Some users of Facebook and Instagram are rebelling and moving to Bluesky, for now. But, most users really need these social networks. Sure, there are other social media platforms, but nodes, connections, are the drivers.

From a brand standpoint, the more social media platforms become similar in terms of benefits, rewards, user values and personality, the more relevant differentiation disappears. The platforms become named but brandless. In other words, commodities. For example, LinkedIn used to be a professional job site. Now, it is a glorified social media platform. Lots of socializing; less true professional hiring.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

Regardless of the reasons for the changes at Meta, the underlying issue is, “Are Facebook, Instagram and X relevantly differentiated in the eyes of consumers?” Or, have we reached a great convergence?”

One Op-Ed piece in The New York Times said the Meta “transformation” is just its CEO acting out. This is actually not that important. What is important are the reactions of users. And, for most Meta brands’ users, the necessity of Facebook and Instagram takes priority over everything else. The Wall Street Journal’s interviews reveal that Meta is now abstaining from providing “brand safety,” that is, the ability of brands to run advertisements within environments that are free from “objectionable content.”

“Despite misgivings about the new speech policy, advertisers are unlikely to shun Meta. They (ad agencies) have grown dependent on its massive reach and ability to precisely target their ads, drawing on a trove of consumer data. Meta can afford some defections by blue-chip advertisers, as it is insulated by having a large base of small business advertisers.”

Advertisers are not yet fleeing Meta brands even though the restrictions on speech are lifted. As The Wall Street Journal points out, unlike X, Meta brands are absolute necessities. Both Facebook and Instagram are too big to ignore. Meta has “… nearly 3.3 billion daily users across its platforms, generating more than $152 billion in annual advertising revenue. This is a scale few advertisers can afford to ignore.” As one analyst opined, advertisers will not be making any changes to ad budgets as long as Meta platforms continue to perform, i.e., generate profit through sales. Shareholders are happy “… as Meta’s market value has more than quadrupled over the past two years.” It is unlikely that a shareholder revolt is in the cards.

Even if there were a shareholder revolt, Meta has been through this before. Although on a much smaller scale, X, too, is weathering an ad loss storm. The X brand still has dedicated users and advertisers across a broad opinion spectrum.

The rewards of the lawsuits X has initiated against advertisers are yet to be known. As Facebook and Instagram become more similar to X in terms of openness and deregulation of “safety” and “responsibility,” the less power the lawsuits may have. After all, the size of Meta’s brands’ reach far outweigh the reach of X. And, with fewer free speech overseeing, advertisers may just select the platform with the largest reach rather than avoiding the platform with the least safety.

What happens when social media platforms decide to compete as “me too” offerings?

In many ways, these “me too” social media platforms become just like mass transit.

Is this how social media platforms want their brands to be perceived?

Connections, community, going somewhere, getting somewhere, liking the experience but not in love with the experience, not the most trustworthy deliverable, coping with people who are loud and may communicate angry words: these are all descriptors of social media. And, these are also descriptions of mass transit.

As the years go on, with no social media restrictions, where everyone and anyone can play a role, social media will be a form of mass transit. This means that the major social media brands will turn themselves into mass brands or mass markets… becoming commodities.

We can rail against the subway and the bus as being unsafe and crowded and slow, but the facts are that we cannot do without mass transit. Same for these social media brands. Advertisers and users need the social media platforms.

As with mass transit, the system, the operations, the necessity is powerful. And, not just because of the connectivity. Mass transit and social media are socioeconomic and environmental drivers. Both have value for users. As Alex Pentland describes concepts in his seminal work, Social Physics, we can extrapolate and compare mass transit and social media. The surprise is how unbranded these comparisons are. For example,

Mass transit is flow. People in flux, moving, human traffic flowing from one place to another. Social media are flow;  the flow of ideas, the networks of exchange. Mass transit is a social network, as well. Mass transit is a network that works to generate social exchange.

