What do you think?
Rate this book
How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don't Know
This book provides evidence-based answers to the key questions asked by marketers every day. Tackling issues such as how brands grow, how advertising really works, what price promotions really do & how loyalty programs really affect loyalty.
228 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
About the author
Byron Sharp
4 books85 followersByron Sharp is Professor of Marketing Science, and Director of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute at the University of South Australia.
His research is supported corporations around the world including Coca-Cola, Mars, Kraft, Nielsen, British Airways, CBS, ESPN, Kellogg's and many others.
Dr Sharp has published over 100 academic papers and is on the editorial boards of four journals.
His research is supported corporations around the world including Coca-Cola, Mars, Kraft, Nielsen, British Airways, CBS, ESPN, Kellogg's and many others.
Dr Sharp has published over 100 academic papers and is on the editorial boards of four journals.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews
June 14, 2012
What happens when you subject fashionable marketing theories to actual observed behaviours and supporting statistics? Most of them crumble. This book is surprising and forehead slappingly obvious in equal measure. It peels away accepted truths and paints a more rational picture of customers as "uncaring cognitive misers". Next time you hear somebody trying to sell the power of brand personalities, segmented targeting strategies, or long term algorithmic growth forecasting in a meeting - take a walk around the block. I would rate this book a 4 but really, how high would your conscience allow you to rate a book about marketing?
February 7, 2017
Depressing! The book's advices are only suitable for big FMCG brands that aim to be the market leader. Meanwhile traditional marketing methodology is still appropriate for small brands.
Conclusion: Insightful but not practical.
Conclusion: Insightful but not practical.
December 7, 2015
This is an outstanding book for anyone who is interested in selling - which since all business is selling, should be anyone in business.
It debunks quite a lot of ideas around marketing - e.g. there is no such thing as loyalty - most big brands are big because they have massive distribution so it makes is more likely consumers will find them on the shelves when they're looking for something in the category. The nice thing is that much of the earlier chapters are backed by reasonable amounts of data (e.g. how easily consumers switch brands, etc) - something that is unusual in marketing.
It also ties in nicely with the work of Daniel Kahneman on heuristics saying that, despite having little loyalty, most people only buy things they've heard of (we take mental shortcuts for decisions as Kahneman has comprehensively proved) so you need to make sure people have heard of your brands in the first place if you want to sell it.
However, I only give this four stars as in some of the later chapters (e.g. Chapter 9, "How advertising really works") the author suddenly drops his evidence-based approach and goes back to the time-honored marketing approach of making authoritative but evidence-devoid assertions. For example, the now popular idea that you need to create more "occasions" around your brand to grow mindshare clearly come from this book, but no data for it is ever presented.
It debunks quite a lot of ideas around marketing - e.g. there is no such thing as loyalty - most big brands are big because they have massive distribution so it makes is more likely consumers will find them on the shelves when they're looking for something in the category. The nice thing is that much of the earlier chapters are backed by reasonable amounts of data (e.g. how easily consumers switch brands, etc) - something that is unusual in marketing.
It also ties in nicely with the work of Daniel Kahneman on heuristics saying that, despite having little loyalty, most people only buy things they've heard of (we take mental shortcuts for decisions as Kahneman has comprehensively proved) so you need to make sure people have heard of your brands in the first place if you want to sell it.
However, I only give this four stars as in some of the later chapters (e.g. Chapter 9, "How advertising really works") the author suddenly drops his evidence-based approach and goes back to the time-honored marketing approach of making authoritative but evidence-devoid assertions. For example, the now popular idea that you need to create more "occasions" around your brand to grow mindshare clearly come from this book, but no data for it is ever presented.
June 14, 2019
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
Целых 30-35 первых страниц книги автор посвящает теме «Всё, что вы знали ранее – ложь и именно я вам открою глаза на правду». Такая манипуляция – не редкость. И лекторы, и авторы книг, которые хотят поймать доверчивый ум на крючок, используют похожие манипулятивные тактики, обещая читателю открыть важную и до сего дня скрываемую от них тайну. Далее я постараюсь максимально сжато, но и максимально полно предложить свои контраргументы позициям автора, чьи идеи я постараюсь коротко процитировать.
1. Автор упоминает Ф. Котлера, приписывая ему то ли идею, то ли книгу «Дифференцируйся или умирай!». На самом деле Котлер не предлагает никакой подобной идеи. В его главное книге, являющейся библией маркетинга, «Маркетинг. Менеджмент», подобной идеи нет и быть не может, ибо Котлер не предлагает решения, но описывает само явление маркетинга, схему, предлагает каркас, описывает маркетинг как таковой. Решения же предлагают бизнес-книги на 200-300 страниц. Книга Котлера – академический учебник, где собраны десятки теорий из сотен книг по бизнесу. Котлер – описывает проблему, но не предлагает непосредственного (одного, единственно верного) решения.
2. Там, где автор пишет «лояльность vs проникновение на рынок». Увы, но автор что-то не так понял. Многочисленные книги по маркетингу не пишут, что нужно заниматься только лояльностью. Они пишут, что лояльность, это гарантия от сокращения чистой прибыли. Это - чтобы не упасть ниже, но никак не подняться выше. Чтобы подняться выше, увеличить чистую прибыль, нужно как раз заниматься проникновением на рынок, т.е. увеличивать количество потребителей как таковых. Другими словами, многочисленные книги по маркетингу предлагают не «или», как это пытается представить автор, а «и».
3. Автор пишет, что нишевые бренды должны иметь чрезвычайно лояльных клиентов. Не обязательно. Данный бренд, в связи с его узкой направленностью, может быть, к примеру, монополистом или иметь столько же лояльных потребителей, как и обычный бренд благодаря отсутствию строгой приверженности покупателей в данной категории (геномодифицированный банан, который больше похож на яблоко, чем на привычный нам банан, может пользоваться относительной популярностью ввиду нового и интересного вкуса).
4. Перекрёстные продажи (побуждать имеющихся клиентов покупать различные продукты под одним брендом). Автор зачем-то доказывает, что это ошибка. Однако ещё Райс и Траут, всемирно знаменитые маркетологи, в конце XX века писали, что один бренд – один товар (одна позиция в сознании), т.е. если Coca-Cola производит колу, то ей не стоит под этим же брендом производить соки или что-то ещё, ибо это заранее проигрышная стратегия. Потребители ассоциируют данный бренд только с колой. Попытка продать что-то ещё, равнозначна попытке продать ресторан высокой французской кухни под брендом «McDonald's».
5. О невозможности повлиять на отток клиентов (и бессмысленности работы с жалобами) + пример из банковской сферы. Во-первых, банковская сфера крайне конкурентная сфера, ибо тут практически невозможно выделиться своей услугой (отпозиционироваться), а поэтому ссылаться на неё - не корректно. Во-вторых, авторы рассматривают отток как фактор, который абсолютно не зависит от деятельности компании, однако если мы вспомним многочисленные истории, когда компания игнорировала жалобы клиентов или когда снижали качество товаров или услуг, то вспомним, что на вершине успеха таких компаний просто нет (если это не монополия). Все кто игнорировали клиентов, в конечном итоге, не достигали каких-либо высоких результатов. В третьих, существуют контрпримеры: рестораны с плохим обслуживанием и/или невкусной или непримечательной едой или отели с грязными комнатами. Т.е. если вы игнорируете жалобы клиентов, а также самих клиентов, руководствуясь, как предлагает автор, принципом «всё равно новые клиенты придут», то ваш бизнес обречён, если не на быструю гибель, то на медленную, в зависимости от силы конкурентов.
6. Автор неправильно интерпретирует мысль Котлера, что массовый маркетинг мёртв. Котлер таких идей не высказывал. Он пишет, что из-за массового наплыва разнообразных брендов, которые отличаются друг от друга крайне слабо, компаниям приходиться придумывает бренды ориентированные на очень узкую аудиторию – крафтовое пиво, соевые продукты – которые просто бессмысленно рекламировать на ТВ, билбордах, газетах (типа New York Times) и пр., т.к. затраты не будут покрывать прибыль из-за того, что лишь очень небольшой процент покупает узконаправленные товары и услуги. Следовательно, нужно определить, кто именно покупает наш товар, и где мы их можем встретить (фестиваль крафтового пива) и предложить там им свой товар посредством рекламы или PR. То, что автор приводит в качестве примера такой массовый продукт (возможно, самый массовый продукт на земле) как Coca-Cola, просто не выдерживает никакой критики. Это настолько очевидная манипуляция читателем, что в это просто не верится. Во-вторых, автор ссылается на закон Парето, определяя его в качестве важнейшего фактора в маркетинге («играет важную роль»), что является не правдой. Закон Парето опционален. Он может быть в книге по маркетингу, но может и не быть.
