But we need to separate competitive depositioning from smear campaigns.
The classic smear, of course, involves running a competitor through the mud, often hiding your own identity and masking the intent (see fig. 1 - Burson). Not only does it violate the industry's ethics guidelines regarding clear identification of a sponsoring organization, but it also often results in backlash.
Depositioning, on the other hand, seeks to openly call into question claims made or actions taken by competitors. In essence, it is part of a check-and-balance process that ultimately keeps the marketplace more honest.
For instance, when I was leading communications strategy development for Kodak's cost-play entry into the home inkjet printer market, one competitor loomed large -- Hewlett-Packard. Now for anyone who has ever bought an inkjet cartridge, you know the pain that surges through your body at checkout. How much did that tiny piece of plastic just cost?
We struck early and often at HP's "value" pricing models, whether by poking fun at the outrageous cost of their inks, developing ink cost calculators, or asking journalists to investigate the issue of their own accord. Our role was not to provide the answers, but to place questions into the marketplace that would lead consumers to discover the truth themselves. And yes, we always identified ourselves as Kodak.
Burson and Facebook fell short by turning to the cloak and dagger routine. Challenging Social Circle's privacy was not at issue (although I personally believe it to be not all that threatening), but in the manner in which it was conducted.
Let's hope this black eye for Burson will be a warning call to shady practices elsewhere. But at the same time, let's not throw away a valuable approach -- competitive depositioning -- that has the power to shape a marketplace for the better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment