Ways to Differentiate: Being First to Mind with a New Idea + Overstock.com

Mark and Lorraine play a game of positioning point-counterpoint about Overstock's acquisition of the Bed Bath & Beyond brand name. Lorraine thinks it will work and Mark's not so high on the idea -- see what factors are in play that will make one of these positionists right, and the other wrong. Then the podcast continues with the series on Ways to Differentiate, this time tackling the position of First to Mind with a New Idea. See why this is a tenuous position and why it's most likely critical to transition to a different position fairly quickly after the new idea is introduced.

Spend 40-ish with Mark and Lorraine to learn more about advertising, marketing, and positioning.

Chapters

• 0:00 Intro
• 1:23 Overstock.com Buys Bed Bath & Beyond
• 3:14 Lorraine Gives a Thumbs-up
• 9:16 Mark Predicts a Failure
• 16:52 May the Best Positionist Win!
• 18:21 Ways to Differentiate: Being First to the Mind with a New Idea
• 26:06 Some Risks to Being First to Deploy a New Idea
• 33:48 What's the Path to a Longer-Term Position?
• 38:15 Outro

Transcript

Mark Vandegrift:

Welcome to the latest episode of the Brand Shorthand Podcast. I'm your host, Mark Vandegrift, and with me is the first to mind for positioning, Lorraine Kessler. Lorraine, how's that lake up north?

Lorraine Kessler:

Well, it's been absolutely magnificent, except for the abundance of gnats coming still in from the Canadian wildfires. It looks like gray ash all over the house and glass every morning. You can sweep it up like lint. It's like that thick.

Mark Vandegrift:

I know it's Canada burning, but we have the Hawaii and the Maui fire. I mean, I kind of feel like someone's yelling, “Rome is burning. Rome is burning.”

Lorraine Kessler:

Hawaii is just terrible. Just how fast it took hold. Yeah. I feel sorry for so many of those people. So we keep them in our prayers because there's so many now homeless. Yeah.

Mark Vandegrift:

You see people struggling in life. So, we're very blessed to be able to talk about the things that we talk about on this podcast.

I don't know if you heard the news, one of the big things that jumped on my radar this week was, and we had written about Bed Bath & Beyond before, did you happen to hear that Overstock – most of us know it as Overstock.com –bought the naming, or the name, the brand name, and some assets from Bed Bath & Beyond. Did you hear about that?

Lorraine Kessler:

I sure did. Yep, I sure did. It's a unique situation. I don't recall any other similar situation in marketing history. Maybe some of our listeners or viewers know of one. That'd be great if they could comment and let us know. But I don't personally know of any other situation quite like this.

Mark Vandegrift:

Yeah, and I couldn't believe it. They bought the name and those assets for only $21 million. I was reading an NPR interview and one of the commentators said it sounded like a bookkeeping rounding error because it was such a small amount.

I know you and I can't conceive of $21 million, but in big corporations, that really is peanuts. And I think that tells you how far Bed Bath & Beyond has fallen. Not only did Overstock get the name, but they got a lot of other things, except for you won't see their new retail shops popping up because they've been selling those.

Lorraine Kessler:

No, no brick and mortar.

Mark Vandegrift:

I saw one sold to Panera, another one sold to a couple other businesses out there. So anyhow, they've decided that Overstock will be renamed Bed Bath & Beyond. So, from a positionist’ viewpoint. What do you think? Do you think it'll work?

Lorraine Kessler:

Well, before I go into my opinion, and I understand you and I may differ on this for different reasons, I'd like to just set a little context first, right? So, the $21 million for intellectual property is a drop in the bucket compared with the missteps of management of Bed Bath and Beyond.

What really led to the demise was when they had $5.2 billion in debt, they spent $1.8 billion – I imagine that was financed by a bank – $1.8 billion to buy stock back. Well, the result of that was that they could no longer fill the shelves, they didn't have buying power. So now the inventory that customers came to expect wasn't there and you and I talked about the empty shelf. Once you have an empty shelf, that's like a smell that doesn’t go away, right? So, a lot of management financial missteps, not the least of which, and you and I have talked about this too, but I think it's good to repeat. They did not migrate and between 2012 and 2019, they lost tons of value, right? I think their high of $17 billion in 2012 by 2020 was down to $380 million, if I have that right, in terms of market cap.

