Do You Want Distinctive or Good?
Chip and Dan Heath now have a “Made to Stick” column in Fast Company (that’s the title of their book). June’s edition talks about word of mouth marketing and how products can be interesting enough to command a “conversation.” As great as the Ritz Carlton is, they argue, it doesn’t give you anything to talk about—unlike Doubletree, which sparks a conversation because of the warm cookies they give you at check-in. The bud vase in the VW Beetle does the same thing, as does serving glazed doughnuts that have been rolled in Crunchberry cereal.
You have to be distinctive to spark conversation. Being great isn’t enough. And they also point out that you can’t try to create the conversation after the product launch. These things emerge naturally, and you should be thinking about that as you design the product, not after you launch it.
So here’s what bugs me: I think doughnuts rolled in breakfast cereal are gross. I also miss terribly the local doughnut shop that went out of business a few years ago. Their doughnuts were really good. I guess they just weren’t distinctive enough. Is there any room in our economy for really good, but not distinctive? Or, I guess a better question is, how can we be distinctive without sacrificing being really good at something?
4 Comments
Virgil Carter
Jamie, thanks for the comments. I’m on my way to Amazon to buy the book. But I’m wondering…distinctive or good? Do you suppose that this may be synomous with rhetoric or results?
Or is it just simply marketing strategy to carve out a niche in an otherwise crowded product market?
I mean, after all, the idea of donuts wrapped in Sugar Pops (ugh!) is really just marketing rhetoric isn’t it–to distinguish their donuts from the donut herd? And a really good French bakery is really (great baking) results isn’t it?
And given a choice of staying at the Ritz vs the Doubletree, the choice seems obvious, if the pocketbook can support it.
So, is it really just about marketing linguistics designed to make selected products appealing to targeted market segments? Stipped to essentials is it rhetoric or results?
For non-profit associations (that are supposed to advance some value or benefit by virtue of their non-profit status), I shudder to think that we would shift our purpose from value to marketing. That’s not to say that marketing is inappropriate for non-profits. Marketing is very appropriate–essential. But what should non-profits market, and what’s the appropriate language to use? Do we focus our non-profit marketing messages on results or rhetoric?
Of course, those who do really prefer their donuts wrapped in Sugar Pops may feel these are (their desirable, really good) results. Perhaps only those of us who gag at the vison of these encrusted baked goods think it’s rhetoric. Do you think?
Perhaps at the end of the day, one’s vision (and one’s marketing) depends on where one is standing, eh? 🙂
Good blog post!
Jeff De Cagna
It is impossible for me to accept the premise of the post, because the Brothers Heath have set up a false dichotomy. There isn’t really a choice between distinctive and good, especially in the association community. With more and more stuff becoming easily commoditized today, associations cannot afford to create value in undifferentiated, all-purpose, one-size-fits-all blocks. It is essential that everything associations offer bring something unique and important to the table. This is a critical element of the new association business model.
At the same time, associations cannot afford to produce crap either. And what’s great about creating new value through a more open, inclusive and collaborative innovation process is that associations can think and act generatively about how to offer new forms of value that are both of high quality and distinctive from the market’s standard fare.
So forget about breakfast cereal. Think iPod. Distinctive and good. This must be the priority for all organizations in our community.
Kevin Holland
Jamie, I’m sorry but … what? In any given city I travel to where there’s a Ritz, that’s where I stay. I think I’ve also stayed in Doubletrees but only when I was traveling on a budget and had to use Priceline or something. I vaguely recall the cookies.
What the Heaths seem to miss is that when you stay in a Ritz the “conversation” you have afterwards is … well, I stayed at the Ritz. I’m not sure much else is needed to be said. Whereas you’d feel compelled to explain why you so enjoyed your stay at the Doubletree, even if all you could muster was the nice soft warm cookies.
I think Virgil raises some interesting questions though as a natural marketer I think it’s a false dichotomy — value and marketing are really more intertwined than that.
I have really no opinion about donuts wrapped in Cocoa Puffs, but if given the choice I’d rather work for an association viewed by its constituency as the Ritz than one viewed as … what was it again … oh, right, Doubletree.
Jamie Notter
Wow, I should post things from other people that I don’t particularly agree with more often: look at all the comments!
One thing I will add from the article: not all the distinctions were extras, like cookies and bud vases. Another of their examples was Zipcar, that includes gas and insurance with each rental, refusing to become part of the “collision damage waiver extortion racket” as the article says. So it doesn’t have to be all rhetoric, Virgil, or all crap, Jeff. THere is room for distinction that is also great.
And I agree, Kevin–I’ve told more stories, personally, about the service I received at the Ritz than I did about the cookies I got at Doubletree. But hey, at least the cookies weren’t coated in breakfast cereal!