20 years ago, I (like most entry level pros) learned the 5 Ps of Marketing: Product, Price, Place, Promotion and People. These, I was told, were the five marketing levers that satisfy customers and build market share.
Over time, the five Ps have become commoditized….like just about
everything else in the marketing mix. Blockbuster Products and Pricing provide short-term advantage. But blockbusters are few and far between – and life cycles are short. The same holds true for Promotions, Place (i.e., distribution) and People (i.e. service). Stand-out performance is scarce and, unless there are strong barriers to entry, most business and distribution models can be copied quickly.
What competitors can’t copy is a company’s Perspective – i.e., the way employees think about issues, anticipate trends and synthesize information. Perspective (or issues ownership) has always been an important marketing tool for professional services firms (management consultants, lawyers, accountants, architects) – firms that market themselves on the strength of their ideas. Today, however, most financial firms, healthcare organizations and manufacturers compete on the basis of intangibles (ideas, values, insights, partnerships/affiliations). Their success is based as much on who they are as on what they sell.
Perspective, then, is the sixth marketing P. It is one part intelligence (ideas, trends, insights), one part emotion (values, ideals). It’s the discussion that happens alongside the product. If you want to create a lasting marketing edge, the first step is to define your company’s Perspective. Then, communicate that Perspective to the people that matter.
What’s your Perspective?
(photo by kalmanzita)
To reach Meg:
Phone: 212.840.0095
Email: meg@blisspr.com
Twitter: @megwildrick
LinkedIn: Meg Wildrick
09/11/2009 at 9:09 AM Permalink
While perspective might be a point of differentiation, its hard to find an organization with a consistent lens or POV over time or across issues. Do you suppose there is a “Bliss” way of thinking that would characterize your organization? Every firm has the expected and vapid boilerplate mission or vision statement that is ignored as quickly as its verbalized. Could you realistically argue that Bliss sees the world differently and has radically different (and presumably better) thoughts than the vibrant field of New York PR firms? Most of us aspire to have one or two big or different ideas that resonate with a client or a prospect at a single point in time. This we, hope, is what wins pitches. But its not exactly credible, even for disciplined organizations like the Chinese Communist Party or the Taliban, to project a distinct way of thinking or a unique perspective across a spectrum of topics or issues.
09/11/2009 at 4:41 PM Permalink
There’s no routinized “Bliss way” of thinking. And, you’re right, the best ideas never reside all together in one firm! But if you believe (as I do) that any idea can be made much better — and more powerful — if it’s part of a bigger idea that a client owns, then you approach the profession in a different (and I’d argue better) way. It’s a question of mindset. Great ideas come in all shapes and sizes. But the best firms, I think, make sure they work together so they are worth more than the sum of their parts. Thankfully, the Taliban isn’t a BlissPR client!
09/12/2009 at 8:43 AM Permalink
While its hard to take Meg to task on BlissPR, I, respectfully, disagree. I think there is a “Bliss Way” starting with the new biz line “that’s our investment in you.” Folks there do invest in their clients and they care even after the money runs out. To be sure, no one gets it right all the time and problems arise in the happiest relationships–but each relationship is taken seriously. Least ways, that was my memory and I don’t want anyone to take it away.
As for perspective, I agree with Meg that it is important but I’m loathe to connect it back to marketing given that PR lives under the cloud of “marketing by other means.”
I don’t think that’s what PR is, at all, because there are no 3rd party validators in marketing and PR is ONLY 3rd party validation.
Don’t get me wrong, marketing and PR are both trying to achieve the same goal–convince customers to buy a client’s product. But the difference in means makes all the difference (my goodness that’s a clumsy sentence). Since I’m writing clumsy, let me extend with a bad Mad Men analogy–its all about how do you get in the house for a sale. Marketing enters through the front door–its open (ad in the WSJ for everyone to see), its obvious what they are doing (even advertorials don’t fool anyone anymore), the sales person tries to look and sound their best, etc. Very direct, very controlled, but lacking in trust.
PR is done through the back door–neighbors discussing their houses and one mentioning a contractor he used that was great. Or the deal they got on a car, etc. Its high trust, but indirect and completely lacking in control.
Do they compliment each other? Absolutely. But I’d argue they are very different.
09/13/2009 at 5:00 AM Permalink
Creighton,
Thanks for sharing your opinion! I totally agree with you that marketing and PR get their message out differently (and, to some degree, require different mindsets). But, I’m a strong believer in integration…especially on the messaging side. PR and “traditional marketing” are essentially channels for communicating the same Perspective to end-audiences. More dollars are spent in marketing because much of it is paid-for-placements. More professional hours are often spent in PR because its earned-marketing. But the content/perspective should all work together and be programmatic. That’s what gives your ideas sticking-power. That’s what helps the channels reinforce each other. That’s — what I hope — more companies will do with their integrated marketing dollars. There are many examples of successful integrated campaigns — sadly, mostly in the product world (Dove, Nike, Whole Foods) some in professional services (IBM, McKinsey). Their results speak for themselves…and will hopefully get Marketing/PR leaders to rethink their more siloed approach to content. Digital media is quickening the adoption, I think.