That's staggering. Well, how did that happen? They didn't migrate online at the same time between 2012 - 2019 that Walmart, Amazon, Target were pouring it on in home goods or homewares online. So, they were too late to the game. And that really hurt them. Now, the logic of this decision, there's logic, right? Why would you do this? The CEO of Overstock, I think his name is a little redundant, Jonathan Johnson. I have a cousin named Anthony Anthony, and I always kind of laughed. I was like lack of creativity in naming. But...

Mark Vandegrift:

I just met a Thomas Thomas today.

Lorraine Kessler:

I know, it's like, I just find that funny. Anthony,

Mark Vandegrift:

And we know a William Williams, an attorney in town.

Lorraine Kessler:

So, you know, the CEO, Jonathan Johnson, rightly said, “hey, our name has been a liability.” So why has Overstock name been a liability? Is because when they started, they were about selling liquidated items, oversupply, surplus, kind of like the Army Navy stores, right, in the old days. But they moved past that many, many years ago, but still people have that perception, and this is where positioning comes in, right? Overstock equals surplus, distressed goods, liquidation items. Now that had a double-edged sword. For consumers, it means they have less confidence in what they're buying. Yeah, I could get maybe a lower price, but what am I really getting? Am I getting misfits and those kinds of things. 

For suppliers, and you have to remember overstock doesn't really buy and then sell what it bought, it represents third party sellers. So, these third party sellers don't want to be, many of them didn't want their brand distressed by being associated with this perception of overstock as a liquidator. So, they were having trouble with some of their supplier contracts. I think Jonathan Johnson said it great when he said, overstock has had a good marketing operating model but a bad name.

Mark Vandegrift:

He called it a boat anchor!

Lorraine Kessler:

And Bed Bath and Beyond, conversely, inverse strength, has a great name and a bad operating model. And I agree with that 1,000%. So, my point of all this is to say, I don't think this is a brand issue. I think the brand got affected. But I think the brand has held more, uh, true and strong and, and there's still a fervent customer base for Bed Bath and Beyond, and I assume that Overstop did their, research to see how loyal customers were. And we could just anecdotally go and look at online,, social media and stuff. 

But people were like, oh my gosh, I love this brand. Why is it gone? I know the stores were having trouble. So I still feel like the brand has strong name recognition. It has a fervent customer base, that makes sense. It does restore the confidence in the goods, not being distressed surplus or liquidation. We already know early evidence that it's allowed Bed Bath and Beyond, the new Bed Bath and Beyond, the old Overstock, to bring in more products. Like since the announcement or rollout, they've brought on 600,000 new products. My optimistic view is this is a case that will work, provided that the new bed bath beyond the overstock management feed the brand, fuel it, do some advertising, bring in some new customers, reassure current customers that all the things that they loved about Bed Bath & Beyond the kind of cool style, the selections, that's all going to be there. So, they have to invest in creating this new brand and brand vibe and then follow through. I mean, the follow through is going to be crucial as we know. It's the experience of the brand. Am I going to get what I looked for or purchased? Is it going to be reliable? Is it going to delight me?

Mark Vandegrift:

Well Lorraine, I guess from my standpoint, I would say that I don't think it will work. And it's just because of a couple items that I saw in both the NPR release and the quote from Mr. Johnson Johnson. He made the comment that they're getting rid of their boat anchor name in favor of Bed Bath & Beyond. And... Bed Bath & Beyond's getting rid of their boat anchor of an online presence. So that's good, I get that, right? So, you're adopting a decent brand name. What he went on to say though was, he's excited about helping to define an even bigger and broader “& beyond.” So, my take is Bed Bath & Beyond, as we talked about in previous... podcast, Bed, Bath & Beyond's strength was being a positionist or a specialist that was mainly bed, mainly bath, and the and beyond kind of stretched to the kitchen and maybe a few other ancillary things.