7. В примере с шоколадным батончиком, который позиционируется - «не для девчонок», автор пишет, что данные показывают, что его покупают и женщины и что таких около 50%. Следовательно, нет смысла нацеливаться на какую-то одну категорию покупателей и что маркетологи предполагая, что их бренд будут покупать строго определённые группы людей, бывают неприятно удивлены, когда оказывается, что бренд покупают также те, о которых они совершенно не думали. Это известный эффект и странно что автор книги о нём не знает. Действительно, бывают ситуации, когда предполагается, что бренд будут покупать исключительно мачо-подобные мужчины, а в реальности половина покупателей – хрупкие женщины. Следовательно, вслед за автором книги, мы должны сказать: «Немедленно поменяйте маркетинговую стратегию! Раз бренд покупают и женщины, значит, и их мы должны накрыть своей деятельностью!». Так? Не так. Совсем не так и что-то менять, было бы непростительной ошибкой. Дело в том, что когда бренд позиционируется исключительно для мачо, вовсе необязательно, что только мачо будут его покупать. Его будут покупать те, кто по совершенно разным причинам хотят испытать это опыт (возможно, будучи хрупкой женщиной, покупательница хочет приобщиться к стилю мачо или он ей напоминает о её бойфренде или она сама ощущает себя мачо или ещё что-то). Во-вторых, сами мачо, которые покупают данный бренд, являются также лидерами мнений, экспертами. Поэтому человек, который совершенно не подходит к данной группе, но который хочет всё же состоять в ней (худой очкарик-профессор, например), будет искать информацию у настоящих мачо с целью определить, какой бренд нужно покупать, чтобы быть или выглядеть как мачо. Следовательно, ни в коем случаи нельзя менять маркетинговую стратегию и переориентироваться на массы. И, разумеется, об этом автор умалчивает.
В общем, это не последние нестыковки, которые я обнаружил, но самые заметные. Я бы ещё добавил, коротко, такие два факта как: автор пишет только и исключительно только о крупных брендах, приводя их в пример. Только Coca-Cola, Pepsi и пр. Второй момент заключается в том, что всю книгу съела критика Котлера и др. маркетологов. Поэтому очень мало что автор предлагает в качестве своего собственного решения. По сути, он предлагает только две вещи, в качестве успеха: инновационный продукт и большой кошелёк. Если у вас нет ни того ни другого, то, увы.
The author devotes 30-35 pages of the first part of the book to the theme "Everything you knew before is a lie and I will open your eyes to the truth". Such manipulation is not uncommon. Both lecturers and book authors who want to catch the gullible mind on the hook use similar manipulative tactics, promising the reader to reveal an important secret hidden from them until today. Further I will try to be as concise as possible, but also as much as possible to offer the counterarguments to positions of the author, whose ideas I will try to quote briefly.
The author mentions Philip Kotler, attributing to him either the idea or the book "Differentiate or Die" In fact, Kotler does not offer any such idea. In his main book, which is the marketing bible, "Marketing. Management", such an idea does not exist and cannot be, because Kotler does not offer a solution, but describes the phenomenon of marketing, the scheme, offers a framework, describes marketing as such. Solutions offer business books on 200-300 pages. Kotler's book is an academic textbook, where dozens of theories from hundreds of books on business are collected. Kotler describes the problem, but does not offer a direct solution.
2) Where the author writes "loyalty vs. market penetration". Alas, but the author has misunderstood something. Numerous books on marketing do not write that it is necessary to be engaged only in loyalty. They write that loyalty is a guarantee against reduction of net profit. It is not to fall below, but not to rise above. To rise above it, to increase net profit, it is necessary to engage in penetration into the market, i.e. to increase the number of consumers as such. In other words, numerous marketing books offer not "or" as the author tries to imagine, but "and ".
3) The author writes that niche brands should have extremely loyal customers. Not necessarily. This brand, due to its narrow focus, may be, for example, a monopolist or have as many loyal customers as a regular brand due to the lack of strict adherence to customers in this category (genome-modified banana, which is more like an apple than the usual banana, may enjoy relative popularity due to the new and interesting taste).
4. Cross selling (encouraging existing customers to buy different products under the same brand). The author for some reason proves that this is an error. However, Al Ries and Jack Trout, world-famous marketers, wrote at the end of the XX century that one brand - one product (one position in the mind), i.e., if Coca-Cola produces coke, it should not produce juices or something else under the same brand, because it is a losing strategy. Consumers associate this brand only with cola. An attempt to sell something else is tantamount to an attempt to sell a restaurant of high French cuisine under the brand "McDonald's".
5. About impossibility to influence outflow of clients (and senselessness of work with complaints) + an example from bank sphere. Firstly, the banking sector is extremely competitive, because here it is almost impossible to stand out with its service and therefore it is not correct to refer to it. Secondly, the authors consider the outflow as a factor that does not depend on the company's activity, but if we remember the numerous stories, when the company ignored customers' complaints or when the quality of goods or services was reduced, we will remember that there is simply no such companies at the top of their success (if it is not a monopoly). All those who ignored customers did not eventually achieve any high results. Third, there are counter-examples: restaurants with poor service and/or inappropriate or unremarkable food, or hotels with dirty rooms. That is, if you ignore the complaints of customers, as well as the customers themselves, guided, as the author suggests, by the principle of "new customers will come anyway", then your business is doomed, if not to a quick death, then to a slow, depending on the strength of the competitors.
6. The author misinterprets Kotler's idea that mass marketing is dead. Kotler did not express such ideas. He writes that because of the mass influx of various brands, which differ from each other very little, companies have to invent brands focused on a very narrow audience - kraft beer, soybean products - which simply meaninglessly advertise on TV, billboards, newspapers (such as the New York Times), etc., because the costs will not cover the profits due to the fact that only a very small percentage of buyers acquire narrowly focused goods and services. Therefore, we need to determine who buys our products and where we can meet them (Kraft Beer Festival) and offer them our products through advertising or PR. The fact that the author gives an example of such a mass product (perhaps the most mass product on earth) as Coca-Cola, simply does not stand up to any criticism. This is such an obvious manipulation by the reader that it is simply not believed. Second, the author refers to Pareto's law, defining it as the most important factor in marketing ("plays an important role"), which is not true. The Pareto Act is optional. It may or may not be in a marketing book.
7. In the example of a chocolate bar that is positioned "not for girls", the author writes that the data shows that it is also bought by women and that there are about 50% of them. Therefore, there is no point in targeting one category of customers and that marketers, assuming that their brand will be bought by strictly defined groups of people, are unpleasantly surprised when it turns out that the brand is also bought by those they did not think about at all. This is a known effect and it is strange that the author of the book does not know about it. Indeed, there are situations where it is assumed that the brand will be bought exclusively by macho-like men, and in reality half of the buyers are fragile women. Therefore, following the author of the book, we must say: "Change your marketing strategy immediately! If the brand is also bought by women, it means that we have to cover them with our activities!" Is that right? Wrong. It would be an unforgivable mistake to change something at all. The fact is that when a brand is positioned exclusively for macho, it is not necessary that only macho will buy it. It will be bought by those who want to experience this feeling for a variety of reasons (perhaps as a fragile woman, the customer wants to join the macho style, or it reminds her of her boyfriend or she feels like a macho or something else). Second, the macho themselves, who buy the brand, are also an opinion leaders, experts. Therefore, a person who is completely unsuitable for the group, but still wants to be a member of it (a skinny spectacle professor, for example), will look for information from a real macho in order to determine which brand to buy in order to be or look like a macho. Therefore, you should never change your marketing strategy and reorient yourself towards masses. And, of course, the author is silent about it.
