Brands And Strategies Are Verified Over Time: Years, Not Months

Sales goals, among others, have to be met day-after-day, week-after-week and month-after-month. That is at the absolute core of any marketing effort. But, how many times have you wondered if a marketing direction was really that strategically sound over the long-term, when it is quickly touted as being 'spot-on' immediately after being put into execution in the market? I see these new and untested claims for success all the time within the marketing universe, and I wonder about this point often when I see a new campaign effort.

There's a running joke in the consumer brand manager world, that all you need to do in order to find out what is wrong with your current marketing, is hire a new brand manager, and the answer will be that everything must change. Everyone wants to make their own mark -- and not always for the better regarding the brand involved. One of the consideration areas where I am proud regarding my leadership with Corona, and the time-tested success that we delivered, with the consistency that we employed against a very tight positioning strategy. Our Corona strategy was verified in the market over time -- said again, over time. Experienced marketing leaders have the perspective to recognize an enduring brand-building idea, when far too often, less experienced managers latch on to an idea and claim victory before the market can attest to the validity of their strategy.

Keep that in mind as I share two slightly aged marketing stories that I've been hanging on to for just such an occasion. As examples, let's pop the cork on these 2007 predictions. In fairness to these authors, I freely admit that hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean learning by looking back at something over time should be avoided. The links are below, and I've provided a summary to spare you the click & read, if you so desire:


http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2007/01/starbucks_marke.html

This 2007 article claims that Starbucks is now somehow outsmarting the competition because it spends comparatively nothing on media, but it is among the top 6 QSR restaurant chains. This 'new thinking' is seemingly to be admired. They even had the distinct benefit in the comparison of being the only coffee chain among a sea of burger and taco chains. Yet, we all now know that Starbucks is presently in deep trouble, with store closings taking place everywhere (even before the credit crisis), and increasing pressure to reduce its pricing. Why? There are many reasons, but among them is that Starbucks failed to effectively defend it's value proposition to consumers -- they left themselves wide open by assuming they were invincible, without the need to communicate (in proportion to the scale of their business) and ignoring the potential the kiss-of-death question: Hmmm, why should I pay that much for a Starbucks coffee? We all know that Starbucks represents an amazing success story, but avoiding the use of media to support their position in the market was not reflective of the strongest part of their strategy, and now they face the difficult challenge of creating a resurgence.


http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/TheEndOfTheWalMartEra.aspx

In this case, the title of this 2007 article says it all, "THE END OF THE WAL-MART ERA." Ooops. That pitch was juuuust a bit outside. Wal-Mart is now absolutely on a roll. It seems the time-tested and scale-driven consumer positioning strategy of enabling consumers to improve their lives by selling products that offer above-average value, just keeps on ticking -- and louder than ever before in this current economic environment. That's not to say Wal-Mart's is the only strategy to succeed and grow share in a retail environment, but theirs clearly works. It's a good thing they didn't abandon their strategy because some said they were at the end of an era.


The moral of this story: Viewing marketing and business performance over time is the only true gauge of brilliance or success.