Well, here goes, my first post derived from my Market-Driven Management class at UConn...
I skipped class today. That means I actually skipped the very class that influenced the insight I'm writing about. So goes life. I was up until 5 am finishing our 2008 taxes (we got a six-month extension). To make up for missing class I actually sat down and did ALL the reading.
While reading an article called "Three Questions You Need to Ask About Your Brand" it struck me the discussion about the three questions was very similar to the five questions we ask in military planning. Specifically, the five Tests for Validity we use to evaluate Courses of Action (COAs) -- the possible options -- available while planning an operation.
The parallels between military warfare and marketing are striking. You might think nothing could be more different than killing the enemy and attracting customers, but you'd be wrong. Marketers rightly consider the enemy to be competitors and the objective, the 'land', to be consumers. Taken that way, the five military tests are to ensure the plan to 'take the hill' so-to-speak, is valid. The article's 'point of difference' filter questions are then a little more tangible, at least in my military mind. They're how to ensure your product positioning approach will be successful winning the hearts and minds of customers.
NWP 5-01, Navy Planning, Test for Validity (condensed)
- Suitability (Adequacy): The COA must accomplish the mission and comply with the commander’s guidance; however, the commander may modify guidance at any time.
- Feasibility: The force must have the capability to accomplish the mission in terms of available time, space, and resources.
- Acceptability: The tactical or operational advantage gained by executing the COA must justify the cost in resources, especially casualties.
- Distinguishability: Each COA must differ significantly from any others.
- Completeness: Each COA must include the following: major operations and tasks to be performed; major forces required; concepts for deployment, employment, and sustainment; time estimates for achieving objectives; and the desired end state and mission success criteria.
In military jargon: how is one option different, or better, than the others?
Here are the tests described in the article:
Desirability, defined as relevant and believable
Deliverability, feasible, profitable, and preemptive, defensible, and difficult to attack.
The military analogies are killing me! Is it surprising I made this connection, given that I spent three months last year eating, drinking, and sleeping the Navy's planning bible, NWP 5-01, know affectionately as the "salmon-colored book", while rewriting a major war plan?
Back to marketing. To put military and marketing terms side-by-side:
Desirability (by the customer/audience)
relevant & believable = Suitability
Deliverability (by the company)
feasible = Feasibility "have the capability"
profitable = Acceptability "justify the costs"
preemptive, defensible, and difficult to attack = Completeness
So there you have it, the marketing to military translation of the important questions to ask when positioning a product in a given market, or frame of reference. As the article asks, "Are the points of difference compelling?" And as it points out, the points of difference aren't static for long. After all, no plan survives first contact with the enemy.