In general, these are not the last inconsistencies that I have found, but the most noticeable. I would also add, briefly, two facts such as: the author writes only and exclusively about large brands, citing them as an example. Only Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc. The second point is that the whole book was eaten by the critics of Kotler and other marketers. Therefore, the author offers very little as his own solution. In fact, he offers only two things as a success: an innovative product and a large wallet. If you don't have either, alas.
Целых 30-35 первых страниц книги автор посвящает теме «Всё, что вы знали ранее – ложь и именно я вам открою глаза на правду». Такая манипуляция – не редкость. И лекторы, и авторы книг, которые хотят поймать доверчивый ум на крючок, используют похожие манипулятивные тактики, обещая читателю открыть важную и до сего дня скрываемую от них тайну. Далее я постараюсь максимально сжато, но и максимально полно предложить свои контраргументы позициям автора, чьи идеи я постараюсь коротко процитировать.
1. Автор упоминает Ф. Котлера, приписывая ему то ли идею, то ли книгу «Дифференцируйся или умирай!». На самом деле Котлер не предлагает никакой подобной идеи. В его главное книге, являющейся библией маркетинга, «Маркетинг. Менеджмент», подобной идеи нет и быть не может, ибо Котлер не предлагает решения, но описывает само явление маркетинга, схему, предлагает каркас, описывает маркетинг как таковой. Решения же предлагают бизнес-книги на 200-300 страниц. Книга Котлера – академический учебник, где собраны десятки теорий из сотен книг по бизнесу. Котлер – описывает проблему, но не предлагает непосредственного (одного, единственно верного) решения.
2. Там, где автор пишет «лояльность vs проникновение на рынок». Увы, но автор что-то не так понял. Многочисленные книги по маркетингу не пишут, что нужно заниматься только лояльностью. Они пишут, что лояльность, это гарантия от сокращения чистой прибыли. Это - чтобы не упасть ниже, но никак не подняться выше. Чтобы подняться выше, увеличить чистую прибыль, нужно как раз заниматься проникновением на рынок, т.е. увеличивать количество потребителей как таковых. Другими словами, многочисленные книги по маркетингу предлагают не «или», как это пытается представить автор, а «и».
3. Автор пишет, что нишевые бренды должны иметь чрезвычайно лояльных клиентов. Не обязательно. Данный бренд, в связи с его узкой направленностью, может быть, к примеру, монополистом или иметь столько же лояльных потребителей, как и обычный бренд благодаря отсутствию строгой приверженности покупателей в данной категории (геномодифицированный банан, который больше похож на яблоко, чем на привычный нам банан, может пользоваться относительной популярностью ввиду нового и интересного вкуса).
4. Перекрёстные продажи (побуждать имеющихся клиентов покупать различные продукты под одним брендом). Автор зачем-то доказывает, что это ошибка. Однако ещё Райс и Траут, всемирно знаменитые маркетологи, в конце XX века писали, что один бренд – один товар (одна позиция в сознании), т.е. если Coca-Cola производит колу, то ей не стоит под этим же брендом производить соки или что-то ещё, ибо это заранее проигрышная стратегия. Потребители ассоциируют данный бренд только с колой. Попытка продать что-то ещё, равнозначна попытке продать ресторан высокой французской кухни под брендом «McDonald's».
5. О невозможности повлиять на отток клиентов (и бессмысленности работы с жалобами) + пример из банковской сферы. Во-первых, банковская сфера крайне конкурентная сфера, ибо тут практически невозможно выделиться своей услугой (отпозиционироваться), а поэтому ссылаться на неё - не корректно. Во-вторых, авторы рассматривают отток как фактор, который абсолютно не зависит от деятельности компании, однако если мы вспомним многочисленные истории, когда компания игнорировала жалобы клиентов или когда снижали качество товаров или услуг, то вспомним, что на вершине успеха таких компаний просто нет (если это не монополия). Все кто игнорировали клиентов, в конечном итоге, не достигали каких-либо высоких результатов. В третьих, существуют контрпримеры: рестораны с плохим обслуживанием и/или невкусной или непримечательной едой или отели с грязными комнатами. Т.е. если вы игнорируете жалобы клиентов, а также самих клиентов, руководствуясь, как предлагает автор, принципом «всё равно новые клиенты придут», то ваш бизнес обречён, если не на быструю гибель, то на медленную, в зависимости от силы конкурентов.
6. Автор неправильно интерпретирует мысль Котлера, что массовый маркетинг мёртв. Котлер таких идей не высказывал. Он пишет, что из-за массового наплыва разнообразных брендов, которые отличаются друг от друга крайне слабо, компаниям приходиться придумывает бренды ориентированные на очень узкую аудиторию – крафтовое пиво, соевые продукты – которые просто бессмысленно рекламировать на ТВ, билбордах, газетах (типа New York Times) и пр., т.к. затраты не будут покрывать прибыль из-за того, что лишь очень небольшой процент покупает узконаправленные товары и услуги. Следовательно, нужно определить, кто именно покупает наш товар, и где мы их можем встретить (фестиваль крафтового пива) и предложить там им свой товар посредством рекламы или PR. То, что автор приводит в качестве примера такой массовый продукт (возможно, самый массовый продукт на земле) как Coca-Cola, просто не выдерживает никакой критики. Это настолько очевидная манипуляция читателем, что в это просто не верится. Во-вторых, автор ссылается на закон Парето, определяя его в качестве важнейшего фактора в маркетинге («играет важную роль»), что является не правдой. Закон Парето опционален. Он может быть в книге по маркетингу, но может и не быть.
7. В примере с шоколадным батончиком, который позиционируется - «не для девчонок», автор пишет, что данные показывают, что его покупают и женщины и что таких около 50%. Следовательно, нет смысла нацеливаться на какую-то одну категорию покупателей и что маркетологи предполагая, что их бренд будут покупать строго определённые группы людей, бывают неприятно удивлены, когда оказывается, что бренд покупают также те, о которых они совершенно не думали. Это известный эффект и странно что автор книги о нём не знает. Действительно, бывают ситуации, когда предполагается, что бренд будут покупать исключительно мачо-подобные мужчины, а в реальности половина покупателей – хрупкие женщины. Следовательно, вслед за автором книги, мы должны сказать: «Немедленно поменяйте маркетинговую стратегию! Раз бренд покупают и женщины, значит, и их мы должны накрыть своей деятельностью!». Так? Не так. Совсем не так и что-то менять, было бы непростительной ошибкой. Дело в том, что когда бренд позиционируется исключительно для мачо, вовсе необязательно, что только мачо будут его покупать. Его будут покупать те, кто по совершенно разным причинам хотят испытать это опыт (возможно, будучи хрупкой женщиной, покупательница хочет приобщиться к стилю мачо или он ей напоминает о её бойфренде или она сама ощущает себя мачо или ещё что-то). Во-вторых, сами мачо, которые покупают данный бренд, являются также лидерами мнений, экспертами. Поэтому человек, который совершенно не подходит к данной группе, но который хочет всё же состоять в ней (худой очкарик-профессор, например), будет искать информацию у настоящих мачо с целью определить, какой бренд нужно покупать, чтобы быть или выглядеть как мачо. Следовательно, ни в коем случаи нельзя менять маркетинговую стратегию и переориентироваться на массы. И, разумеется, об этом автор умалчивает.
В общем, это не последние нестыковки, которые я обнаружил, но самые заметные. Я бы ещё добавил, коротко, такие два факта как: автор пишет только и исключительно только о крупных брендах, приводя их в пример. Только Coca-Cola, Pepsi и пр. Второй момент заключается в том, что всю книгу съела критика Котлера и др. маркетологов. Поэтому очень мало что автор предлагает в качестве своего собственного решения. По сути, он предлагает только две вещи, в качестве успеха: инновационный продукт и большой кошелёк. Если у вас нет ни того ни другого, то, увы.
The author devotes 30-35 pages of the first part of the book to the theme "Everything you knew before is a lie and I will open your eyes to the truth". Such manipulation is not uncommon. Both lecturers and book authors who want to catch the gullible mind on the hook use similar manipulative tactics, promising the reader to reveal an important secret hidden from them until today. Further I will try to be as concise as possible, but also as much as possible to offer the counterarguments to positions of the author, whose ideas I will try to quote briefly.