Mass transit is operationally efficient. Its infrastructure, in most cases, works quickly, reliably, and without much waste. The electrification of mass transit addresses waste as do electronic transit passes. Social media are efficient operationally as well. Social media are easy to use, a seamless ebb and flow of connections and disconnections and reconnections.

Mass transit is valuable. Mass transit satisfies user goals such as moving to and from work, to and from medical appointments, to and from social engagements. Social media are valuable in this same way as social media satisfy goals of social support, curiosity and usefulness.

Mass transit generates communities of peers: we are along on the train or bus together as commuters. We are traveling kith rather than kin. Social media are similar. Social media create groups of peers, kith not kin.

Mass transit is considered a given, a commodity. Mass transit, although given an acronym associated with its city, is essentially unbranded, essentially generic. Social media, although given brand names, are becoming more and more generic, as the race is for subscribers. It is the same for streaming entertainment.

And, then, there is the lack of trust. Data from 2020, indicate that only 5% of Americans trust mass transit. Trust does not appear to be a factor with social media, either. If trust were a deciding factor, Facebook would have lost millions of customers after its Data Analytics debacle or after a whistleblower revealed how Facebook made itself “sticky” for teens and youngsters. If trust were an issue for X, it would not have survived its initial post-Musk-purchase months.

And, if you use the definition of trust that equates trust with “an expected exchange value,” then Facebook, X and Instagram are trusted. These brands are expected to deliver the same opinion platforms and communities.

After all these years of differentiated social media, the segue to being like mass transit is unfortunate. Maybe this is the future. Maybe the future is just one large undifferentiated mass of mass platforms: the great convergence. Yet, Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn and all the others should focus on staying relevant and differentiated. If anything, it would make social media platforms more interesting.

How to stop the drift towards mass transit? How to stay relevantly differentiated? How to avoid the downward spiral of mass transit?

1. Do not abandon the brand promise. Really. It is critical to articulate the relevant, differentiated experience that the brand delivers. Users want to know the benefits, the rewards, the character of the brand. Without a relevant differentiation, the brand will be a commodity, mass transit. Perhaps, as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says about Meta, the relevant differentiation at Meta is innovation. If so, let the users know. A brand promise is profitable. A brand with a relevant, differentiated promised experience generates brand value. Shareholder value is possible only if there is customer-perceived brand value.
2. Focus on being better and stronger as well as bigger. How is your social media platform becoming better and stronger? Being bigger means becoming more familiar and creating more penetration. This is what streaming brands aim for: to be bigger. Being better means having a stellar reputation and generating overall satisfaction, where satisfaction is relative, i.e., satisfaction relative to customer-perceived competition. Being stronger focuses on brand loyalty, brand preference, brand value and brand power. As Facebook should continually be aware, power is not always related to size. Even when Dyson was small, Dyson was an extremely powerful brand. It was the same with IBM. IBM was the biggest, but Apple was the most innovative and popular. As social media should understand, repeat purchase is not necessarily a sign of brand loyalty. In fact, non-loyal repeat purchase is a threat to brand value. Continuous repetition of low price deals and convenience does not build loyalty.
3. Do not let trust slip away. Trust is a precious asset. If you do not care about customer-perceived trust, well there is this: Trust is a source of organizational wealth. Figure out ways in which your brand can be perceived as trustworthy. Do not sidestep trust-building. So, your brand might not be a source of “trustworthy” information. Your brand may be honest about that; honesty is good. Openness is good. There are other trust building actions. There is no single idea of trustworthiness. Trust can grow from meeting expectations, from being reliable, from being honest by keeping commitments, by treating employees well, by being ecologically sound.
4. Stop speaking only to Wall Street. Speak with and to users. Speak with and to potential users. Not everyone is reading a newspaper. Not everyone visits the business section of online news. Wall Street’s focus is profitability, anyway it can be generated. Financial engineering still has a lot of friends. Users want to know why they should choose your branded platform. Avoid focusing on analyst satisfaction rather than customer satisfaction. Brands are symbols of quality. It is unfortunate when brand owners debase brands to increase market share, step up volume or achieve any other number of short-term goals. Analyst satisfaction tends not to have the customer in mind. A focus on analyst satisfaction is short-term, not designed for the creation of enduring profitable growth.
5. Keep your customers sold. Reinforce the brand relationship customers had when they started using the brand. Do not make customers feel as if they are trapped, the way cable companies behaved. Use after-sale communications for reinforcement. Streaming brands focus on making the sale and gaining subscribers but do not follow up with post-sale reinforcement. Focus on the fact that your brand is superior in delivering on its relevant and distinctive branded experience that the customer fell in love with in the first place.

