Question 1 The philosophy of marketing—or wisdom of marketing—that is personal to me is based on my sense of what marketing is meant to do: the objective is to connect with the consumer and make a product or service appeal to that consumer so that he or she wishes to consume it.

The biggest element of marketing philosophy for me is Imagination. Imagination is the most vital tool in marketing because this is what allows the marketer to connect with the consumer—in the consumer’s own imagination, where a little seed of desire can be planted (very much like in the film Inception by Nolan (2010), where ideas are seeded into a person’s mind while they sleep). The marketer also has to be able to make the ideas that are marketed stand out so that they can penetrate more deeply into the consumer’s consciousness—and that requires the art of differentiating, of enabling your product to stand out from everyone else’s. As Trout and Rivkin (2006) say, you must “differentiate or die” (p. 2)—and that is the idea upon which I base my marketing philosophy: standing out, being creative, connecting with the consumer in a deep and meaning way so that they do not forget you. Make them laugh, make them cry, make them think, make them feel something that stays with them so that they find themselves thinking about you long after you’ve gone. That is what marketing is all about.

Imagination and Differentiation are what guide my thinking and actions in terms of how I approach marketing. Know what others are doing and be bold enough to stand apart so that the consumer notices you, sees you, appreciates you, and even thanks you for connecting with them in a way that is new, different, refreshing, and that actually feels like it positively impacts their life. They won’t forget you for it. Imagination is the vital tool that allows marketers to “use the other tools effectively” (Schewe & Hiam, 1998, p. 32). The other tools are of course the 4 P’s of marketing (or the 7 P’s). In any case, if you can’t imaginatively approach those P’s, they’ll be like blunted instruments hitting the consumer over the head and from which the consumer will only seek to escape as fast as he can. So my philosophy is this: be imaginative, be different, and be meaningful.

References

Nolan, C. (2010). Inception. LA: Warner Bros.

Schewe, C., Hiam, A. (1998). The portable MBA in marketing. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Trout, J., Rivkin, S. (2006). Differentiate or die. In The marketing Gurus (ed. Murray). NY: Penguin.

Question 2

The attendant has gone out of his way to differentiate himself from the normal run-of-the-mill attendants, which is in line with my core marketing philosophy of always striving to be different. He has made the room cleaner and taken care of the restroom so that it is clean. He has also provided a glass of bubbly at no extra cost but at a clear cost to himself (however, not great—but still a cost nonetheless). He has asked for nothing, has ensured that the coffee is fresh and hot in the morning, and has been civil, prompt and courteous for the whole of the time. He has influenced not only through virtue but also by the fact that he is no ordinary attendant. Additionally, when it comes time to depart he has signaled that would gladly accept a tip—though he has said nothing. He has entered into the room, asked if you needed help with your luggage and shown in his other hand that he is indeed a collector of cash: this is a signal to your brain that you should give him some as a gesture of kindness in repayment for his earlier courtesy to you. The likely result is that you will tip him and tip him well—probably at least a few Euro.

He is clearly using the lever of reciprocation. He shows a kindness to you, asks for nothing, but lets it be known through signaling (the cash in his hand at the end) that you might like to tip him for the generosity he has shown you. The other lever is that of simple liking: being likeable has its rewards, and for a man in his situation it means that you are more likely to be rewarded monetarily—especially when you have a fistful of bills in your hand that indicates you are not opposed to the idea.

As Cialdini (2006) says in Influence, the sleuth of influence...

The attendant is clearly a sleuth. The sleuth is, after all, stealthier than the bungler and more ethical than the smuggler: he appears, in fact, to actually deserve the reward that he is seeking.
It is simple to arrive at this conclusion: the principles of liking and of reciprocation are applied by the sleuth of an attendant who knows just when to signal for a tip—when you too are about to depart. He also does not stop until he gets what he wants: he first brandishes the bills, then offers his hand palm up for his reward; you give a handshake so he digs into his pocket and retrieves two mints. The ball is now back in your court: if you are at all a decent human being you will reward the poor man for his troubles. He is not asking anything but is relying on your compassion as a human being for a kind, elderly attendant. He is a master persuader and is a sleuth of influence because he is not acting unethically (good service really is scarce on these trains and he is clearly differentiating himself in an authentic manner), he has not bungled away any opportunity to go above and beyond the deeds of the usual attendant, and he has not acted unethically. You will tip him no doubt. He has influenced you like a sleuth.

References

Cialdini, R. (2006). Influence. NY: Harper.

Question 3

1 The Strategic Square

The strategic square for lipstick in Poland consists of the following categories:

Defensive:

Avon, Maybelline

Offensive:

Astor, L’Oreal Paris, Oriflame, Max Factor, Rimmel

Flanking:

Amway, Bell, Bourjois, Chanel, Clarins, Clinique, Essence, Estee Lauder, Inlgot, Manhattan, Miss Sporty, Yves Rocher

Guerrilla:

Wibo, Revlon, Mary Kay, Lirene, Constance Carroll, Celia, Catrice

The reason Avon and Maybelline are the only two companies to be in the defensive position is that they are by far and away the most successful lipstick companies in Poland. Avon made 200.9 PLN mn in 2012 and Maybelline was second with 138.9 PLN mn in 2012. Both firms have consistently pulled in these kinds of numbers. No other company in Poland has broken 100 PLN mn. Some of the second tier companies have come close to reaching 100 PL mn in a year—namely Oriflame, which is close at 90.9 PLN mn in 2012 (but is actually down from its high of 97.3 PLN mn in 2009). It could be argued that Avon should stand alone as the sole company in a defensive position since it is still ahead of Maybelline by more than 50 PLN mn per year. However, Maybelline is well ahead of the next closest competitor by nearly the same amount so it stands to reason that Maybelline and Avon are both in a defensive position at this point—though Avon is certainly in the most defensive position, having the most market share to lose to competitors, as Ries and Trout (1997) point out.

The companies in the offensive position are the next batch of firms that pull in significant revenues: Astor made 80.7 PLN mn in 2012, which means it is in a position to increase its market share by going on the offense attack on the two market leaders. Oriflame is in the same position, since there is nearly a 50 PLN mn gap between its 2012 revenue and Maybelline’s. Max Factor, Rimmel and L’Oreal Paris are all right around the same in terms of revenue—not high enough to dominate—but not so low either that they cannot afford to go on the offensive.

The companies that are in a position to make flanking moves on the larger firms are those listed above. They will have to avoid direct competition because they have not obtained enough market share to be able to do that just yet—so their flanking moves will have to be characterized by introducing a product that is different from anything the larger firms are offering—which fits in again with my own marketing philosophy of “differentiate or die.”

The companies that are in a position to use guerrilla tactics do not have the revenue to launch an offensive attack or to really launch a product that could easily be duplicated by the larger firms. The goal of the companies in the guerrilla camp is to fly under the radar of the larger firms and appeal to niche markets that…