The author mentions Philip Kotler, attributing to him either the idea or the book "Differentiate or Die" In fact, Kotler does not offer any such idea. In his main book, which is the marketing bible, "Marketing. Management", such an idea does not exist and cannot be, because Kotler does not offer a solution, but describes the phenomenon of marketing, the scheme, offers a framework, describes marketing as such. Solutions offer business books on 200-300 pages. Kotler's book is an academic textbook, where dozens of theories from hundreds of books on business are collected. Kotler describes the problem, but does not offer a direct solution.
2) Where the author writes "loyalty vs. market penetration". Alas, but the author has misunderstood something. Numerous books on marketing do not write that it is necessary to be engaged only in loyalty. They write that loyalty is a guarantee against reduction of net profit. It is not to fall below, but not to rise above. To rise above it, to increase net profit, it is necessary to engage in penetration into the market, i.e. to increase the number of consumers as such. In other words, numerous marketing books offer not "or" as the author tries to imagine, but "and ".
3) The author writes that niche brands should have extremely loyal customers. Not necessarily. This brand, due to its narrow focus, may be, for example, a monopolist or have as many loyal customers as a regular brand due to the lack of strict adherence to customers in this category (genome-modified banana, which is more like an apple than the usual banana, may enjoy relative popularity due to the new and interesting taste).
4. Cross selling (encouraging existing customers to buy different products under the same brand). The author for some reason proves that this is an error. However, Al Ries and Jack Trout, world-famous marketers, wrote at the end of the XX century that one brand - one product (one position in the mind), i.e., if Coca-Cola produces coke, it should not produce juices or something else under the same brand, because it is a losing strategy. Consumers associate this brand only with cola. An attempt to sell something else is tantamount to an attempt to sell a restaurant of high French cuisine under the brand "McDonald's".
5. About impossibility to influence outflow of clients (and senselessness of work with complaints) + an example from bank sphere. Firstly, the banking sector is extremely competitive, because here it is almost impossible to stand out with its service and therefore it is not correct to refer to it. Secondly, the authors consider the outflow as a factor that does not depend on the company's activity, but if we remember the numerous stories, when the company ignored customers' complaints or when the quality of goods or services was reduced, we will remember that there is simply no such companies at the top of their success (if it is not a monopoly). All those who ignored customers did not eventually achieve any high results. Third, there are counter-examples: restaurants with poor service and/or inappropriate or unremarkable food, or hotels with dirty rooms. That is, if you ignore the complaints of customers, as well as the customers themselves, guided, as the author suggests, by the principle of "new customers will come anyway", then your business is doomed, if not to a quick death, then to a slow, depending on the strength of the competitors.
6. The author misinterprets Kotler's idea that mass marketing is dead. Kotler did not express such ideas. He writes that because of the mass influx of various brands, which differ from each other very little, companies have to invent brands focused on a very narrow audience - kraft beer, soybean products - which simply meaninglessly advertise on TV, billboards, newspapers (such as the New York Times), etc., because the costs will not cover the profits due to the fact that only a very small percentage of buyers acquire narrowly focused goods and services. Therefore, we need to determine who buys our products and where we can meet them (Kraft Beer Festival) and offer them our products through advertising or PR. The fact that the author gives an example of such a mass product (perhaps the most mass product on earth) as Coca-Cola, simply does not stand up to any criticism. This is such an obvious manipulation by the reader that it is simply not believed. Second, the author refers to Pareto's law, defining it as the most important factor in marketing ("plays an important role"), which is not true. The Pareto Act is optional. It may or may not be in a marketing book.
7. In the example of a chocolate bar that is positioned "not for girls", the author writes that the data shows that it is also bought by women and that there are about 50% of them. Therefore, there is no point in targeting one category of customers and that marketers, assuming that their brand will be bought by strictly defined groups of people, are unpleasantly surprised when it turns out that the brand is also bought by those they did not think about at all. This is a known effect and it is strange that the author of the book does not know about it. Indeed, there are situations where it is assumed that the brand will be bought exclusively by macho-like men, and in reality half of the buyers are fragile women. Therefore, following the author of the book, we must say: "Change your marketing strategy immediately! If the brand is also bought by women, it means that we have to cover them with our activities!" Is that right? Wrong. It would be an unforgivable mistake to change something at all. The fact is that when a brand is positioned exclusively for macho, it is not necessary that only macho will buy it. It will be bought by those who want to experience this feeling for a variety of reasons (perhaps as a fragile woman, the customer wants to join the macho style, or it reminds her of her boyfriend or she feels like a macho or something else). Second, the macho themselves, who buy the brand, are also an opinion leaders, experts. Therefore, a person who is completely unsuitable for the group, but still wants to be a member of it (a skinny spectacle professor, for example), will look for information from a real macho in order to determine which brand to buy in order to be or look like a macho. Therefore, you should never change your marketing strategy and reorient yourself towards masses. And, of course, the author is silent about it.
In general, these are not the last inconsistencies that I have found, but the most noticeable. I would also add, briefly, two facts such as: the author writes only and exclusively about large brands, citing them as an example. Only Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc. The second point is that the whole book was eaten by the critics of Kotler and other marketers. Therefore, the author offers very little as his own solution. In fact, he offers only two things as a success: an innovative product and a large wallet. If you don't have either, alas.
February 5, 2020
Having some marketing experience and work for advertising, this book is somewhat an eye opener. I believe this is a must read for all marketing (and related categories) people.
July 13, 2018
Классная книга, очень свежый взгляд на маркетинг с новым подходом
March 4, 2021
Look. Finished. I still don't understand how distinctiveness isn't a form of differentiation. The man argues that you shouldn't get caught up in the meaning of words but I think he has a different meaning of differentiation than I do.
He's an INCREDIBLY self-important writer. So happy to sneer at what has gone before him except if it supports his views.
The book comes across as internally inconsistent. It derides case studies with no proof but then provides anecdotal case studies with no proof. It fails to provide backup for many (MANY) of its claims. It intentionally misconstrues, obstructs or oversimplifies the truth. (Yes, I'm aware I probably need to provide proof of what I'm saying but honestly I'm not the academic and this book left me tired.)
It's heavily geared to FMCG. He has a pedantic obsession with mass marketing and a lot of the specifics of his recommendations haven't aged well (TV is great because reach.) Nothing about WOM, social proof, influencers, digital marketing, what does accessibility mean in the digital age, etc. There are many astronomically successful brands that have never had a second in a major supermarket.
HEAVILY focused on sales, particularly frequency of sales. I can't help but think that, according to this bloke, I'm not a loyal Apple user because I haven't bought anything recently. This is where the success and quality of the product and considering things POST PURCHASE come in mate. I've had the same computer since 2014 because it still runs all the programs I need it to run without a blip. Why would I replace it if it's still going strong? (To be fair, I was probably something closer to a fangirl for a long, long time, but now am a continuing customer due to inertia — it's too inconvenient for me to change — and because I hate the look and function of pretty much everything else on the market. At least when it comes to computers. Nothing to do with seeing the company with heart eyes emojis.)
I can't help but think he'd be one of those guys who advocates for reducing the quality to increase the frequency of purchase.
Hard to walk away and not think: if you're new, don't even bother trying. If you're small, shut up shop now. If you can't get in a supermarket you're irrelevant. (None of this is true, by the way).
He gets two stars because some of the points are great. Most of it is nowhere near as good as he thinks it is.
He's an INCREDIBLY self-important writer. So happy to sneer at what has gone before him except if it supports his views.
The book comes across as internally inconsistent. It derides case studies with no proof but then provides anecdotal case studies with no proof. It fails to provide backup for many (MANY) of its claims. It intentionally misconstrues, obstructs or oversimplifies the truth. (Yes, I'm aware I probably need to provide proof of what I'm saying but honestly I'm not the academic and this book left me tired.)
It's heavily geared to FMCG. He has a pedantic obsession with mass marketing and a lot of the specifics of his recommendations haven't aged well (TV is great because reach.) Nothing about WOM, social proof, influencers, digital marketing, what does accessibility mean in the digital age, etc. There are many astronomically successful brands that have never had a second in a major supermarket.
