drawn on insights of this type to develop their brand, and close with exercises that help us apply each in looking for opportunities on our own brand. But first, let us just reinforce why as Challengers it is paramount that we adopt this behaviour in the first place.
The Three Buckets
Let us try the following absurdly crude exercise. Let us imagine that we are going to mentally review all the working projects we have on our real or virtual desk at the moment, and place them in one of three buckets (see ), depending on what they are really doing for our brand: ‘Brilliant Basics’, ‘Compelling Difference’ and ‘Changing the Game’. I’ll explain what these buckets are in a little more detail, and then we can fill them in.
The first bucket we can assign a project to is Brilliant Basics. Brilliant Basics are the core activities our brand and product need to do to meet our promise to the consumer – to maintain the contract we already have, if you like. These will include regular product upgrading, development of ease of use, ongoing refinement and modernization of graphics and other brand elements, and so on.
Three Empty Buckets
It is important to recognize that Brilliant Basics is in no way a put-down. It is an extremely valid thing (or set of things) for us as a Challenger to pursue – as long as it is not the only thing(s) we pursue. We may need to bow to no one in our enthusiasm for difference, but there are still some things in any category that are not actually differentiating, but which still have to be done really well (punctuality in the airline business, for example, or some basic low level stream of fragrance news for household products). They are not always what the category wisdom says they are (the US airline JetBlue made in-seat TV standard, but sacrificed meals completely, for example), but they do have to be delivered on to compete.
The second bucket we can assign a project to is Compelling Difference. This will include anything we are doing that is creating a really compelling difference for our brand versus the other brands in our market (however we are defining that market).
The third bucket we can assign a project to is Changing the Game. Here would go strategic or ideational initiatives that would reframe the whole category in our favour. They will take more time to pull off, so may not be Year One initiatives, but are clearly critical nonetheless. Apple’s setting up of iTunes and its pioneering of ‘digital hub’ computers and the iPod in terms of digital music would be a good example of this.
And for the purposes of this exercise, these are the only three buckets you can choose from. If anything fits into any other bucket than these, it has no place on our project list; innovation, for instance, simply fits into one of these three buckets depending on what kind of innovation it is.
So, as I say, a very crude exercise. But rather interesting. So let’s do it. If you have a pencil, actually fill in the distribution of your marketing activities over the coming year across those three blank buckets in above. If you are in charge of a brand, do it for your brand. If you work in a communications company, you can either do it for a brand you work on, or for your own company. But just stop and fill it in.
OK. Now the realities of book publishing mean that I am unable to see what you have actually done for the moment, so I am going to make a guess. I am going to guess that, for most of us, the distribution of our 20 or so marketing activities on our brand this year across these three buckets will look something like this (see ). And I am further going to suggest to you that if you work on a brand, a very great deal of what makes up that slender black bar in the middle box called Compelling Difference will lie in communications, primarily advertising.
Now some of you for whom this is true will challenge me at this point. They will agree that communications is the primary filler of the middle bucket, but feel that the size of this bar is misleading – they will feel that they have highly differentiated communications that impart a high degree of differentiation for their brand. My only defence here would be that what goes into this box should be what the consumer sees as compellingly different, and not what we the creators of it see as compellingly different.
Three Filled Buckets
Quibbling? Maybe not. The scale of the difference between these two things is illustrated by the results of august studies, such as the one published in the March 2002
Harvard Business Review that I referred to right at the beginning of the book, and also by a simple personal test that I mentioned in
Eating the Big Fish, called The Peanut Test. It put you in the position of the tired consumer at the end of the day, and went like this:
Sit down and watch an hour and a half of commercial television this evening with a small bag of peanuts. Take as a basic premise that any good piece of communication has to be at least relevant and distinctive. Count the number of ads that fulfill this single basic premise, and mark each one with a peanut on the arm of your chair. Eat the other peanuts.
It may be depressing, but at least you don’t go hungry.
The Harvard Business Review, or a bag of peanuts – which you put more faith in is really up to you. The point is that if you are the Market Leader, this manifest lack of real difference in your communications is merely a shameful waste of money, energy and talent. But as the Market Leader you are in effect profiting from the status quo remaining as it is, so the effect of such a waste is simply to limit further growth. If you are a Challenger, however, this borders on the suicidal because it allows the status quo to remain the same. Challengers by their very nature have to change the existing order. As Hans Snook of Orange says, the role of a Challenger is not to unseat the Market Leader, it is to reframe the category. Meaning we do not prosper by accepting what the category gives us – we need to get the consumer to see the category on our new, redefined terms, rather than the way they have always seen it. The ‘7%’ revelation in the Harvard Business Review illustrates that people are continuing to see and think about the category, and brands in that category, in the same ways they have always done. Which does not give us the platform to grow and challenge that we need.
