7: Game Changer 4: Stay Relevant
The author borrows the idea of "tribes" in the marketplace: people have individual tastes and preferences, and no single brand is best for every consumer. However, they do tend to fall into groups (tribes) or people with similarities.
(EN: I have a sense this is backward, and it's one of the fatal flaws of market segmentation to assume that people identify themselves as members of the groups into which statisticians place them. Some groups, namely the silent generation, wanted to be part of a larger group and changed their behavior to fit in; but the trend began among the Boomers and matured in Generation X to be who you are and ignore, even to the point of resisting, classification. Some sources argue that the Millennial generation is swinging back toward conformity and seeking to be like others and fit in with a group, so perhaps this is a valid consideration for generational marketing - but the point remains that statisticians create named groups because they observe similarities in behavior, then make the flaw of assuming the classification causes behavior.)
More to the point, these tastes and preferences change over time, and merely attempting to cling to the past can itself be a mistake as the market moves on. When this occurs, a brand may seek to attract new buyers who accept the old standard, or it may change the standard to keep pace with changes in the tastes and preferences of its buyers.
There's another bit that speaks of casting too wide a net. To serve the particular needs of some people, a brand must ignore the particular needs of others - and people don't like to be ignored. As such, a brand that is highly successful in serving some will be strongly disliked by others. (EN: return to the last chapter's example of Abercrombie and Fitch - teens love it, their parents and grandparents hate it.)
Identify Your Core Buyer
If you accept the fact that you can't please everyone, you recognize that it's more important to please some people than it is to please others. The people you should seek to please, even to the displeasure of others, ought to be your core buyers.
That sounds simple, but many firms often have mistaken assumptions about who their core buyers actually are, and cling to older notions about their users even when the market changes.
The author turns to the example of Harley-Davidson motorcycles, which became associated with "biker gang" culture in the 1950's, and to make matters worse, the company was bought out by a firm (AMF) that sought to reduce quality while maintaining a high price - such that serious bikers switched to Japanese models, sales plummeted, and the firm was near bankruptcy.
In 1981, a group of executives stages a coup and took the brand back over. They retooled the company with an eye toward restoring quality - but more importantly, the recognized a change in their demographic: the young rebels in the fifties and sixties were now older men with established careers, with high disposable income, and a desire to recapture the rebellious spirit of their youths as they entered retirement.
Today, the brand's prestige has been restored, though to a core of buyers who are middle-aged and affluent, and who consider the motorcycle a recreational vehicle for weekend riding and occasional tours. Their motorcycles retain the stylistic elements of the original, and much of its marketing and placement support the fantasy of rebellion - but the product remains functionally designed to accommodate leisure use by older riders.
To the point of this chapter, this revival of the brand began with the recognition that its core buyers had changed (specifically, they had aged) and the brand had to change with them.
Keep Your Eye on Your Customer
In times of crises, many brands go into defensive mode, which is not appropriate to all audiences. The desire is to avoid giving ammunition to enemies, but if you also alienate your customers and investors, you may have lost ground.
Returning to the earlier point: accept the fact that no brand is loved by everyone, and everyone is not your buyer; some people never will be. So while you'll never get everyone on your side, you should be most attentive to the interests of those who matter most.
The author refers to the Pareto principle, that 80% of your income comes from 20% of your customers. These are the strongest and most loyal ambassadors of your brand. Put their needs first. Specifically, discover what it is about your brand that they love, and defend that.
Where you have several distinct tribes of customers, you must do this for each of them. Your core brand values, attributes, and identity likely remain the same for all of them, but the aspects that they most value will differ among them.
The relevance of a brand to a customer is the magnet that attracts and retains them, and others like them. It's the basis for the relationship between brand and customer: preserve it and the relationship will stand through thick and thin, destroy it and the relationship is over.
The author presents Hush Puppies as a case study, a comfortable shoe that was all the rage in the 1960s, but which had fallen so far out of favor twenty years later that the brand was on life support. The brand's return to popularity began by re-skinning the product line, including developing trendier styles and making the shoes available in unusual colors, then targeting people who were trend-setters (fashion designers and celebrities). From there, the word spread and the brand regained its footing.
How Brands Lose Relevance
Relevance chances over time, such that brands lose and gain it. The market may change while the brand stands still; the brand may attempt to acquire more new customers and alienate its current buyers; bad research or narcissistic leadership may move a brand in the wrong direction; etc. The last bit, on narcissism, bears extra attention, because it is common for a brand to assume that it has the strength to lead the market rather than serve it.
A few quotes are presented from authors of books that deal with relevance, which together imply this: competitive advantage is purchased with research dollars than advertising dollars. You do not win preference by adding an unusual feature and marketing to convince people your product is better, but from researching to discover a feature that people would value and adding it. You keep competitive advantage by staying in touch with customers and evolving with them. Relevant brands solve problems that matter to their buyers in a way that delivers emotional satisfaction after the purchase.
The author looks to Mattel's "Barbie" brand as a case study. The brand itself started as an uphill battle, as Ruth Handler noticed her child playing with paper dolls and giving them adult roles, which was a stark contrast to the common conception that girls preferred dolls that were literally "baby" dolls. The popularity of the doll waxed and waned over time, but suffered from attempting to control the Barbie image by using "brand police" to control the use of the image, both internally and externally, which made Barbie seem rigid, stuffy, and outdated.
The brand recovered by various publicity stunts (notably, the stunt in which leading fashion designers created outfits for dolls that would be auctioned to raise funds for charity), product placement (particularly in Toy Story 3), exploiting Barbie's cadre of "friends" to have more multicultural appeal, making the doll a character in social media, and relaxing their aggressive stance toward anyone who mentioned the brand, etc.
(EN: I tend to wonder, though, if the brand comeback may be considered complete. It's generally perceived that the Barbie line is now popular among adults who collect the dolls rather than children who play with them. I have a sense this is a much smaller market, and is not likely to be sustainable, as adult collectors are leveraging childhood nostalgia, and when the collectors die out, there's no upcoming generation who has that same level of nostalgia.)
The Six-Step "What Matters" Development Process
The author concludes the chapter a six-step brainstorming process that can be used to help determine what matters your customers, as well as other stakeholders such as employees, vendors, trade associations, the media, etc..
(EN: I have the sense this is more of a discovery exercise for considering how your product fits its market and brainstorm areas for improvement. Not only is this completely oblique to the topic, but it's problematic because it suggests that you can determine these things without asking for any input from the customer at all. This is a recipe for disaster, not a method for avoiding one.)