HEAVILY focused on sales, particularly frequency of sales. I can't help but think that, according to this bloke, I'm not a loyal Apple user because I haven't bought anything recently. This is where the success and quality of the product and considering things POST PURCHASE come in mate. I've had the same computer since 2014 because it still runs all the programs I need it to run without a blip. Why would I replace it if it's still going strong? (To be fair, I was probably something closer to a fangirl for a long, long time, but now am a continuing customer due to inertia — it's too inconvenient for me to change — and because I hate the look and function of pretty much everything else on the market. At least when it comes to computers. Nothing to do with seeing the company with heart eyes emojis.)
I can't help but think he'd be one of those guys who advocates for reducing the quality to increase the frequency of purchase.
Hard to walk away and not think: if you're new, don't even bother trying. If you're small, shut up shop now. If you can't get in a supermarket you're irrelevant. (None of this is true, by the way).
He gets two stars because some of the points are great. Most of it is nowhere near as good as he thinks it is.
April 21, 2018
Out of date and full of obvious 'lessons' that make you go, "Well you don't say..."
April 5, 2011
Excellent and very, very challenging. Especially humbling for marketers in its stark reminder that the consumer's primary goal in life is NOT bonding with our products. And all the things this reality leads to.
At times, the book is written with the flighty shallowness of modern business books. Sadly, it may be that the publisher feared losing readers with a deeper and more serious analysis of the variants being considered. And it might have. Sad that despite spending hundreds of millions, ad agencies aren't filled with people who have serious curiosity about how the world works.
I'd caution how far you take his conclusions about Differentiation and Persuasion. Sharp draws firm conclusions that fit the broadest of brand advertisers. But there are also times when at least the processes of (good) differentiation and persuasion work are critical to brand success.
Of particular value is the last chapter where he lays out his recommendation for what you should do to grow your brand. There is some exceptionally good thinking in this part.
So I find it's a "must read" that should change modern marketing. And read it with care in a few sections.
At times, the book is written with the flighty shallowness of modern business books. Sadly, it may be that the publisher feared losing readers with a deeper and more serious analysis of the variants being considered. And it might have. Sad that despite spending hundreds of millions, ad agencies aren't filled with people who have serious curiosity about how the world works.
I'd caution how far you take his conclusions about Differentiation and Persuasion. Sharp draws firm conclusions that fit the broadest of brand advertisers. But there are also times when at least the processes of (good) differentiation and persuasion work are critical to brand success.
Of particular value is the last chapter where he lays out his recommendation for what you should do to grow your brand. There is some exceptionally good thinking in this part.
So I find it's a "must read" that should change modern marketing. And read it with care in a few sections.
February 9, 2021
As a marketer, I almost never enjoy marketing books: they generalize, over-simplify, and pull a lot of bullshit in order to come up with clean and easy-to-digest concepts that will sell books. Most of all, I struggle to find a connection with the actual work that's happening inside companies. I particularly dislike Kotler, which is still tauted as a marketing god in universities.
This book caught me by surprise. It takes common marketing wisdom and methodically dispels it with data. It was so refreshing and provided a lot of 'Thank you, I knew that was bullshit!' moments. The examples in the book are more relevant to large consumer brands, but the principles are evergreen. This is probably the only marketing book I would come back and re-read.
This book caught me by surprise. It takes common marketing wisdom and methodically dispels it with data. It was so refreshing and provided a lot of 'Thank you, I knew that was bullshit!' moments. The examples in the book are more relevant to large consumer brands, but the principles are evergreen. This is probably the only marketing book I would come back and re-read.
June 14, 2023
Táto kniha ma naučila, že ebooky sú moja najmenej obľúbená forma čítania 😃
Každopádne, Byron Sharp napísal Bibliu pre aktuálnu generáciu marketérov, ktorá búra zaužívané poučky z marketingových škol od Philipa Kotlera. Sharp sa voči Kotlerovi jasne vyhraňuje.
Ako sa budujú značky je kniha, ktorá znamená prelom v marketingovej vede a odporučil by som ju ako darček všetkým ľudom na marketingových oddeleniach firiem, ktorí stále špekulujú, hľadajú spôsoby, ako byť iní, namiesto toho, aby si zvolili jasné posolstvo, výrazný branding a poriadne investovali do reklamy a vizibility na mieste predaja.
Knihu som čítal v českom preklade, miestami mi prišla nezrozumiteľná, ale posledných asi 40 strán veľmi dobre zosumarizovalo všetky posolstvá a prístupy, ktoré by ste si z nej mali odniesť.
Svojim skorším vydaním v podstate ignoruje reklamu v digitálnom svete. V knižnici ma ale čaká aj druhý diel, tak verím, že bude o niečo aktuálnejší.
Určite odporúčam ako dôležité čítanie pre ľudí v marketingu a reklame spolu s How not to plan od Lesa Bineta.
Každopádne, Byron Sharp napísal Bibliu pre aktuálnu generáciu marketérov, ktorá búra zaužívané poučky z marketingových škol od Philipa Kotlera. Sharp sa voči Kotlerovi jasne vyhraňuje.
Ako sa budujú značky je kniha, ktorá znamená prelom v marketingovej vede a odporučil by som ju ako darček všetkým ľudom na marketingových oddeleniach firiem, ktorí stále špekulujú, hľadajú spôsoby, ako byť iní, namiesto toho, aby si zvolili jasné posolstvo, výrazný branding a poriadne investovali do reklamy a vizibility na mieste predaja.
Knihu som čítal v českom preklade, miestami mi prišla nezrozumiteľná, ale posledných asi 40 strán veľmi dobre zosumarizovalo všetky posolstvá a prístupy, ktoré by ste si z nej mali odniesť.
Svojim skorším vydaním v podstate ignoruje reklamu v digitálnom svete. V knižnici ma ale čaká aj druhý diel, tak verím, že bude o niečo aktuálnejší.
Určite odporúčam ako dôležité čítanie pre ľudí v marketingu a reklame spolu s How not to plan od Lesa Bineta.
September 11, 2019
По просьбе издательства отступил от правила не читать профессиональную литературу. И немедленно пожалел об этом.
Книга Шарпа "Как растут бренды" произвела на меня впечатление чтения, которое лучше прекращать как можно ближе к началу.
Шарп решил примерить халат врача в психушке и неожиданно объявил маркетинг "наукой".
Вместо научного метода Шарп использует метод художественного трепа, искренне считая, что употребление слова "закон" по отношению к своим домыслам и есть наука. Но наукообразность делает книгу не только бесполезной, но и унылой.
Шарп не только сильно ограничен рынками, но и сознательно использует лишь локальные примеры, подкрепляющие по его мнению, высказанные предположения.
При этом он постоянно ссылается на неких "маркетологов", опровергая их мнение. Излишне говорить, что таких маркетологов в природе нет. Это близкие родственники "учёных", которых опровергает Талеб.
Перефразируя анекдот про новое и интересное, можно сказать, что в книге много разумного и нового. Вот только все разумное не ново, а новое - неразумно и бездоказательно.
Хоть глав в книге и не очень много, даже в них автор умудряется сам себе противоречить.
Книга щедро снабжена спекулятивными кабинетными наблюдениями, поданными под соусом аксиом, а также пересыпана ссылками на Apple, Nike, McDonalds, Adidas и другие известные бренды.
В результате обещанный в первой главе подрыв устоев очень быстро превращается в рулон обоев.
Если вам нравится Нассим Талеб и лекция Остапа Бендера по шахматам, вы должны прочитать Шарпа.
Если вы сохраняете здравость ума, обладаете опытом в маркетинге и критическим мышлением - не тратьте своего времени
Книга Шарпа "Как растут бренды" произвела на меня впечатление чтения, которое лучше прекращать как можно ближе к началу.
Шарп решил примерить халат врача в психушке и неожиданно объявил маркетинг "наукой".
Вместо научного метода Шарп использует метод художественного трепа, искренне считая, что употребление слова "закон" по отношению к своим домыслам и есть наука. Но наукообразность делает книгу не только бесполезной, но и унылой.
Шарп не только сильно ограничен рынками, но и сознательно использует лишь локальные примеры, подкрепляющие по его мнению, высказанные предположения.