I know when we went in there, the big thing was if I wanted to get a blender, I had about 20 options to pick from. And by the time they closed... there might've been two on the shelf. So, this breadth of a very narrow focus of room, and I think bed, bath, and the kitchen kind of all associate, that was the specialist position. 

What I think Overstock's going to end up doing when he says we're going to stretch the “& Beyond,” they're going to become a generalist. Well, we have... six gazillion generalists out there. We don't need another online Walmart. We don't need another online Amazon. We don't need all these other things. If I were CEO and I wanted to make this work, I think Bed Bath & Beyond was a good move if they get back to the focus. Well, the problem with that is one, Overstock's model is not that and they have whatever they have and they also don't... for those people that know what's happening, if they're paying attention that Overstock becomes Bed Bath & Beyond, there's still this notion that they were trying to offer higher items with a name that was liquidation level. So, if you're telling me you're not liquidation level, but you're throwing Bed Bath & Beyond on there, it gets a little confusing in terms of the consumer. 

If they can sort through all that, great, but... again, now you're still competing against the big generalists. So that's one area I have a problem with. 

Number two, and I'll toss this back your way for discussion. Number two is I think Bed Bath & Beyond, after going through two bankruptcies and doing all the stupid stuff they did, they hurt their brand so badly. And that's evident in this $21 million purchase, which again is peanuts to the corporate world. I think they hurt it so much and they became known for couponing and empty shelves, I'm not sure that this is going to translate. Those people that wanted to go in store to get the coupons, those people that wanted to go in store to be able to shop a breadth of product, now you're completely shifting that to an online model with a company that wants to be all things to all people. So, I'm going to bet the negative. I know you're betting the positive. And We'll see how it goes. Any comments to my comments?

Lorraine Kessler:

Sure. I don't think that the consumer brand, the consumer's perception of the brand, and again, I'm certain that Overstock did some research on this, is that affected by what's happened behind the scenes that affects investors and market cap and their evaluation? I really don't. I think they're happy to kind of look at the Bed, Bath & Beyond that they like. You raised the $64,000 question, and that is, will they go too broad in their product line? I think they can go broader than what you're painting, because I think they already been there. They used to sell patio furniture, umbrellas, you go there, seasonal stuff. They're going to stretch into furniture. This is all homewares. This is all part of anything. To me, the home is a big tent. And as long as they stay within the home and the residential home. And they don't go into groceries and they don't go into hardware and they don't go into some of these other areas. I think as long as it's goods, soft goods, hard goods that people want for their homes, beds, mattresses, bath, kitchen, appliances. 

I know they're going to get rid of a lot of the clutter that Bed Bath and Beyond took on the kind of small onesie two-sie things that are like three, four dollars. And if you are going to buy a spatula, you're going to have to buy like a set of spatulas, right? They're going to be a little smarter, I think, in those areas. So, the question is, and it's not, it's one we really can't answer, is the brand stretch is only, line extension is only a problem if you go beyond what the prospect, the customer sees in their mind. If I think that an ottoman and some tray tables and an umbrella all fit in Bed Bath & Beyond, we're finding good. So, they're going to have to be, to your point, I think it's better to think more narrowly than broadly. And then they are going to have to think about what is the real value beyond just the equity and the name and the fame of the name that they offer that's unique versus not just Target and Walmart and Amazon, but Wayfair. I think Wayfair was a big competitor for them, or Crate & Barrell, who's more home goods. Or, At Home.

So, they're going to have to put some hard work in, but I think there's actually a cost efficiency argument to be made. It will take less to take this brand and import it and get it out there and you can do a few right things to begin with than to start from scratch. 

We know that rebranding is a very tricky business. We know, for example, even if you change a package on a product, your chances of success are less than 50%. They're like 35% of actually increasing sales. You're more in danger of losing sales by changing something like that. So I think rebranding kind of falls into that risk category. So, it's all about how they manage this.

