Tips  

Topics

The terms Problem Solving Format, Segmentation Circle, Buyer Behavior Flow Chart, Behavioral Premise, Black Hole, MAGIC, Natural Markets and their definitions are copyrighted material. Copyright © 1998-2007 by Randall L. Schultz.

Proprietary terms appear bold and capitalized when first used below. Standard marketing terms appear in bold when first used below.

The Problem Solving Format

 How tightly are the lectures and Problem Solving Format linked?

The lectures follow the same logical plan as the Problem Solving Format but include more concepts. The PSF starts with needs and wants because that is the most fundamental aspect of marketing success (i.e., products that don’t meet them don’t succeed). The first lecture on Growing Sales, however, sets up the PSF since we solve all marketing problems at the brand level.

All companies want to have sales grow, and the first lecture tells us about different ways that a company—and brand—can grow. In addition, it puts the brand into the context of a strategic business unit and, perhaps even more important, it shows how a company’s business model dictates how it can make money (profit) on brand sales growth. So growth without profitability is pointless.

Since at any given time a brand is using one or more of the intensive growth strategies, the PSF is used to explain how those strategies can be a success. A company seeking to increase the sales of a brand in a current market wants to know how to implement that market penetration strategy. Similarly, a company that has developed a new product aimed at its current customer base wants to know how to market that new product successfully. That is where the PSF comes in, providing answers to these questions.

If the current brand is meeting needs and wants, it may still have a problem with meaning. A new product may not meet needs and wants. Brands with good positioning strategies may have poor delivery on product promises. Brands that meet product promises may have inconsistent tactical (3 P’s) strategies. Finally, the best of plans may be rendered ineffective by smart competitors—hence MAGIC.

So each lecture adds to the concept and tool set that you need to use the Problem Solving Format effectively. There are more concepts in the lectures than in the PSF, but also there are more concepts and considerations in the real world than in the lectures. The PSF provides the linkage between the major elements of a marketing problem. The lectures add further connections to the real world. The real world is your opportunity to apply what you have learned.

Buyer Behavior Flow Charts

 Here's an answer to a classmate's e-mail question about Buyer Behavior Flow Charts, namely which comes at the top, the more or less important product attributes:

The way we do Buyer Behavior Flow Charts (in their simple form with no feedback loops) is consistent with a noncompensatory process. This is not the same thing as "assuming" a noncompensatory process. With a noncompensatory process you are essentially looking at the "choices" that consumers make between brands using one evaluative dimension at a time. Based on the initial choice, the consumer then follows the path of the selected choice and not the other paths. So the "top" of the flow chart deals with evaluative dimensions that may be more important to the consumer and the "bottom" of the flow chart deals with evaluative dimensions that are more important to positioning against key competitors.

Suppose the brand is Lipton Brisk iced tea. You could start at the top with need for a thirst-quenching drink and then branch to water, soda, tea, etc. You might have price next. Near the bottom might be caffeine content and taste. These are more likely the better positioning variables against competition such as Nestea, perhaps other caffeine drinks, etc. What we try to do with the Problem Solving Format is show how a firm can compete best against its major competitors.

Are the bottom evaluative dimensions "more important" to the consumer? Not necessarily. But they are more important to the positioning analysis and they are the "important" ones that distinguish among the closest competitors.

Setting Up Positioning

 Positioning depends on segmentation, market coverage strategy, and, for the target market, an effective buyer behavior analysis. Here are some points that came up in a student assignment on buyer behavior flow charts and positioning.

The segmentation variables that are relevant are the ones that represent (or potentially represent) ways of offering different products to a market. That is why income is relevant for, say, sport utility vehicles but not for sports information. There are luxury sport utility vehicles, but there are not—and probably won't be—upscale sports magazines or Internet sites. Income is related to who has a computer, but not to creating the Internet or other sports information product itself.

When discussing segmentation variables for a group presentation, you should talk about what any company could do (with products for segments), not just your company. In other words, the analysis at that point would look the same for all companies. Then each company would make a market coverage strategy decision. For one company it could be concentrated, for another undifferentiated.