При этом он постоянно ссылается на неких "маркетологов", опровергая их мнение. Излишне говорить, что таких маркетологов в природе нет. Это близкие родственники "учёных", которых опровергает Талеб.
Перефразируя анекдот про новое и интересное, можно сказать, что в книге много разумного и нового. Вот только все разумное не ново, а новое - неразумно и бездоказательно.
Хоть глав в книге и не очень много, даже в них автор умудряется сам себе противоречить.
Книга щедро снабжена спекулятивными кабинетными наблюдениями, поданными под соусом аксиом, а также пересыпана ссылками на Apple, Nike, McDonalds, Adidas и другие известные бренды.
В результате обещанный в первой главе подрыв устоев очень быстро превращается в рулон обоев.
Если вам нравится Нассим Талеб и лекция Остапа Бендера по шахматам, вы должны прочитать Шарпа.
Если вы сохраняете здравость ума, обладаете опытом в маркетинге и критическим мышлением - не тратьте своего времени
July 5, 2020
A provocative yet outdated perspective on how brands grow. A better title might be, How Large CPG Brands Stay Large. This book was written before e-commerce and online advertising shifted how media is bought and how consumers consume media. And before disruptor, DNVB, and DTC brands exploded. I think many of the principles are solid, like even your most loyal buyers are not 100% loyal. As a read, it was repetitive and stale. It was not based on many meta-analyses, so the conclusions seem more like hypotheses than true facts.
June 6, 2021
Značajna i loše napisana knjiga. Siže staje u jedan pasus ili čeklistu predrkano dizajniranu da se okači marketing direktoru u kanc. A valjalo bi, jer se knjiga bavi najcescim marketinskim taktikama i zasto NE rade.
Deo "sta radi" dobija dosta manje paznje, i po pasusima i dubini analize. Zato bi tačniji naziv bio "How brands DON'T grow." Ima 4 autora i svaki pise vidno drugacije.
Medjutim, ima tu dovoljno objasnjenih 7 tacaka koji bi unapredili 90% marketing strategija na tržištu.
Preporučujem i pored WordArt Office 98 templejt dizajna...a to je za mene veliki ustupak.
Deo "sta radi" dobija dosta manje paznje, i po pasusima i dubini analize. Zato bi tačniji naziv bio "How brands DON'T grow." Ima 4 autora i svaki pise vidno drugacije.
Medjutim, ima tu dovoljno objasnjenih 7 tacaka koji bi unapredili 90% marketing strategija na tržištu.
Preporučujem i pored WordArt Office 98 templejt dizajna...a to je za mene veliki ustupak.
July 5, 2019
If there wasnt second part of the book I would give it 2 stars
Proclaimed mythbusting marketing book which at some parts used very wisely chosen data to prove everything you knew about marketing was wrong.
Proclaimed mythbusting marketing book which at some parts used very wisely chosen data to prove everything you knew about marketing was wrong.
March 10, 2019
Doesn't age well. The author's claims don't translate to the digital age where you can actually back up and measure your impact by numbers.
February 12, 2022
My first exposure to Sharp's work came from a series of white papers forwarded to me from some colleagues I respect very much. In the white papers, he talks about his marketing laws, such as the Law of Double Jeopardy. This was my first red flag; setting aside the legal definition of a law, the scientific definition of a law has a mathematical formula and has yet to be proven wrong, such as the Law of Gravity. With this definition in mind, to my knowledge, nothing in marketing has ever reached or will reach the status of a "law" because what we do is not fully mathematical and, even if it was, there isn't enough research to prove that what he's suggesting right every time. In addition, in Chapter 3 (page 35, referencing Riebe 2003), he points out how his Double Jeopardy law doesn't seem to apply to the shampoo category, which alone proves that it isn't a "law" since it's not true in every instance.
Even with this, I went into this book with an open mind. And, to be fair, I do think he has some good ideas that those of us in the marketing profession need to seriously consider. For example, we shouldn't always consider "brand loyalty" as the end-all of growth and he correctly challenges us to reconsider that stance. With that said, reading his book, I became very concerned about his positioning of traditional marketing and his use of misleading data to prove his points and cannot, in good conscience, recommend this book.
Sharp's book is written in a tone that's evocative and positions him as the bringer of truth to a profession that doesn't have it. He also positions marketers as very rigid rule-followers who aren't open to new ideas. This struck me as an over-sensationalism marketing tactic at best and intentionally misleading at worst. And it shelters him from marketing experts criticizing his work because he can always claim that they don't want to see the truth. For example, in the first sentence of Chapter 4, he writes, "Smart marketers know they need to reach all buyers (i.e. buyers of the category, and everyone from light to heavy buyers of a brand) in order to reinforce buying propensities, and to win new sales." What he's implied by this is, any marketer who doesn't agree with him isn't "smart." Examples like this abound in the book.
Sharp claims that his work is for "marketers who are willing to learn new things based on classical science" (preface page 13) but does very little to provide the validity of his "classical science." He also notes that he's "attempted to give a good feel for the empirical data and how the analysis was done" (page 15). However, he cites very few peer-reviewed data sets or academic papers, his footnotes are his digressions vs. references to studies (more on this later), he very rarely cites any research other than his own or that of the institute he works for and, as previously noted, he uses the "classical science" definition of the word "law" incorrectly.
Another example of him varying from his claim that his book is based on "classical science" is his graphs. The way he represents the graphs in his book is a very common (sadly) technique that misrepresents data by modifying the y axis. For example, on page 1 of his book, he shows the market share of Crest vs. Colgate (in 1989) but the % of market share in the graph is modified from 0-100 to 0-40. This leads the viewer of the graph to perceive there is a much more significant gap in market share between these two brands than there is. An even more extreme example of misrepresenting data in Figure 4.3 in Chapter 4 (page 43) where he's modified the Percentage of US Households y-axis to be 0-12 vs. 0-100, which misleads the viewer to think there is a much more significant gap between light and heavy purchasers of Coke than there actually is.
I do agree with Sharp that we need more "empirically grounded evidence" (page 13) for our marketing practices and he's right, in my opinion, to challenge the theories we do have as many were mostly studied on college campuses with college students. But unfortunately, his evidence is not empirically grounded either, with major concerns to his data as well as his data representation. For example, one of the common data sets Sharp references as proof of his ideas is awards submissions. For example, in Chapter 2 (page 23) he uses the Advertising Effectiveness Awards run by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) award submissions to show that customer penetration is more important than customer loyalty. Using award submissions is in no way a validation of business best practices. The judging criteria and what's previously won the awards heavily influence who submits for those awards. So, for example, if the judging criteria favor customer penetration over loyalty or if a significant portion of previous winners showed high customer penetration, then this would encourage more award applications that showed penetration, or the award applicants would emphasize customer penetration. In addition, with awards, only a certain subset of the population applies and only applies if they have a chance, so this could also bias who applies for the award or what their application entails.
Another example of Sharp claiming that he's basing his claims on empirical data and then does not is on page 18. He writes, "Theoretically there could be two brands of equal size, one with many buyers who buy the brand occasionally while the other brand has half of the number of buyers, but they buy it half as often" and includes a footnote where the reader may assume there is data to support that claim. But the footnote for this claim, rather than citing his empirical data (which he promised us on page 13 he'd do throughout the book), states, "It's common to say there are no absolutes in the social sciences but this is one: two rival brands of equal market share never have completely opposite penetration and loyalty metrics." Again, offering us no supporting data. In this case, he's also using an extreme example "can't be completely" opposite and then providing us that as evidence that brands can't have somewhat contrasting market metrics. He's using a black and white example to say there is no grey area and provides no empirical evidence to support that claim.
Just to show how frequently he makes "empirically-based" statements and doesn't back them up with any data, there is yet another example in Chapter 4 (page 40) where he writes, "[The argument for mass marketing] is supported by researchers who have been studying patterns in buyer behaviour and brand performance; they have concluded that mass marketing is essential for both brand maintenance and growth" and then does not provide a single footnote of an empirical research study to support this claim.