These five actions alone will continue to keep the social media platforms relevantly differentiated. Avoid these five actions at your peril. Sure, having masses of people as users is great. But mass marketing is passé. As a business wave, it peaked some time ago. Mass marketing is a mass marketing mistake. Rather than resigning your brand to mass transit, continue to provide a relevant, differentiated experience.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Partner, The Blake Project, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

Now more than ever before CPG and retail brands are suffering an existential challenge to the very essence of advantage that was once responsible for their success. Simply stated, we observe a proliferation of business categories where too many brands are failing to make much of an inspirational impression. The consumers’ eyes are starting to glaze over.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

Why? Because uniformity and conformity have taken root, pushing brand behavior collectively by efforts to match competitive “one-ups-manship” moves over time. The irony of ironies: competitive competence will eventually submerge brand distinctions because like the laws of gravity, feature mirroring and spec creep inexorably push products closer to each other.

All airlines have frequent flier benefits
All detergents offer stain fighting formulas
All delivery is fast
All retailers have loyalty card programs
Should the Hummer slide towards the larger addressable market of a family friendly ride or remain the “toughest motherf____er” on the planet?

Take pet food and the impact of category premiumization. In herd-like fashion many premium pet brands have moved to mirror each other on:

• High quality animal protein ingredients
• Biologically appropriate standards of nutrition
• Low impact, minimal processing
• Customization to specific need states like food sensitivities or aging

Once a higher bar is set, pet brands across the business spectrum rise to it and differentiation quickly dissipates with it.

Build Brand Passion And Investment?

Competitive differentiation is increasingly a rarity. It is being replaced by the mastery of imitation and similarity. Eventually, uniqueness begins to exist only in the minds of some marketers while the reality is lost on consumers who simply don’t see it. In the absence of authentic distinction brands begin to collapse on top of each other because the differences between them is ever more trivial.

Connoisseurship, devotion, passion and inspiration is the hallmark of brands that matter to their core user base. This is a top priority for brand owners because of an increasingly demanding challenge: what comes next when consumers decide the differences between brands are too narrow and don’t matter anymore? We know the ability to compete successfully over time is dependent on a brand’s efforts to create and maintain meaningful separation from everything else. To be a category of one.

When Mavericks Become Champions

Sustainable differentiation is never an outcome of well roundedness but rather lopsidedness, intentional tradeoffs, taking stands and decisions to fight conformity. There’s just too much preoccupation with solving for competitive moves that leads to regression towards the mean. Over time categories start to slice and dice into ever smaller segments that hunt for unique appeals to narrower targets of interest. Until — the profusion of alternatives gets less meaningful — and then the rust of category commoditization starts to spread rapidly.

Trying to squeeze differentiation out of minuscule discrepancies is essentially the marketing version of making mountains out of a mole hill. Our calling as marketers is to build a process and strategy that leads people to be more discriminating and picky about what they buy. The villain we fight is purchase behavior based on routine rather than passionate commitment. If a person publicizes their affinity for a brand, it means the connection has gone a whole lot deeper.

• When brands pay too much attention to adjacent competitor changes and keeping up with those feature adjustments, the business eventually becomes incompatible with consumer devotion to it. Instead, we strive to continually earn a foundation of loyalists who retain a stubborn passion for the brand – a fanatical hard core fan base.

You know when brand fidelity starts to shrink, something is definitely amiss. Usually, the result of accentuating non-essential differences. Until — a brand comes along that does something unpredictable, shaking people out of their complacency and enticing them to move away from entrenched consumption patterns. This also means a planned escape from focusing on the competition altogether.