In the Fall of 1999, the rough Segmentation Circle that I always drew on a yellow legal pad in my office when discussing market coverage strategies with student groups became formalized in group presentations. It is just a visual representation of how any market can be segmented for any competitor. For one particular competitor, you can look at the circle and decide what market coverage strategy makes the most sense. Thus, the segmentation circle is a way of logically choosing a market coverage strategy.

For a case on Universal Studios, rather than stating "we have two locations," you would say that, based on geography, products could be offered in different locations (by any company). After discussing all of the segmentation variables and their product possibilities, you can say that, for Universal Studios, a differentiated market coverage strategy makes the most sense (Universal Studios Hollywood and Universal Studios Florida).

A way of telling what market coverage strategy a company is using is the number of separately-branded products that it offers in any one market. Gap could have regional variation in product assortments (say for different climates), but if there was only one Gap name, the market coverage strategy would be undifferentiated. But there are several Gap brand names, among them Gap, Baby Gap and Old Navy; hence, Gap follows a differentiated market coverage strategy. If there were only Baby Gap, the market coverage strategy being used would be concentrated since the company would be going after just a small part of the overall market, and with one brand.

One of the keys to an effective buyer behavior analysis (and flow chart) is to focus on a small number of salient and encompassing evaluative dimensions. There are two reasons for this: first, a noncompensatory decision process is consistent with the use of flow charts and, second, managers need to focus on the "big picture" rather than minor product attributes. It is not that the minor attributes are not important, but rather that the consumer's evaluative dimensions dominate product attributes. The attribute of "color of cola" is dominated by taste and price, for example, so that Crystal Pepsi wouldn't—and didn't—go anywhere.

The buyer behavior flow chart is important because it helps prevent us dealing with the "wrong" evaluative dimensions. It would be easy to draw a positioning map for credit cards that had interest rate and credit limit as the two axes, but if you first do a buyer behavior analysis, you would probably realize that these are more or less the same for all major competitors and that positioning would be better served by availability and features. Visa owns "availability" and American Express does well on "features."



Positioning Solutions

Every positioning map has a solution that depends on the nature of the evaluative dimensions and on the competition. Consider these guidelines for different conditions:

Quadrant Position Perceptions Preferences Solution
Alone OK Large You are done.
Alone OK Small Change preferences.
Alone Not OK Large Change perceptions.
Alone Not OK Small Change perceptions and preferences.
With main competitor(s) OK Large Find an evaluative dimension that allows you to separate yourself, then follow solutions for "Alone."

Notes:

Perceptions = OK if they are where they need to be, i.e., to substantiate the developing Core Benefit Proposition.

Alternatives to being "alone" in a quadrant are:

  1. Being in the best position in a quadrant, e.g., farther "out" on an evaluative dimension (where farther out is better!) than your main competitor(s).

  2. Being in the same quadrant as other versions of your own brand where those other versions are:

    • Helpful in establishing a perception of high variety where an evaluative dimension is variety, and/or

    • Brand variety substitutes for your brand where consumers would buy the substitutes to achieve variety during consumption.

An example would be Frito Lay's variety of corn chip brands (say Doritos, Fritos, Cheetos) where consumers may prefer Frito Lay as a brand because they offer variety and competitors don't. In other words, they prefer the high variety brand vs. the low variety brand and so, to substantiate "high variety," Frito Lay has to have multiple brands that are not really competing in different markets—they are still corn chips—albeit with different shapes or ingredients. (Notice that we are not talking about flavors per se, e.g, Nacho Cheese Doritos, but different brands.)

Frito Lay's variety of corn chip brands also provides an example of brand variety substitutes since consumers may very well buy multiple brands of Frito Lay corn chips to achieve variety in consumption. In other words, individual consumers may want to eat different chips on different occasions and so stock multiple versions of the same brand to allow them to do this.

This special case and these examples show that the best positioning solution is not always to "be alone" in a quadrant. Still, in most cases, the "alone" solution provides a way of separating the brand from competitors in a way that essentially defines a new market (of sufficient size, of course) with separate needs and wants.