So my point is this: we leave the creation of difference far too late in the process. Let’s not wait to be Pirates until we are further down the path. Let us not allow ourselves to rely on just filling that middle box with ‘communication’. We will certainly need any communications to be differentiating, but as Challengers we must not be relying on communications to do it all for us – we have to look for Insights of Opportunity as to how we might be able to create compelling difference in our core offer much earlier in the process. We should in fact look to develop a behaviour that allows us to do the following:
1. Start thinking about the source of Insights in a new way.
2. Start thinking about who is responsible for them in a new way.
Let us take these in turn. First, the nature of Insights themselves.
Insights of Opportunity
To recap, Insights of Opportunity are complementary to Reflective Insights rather than alternatives. Useless at framing the current problem, they instead outline possible opportunities for the brand and the category. Because they are rooted in the possibilities of the future, rather than reflections on the past, they are less relevant for Brilliant Basics, but key for Compelling Difference and, for that matter, Changing the Game.
While there are a number of these, we said there were four of them that we were going to focus on: Emotional Insertion, Overlay, Brand Neighbourhood, and Grip. Let’s go through them one by one.
The Insight of Emotional Insertion
The first kind of insight is the observation that our category is missing a fundamental emotion that is a driver for consumers elsewhere – and that our brand could be the first to put it in our own category. Steve Jobs said in launching the iMac, ‘Today we are putting romance into computers.’ Now there are many emotions one had associated with one’s computer up to that point, but it is fair to say that romance had not been one of them. And indeed subsequently people gave all sorts of rational reasons for buying an iMac, such as user-friendliness, but the real reason most of us bought one was so that we could put it on our desk and kiss it every half hour, just to feel alive. Jonathan Ive, the designer of the iMac, in fact brings a romance to even the smallest details of his design, for example, he talks about wanting to create a surface with the effect of ‘a shower mist’ on as apparently small a detail as the cable that links the mouse to the computer. And it is the way Ive thinks about the design of an apparently functional tool that in turn affects the emotion we feel in relation to it.
Sometimes the inserted emotions are even more startling introductions than the one represented by the iMac; let’s try an emotion at the other end of the scale from romance. In the summer of 2002 London’s Science Museum featured the travelling exhibit called Grossology, and one of my sons promptly demanded to go. The first display in Grossology was a Vomit Machine where you used a pump to agitate the stomach until each and every cookie had been duly tossed. We then came to ‘Urine: The Game!’ before moving on to attack a rock climbing wall made out of rubber ‘skin’, where the hand and toe holds were made up of zits, hair roots and blackheads. And of course no such exhibit would be complete without a tour of the nose – entering through a giant pair of nostrils and touching the slimy mucus oozing down the walls from the sinuses. Frankly, I am not sure which of us loved it more – and we were not alone. It helped the Science Museum win the award of ‘Best Visitor Attraction in London’ in the same year (and bear in mind this is a science museum competing against other forms of entertainment and tourism such as Madame Tussaud’s, the London Eye, and Buckingham Palace). The emotion? The fascinated and amused disgust of being grossed out. It had understood that small (and large) boys like grossness, and that if one inserted this emotion into science, the former would make the latter interesting. We willingly learnt – and remembered – more about the nature and functions of the human body after that one hour than I for one had done in years of school biology classes.
So both of these players have seen the possibility of inserting a whole new emotion in the category. The emotion was not one that existed within the category at the time, though clearly emotions such as romance and grossness have existed in very different categories around them. Nor was the emotion one the consumer was necessarily asking for at the time. Yet by being the first to introduce, talk about and genuinely deliver against this entirely ‘outside’ emotion, both of these players have successfully redefined a profitable part of the category in their favour.
The Insight of Overlay
The second kind of insight one sees Challengers drawing on is the related insight of overlay – the idea that one can take the rules of a different category and simply overlay them onto our own.
Take Lush. Lush is a bath and cosmetics retailer that has taken freshness and the colour and sensory overload of the deli and built it into their category. Something that has historically been adversely associated with eating (‘you use that word again, young lady, and I’m going to wash your mouth out with soap’), is now made delicious. An Australian beauty writer gushed: ‘ Lush is just such fun ... It’s like walking into a deli ... I think people – not just women – want a more holistic approach to beauty. People want products that are sensory as well as good for the skin ...’. Lush CEO Andrew Gerrie takes the deli metaphor on a little: ‘Freshness is key. Ideally we will be like a bakery where the product is made today and sold today.’