Accelerate Your Job Search With Marketing’s Most Advanced AI Career Coach

Celebration Of Outliers And Iconoclasts

When you’re too consumed with tracking competitors you lose the bandwidth to generate real inspiration. It’s just…

• Harder to be an outlier
• Harder to develop a market disrupting strategy
• Harder to imbue a brand with deeper meaning that invokes conversation

Unafraid brands will put a stake in the ground, take a point of view and fight overblown promises and spurious claims. When other brands go north, the outliers head south. Instead of conformity and uniformity, these disruptive brands are preoccupied with unearthing unique ideas because they are more interested in separation than comparison. They know real differences can be truly charismatic and magnetic.

How To Escape The Competitive Herd

• Differentiation – a way of thinking, a mindset and commitment to pursuing a unique journey
• Subtraction – removal of some common features in a declared move towards specialization
• Polarization – taking sides by narrowing the preferred target audience cohort

Marketing is the intersection of where business meets up with real human beings. Consumers don’t organize their worlds with charts and graphs.  They are unpredictable, disorganized and make emotional decisions. Then we task them with selecting products in a sea of similarity – the differences diminished to package graphics or a compelling image.

We want them to be advocates and ambassadors but then refuse to offer any deeper meaning they can attach to and believe in. Said one marketing advisor, “the mockery quotient of a category is directly correlated to the amount of meaningless differentiation in it.” What’s missing are meaningful grooves of separation enhanced by a higher purpose and mission that touches the hearts of people who want to be part of something greater than themselves.

We should be laser focused on that agenda rather than relentlessly tracking competitors to make sure we aren’t outgunned on the feature playlist. It’s time to get off this comparison merry-go-round to work on genuine emotional relevance and resonance.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by Robert Wheatley, CEO of Chicago-based Emergent, The Healthy Living Agency.

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

Kantar’s BrandZ tracking of brands across all categories worldwide finds that year-in and year-out roughly eight-in-ten brands fall short on consumer perceptions of difference. Even more brands fall short on difference that is meaningful and relevant.

Difference is rare because difference is hard. The theory of good brand-building is straightforward; in practice, not so much. This challenge will become even harder in the future.

Take what I call the “paradox of quality.” This is the tendency of quality to attract or to spark even more quality. When one brand introduces something better, competitors don’t sit idly by and cede advantage in the marketplace. Instead, competitors adopt the same improvements. This draws every brand to the same place, and in the process, eliminates the variety of ways in which brands were doing things before, albeit more poorly. Quality as a whole goes up because differences go away.

We’ve seen this with private-label brands in grocery retail. In many categories, investments in the quality of private label brands have substantially narrowed the gap with name brands. The risk for name brands is that when people experiment or trade down, they will find that their experience is not diminished enough for them to switch back. This raises the ante for name brands. They must keep investing in the next big thing.

But finding the next big thing is harder and costlier than ever. Low-hanging fruit always goes first, so the next waves of innovation and improvements are inevitably more demanding. Research has shown this repeatedly, including two noteworthy studies published recently. One is an analysis of citation networks which found that disruptive scientific papers and patents have declined dramatically since the end of WW2. The other is an analysis of investment in intellectual property products by public companies, which found that it is 30 times costlier today to match the level of productivity in research and innovation that was true during the 1930s.

What brands need are affordable and better ways to identify differences that matter, which has been championed by more than a few as one of the breakthrough advances that AI will provide for brands. But it won’t come automatically, if at all.

By and large, AI is a normative mechanism, particularly generative AI. Large language models sweep up all the intelligence inhabiting a given corpus of knowledge and experience. As a result, the best ways of doing things are no longer hidden or undervalued or misunderstood. What might have been barely discernible before is brought plainly into view. And such learning is sure to be put into practice.

The benefit and the risk of AI is that every brand will be privy to best practices. No brand will be able to forego what it learns about the best ways of doing things, if for no other reason than competitive threats and investor pressures.