Black Holes

 Is a black hole always in the middle of a positioning map?

No. The location of a Black Hole—if there is a black hole—depends on the way the evaluative dimensions are defined. The examples in the STP lecture showed a black hole in the middle because that was the location where consumers would be most confused about product meaning. A soft drink that was halfway between a cola and an uncola and halfway between a nondiet and diet drink would be indeed hard to understand, although the latter has potential meaning as can be seen in the mid-calorie cola products Pepsi Edge and Coke C2. Note that the meaning for "mid-calorie" is only "potential" and, in addition, if there are no preferences for a mid-calorie cola the product will fail.

Oldsmobile was not known as a high-performance car but neither was it perceived as a low-performance car. The brand was not perceived as a luxury car and was not regarded as an economy car. This was because Olds kept changing its positioning. If it had stuck to any one of those meanings—even in the "middle" (since a car that is mid-performance and mid-priced is understandable)—it would have possibly succeeded. So where did Olds end up in the minds of consumers? In a black hole. What happened to Olds’ sales? They went down so far that General Motors terminated the brand. The lesson: Consumers stay away from brands whose meaning they do not understand.



More on Positioning

 A student in Spring, 2001, e-mailed: "I was looking over Positioning Solutions and, while I understand what you said in class that a brand can have only one positioning in a market, I'm confused then how one brand can have different meanings in the minds of the consumers. For example, a large undifferentiated brand such as Nike sends different messages to different groups based on gender, age, and sport, and I'm sure many other companies do it too. Is this wrong, do all companies that do it just confuse the consumer? Additionally when a brand goes international it is often the same brand but it goes after a different target market. For example, Budweiser in Mexico is considered a premium beer. Should the one positioning extend to international markets as well?" An answer:

The statement that a brand can only have one positioning means that anyone exposed to communication about a brand's positioning must see a consistent message. Otherwise, a brand would have different meanings to the same consumer. This would confuse the consumer, and, by aggregation, all consumers.

Let's consider your Nike example. Suppose Nike's core benefit proposition is "athletic shoes with performance and style." As long as Nike communicates this message consistently, they have no problem. They have an undifferentiated market coverage strategy and they try to sell across many potential segmentation variables (but not by having different brands, e.g. Weeboks). So far so good.

But if Nike decides to become irreverent like the did with their "extreme" ads, they are communicating a different CBP, namely one of "extreme and irreverent." Even this might be OK if it were precisely targeted using one medium unlikely to reach their core audience. Then there would be little chance for confusion, although this still presents problems for consistency of execution. (For example, if Nike is extreme, why are they sold at ABC shoes, where my [dad, mom. little brother, aunt, etc.] shops?)

This is why Nike's extreme ads on TV to general audiences violated the "one positioning" rule. They sent a message to all segments of the market but one (basically juvenile boys) that Nike was no longer "performance with style."

As long as a company precisely targets its ads and promotion, it can deviate from communication about its core meaning. But it can not deviate in the product itself (by definition) since that would require a new product brought about through a change in their market coverage strategy.

When international markets are treated as separate markets, a brand can have a different positioning in each separate market (again subject to no overlap in media, often the case with language and other barriers). In essence, there are two "brands." When international markets are treated as one market, as in "global marketing," the one positioning rule applies.

MAGIC

Are all MAGIC strategies good?

No. MAGIC means that a company can protect its plans from competitive reaction, but that doesn’t mean that all its plans are good ones.

An action that cannot be matched is to link a trademarked brand name to a new product. This is only a good MAGIC strategy if the brand name brings something to the new product in terms of evaluative dimensions. The example of UPS linking their brand name with relatively unknown partners to create a service for transmitting documents electronically is both a MAGIC strategy and a good MAGIC strategy. If one important evaluative dimension is trust, then the UPS name brings this to the new product.

Another example is one from our past presentations. Lands’ End wanted to position themselves against L. L. Bean as having more breadth to their product line and more depth, the idea being that the consumer could find what they wanted in categories where both retailers offer the same products through more extensive selection of colors, styles and especially sizes (for fit).

