Doing More with Less: Fewer Product Options Can Be a Valuable Differentiator

March 16, 2011 3 Comments

In my last post Is There Really Such a Thing as Too Many Choices?, I looked at how too many product choices can leave customers frustrated and unhappy. Everyone says they want more product choices, but studies have shown that more choice equates to less sales, sometimes by a factor of 10.

Most brands ignore this simple fact and continue to pump out new variations to give consumers what they ask for – more product choices. Because of this, offering fewer product choices (resulting in an easier purchase decision) is a huge differentiator in this cluttered market.

Here are some examples of doing more with less product choices:

Trader Joe’s

Trader Joe'sMost grocery stores carry around 40,000 different items. Trader Joe’s takes a different approach and stocks about 4,000 items. With all of the different choices, choosing an item at a grocery store can be a stress-filled experience – brand names, price, size options, flavor differences, ingredients. At Trader Joe’s, instead of choosing between fifteen or twenty types of Italian salad dressing, you are given only a few options. This makes for a better shopping experience and shoppers are often much happier with their purchase decision.

Apple

Apple's iMacWhen discussing the topic of simplifying the customer experience, Apple has to enter the conversation. They integrate this approach in all of their touchpoints, including the purchase process. They offer limited varieties of their products to minimize the amount of buyer confusion. Looking to buy a new desktop computer? Apple offers four variations of the iMac. Compare that to other computer manufacturers whose vast number of options can drive customers away; Dell currently offers 119 different types of desktop computers.

In-N-Out Burger

In-N-Out Menu Variety vs McDonald’sThis West coast burger chain offers only four food items on their menu; three burger varieties (hamburger, cheeseburger, and “Double-Double”) and French fries. This minimalist menu is the polar opposite of McDonald’s endless menu choices. (Click here to see a comparison). Limiting product choices has enabled In-N-Out to beat the almighty McDonald’s in average sales per store.

Google

The world’s most popular search engine has always been about simplifying the complexity of search. Their homepage doesn’t distract users and offers them a clear choice. There is power in simple.

Google Homepage vs AOL

These are some examples of brands that make the purchase process easier by limiting choices. There is a difference between listening to what customers want (more options) and truly understanding what it is they want (fewer options). Choose wisely.

Filed under Branding, Customer Experience, Marketing, Strategy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Democracy is Good for America, But it Will Kill Your Brand

November 3, 2010 Leave a comment

Yesterday, we saw a historic election where the American people voiced their displeasure with the direction of our country. Much like in 2008, they voted for a change.

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.
− Franklin D. Roosevelt

This political process is what makes America great and continues to uphold the principles of a free nation.¹

Even though a democracy may be good for America, popular thinking will wreak havoc on your brand.

In business, popular thinking brings only average results. This is why many of today’s most successful brands were built by visionary leaders. Sure, they sought input from employees and customers, but at the end of the day they were the one’s making the decisions.

Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, for instance, has always been one to oppose popular thinking. He charged $1.75 for a cup of coffee that consumers could buy elsewhere for $.75. If I remember correctly, he also didn’t have very many supporter’s when the chain launched its surprisingly successful Via instant coffee.

If you want an extraordinary brand that means something, you must reject popular thinking. Brand building is rule of the few, not the many.

¹ The United States of America is a republic. However, republics and democracies overlap and a representative democracy is a type of republic.

Filed under Branding, Marketing Tagged with , , , , ,

Strategy or Execution, are They Mutually Exclusive? (Bridging the Strategic Gap #1)

April 22, 2010 Leave a comment

How can you bridge the gap between strategy and execution?

Market share versus profitability? Short-term versus long-term? Consumer led versus brand led?

These are some of the challenges that brand managers face every day, and there is no right or wrong answer. Tide relies much more on listening to what customers want than an innovation led brand such as Apple. Market share is much more important in video formats (Blue-ray/HD DVD) than it is in the fashion industry.

Of all the questions managers face, the most dangerous regards the separation of strategy (where the brand should go) and execution (how they get there). The reason is this: there is no separation of strategy and execution. They are not mutually exclusive, they are interdependent! Thomas Stewart explains it this way, “strategy without execution is daydreaming. What good is a blue ocean to one who cannot swim? Execution without strategy is pointless, even dangerous. What profit is there in doing the wrong things well?”

Well said.  Unfortunately this disconnect between strategy and execution is the norm in today’s businesses:

82% of Fortune 500 CEO’s feel their organization did an effective job of strategic planning. Only 14% of the same CEO’s indicated that their organization did an effective job of implementing the strategy. —Fortune Magazine

Only 12% of companies successfully execute their strategy. —Harvard Business Publishing

These stats reaffirm what every seasoned veteran knows; strategy making is easy, making a strategy work is much more difficult.

But it shouldn’t be this difficult! My next posts will focus on closing this gap between strategy and execution.

Filed under Business, Strategy Tagged with , , , , , ,

A Brand is a Direction

March 12, 2010 Leave a comment

In today’s fast-changing world, motion is just as important to the success of a brand as traditional cornerstones such as positioning, focus, and differentiation.

Motion is not just another strategic tool to add to your toolbox, it is the fuel that energizes the entire branding machine.  This is because, in today’s environment, a static brand simply cannot sustain consumer interest. Consumer’s preferences and needs are changing at warp speeds, and they are looking for brands who are changing as well. Brands that are keeping up with the pace of marketplace change and continuously surprising and re-engaging the customer.

The fact of the matter is being different is no longer good enough; to survive, a brand has to continue being different.

What brands do you think  embrace this idea of motion? The first that come to mind for me are LEGO, Apple, Virgin, and Hyundai.

Filed under Brand Development, Branding, Competition, Marketing, Positioning, Strategy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Why Would Apple Get in Bed with Microsoft?

January 22, 2010 Leave a comment

Is it now a three player game?

The web has been all abuzz the past 24 hours about Apple. But people are’nt talking about the upcoming Macworld; rather, rumor has it that Apple is set to replace Google as the default search engine on its iPhone with Bing. You read that right Bing, as in Microsoft’s search engine.

Seen as allies throughout the last decade, Apple and Google now find themselves fighting for the same slice of the pie. Google’s emerging product offerings- such as Nexus One, Chrome OS- makes them Apple’s enemy number one, displacing Microsoft.

So with Apple and Google bound to duke it out, why in the world would Microsoft throw Apple a life raft? The answer is simple; Microsoft needs Apple. Just like Coca-Cola and Pepsi in the soda industry, this intense rivalry between Apple and Microsoft is what has made the two empires what they are today. Here’s how:

  • They compete on brand, not on price. This has created substantial barriers to entry and kept profit margins intact.
  • Created a drive to win the rivalry; this has improved both Apple and Microsoft’s overall performance by keeping them aggressive, creative, and flexible.
  • Branded competition has developed user loyalty. Are you a Mac or PC?
  • Creating a duopoly allowed both companies to grow; not at each other’s expense but at the expense of smaller players.

I have a feeling that Google isn’t going down without a fight. It is sure going to be interesting to see if or when Google’s Midas touch runs out. Do you think there is enough room in the industry for Microsoft, Apple, and Google?

Filed under Branding, Category Development, Competition, Strategy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.