The Sharp sharia: Kotler is dead

But, not everyone has it firsthand. And for others, it's been a while. That makes that sometimes we don't quite remember how it was. And sometimes when a colleague quotes Sharp, you think, "hmmm, is that so?". For example:

• Segmentation is nonsense
• Purpose is kwatsj
• Loyalty does not exist

Often these one-liners are uttered with a tone and facial expression that simultaneously betrays a mixture of determination, disbelief and resentment. And understandably so. They are misunderstandings that can easily occur. Because over time you forget the nuances. And then such a quote, which is easy to remember, takes on a life of its own.

Another such misunderstanding is that Sharp would argue very flatly and one-dimensionally for "being visible as much as possible. Commonly understood as: the deathblow to creativity. Well, creativity is certainly required if you want to apply Sharp's learnings. More on that another time.

Now a word about distinctiveness and differentiation. Because: what is the difference between them? Differentiation would be nonsense, distinctiveness the holy grail. Is Kotler really dead?

Sharp emphatically opposes Kotler. Kotler who says that you have to have a sustainable competitive advantage, that you have to be the best at something permanently. That sounds very logical and, of course, in itself is not at all wrong. Only, it is not a condition for success. You can be the best and still not be successful. The same goes for purpose (also read the blog: rot-your-purpose).

What matters is that you at least use what you do best to stand out and be recognized, because that is a necessary condition: to be known and recognized. Maybe that has to do with being the best at something with several brands at the same time. That does not help.

If you do not stand out or are not recognized (quickly), you will not break through the clutter and will not even enter the competition. As Cruijff said, "If you don't have the ball, you don't know how to score." And that, in turn, can all be traced back to the intuitive, instinctive, impulse-driven actions of man, the consumer. And also with the associated psychological phenomena such as selective perception to cognitive dissonance.

I often use the image as above of the birds to illustrate the point.

All the little birds look tremendously alike. And yet there is one bird that immediately grabs your attention. That one is not very different, that one acts differently. That principle. Maybe he is not even the best at hanging the other way around.... It is the same with brands as with birds-on-a-wire: in the eyes of the consumer they are quite similar. They often demand attention at the same time and in the same places. Just think about the latest December weeks and health insurance companies.... Brands are also, unfortunately -more than a brand manager would suspect and like-, confused with each other.

Moreover, being the best/fastest/cheapest/first does not mean that you are perceived as such. If a brand says long enough and often enough that it is the best, that can become an ingrained memory structure in the brain of many consumers. And eventually they will take it for granted. Not as an opinion, but more or less as a given. Is there a better one than Miele?

In short, at least be distinctive. That is a prerequisite. Fine if you are also different, only good even. But use that to be distinctive.

Read more about our approach in our 'How Brands Grow Whitepaper'

‍