This essay presents a multi-part exploration of marketing philosophy and its practical applications. The author articulates a personal marketing framework centered on imagination and differentiation, drawing on key theorists including Cialdini, Ries and Trout, and Kim and Mauborgne. The paper applies these principles to real-world scenarios: analyzing the principles of persuasion and influence demonstrated by a train attendant, mapping competitive positions in the Polish lipstick market using the strategic square, developing a Blue Ocean Strategy for Revlon, and advising the Professional Chamber of Parisian Bakers on whether to amend bread-baking laws. Together, the responses illustrate how core marketing concepts translate across diverse contexts.
The philosophy 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 my marketing philosophy is Imagination. Imagination is the most vital tool in marketing because it 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 make the ideas being 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 apart 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, and connecting with the consumer in a deep and meaningful 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). If you cannot imaginatively approach those P's, they will be like blunted instruments hitting the consumer over the head — and from which the consumer will only seek to escape as fast as possible. My philosophy, then, is this: be imaginative, be different, and be meaningful.
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.
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. He has also provided a glass of bubbly at no extra cost but at a clear cost to himself — however modest. He has asked for nothing, has ensured that the coffee is fresh and hot in the morning, and has been civil, prompt, and courteous throughout. 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 he would gladly accept a tip — though he has said nothing. He has entered the room, asked if you needed help with your luggage, and shown in his other hand that he is 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. The likely result is that you will tip him, and tip him well — probably at least a few euros.
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 you are more likely to reward him monetarily, especially when he holds a fistful of bills that indicates he is not opposed to the idea.
As Cialdini (2006) argues in Influence, the sleuth of influence is one who knows the right time and place to put into play the principle needed to obtain the reward. The attendant is clearly such a sleuth — stealthier than the bungler and more ethical than the smuggler. He appears, in fact, to actually deserve the reward he is seeking.
It is straightforward to arrive at this conclusion: the principles of liking and reciprocation are applied by this sleuth of an attendant who knows just when to signal for a tip — precisely 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 man for his troubles. He is not asking for anything but is relying on your compassion as a human being toward a kind, elderly attendant. He is a master persuader and a sleuth of influence — not acting unethically (good service really is scarce on these trains and he is clearly differentiating himself in an authentic manner), not bungling any opportunity to go above and beyond the usual attendant's deeds, and not acting unethically. You will tip him, no doubt. He has influenced you like a sleuth.
Cialdini, R. (2006). Influence. NY: Harper.
The strategic square for lipstick in Poland consists of the following categories:
Defensive: Avon, Maybelline
Offensive: Astor, L'Oréal Paris, Oriflame, Max Factor, Rimmel
Flanking: Amway, Bell, Bourjois, Chanel, Clarins, Clinique, Essence, Estée Lauder, Inglot, 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 in the defensive position is that they are by far 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 delivered these kinds of numbers. No other company in Poland has broken 100 PLN mn. Some second-tier companies have come close — namely Oriflame, which reached 90.9 PLN mn in 2012 (though this is 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 its next closest competitor by nearly the same margin, so it stands to reason that both are in a defensive position — 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 pulling in significant revenues: Astor made 80.7 PLN mn in 2012, placing it in a position to increase its market share by attacking the two market leaders. Oriflame is in the same position, with nearly a 50 PLN mn gap between its 2012 revenue and Maybelline's. Max Factor, Rimmel, and L'Oréal Paris are all in a similar revenue range — not high enough to dominate, but not so low that they cannot afford to go on the offensive.
The companies in a position to make flanking moves on the larger firms are those listed above. They must avoid direct competition because they have not yet obtained enough market share — so their flanking moves will have to be characterized by introducing products that are different from anything the larger firms are offering, which fits squarely within the marketing philosophy of "differentiate or die."
The companies in the guerrilla camp do not have the revenue to launch an offensive attack or to introduce a product that could easily be duplicated by larger firms. The goal for guerrilla-positioned companies is to fly under the radar of the larger firms and appeal to niche markets small enough that larger firms will not waste resources trying to capture them. These smaller companies can thus build their brand without fear of being picked off or destroyed by the competition.
Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1997). Marketing warfare. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ries, A., & Trout, J. (2009). The 22 immutable laws of marketing. NY: Harper Business.
"Revlon advised to target niche segments with limited resources"
"Blue Ocean framework identifies untapped lipstick market space"
"Marketing advice on baguette law and differentiation strategy"
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.