Hence, every brand will be higher quality than before, but every brand will also be channeled to the same place. Which means that the evolving mastery of AI across commercial enterprises will push brands toward consistency with a norm. This is the normative impact of AI—every brand of higher quality yet more alike than before.

This is great for operational processes. Efficiencies like these yield bottom-line benefits of no consequence to a brand’s perceptions among consumers. But when brands incorporate the same learnings about persuasion and promotion and pricing and packaging and all the other P’s of engagement with consumers, difference will be an even bigger challenge than now. With potential bottom line impact that could offset the savings realized through operational efficiencies.

This is why brands and agencies have become protective of their internal data and expertise. They don’t want AI to reveal what they know. Of course, the reality is that internal corpuses of knowledge and experience aren’t equally valuable. Some are sure to yield better learning than others. So, increasingly, we will see brands and agencies deploy AI for corporate reconnaissance to ferret out or to get good approximations of competitive insights. It will be an arms race of AI at another level of intensity, but still AI for normative purposes.

There is nothing new about the normative challenge facing brands in a future of AI. Every time something new comes along, every brand adopts it or does it, which raises the table stakes. Which is the paradox of quality.

We must keep AI in perspective. AI is not some fairy dust we can sprinkle on brands that makes difference easier to discover, deliver and sustain. AI is like every major advance in marketing, which in my career has included things like split-cable markets, A/B testing, conjoint analysis, grocery scanner data, marketing mix models, social listening, Big Data and digital advertising of many sorts. All were touted as the long-awaited big breakthrough in marketing. And brands have benefitted, but all brands not just a few.

So, too, will be the impact of AI. It is going to benefit brands immensely, but all brands not just a few. The challenge of standing out from the crowd is sure to be just as hard as ever.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider By: Walker Smith, Chief Knowledge Officer, Brand & Marketing at Kantar

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. We help accelerate growth through strategy workshops and extended engagements. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

The clear, evidence-based answer is that meaningful difference builds value, with difference being the change-maker. Which raises the follow-up question of what meaning and difference really are. It’s a relative answer for both. Difference comes from many things, but for a given brand, it is found relative to the category or competitive set. Hence, brand owners must be deeply knowledgeable about the specific situations in which their customers live and their brands compete—and then stand out in that relative context. This is why expanding the category is a proven growth strategy—more needs, brands and spending equal more opportunities to be relatively better.

2. Different Difference. Not all difference is the same. Or equal. There are types of difference. To begin with, brands are often different without being meaningful or relevant to needs. But even meaningful difference can vary. Brands that stand out as different and innovative grow more than brands that are merely different. So, difference with a twist of innovation means more value. Line extensions that are not only different but also a good fit with the core brand build greater awareness, and thus value. Difference of some sort is just the starting point. Delivering other functional or emotive performance, both tangible and intangible, makes difference work even better to create brand value.

3. Similar Difference. The analysis of line extensions reveals another aspect of brand difference. Line extensions must be different but not so different that they are a poor fit with the core brand. In other words, different from competition but the same as the core brand. This is obvious simply from the fact that line extensions intentionally leverage the platform of the core brand. It jumpstarts awareness. It borrows trust. It provides permission and reduces risk. So, a connection to the core brand is an essential part of the strategy for a line extension. Similarity must be part of the value proposition. At the same time, a line extension must deliver something different—something the core brand does not do and something relatively better than competition. Net net, there are situations in which difference must be combined with similarity in order for difference to build value.