Mark Vandegrift:

Well, one thing I do know is Overstock was not doing well. I don't know how bad it was. We wouldn't know, but the chances of them surviving as they were was not good because the CEO identified it. It was boat anchor. In fact, if you recall, we had a former client contact who was interviewing for a job there. He asked our perspective on it. And what was our first response? “drop the name!”

So, I guess in that way, we're a little prescient that we understood that was a problem for them and their CEO has now acknowledged that. Now for us, I would say that was probably five years ago. So, it's five years overdue that we told them that they needed, well, we told someone interviewing there. He didn't get the job, so I guess it didn't make its way to the C-suite. 

But that being said, this might be a last ditch move. And for $21 million, again, peanuts, for them, that's probably a desperate attempt to bring relevance to the brand. So, you know, do you rename Overstock or do you just buy a brand that already has some brand value to it? If I'm CEO, I think it's a great move. As long as now I go, “okay, forces, we're getting back to just the bedroom, just the bathroom, just the kitchen.” That's where I would start. And I would make a lot of PR noise about that because like you said, you brought up Wayfair. There's at home, there's Crate & Barrel. There's even parts of Target that are home goods. So they have to become the specialists. They have to build that back up or I just don't think it's gonna happen. So I'm still a negative vote. I know you think there's a chance here. We'll see how it goes. I don't think it'll work, but one of us will be right and one wrong. May the best positionist win!

Lorraine Kessler:

And history will be made.

Mark Vandegrift:

Yes, that's right. Well, let's get to our topic of the day. We're continuing with our Ways to Differentiate series. And today we're going to focus on our first item on our tool set, which is being first to mind with a new idea.

Let me read our dictionary definition because that always helps us get in a common ground. And then we'll get your initial thoughts Lorraine.

For the rules of play, and we'll show this on screen here. It is much easier to get into the mind first than to convince someone you have a better product than the one who did get there first. People feel that the first one is the original and all others are copycats. Being the original translates into more knowledge and more expertise. Studies show that in most cases, being first to the market provides a significant and substantial market share advantage over later entrants. It also forces later entrants to find their own distinctive positioning. 

Lorraine, go ahead and give us your first take on this way to differentiate.

Lorraine Kessler:

Well, you know, the keyword here is “first.” Well, the keywords are “first to mind,” not just first. The history is strewn of companies that were first to do something and last to claim it. Okay. Or second to claim and kind of saying, “Hey, I had that idea first.” No one cares. Right? So “first to mind” implies that. If you have a truly new idea that it's incumbent on you to spend the money and do great advertising, advertising that has emotional voltage that, you know, jumps this idea high on the bar into the mind, whether it's super new, new category or just a new product or service that's unique in some way. 

So, if you are subcategory like Red Bull, let's say, which is an energy drink. We have a lot of different drinks. We have sports drinks, energy drinks, Pepsi drinks, carbonated drinks. So whatever, you have to be marketing focused and that has to be the goal. The problem is when I think of, it's not a problem, when I think of companies, I think there's like three types, right? There's the service type company. They're all about their services. Then there's a manufacturing kind of driven; making goods kind of company, often led by engineers if it's more technical. And then there's a marketing type company, marketing and maybe there's a fourth sales driven. So, these, to be first to mind, you have to be marketing driven. Not just product driven, but marketing driven.

Mark Vandegrift:

Yep, and that's the key right there. Being first to mind means you're pouring in on marketing. So as we've done before, let's give our viewers and listeners some samples of who might have held or still does hold this position. One that always comes to mind for me, because it was one of my first lessons from you, was VHS versus beta.

Back when there was this thing known as a video cassette player. For our younger audience, just look it up.

So, do you remember that war? Beta was by far the better product. My brother had a Beta and he swore by it, but no one heard of them because they didn't market, which opened the door for VHS to be the first to mine with this new type of device. What do you recall about that battle for the mind?