My personal favorite example of Sharp's lack of citing peer-reviewed evidence to support his claims (even though he promised us he would) and his over sensationalism of marketers "ignoring the truth" is in Chapter 5 (page 57) where he writes, "The personality and demographic profiles of Ford and Chevrolet owners were essentially identical. The lack of difference shocked the marketing world. At first people argued about the results. Then the finding was repeatedly confirmed with different samples, techniques and product categories. After that everyone decided to ignore the discovery." In this example, he does not provide a single footnote to where we can find the replication studies, but he also claims that there was a major finding in marketing around target marketing that the "everyone decided to ignore" (see later comments how he positions marketing's use of target marketing).
Sharp does have a good idea (not a law or theory) that we need to be cautious of how much we rely on loyalty, especially with a product that isn't bought often. For example, with oil changes, if the average commercial truck is getting two per year, it's going to be very hard to hit aggressive growth targets if we just focus on those drivers who get one oil change per year and move them to two oil changes per year. And trying to get those that are already getting two per year to buy more when they don't need them isn't a sound strategy. In addition, Sharp's evidence that cross-selling doesn't work is very limited (only gives two industry examples and both are consumer-based) I do think his idea that we need to seriously look at our numbers and see if cross-selling is providing the potential we think is a fair idea for the marketing profession to consider.
With that said, another area of major concern in the book is Sharp's explanations and criticisms of target marketing. He over-simplifies the explanations of marketers when it comes to mass marketing and then attacks those (Straw Man fallacy). I doubt any seasoned and educated marketer would argue with Sharp's claim that the more people you reach, the more you will sell. However, what he leaves out to make his Straw Man argument work is that YOU CAN'T AFFORD mass marketing. This is why marketers turn to target marketing vs. mass marketing; with the exponential increase in media outlets needed to reach the masses in an effective way (which also means exponential costs) and limited funds/time, you need to focus your funds/time on efforts that are most likely to yield the highest Return on Investment (ROI) because if you tried mass marketing with limited time/money, it wouldn't be effective (teardrop in the ocean analogy).
Sharp's further arguments against target marketing rely heavily on misleading graphs (see earlier comments) and examples of companies only looking at their demographic target marketing. While some demographic marketing is still done, experienced marketers rely heavily on benefits, interests, and lifestyle factors vs. demographics because, as Sharp does accurately point out, the demographics aren't usually a good indicator of who buys the product (with some notable exceptions) and buying media on demographics doesn't do a better job of reaching those demographics*.
He also seems to miss the point and/or oversimplify target marketing by standing up the assumption that advertising reflects who buys a product and thus is off. He provides an example in Chapter 5 where a chocolate bar positioned themselves as for burly men and indicates that burly men is a small target market (which it probably is) so this is bad positioning. What he misses, however, is that the actual targeting of the chocolate bar for burly men likely also attracts other men who want to be seen as "burly" and women who like burly men or think ads with burly men are fun. Again, this goes back to his misrepresentation that target marketing is around demographics vs. interests.
Note: This review is only based on the first five chapters of Sharp's book. By Chapter 5, I had too many concerns about his work to continue reading after that and this review is already too long.
*Nico Neumann, Catherine E. Tucker, Timothy Whitfield (2019) Frontiers: How Effective Is Third-Party Consumer Profiling? Evidence from Field Studies. Marketing Science 38(6):918-926. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1188
Even with this, I went into this book with an open mind. And, to be fair, I do think he has some good ideas that those of us in the marketing profession need to seriously consider. For example, we shouldn't always consider "brand loyalty" as the end-all of growth and he correctly challenges us to reconsider that stance. With that said, reading his book, I became very concerned about his positioning of traditional marketing and his use of misleading data to prove his points and cannot, in good conscience, recommend this book.
Sharp's book is written in a tone that's evocative and positions him as the bringer of truth to a profession that doesn't have it. He also positions marketers as very rigid rule-followers who aren't open to new ideas. This struck me as an over-sensationalism marketing tactic at best and intentionally misleading at worst. And it shelters him from marketing experts criticizing his work because he can always claim that they don't want to see the truth. For example, in the first sentence of Chapter 4, he writes, "Smart marketers know they need to reach all buyers (i.e. buyers of the category, and everyone from light to heavy buyers of a brand) in order to reinforce buying propensities, and to win new sales." What he's implied by this is, any marketer who doesn't agree with him isn't "smart." Examples like this abound in the book.
Sharp claims that his work is for "marketers who are willing to learn new things based on classical science" (preface page 13) but does very little to provide the validity of his "classical science." He also notes that he's "attempted to give a good feel for the empirical data and how the analysis was done" (page 15). However, he cites very few peer-reviewed data sets or academic papers, his footnotes are his digressions vs. references to studies (more on this later), he very rarely cites any research other than his own or that of the institute he works for and, as previously noted, he uses the "classical science" definition of the word "law" incorrectly.
Another example of him varying from his claim that his book is based on "classical science" is his graphs. The way he represents the graphs in his book is a very common (sadly) technique that misrepresents data by modifying the y axis. For example, on page 1 of his book, he shows the market share of Crest vs. Colgate (in 1989) but the % of market share in the graph is modified from 0-100 to 0-40. This leads the viewer of the graph to perceive there is a much more significant gap in market share between these two brands than there is. An even more extreme example of misrepresenting data in Figure 4.3 in Chapter 4 (page 43) where he's modified the Percentage of US Households y-axis to be 0-12 vs. 0-100, which misleads the viewer to think there is a much more significant gap between light and heavy purchasers of Coke than there actually is.
I do agree with Sharp that we need more "empirically grounded evidence" (page 13) for our marketing practices and he's right, in my opinion, to challenge the theories we do have as many were mostly studied on college campuses with college students. But unfortunately, his evidence is not empirically grounded either, with major concerns to his data as well as his data representation. For example, one of the common data sets Sharp references as proof of his ideas is awards submissions. For example, in Chapter 2 (page 23) he uses the Advertising Effectiveness Awards run by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) award submissions to show that customer penetration is more important than customer loyalty. Using award submissions is in no way a validation of business best practices. The judging criteria and what's previously won the awards heavily influence who submits for those awards. So, for example, if the judging criteria favor customer penetration over loyalty or if a significant portion of previous winners showed high customer penetration, then this would encourage more award applications that showed penetration, or the award applicants would emphasize customer penetration. In addition, with awards, only a certain subset of the population applies and only applies if they have a chance, so this could also bias who applies for the award or what their application entails.
Another example of Sharp claiming that he's basing his claims on empirical data and then does not is on page 18. He writes, "Theoretically there could be two brands of equal size, one with many buyers who buy the brand occasionally while the other brand has half of the number of buyers, but they buy it half as often" and includes a footnote where the reader may assume there is data to support that claim. But the footnote for this claim, rather than citing his empirical data (which he promised us on page 13 he'd do throughout the book), states, "It's common to say there are no absolutes in the social sciences but this is one: two rival brands of equal market share never have completely opposite penetration and loyalty metrics." Again, offering us no supporting data. In this case, he's also using an extreme example "can't be completely" opposite and then providing us that as evidence that brands can't have somewhat contrasting market metrics. He's using a black and white example to say there is no grey area and provides no empirical evidence to support that claim.
Just to show how frequently he makes "empirically-based" statements and doesn't back them up with any data, there is yet another example in Chapter 4 (page 40) where he writes, "[The argument for mass marketing] is supported by researchers who have been studying patterns in buyer behaviour and brand performance; they have concluded that mass marketing is essential for both brand maintenance and growth" and then does not provide a single footnote of an empirical research study to support this claim.
My personal favorite example of Sharp's lack of citing peer-reviewed evidence to support his claims (even though he promised us he would) and his over sensationalism of marketers "ignoring the truth" is in Chapter 5 (page 57) where he writes, "The personality and demographic profiles of Ford and Chevrolet owners were essentially identical. The lack of difference shocked the marketing world. At first people argued about the results. Then the finding was repeatedly confirmed with different samples, techniques and product categories. After that everyone decided to ignore the discovery." In this example, he does not provide a single footnote to where we can find the replication studies, but he also claims that there was a major finding in marketing around target marketing that the "everyone decided to ignore" (see later comments how he positions marketing's use of target marketing).