But it is not enough to say that a MAGIC strategy designed to protect this plan against L. L. Bean is to use their solely-owned distribution channel. This is a MAGIC strategy that cannot be matched all right, but not necessarily a good one. In other words, so what?

The "what" would be the reason that the solely-owned distribution channel, which in the case of Lands’ End consists of both catalogs and outlet stores, would help them. More colors and sizes means more inventory and more opportunity to meet any one customer’s needs. But the cost is unsold merchandise and thus excess inventory. How can Lands’ End dispose of unsold catalog merchandise? They can sell it through their outlet stores, which L. L. Bean doesn’t have!

This converts a MAGIC strategy to a good MAGIC strategy.

Product Life Cycles

 Product life cycles are sometimes confused with brand life cycles and introductory strategies are sometimes used for products and sometimes for brands. Let’s clarify this.

The product life cycle is just that: a product life cycle. "Product" here refers to the product category. We could be speaking of DVD’s (introductory stage), color inkjet printers (growth stage), mainframe computers (maturity stage) or supercomputers (decline stage). What is interesting is the change in category sales over time. Note: Examples circa mid 90s.

Brand sales for any one product category may or may not track product sales. Hewlett-Packard’s sales of color inkjet printers may be increasing at a higher rate than the product category and Canon’s sales, at a lower rate. And brand sales can vary over time in terms or growth rate, sometimes even having negative growth! That’s what we mean when we say that a company needs to reposition itself to reestablish meaning, for example, or, if it has good meaning, needs to use market response to increase sales. So it’s not a good idea to use the product life cycle for brands.

One small complication relating to actual product life cycle strategies is that the some strategies can be used at different stages of the product life cycle. For example, in the introductory phase of the product life cycle the "premium" and "mass" strategies obviously refer to the product (and brand since all brands are new). Thus we can talk about a premium introductory strategy for HDTV’s or a mass strategy for Internet service.

But a company bringing out a new "product" (really brand) in a mature product category can also follow a mass or premium strategy since the strategies themselves are just defined in terms of some combination of the 3 P’s. Gillette’s successor to the Sensor razor, the Mach 3, was marketed with a mass strategy although clearly razors are in the mature stage of the product life cycle.

Sometimes the distinctions are even more subtle. For example, when does a new product form or variation define a new category? Are multifunction cell phones (that include calling, Internet, digital cameras, etc.) just extensions of the product category "cell phones" or do they define a new product category "multifunction cell phones?"

Fortunately, if you understand the product life cycle and the different strategies for the product life cycle, subtle distinctions don’t make much difference. That’s because the strategies themselves can be used in different ways.

Natural Markets

 What is the difference between a natural market and market opportunity?

 Since Natural Markets are areas on a positioning map with preferences but no nearby brands, they also can be considered market opportunities. The key is "consumer-recognized needs and wants," which is what ideal points on a positioning map represent, at least in terms of evaluative dimensions for a product that would meet those needs and wants. Natural markets are markets where consumers know they want something, but cannot find it. For example, if you want a low-powered hair dryer (because it will not damage your hair), you cannot buy one. They are all high-powered, and every time you need to buy a new one the wattage is even higher. That's why I said new ones could be used to strip paint! So low-powered hair dryers are a natural market. And since people would like to buy them if they could, low-powered hair dryers are a market opportunity for some producer.

The term "market opportunity" is often used in marketing to denote any opportunity to increase sales, say of an existing product through increased advertising. In this case there is an opportunity to increase sales, perhaps through frequency of purchase. Natural markets, however, are about the products themselves—ones that do not or no longer exist.