Lorraine Kessler:

Well, I don't recall too much other than everybody had to ask, what is a beta? And then when you went to a store, I mean, as a consumer experience, when you went to a store and asked the salesclerk would likely push you to VHS. So somehow, they won the first sale, which is that distribution that the person who's distributing the product. And the other thing is I never had people say, because VHS did such a great job, the name VHS became kind of the generic for the category. Put in the VHS tape. Well, you didn't need to say that. You didn't say just put in the tape. You said put in the VHS tape as opposed to just videotape. So, you know, it started to become the generic for the category.

Mark Vandegrift:

Yeah, and you're right about the first sale, that actually helped the second sale, which was the sales assistant in the store, because what are you going to sell? Things that you're comfortable selling. And so that was back in the days where they probably did a little more on-floor training and said, “hey, push the products that are going to move.” And if you know that product's going to move, you're going to push it, because that's better for you as a salesperson.

Lorraine Kessler:

Yes, salespeople, many salespeople who are not consultative, sell what sells. So, if I come in and ask for a VHS, they're going to sell me a VHS, right?

Mark Vandegrift:

Yep. Good. Can you list some other brands that might have started out as the first to mind? And I use that word “started out as,” because there’s more to this thing we'll talk about shortly, but just list a few that come to mind.

Lorraine Kessler:

Yeah, sure. Well, Miller Lite is one because the first light beer was Gablinger and no one remembers, right? And what happened is Miller bought Gablinger and did amazing advertising. “Tastes great, less filling.” Emotional voltage in that claim. Funny, had some funny, some humorous approach to it. And so, people most often equate Miller Lite with light beer. Now, today, that's shifted, right? I think Bud Light, by virtue of its name and dominance, took that over. Who knows where they're going to be today? But you know, Gablinger did have the first diet beer, right? 

Wikipedia is a great example, right? I don't know of any other online encyclopedia that even competes with them, maybe you do. 

So, I'm trying to think. TiVo, remember TiVo, the DVR, right? And, oh, remember all the predictions that TiVo was going to kill advertising and that TV advertising was dead. Well, I love that. I’d love to go back.

Mark Vandegrift:

Here we are again with AI and that's going to kill advertising. It happens every 10 years.

Lorraine Kessler:

Yes, but that was a great one. I remember people being very concerned about that. 

Roku, a newer like device, over the top. It's like really one of the first to mind for over the top devices for streaming.

So what do you have? What other ones? Chrysler minivan.

Mark Vandegrift:

Well, Chrysler Town and Country is one that always jumps in my mind that you use that as an example. You know, the first minivan. It's like, what's a minivan? Well, they made it happen. 

First social platform. What do you think comes to mind to most people?

Lorraine Kessler:

The one I remember was MySpace.

Mark Vandegrift:

Yep.

Lorraine Kessler:

That was first.

Mark Vandegrift:

And look where that is.

Lorraine Kessler:

Yeah, I mean, and then that I think is your point you wanted to make upfront. Just because you started there doesn't mean you stay there. Right?

Mark Vandegrift:

Yes, exactly.

Lorraine Kessler:

Right.

Mark Vandegrift:

Well, we have some examples where first to mind was just too early for most people to adopt.

And so, we're going to build this a little bit, which I don't know that MySpace was too early to adopt. They made a different mistake. But think of the Apple Newton.

Okay, came out in 1993 and they had to end production by 1998. Do you remember what that device was called?

Lorraine Kessler:

I thought it was called the Newton.

Mark Vandegrift:

It was called the Newton, but I mean, it was the first personal…

Lorraine Kessler:

Oh yeah, the

Mark Vandegrift:

PDA.

Lorraine Kessler:

personal PDA, personal digital assistant. Now, first of all, nobody knew what digital was.

Mark Vandegrift:

No.

Lorraine Kessler:

And so, I understand personal assistant. Yeah, this is a great example because it plays to a principle of positioning that companies combine, but categories divide. So, the specialist always wins. So, if you're too general, going back to your Bed, Bath & Beyond, that can open you up to a specialist. Now, it doesn't mean that being a generalist is a bad thing, depending on the competition, right, and the market. So, it's just that you have to be cognizant of the vulnerability of that position. 