4. Enduring Difference. Brands can never take difference for granted. It is always relative, so any shift of preferences or performance will change the relative standing of brands in a category. Unless a brand is always upgrading its value proposition, it will eventually find itself turned upside down by fast-moving trends and competition. The only way to have enduring strength is to be constantly improving. Stasis means an erosion of difference. Yet again, a paradox is surfaced. Brands must have an enduring identity that consumers feel they know and can count on. But that identity cannot be so fusty that it becomes stale and outdated. The core of a brand endures only if it embraces change. Every brand follows new trends and copies the best practices and new ideas of competition. Inevitably, what once was different becomes alike. Difference endures and continues to build value only if it is freshened with regularity.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider By: Walker Smith, Chief Knowledge Officer, Brand & Marketing at Kantar

The Blake Project Can Help You Craft A Brand Advantage In The Strategic Brand Storytelling Workshop

Join 20,000 Marketers Who Have Taken A Transformative Journey To A Bigger Future In Mark Ritson’s Mini MBAs In Marketing And Brand Management Courses.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Recently, Restaurant News focused on taco restaurants, eight up-and-comers. Apparently, tacos have become our anytime food, for everyone food, with tastes and flavors from everywhere foods. These new taco restaurant concepts want to claim a spot in the yet-to-be-solidified space somewhere next to Taco Bell and Chipotle but slightly more upscale, with full bars and service. As one taco restauranteur stated, the Tex-Mex field is wide open.

Do Taco Bell And Chipotle Need To Worry?

Being aware of competitive entries at any level is strategically smart. But, critically, it is necessary to know the brand’s market focus: the brand’s target audience, the brand’s special benefits and rewards, the brand’s personality, the context (how, when, where) for the brand, the permission to believe the brand claim and its competitive set.

Taco Bell and Chipotle are powerful brands not just because of the food they create and serve, but because each brand knows its brand promise and its market focus. No one expects food from Taco Bell to be crafted on site. But, customers do expect innovative products with out-of-the-box flavors. Chipotle makes its foods on site. There are no freezers. That guacamole or rice that you like is made on premises. Unlike Taco Bell, the Chipotle experience is not focused on delivering seventy different offerings a year. Chipotle focuses on its Food With Integrity promise.

Spend time reading The New Yorker article on Taco Bell and you will understand that no matter what goes on in the innovation center, the brand is front and center. The question is not, “Is this a great, new flavor or design?” The question is always, “Is this a great new Taco Bell flavor or design?”

These eight growing taco brands are described as being flavor bombs. But, exceptional tastes and flavors are features that support the brand’s expected benefits and rewards.

What is troubling about the eight new taco concepts highlighted by Restaurant News is their lack of strategic focus. The articles are all about the flavors and the store designs. But, when it comes to the market focus and the brands’ relevant differentiations, the brands all seem to be alike.

Relevance is critical for brand health. Relevance is a key driver of purchase intent. Relevance means the brand-business is up-to-date and current in customers’ minds. Relevance means the brand-business is seen to be addressing current customer needs and/or solving customer problems. Relevance, along with differentiation, is necessary for defining brand-business value. Customers ask, “Is the branded experience I receive or expect to receive relevant and differentiated relative to other brands?”

Relevant differentiation means knowing the prime prospect, knowing their problems and needs and the occasions in which they have these needs and problems, and having a well-defined, compelling brand-business promise. The brand promise is the statement defining the expected experience that the brand-business will deliver time and again.

Relevant Differentiation Has Some Rules

First, identify a customer target.

Brands need to have a target customer in mind. Wanting to be a brand-business for everyone is a big thought. But, that strategy can genericize a brand. Even big brands such as McDonald’s identify target audiences. Having a target audience in mind does not mean other customers cannot use your brand. No one is going to stop a customer at the front door because that customer does not fit the target audience description. Focus is clarifying and strategically sound. Also, it is possible to have more than one target audience. McDonald’s has young adults but it also has caregivers with kids.

When a brand says it is for anyone and everyone, that brand tends to be liked by a lot of people but loved by very few. Taco Bell and Chipotle know their target customers. Both brands also know that because of their focus on a specific target audience, the brands will attract like-minded others. Having a tight understanding of the customer is FEDA: a focused enduring differential advantage.

All these new taco brands agree that they want to be something for everyone. As they describe their brands, being something for everyone is more than just having a wide variety of menu items – from traditional proteins to plant proteins – and from tacos to bowls and burritos. Something for everyone also includes pricing. No one should be priced out of the restaurant. So, even with full service and a bar, there are entry level tacos.

Second, identify the relevant differentiated benefits and rewards.

It is easy to think that a brand-business’ features are its benefits. This is incorrect. Features are support for benefits and rewards. To have a clear, compelling brand-business promise, know the functional benefits and emotional and social rewards the brand delivers to users. Tastes are important. This is food, after all. No one wants food that does not taste good or does not excite on some level. But, tastes are the support for why the customer wants to eat at this restaurant and how eating at this restaurant makes customers feel.

For these new taco concepts, the goal is “tastes and flavors” beyond the standards offered by Taco Bell and Chipotle. The flavor profiles are global or specific to a Mexican region not yet explored by other Tex-Mex establishments. The idea is to be either globally inspired or as one restaurant states, Taco Bell on steroids.

In the descriptions of the new taco restaurants, there is no insight as to how tastes and flavors support the benefits and rewards, nor any understanding of exactly what these benefits and rewards are exactly.

Third, have a customer-based view of the marketplace.

Let the customers’ needs, problems and unmet needs create the competitive set. Do these new taco restaurants see each other as the competition? Or do they see Taco Bell and/or Chipotle as the competition. Understanding the brand-business’ customer-perceived perception may surprise.

This is especially important when attempting to define the particular market segment in which you believe your brand-business will win. Based on the comments from the creators of these new taco brands, the market segment is ill-defined. Is this Taco Bell with full service and a bar? Is this Chipotle but more inclusive? Is this non-traditional tacos?

Fourth, use the Brand Pyramid construct to generate your brand-business promise.

The Brand Pyramid construct is really simple. It has five levels.

At the bottom level are the brand-business features that provide the credible support for the brand’s claims. These features are essentially the evidence of the truth of the brand’s promise. Taste, price, variety, décor are features.

The second level are the brand-business’ functional benefits. These are the things that the brand does for the customer. For example, because the restaurant offers new and unusual tastes, this taco restaurant opens up my perspective on international foods.

The third level are the brand-business’ emotional and social rewards. These are how the customer feels when the brand delivers its functional benefits. So, when the restaurant helps me to open up my perspective on international foods, I feel less provincial. With my international perspective, I gain status within my group of friends.

Fourth level, Customer values.

What are the values of the target customer in terms of lifestyle, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, interests? Who are these people and what do they hold dear?  To whom am I focusing my brand-business? What do I know about my prime prospect?

Fifth, Brand personality.

What is the personality of the brand-business that differentiates in the mind of the target customers and makes the brand-business so personally appealing? If this brand-business were a person, who would it be?

Generating a brand promise from the Brand Pyramid is a creative challenge but it has the pyramid as its frame of reference. Specifically, use this template: For people with these values… Who seek these rewards… Our brand-business with this personality… Is best at providing these benefits… Because it has these features.

For these growing taco brands to actually win in today’s increasingly competitive and grueling marketplace, there are some key Do Not Do’s.

Do not genericize.

Being generic, offering generic category benefit leads to becoming a commodity product with no relevant differentiation. When you stand for everything and everyone general, you stand for nothing.

Do not maintain a mass market mentality.

Mass marketing is death-wish marketing. Mass marketing leads to genericization.

Do not confuse features with benefits.

Describing the interior design as differentiated is good. But interior design is a feature. As are tastes and flavors. Focus on what benefits and rewards these features deliver.

As Restaurant News points out, these taco establishments have grown exponentially. Some started as a food truck and now have stores across multiple states. Yet, it is more important than ever to focus on who the brand-business is for, why these people want to use this restaurant and how, when and where they use it. There is a difference between growth, profitable growth and enduring profitable growth. Enduring profitable growth can only happen if the brand-business creates a compelling brand promise and does everything possible to be relevantly differentiated relative to its competitors.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Larry Light, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

The Blake Project Can Help Differentiate Your Brand: Simply email us, for more about how we can help you define the unique value your brand can own in the marketplace.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers