Better vs. Different: Symposium Follow Up
When I spoke yesterday at the 2008 Forum Partnership Symposium about brand positioning (see part of the presentation above or click here), one of the points I made is that when building a brand position, it’s more effective to focus on being different than being better. In fact, I blogged about it over a year ago, in Part 1 and Part 2.
Our moderator, Ron Shevlin, had some good questions for me, and constructively disagreed with me on that point. My hope and assumption is that there will be a healthy follow-up discussion on the industry blogs about important topics from the Symposium, so please stay tuned!
Ron’s questions have left me thinking about ways I could better articulate and clarify my opinions and thoughts on the important topic of “better vs. different”–and in hindsight I’m not sure if I was as clear as I originally thought I was. In fact, to be honest, after seeing and discussing William Azaroff’s excellent presentation on Vancity’s leveraging of the social economy, I’m convinced that my opinion and Ron’s are actually not entirely different….but rather just confused by semantics.
There will certainly be more of my thoughts to come on this topic shortly, but for now, here’s one way to sum it up what I was trying to say:
If you’ve got 10 words to express what makes your credit union special, don’t use words that end in -er or -est, as in “we’re friendliER” or “we have the smartEST people.” Because if you do, all you’re doing is comparing yourself to other credit unions, and saying that you the same as them, only a better version.
Secondly, I believe your credit union SHOULD be better (nicer, friendlier, more competent, etc.), but that you simply cannot use this as the premise for your positioning strategy. Being nicer, friendlier, more competent, etc. are critical….but they are minimum requirements to even compete. The positioning should go beyond that and focus on a relevant difference.
More to come….


October 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I’d like to add this perspective on the ‘different vs. better’ topic. I’d argue that focusing on being different, allows brands to naturally be better. But not in a BETTER THAN [our competitor] sort of way, but rather a BETTER FOR [me, the consumer] way.
In sum, being different–by virtue–allows your brand to be a better choice FOR those who like the difference you offer.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 am
Oh man, excellent point! The words “than” and “for” really help clarify my point–thank you! I agree completely–you can’t compete on “better than” alone. You have to make yourself “better for” people who are a good fit for you.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Hey Jeff,
Great seeing you again in Indy, and excellent presentation. I agree both with you that different is key. However, it can’t be just any old “different”, it has to be different in a way that is meaningful to the member/customer. And that’s easier said than done, and that’s scary to a management team, because whatever difference is chosen, there is no proof that that difference will “work” to provide superior business results. It really has to be a leap of faith on decision makers’ part, one that most aren’t willing to make. But nevertheless a torch we must continue to carry.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Morriss, good seeing you too! And you’re exactly right–RELEVANCE is the key. I think that in my brief 30 minutes speaking, I neglected to hammer that point home as well as I should have. And I think that’s one of the things that struck Ron, too–that maybe he thought I was saying “just pick something different…anything!” But you’re dead right–that “different” can’t be arbitrarily chosen for the sake of being different. It’s got to be true to who you are!