Now, in terms of the Newton in specific, it was a bridge too far too soon. It was too complex. It did too many things that people... And then people had to ask too many questions. What is a personal digital assistant? What's a PDA? I don't even know what that is. Why do I need it? Why would I want it? 

But here's what happened to the PDA, as we know. And this kind of proves this idea of non-convergence. I mean, you don't have a car that also flies. Never happened.

But we do have today a cell phone that does almost all the things in that PDA, almost literally everything except print, I think. Um, and who knows, but how did that happen? So it did converge, but it's really important to understand when you're too soon to a category and there's not understanding for it or the need for it. You've got some problems. You're better to stay very single mono channels focused. So, the cell phone learned, I think from the Newton, um, and they said, let's start with the phone. Let's just start. People get that. They know they need that. And then it's really interesting. Originally, the category was called cell phone, which is kind of descriptive of the way the technology works. Then it becomes mobile phone, right? Which today, which is more about the benefit. I can go anywhere with it. So that's a little more handable. So, you see how these even categories iterate. And then now today, it's just my phone. Like, oh, where's my phone? Because very few people or a lot of, there's very few landlines, let's just say that. So, most people just think this is my phone. So, we just say our phone. Now, what does a phone do? I mean, I can send texts…

Mark Vandegrift:

Everything.

Lorraine Kessler:

Everything. I can listen to music. I get, it's just, it does almost everything the PDA promised and even more some things that didn't even think about back in the day. But it's still, what do we still call it? We don't call it a PDA. We call it a phone.

Mark Vandegrift:

I want to layer one thing on there. I graduated in December of ‘91, started my job with KPMG down in Columbus in January of ‘92. We were the first incoming new auditors that had a computer and they gave us this tiny laptop. It was a PC at the time. And so, what's going on in 1992 is people are still learning how to use our computers in general with a big screen on them. Well, not huge, but bigger screens. They're trying to figure out, what am I going to use Microsoft Word for, and Excel? And there's software being developed to help us audit and people are starting to learn QuickBooks. Well, you're trying to figure out the big thing and then you come with this little thing that does very little of that. I think it was just... a too early of an idea, which is your point, and you needed to migrate. 

When did the iPhone come out? It took them another decade. You know, ‘07, I think, is the first iPhone, and ‘11, right around 2011, was when it really took hold. And then if you recall, even our web design didn't start changing until 2012, we introduced to our clients to responsive web design.

So that was 2012. We're talking, they ended production of the Newton in 1998. So that's how long it took for the general mind, the general consumer, to adopt that technology. So, that is the risk going back to being first to mind is, don't jump too fast, too furious with a new idea and think just because I own the idea that it's going to work out.

Lorraine Kessler:

Yeah, it's being over ambitious and mistiming kind of the behavior of the market. Like what is, where, like even now you mentioned how we changed web to be responsive. We also changed web, I don't know how many years ago you'll remember where people now scroll this way rather than this.

Mark Vandegrift:

Long form. Click, click, click.

Lorraine Kessler:

So that's a behavior change and that takes time. Those embedded behaviors take time. So, you do have to, this is one of the filters of our positioning is context. What's really going on in the behaviors, the understanding of the current market? Is the idea too soon or is it too late? If it's too soon, then you really should back up and start analyzing what can we get across that people will understand. And you always have to tie from a positioning standpoint, a new idea or a new technology to something people understand.

Lorraine Kessler:

Like we've always said, the first automobile was called the horseless carriage, because we had to tie it to what people understood. So, you got to stay simple, mono-channel, and build from there.

Mark Vandegrift:

Yep. And even the typewriter, you always use that one. It was the personal printing press before it was the typewriter. I always loved that one.

I remember in 7th grade, I was typing on a typewriter.

Lorraine Kessler:

So, that's, as we said, sometimes the category name itself iterates, because what is it iterating to? It's iterating to what people understand. And so, there's actually a relationship that gets started where people start to affect even what the category is called.