Sharp does have a good idea (not a law or theory) that we need to be cautious of how much we rely on loyalty, especially with a product that isn't bought often. For example, with oil changes, if the average commercial truck is getting two per year, it's going to be very hard to hit aggressive growth targets if we just focus on those drivers who get one oil change per year and move them to two oil changes per year. And trying to get those that are already getting two per year to buy more when they don't need them isn't a sound strategy. In addition, Sharp's evidence that cross-selling doesn't work is very limited (only gives two industry examples and both are consumer-based) I do think his idea that we need to seriously look at our numbers and see if cross-selling is providing the potential we think is a fair idea for the marketing profession to consider.
With that said, another area of major concern in the book is Sharp's explanations and criticisms of target marketing. He over-simplifies the explanations of marketers when it comes to mass marketing and then attacks those (Straw Man fallacy). I doubt any seasoned and educated marketer would argue with Sharp's claim that the more people you reach, the more you will sell. However, what he leaves out to make his Straw Man argument work is that YOU CAN'T AFFORD mass marketing. This is why marketers turn to target marketing vs. mass marketing; with the exponential increase in media outlets needed to reach the masses in an effective way (which also means exponential costs) and limited funds/time, you need to focus your funds/time on efforts that are most likely to yield the highest Return on Investment (ROI) because if you tried mass marketing with limited time/money, it wouldn't be effective (teardrop in the ocean analogy).
Sharp's further arguments against target marketing rely heavily on misleading graphs (see earlier comments) and examples of companies only looking at their demographic target marketing. While some demographic marketing is still done, experienced marketers rely heavily on benefits, interests, and lifestyle factors vs. demographics because, as Sharp does accurately point out, the demographics aren't usually a good indicator of who buys the product (with some notable exceptions) and buying media on demographics doesn't do a better job of reaching those demographics*.
He also seems to miss the point and/or oversimplify target marketing by standing up the assumption that advertising reflects who buys a product and thus is off. He provides an example in Chapter 5 where a chocolate bar positioned themselves as for burly men and indicates that burly men is a small target market (which it probably is) so this is bad positioning. What he misses, however, is that the actual targeting of the chocolate bar for burly men likely also attracts other men who want to be seen as "burly" and women who like burly men or think ads with burly men are fun. Again, this goes back to his misrepresentation that target marketing is around demographics vs. interests.
Note: This review is only based on the first five chapters of Sharp's book. By Chapter 5, I had too many concerns about his work to continue reading after that and this review is already too long.
*Nico Neumann, Catherine E. Tucker, Timothy Whitfield (2019) Frontiers: How Effective Is Third-Party Consumer Profiling? Evidence from Field Studies. Marketing Science 38(6):918-926. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1188
December 29, 2021
It took about 8 chapters of resistance and frantically writing in the margin of the books (yes, I write in them) for me to like it. So growing towards a 4-star review is quite the performance.
For the first few pages, I was very excited as I agree with the warcry for a more scientific approach to marketing. My initial resistance came with learning that the 'law-like patterns' that the book talks about are actually just statistical effects (e.g. regression to the mean), rebranded to a marketing context. Also, the fact that some of the data could possibly be explained by other factors (e.g. purchase frequency of laundry detergent probably being more determined by product category than by brand) or questions about causality were bugging me.
The resistance grew with the undefined scope of the book being (roughly) 'How brands grow... within a mature product category in FMCG/Consumer Services'. It's an environment/market where purchases happen often and are not extensively debated (There is no buying committee asking you questions about the brand of cola you bought, unless you have kids of course) and within product categories that are widely used and contain only limited feature-differences between brands (or let's call them variants).
The undiscussed role of product category in buying decisions kept me on the fence. Considering there is a Part 2 called How Brands Grow: Part 2: Emerging Markets, Services, Durables, New and Luxury Brands I probably was not alone with this remark.
Once my resistant mind got over itself and just accepted the scope of the findings, I really started liking the book. It contains véry good insights into the types of branding activities that work and which don't work. The concepts of mental and physical availability, brand salience, and memory structures are great ways to think about marketing efforts.
This book had been on my 'to-read' list for a very long time. At first, I feared it was going to be a dissapointment but now I'm very glad I've read it. It really got me thinking deeply about branding.
For the first few pages, I was very excited as I agree with the warcry for a more scientific approach to marketing. My initial resistance came with learning that the 'law-like patterns' that the book talks about are actually just statistical effects (e.g. regression to the mean), rebranded to a marketing context. Also, the fact that some of the data could possibly be explained by other factors (e.g. purchase frequency of laundry detergent probably being more determined by product category than by brand) or questions about causality were bugging me.
The resistance grew with the undefined scope of the book being (roughly) 'How brands grow... within a mature product category in FMCG/Consumer Services'. It's an environment/market where purchases happen often and are not extensively debated (There is no buying committee asking you questions about the brand of cola you bought, unless you have kids of course) and within product categories that are widely used and contain only limited feature-differences between brands (or let's call them variants).
The undiscussed role of product category in buying decisions kept me on the fence. Considering there is a Part 2 called How Brands Grow: Part 2: Emerging Markets, Services, Durables, New and Luxury Brands I probably was not alone with this remark.
Once my resistant mind got over itself and just accepted the scope of the findings, I really started liking the book. It contains véry good insights into the types of branding activities that work and which don't work. The concepts of mental and physical availability, brand salience, and memory structures are great ways to think about marketing efforts.
This book had been on my 'to-read' list for a very long time. At first, I feared it was going to be a dissapointment but now I'm very glad I've read it. It really got me thinking deeply about branding.
August 21, 2021
Two words.
Great read.
In all honestly though, a couple months ago I picked it up and started to read through and only got half way through and gave up. However I recently picked it up again and was determined to get through. Let me tell you, it was totally worth it.
Sharp dispels common marketing theories that are taught at universities with data taken from years of marketing research. It's quite an intimidating book for that reason, nevertheless I found it worthwhile to push past the fear and read it.
I found the information presented in the second half of the book for worthwhile as they were more relatable to the work that I'm in (advertising). His research on advertising, price promotions and loyalty were worth the price of this book.
Everyone working in marketing should read this book. I think it might just change your life. ;)
It's definitely on the annual reads list.
Great read.
In all honestly though, a couple months ago I picked it up and started to read through and only got half way through and gave up. However I recently picked it up again and was determined to get through. Let me tell you, it was totally worth it.
Sharp dispels common marketing theories that are taught at universities with data taken from years of marketing research. It's quite an intimidating book for that reason, nevertheless I found it worthwhile to push past the fear and read it.
I found the information presented in the second half of the book for worthwhile as they were more relatable to the work that I'm in (advertising). His research on advertising, price promotions and loyalty were worth the price of this book.
Everyone working in marketing should read this book. I think it might just change your life. ;)
It's definitely on the annual reads list.
January 29, 2020
Probably the best book on marketing and brand strategy I've read. Does away with a lot of marketing and branding myths, some of which are quite established, like brand loyalty, target audiences, discounts and campaign advertising. The style could be more engaging but the substance makes this textbook a revelatory read.
March 20, 2023
Great refresher of certain marketing theories backed up by case studies - and fun and enlightening to read when you work in the field! It does fall short on certain laws which I think are debatable if they were futher elaborated. Then again, marketing has developed rapidly since the book was published.
February 24, 2020
I'm a sucker for data and scientific approach so I really liked this book much more than I would have ever guessed. Probably would make it a mandatory read in my company market department if we had such a thing...
August 16, 2023
Marketingo Užkalnis spirgina Kotlerio teorijas apie pozicionavimą, targetinimą, segmentus, lojalumo didinimą ir pan. Kadangi visa tai daro remdamasis mokslu, perku ir su pasimėgavimu skaitau. Nedidelė knygutė, dviejų dienų projektas. Parašyta 2010 m., bet manau, kad dėsniai tinka ir šiai dienai.
April 13, 2017
This is a mind changing book. If you love Philip Kotler, don't touch this. :)
June 22, 2020
An excellent read that really brings to the forefront the drivers of brand growth. An essential read for any marketeer.
May 29, 2021
Marketer, you need to read this! Don't waste your time with Kotler.
December 29, 2023
Book is chronicle of whitespaces which marketing function in company overlooks in their journey of making brand from good to great. Great stuff and well researched on why one has to always consider the alternatives, when thinking long term.
October 30, 2017
Когнитивный диссонанс в каждой главе. Чем раньше прочтёшь, тем легче будет в маркетинг.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews