Becoming An "Unstoppable" Market Force

Just posted a review of the book, Momentum: How Companies Become Unstoppable Market Forces on the 800-CEO-READ blog.

Of course, after posting, I do a search for other reviews out there. Knowing that this audience is Google-savvy I thought I should respond to a few points on this particular uncomplimentary review.

The reviewer states: "With the downturn in the economy, the criteria for customer purchasing decisions about digital products are increasingly similar to those for nondigital products -- cost, product features, and immediate value -- rather than the factors this book identifies."

I totally disagree with this argument. It is more important in a downtown in the economy (especially for an IT manager) to make a bet on a company that will be around in a few years and can meet my needs down the road. I can't afford to just throw it away or rip it out later. I can attest to this as a once-buyer of enterprise technology. The worst thing that can happen is to be locked in to a vendor or product that is a) no longer is in business or b) just can't keep up with the market forces and your evolving needs. Taking a short-term stance is decidedly not safe.

"Immediate value" is captured by the model and is the weighted metric on top of all the others. The authors call it revelance. Does this product solve a compelling business need and provide value?

Engineers are too quick to discount fuzzy marketing concepts that reek of emotional or non-rational decision-making even if it is quantified. I heard Daryl Travis, author of Emotional Branding, say that even for pharmaceuticals which you'd think would be pretty black-and-white, emotions come into play. Doctors have 3rd party verified results on "product features" from the FCC and other trials and despite similar cost, will often choose the #3 product in the category. So, what's the difference?

Reviewer says: "For example, in introducing the concept of momentum, they provide an unnecessary overview of how various marketing techniques and trends evolved over the past four decades."

Again, I disagree. The discussion of the shift from a Marketplace of Image to a Marketplace of Products to a Marketplace of Ideas provided much needed context to explain why some analog positioning and branding strategies just don't translate well to the digital realm. And why thought leadership is a coveted skill in tech circles.

Reviewer says: Another weakness is that the examples are out of date. Most of the companies the authors profile as market leaders, powerful brands, or "unstoppable" market forces -- including Sun Microsystems, EMC, AMD, and Nokia -- have actually lost a significant portion of their market capitalization -- or significant market share to competitors -- over the last two years. In general, the model these authors propose is unlikely to stand the test of time in the way that other classic marketing models have. The "22 Immutable Laws of Marketing" that Al Ries and Jack Trout proposed, for example, still hold true after almost a decade!

I totally agree that the Ries and Trout book is definitely a classic. They build on those ideas and even show a case study illustrating how IBM crowded out HP with its 'e-business' positioning.

The authors don't spend much time on Sun, EMC, AMD or Nokia. And the model is dynamic.

Just setting a direction and hitting 'go' is not enough to set the "unstoppable market forces" in perpetual motion. OK, maybe the subtitle of the book is slightly misleading. Companies and products are not static. Neither is the model. The idea is to use the dashboard for continuous feedback of your company's momentum and then you need to adjust accordingly depending on the results. Feedback is crucial. Applying the feedback to make course corrections is even more crucial. I feel rather certain that if their dashboard was applied today you would find those aforementioned companies' scores have faltered since 2001.

The interesting part of the book is how they are able to chart and track changes in customer perceptions (as with Microsoft's fall with the DOJ trial) using the model.

It's not a static model, the book's case studies (due to nature of books) is of course a snapshot in time. You could argue that it was Sun, EMC, AMD and Nokia's game to lose. Maybe they thought it was static too.

Comments

[johnza]

al ries is a super smart guy. and he just endorsed a book we have written. to see more check out http://marketingplaybook.com/2004/07/03/some_advance_praise_for_the_upcoming_book.html