<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Positioning as more than just marketing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://justingibbs.com/2009/05/22/positioning-as-more-than-just-marketing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://justingibbs.com/2009/05/22/positioning-as-more-than-just-marketing/</link>
	<description>Bringing a little drama to social games</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:02:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick van der Wal</title>
		<link>http://justingibbs.com/2009/05/22/positioning-as-more-than-just-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-823</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick van der Wal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 19:20:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://justingibbs.com/?p=2076#comment-823</guid>
		<description>&quot;Was it that the consumers didn&#8217;t see them as consumer products yet or was it more due to the fact that they didn&#8217;t see Sears as that type of company?&quot; 
 
I think in the context of this story that is pretty much the same thing.  
 
SEARS knew the financial products didnt fit their brand at the time of acquiring Dean Writer, but that was &#039;all part of the plan&#039;. SEARS was the family brand, trusted by regular americans who werent marketed to for direct investments. But SEARS bet on the nature of the product changing, shifting towards a product that would fit the family man as a consumer good (I&#039;ll have 2 pints of milk, a bread and 15,000$ put opt on GOOG). It tuined out SEARS was too early (Unilever and ALEX are doing it now quite successfully). 
 
If SEARS was right about their prediction (or more accurately, their timing), their positioning would have been their success - no one was directly selling to the family man and the family man trusted the SEARS brand (because of positioning). So the mismatch of brand positioning and product was intentional, not a flaw in strategy.  
 
It&#039;s basically the Blue Ocean strategy (even though I think the book doesn&#039;t offers any real insights) - find a new market for an existing product or concept and &#039;innovate&#039; from there. The family man would become a new market to directly sell investments to, but they misread the trend. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Was it that the consumers didn&rsquo;t see them as consumer products yet or was it more due to the fact that they didn&rsquo;t see Sears as that type of company?&quot; </p>
<p>I think in the context of this story that is pretty much the same thing.  </p>
<p>SEARS knew the financial products didnt fit their brand at the time of acquiring Dean Writer, but that was &#039;all part of the plan&#039;. SEARS was the family brand, trusted by regular americans who werent marketed to for direct investments. But SEARS bet on the nature of the product changing, shifting towards a product that would fit the family man as a consumer good (I&#039;ll have 2 pints of milk, a bread and 15,000$ put opt on GOOG). It tuined out SEARS was too early (Unilever and ALEX are doing it now quite successfully). </p>
<p>If SEARS was right about their prediction (or more accurately, their timing), their positioning would have been their success &#8211; no one was directly selling to the family man and the family man trusted the SEARS brand (because of positioning). So the mismatch of brand positioning and product was intentional, not a flaw in strategy.  </p>
<p>It&#039;s basically the Blue Ocean strategy (even though I think the book doesn&#039;t offers any real insights) &#8211; find a new market for an existing product or concept and &#039;innovate&#039; from there. The family man would become a new market to directly sell investments to, but they misread the trend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick van der Wal</title>
		<link>http://justingibbs.com/2009/05/22/positioning-as-more-than-just-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-1313</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick van der Wal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 19:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://justingibbs.com/?p=2076#comment-1313</guid>
		<description>&quot;Was it that the consumers didn&#8217;t see them as consumer products yet or was it more due to the fact that they didn&#8217;t see Sears as that type of company?&quot; 
 
I think in the context of this story that is pretty much the same thing.  
 
SEARS knew the financial products didnt fit their brand at the time of acquiring Dean Writer, but that was &#039;all part of the plan&#039;. SEARS was the family brand, trusted by regular americans who werent marketed to for direct investments. But SEARS bet on the nature of the product changing, shifting towards a product that would fit the family man as a consumer good (I&#039;ll have 2 pints of milk, a bread and 15,000$ put opt on GOOG). It tuined out SEARS was too early (Unilever and ALEX are doing it now quite successfully). 
 
If SEARS was right about their prediction (or more accurately, their timing), their positioning would have been their success - no one was directly selling to the family man and the family man trusted the SEARS brand (because of positioning). So the mismatch of brand positioning and product was intentional, not a flaw in strategy.  
 
It&#039;s basically the Blue Ocean strategy (even though I think the book doesn&#039;t offers any real insights) - find a new market for an existing product or concept and &#039;innovate&#039; from there. The family man would become a new market to directly sell investments to, but they misread the trend.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Was it that the consumers didn&rsquo;t see them as consumer products yet or was it more due to the fact that they didn&rsquo;t see Sears as that type of company?&quot; </p>
<p>I think in the context of this story that is pretty much the same thing.  </p>
<p>SEARS knew the financial products didnt fit their brand at the time of acquiring Dean Writer, but that was &#039;all part of the plan&#039;. SEARS was the family brand, trusted by regular americans who werent marketed to for direct investments. But SEARS bet on the nature of the product changing, shifting towards a product that would fit the family man as a consumer good (I&#039;ll have 2 pints of milk, a bread and 15,000$ put opt on GOOG). It tuined out SEARS was too early (Unilever and ALEX are doing it now quite successfully). </p>
<p>If SEARS was right about their prediction (or more accurately, their timing), their positioning would have been their success &#8211; no one was directly selling to the family man and the family man trusted the SEARS brand (because of positioning). So the mismatch of brand positioning and product was intentional, not a flaw in strategy.  </p>
<p>It&#039;s basically the Blue Ocean strategy (even though I think the book doesn&#039;t offers any real insights) &#8211; find a new market for an existing product or concept and &#039;innovate&#039; from there. The family man would become a new market to directly sell investments to, but they misread the trend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