Mark Vandegrift:

Yep. So now we build upon being first to mind, the risk of being first to mind and somewhat of the path, but let's finish that thought. So, there's a path where I enter the market and I'm first to mind. Okay.

But then that new idea is no longer new. You've developed a new category. Give us the path of that. Let's take Coke, for example, Coke's the original, right? But now today we call them the original. But really, they're the leader. They have the leading market share. They've been the original since 1896, but they're the leader now. So, what's that particular path? Do we see first the mind automatically assume leadership position? Do we see them assume some other position? What do you see as the typical path in that regard?

Lorraine Kessler:

Yeah, if you're first to mind in a category, whether you created the category, and usually that's what happened, you're the first that has created that, that is a leadership position. And so, it's just right, you wouldn't say to a consumer, we're first to mind, right? It would be silly. And sometimes it's not good to even use the word leadership when you're a leader, you demonstrate leadership. And one way you do that is by saying, we're the original or the top selling or whatever that is. So, there's other ways to kind of reassert that leadership. The leader also has an advantage all its own. And that is that you can both have the leadership position on a category and then assume an attribute that has the highest value in that category. 

Heinz is the leader in ketchup by a far margin… has been forever. But they also assumed an attribute people wanted: thick. So, a thick ketchup runs slow and they had that great campaign with Carly Simon's “Anticipation.” So, they own two things, the leadership and the attribute that people most want from their ketchup. They don't want it runny; they don't want it kind of slopping off their bun or whatever.

Mark Vandegrift:

One thing you hinted at there is that being first of mind is going to dictate your advertising a little bit. And you said you would never tell a consumer “I'm first of mind,” but you know what can tell a consumer you're first of mind public relations and think how many products came into the market and they never advertised one little bit. Starbucks, for decades, but everyone said, “oh, there's this new coffee experience coming.” And everyone was so excited when a Starbucks showed up in their neighborhood. Well, that's all changed, but think about how powerful public relations is. If you want to go after this position, you better be thinking, how do I see these things? 

And insulated siding was a good example when we did that for Progressive Foam many, many years ago. What'd we do? Well, we took a media kit with a sample in it and mailed it to the media. Why? Because you had to see it to understand it. And then you could start talking about, “oh, look at this, this is vinyl siding, but it has a backing on it.” And you can swing a bat at the thing, you can throw a baseball at the thing, and it's not going to break. So that's an example where a PR play is so critical to this particular position. Certainly, you can do advertising. I'm not saying you don't do that. But to your point, I can't go, “Hey, we're new, come look at us. “

Lorraine Kessler:

The best way to build a brand, we've said this many times, is PR, not advertising, because PR has credibility that advertising does not have in equal measure, is what I would say. That's because everybody knows when you buy an ad, you write an ad about yourself, you're going to say good things about yourself.

The other thing about PR is it's so pervasive, right? First of all, it's a long story kind of format. You can demonstrate the product to certain constituents, but it reaches investors, right? And it comes as truth and it comes with a lot of credibility. It reaches the publishers who win your message. Once they publish it, that's the third party credibility you need for buyers, let's say contractors, remodelers to believe that this is something true and they should look at it. So, you're, and then you're reaching consumers too. So, it's so broad in who it's, I mean, it's like really the original broadcast media when you think about it.

And it affects word of mouth, person to person, peer to peer. So, it's real, and I have said this before, one of the things that really sold me on positioning as a strategy that's fundamental to all successful marketing was working with PR practitioners. There isn't a PR person on the planet who wouldn't sit down with a client and say, “what's the news? What's different? What can I say about this that makes it stand out?” That's positioning.

Mark Vandegrift:

Yep, built right in.

Well, we are well over our normal time, but that's great because we're never short on content, especially when the news hits the airways like Overstock. So, thanks to our audience for viewing and listening. Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. Then join us for our next episode of Brand Shorthand as we discuss the core concepts of positioning. Until then, have an amazing day.