Joint Ventures

A classmate in Spring, 2000, wrote: "Hello, I have noticed that in almost every issue of the WSJ there is a company that has initiated a joint venture with another company and was wondering just how to classify this for the write-ups for Marketing Management. My first assumption is that it is a MAGIC action that cannot be matched..." My answer:

 Up until this semester I always treated joint ventures as a growth strategy, a form of integrative growth. That's because the purpose of joint ventures is to grow sales—usually but not exclusively through new products—at lower risk. The risk is presumably lower since the "joint" resources are better suited to meeting market needs than any "single" resources. But I thought that joint venture was too much like a marketing term, not like our marketing concepts. The latter are decision-related, e.g., promotion strategy is a choice of push, pull or both while the term promotion is just a type of marketing activity.

Based on your question (and insight), I plan to add an example in the MAGIC lecture since a joint venture is an action that cannot be matched. In that way it's like contracts with certain buyers or an acquisition. Here is the revision for your notes:

5. Establish contracts with certain buyers or joint ventures with certain sellers.

Naturally, as you say in your message, there are numerous examples of joint ventures.

Retailers in the Product-Market Growth Matrix

This exchange took place in Spring, 2004, in response to, first, a student question and, then, a revision of the explanation of the product-market growth matrix in the Marketing Logic virtual text. (See "The special case of retailers" under Product Development.)

I think that what you have added is clear, but this may be because of the conversation we had this afternoon. Product development, as you have stated, occurs when the brand is significantly changed. Shouldn't we then title it brand development? For example, if McDonald's added a new burger, as they have over time, that would be a new product, but unless the new product changed the brand McDonald's, product development would not have taken place. I think the confusion lies in the naming of such things as brand or product. Maybe we could rename the strategy brand development and it would make more logical sense. Also, if I remember correctly, we came to the conclusion that a company such as McDonald's could undergo market penetration and product diversification at the same time. If this is true, it might be beneficial to add a note to the virtual text explaining such. You have great notes explaining the possibilities of combination strategies, maybe an explanation of this one would be of value to the students. Just a thought, let me know what you think. This correspondence is beneficial and I thank you for including me in this hands-on experience.

My answer: Thank you for your thoughtful response. I did toy with the idea once of a three by two matrix with product development and brand development. But then the matrix would not be Ansoff's matrix that is discussed—however poorly—in marketing textbooks. In addition, there is the fact that companies do equate products and brands. Procter & Gamble invented the "product" management system and the system is for brands! Thus, the title product manager and brand manager are interchangeable. We cannot change this real world situation. When companies mean the product cereal rather than the brand Wheaties they use the term product category.

If the "new" interpretation of product development as substantial change in the product or brand is accepted, then there cannot be a situation where a product is both current and new. So a company cannot be simultaneously pursuing market penetration and product development or, what is the same thing, any strategy on the left hand side of the matrix and one on the right.

Students (and professors!) can at least have this to hang their hat on: if nothing is changed in the product/brand, then the growth strategy is on the left; if market potential is changed, the strategy is on the bottom.

Remember too that our ultimate goal is not to find out what a company is doing (although that is the objective of a Wall Street Journal application or an exam question), but rather to answer the question: How can a company grow its sales? That's when we say: well, there are four ways to grow sales.... In practice, we look forward, not back, so the names of the strategies are not as important as the strategies themselves and their successful implementation.

"Bad" Evaluative Dimensions

What's wrong with using quality, image or reputation as evaluative dimensions. Why are they "bad?"

 They are only bad in the sense that when one is used, they always stand for something else. Consider quality. You could say that it ranges from high to low. But what do you mean by quality? Do you mean ingredient quality for a pizza retailer? Do you mean durability or traction for a brand of tire? Do you mean tailoring and workmanship for clothing? In each case more can be learned by specifying what quality means. Alone, quality can mean too many things and consumers focus on aspects of quality when making evaluations of brands. (In addition, not too many companies would want to position on "poor quality.)

The situation is similar with image. High image and low image means even less than high and low quality. But the real issue is that, like quality, image stands for something else. Do you mean that Mercedes-Benz has a high image because it has high prestige? Do you mean that Fubu has high image because its urban or hip? Do you mean that Healthy Choice has a high image because it has an image—in part derived from its name—of healthiness or, what is the same, high on the evaluative dimension of healthiness? If so, it's better to use the underlying evaluative dimensions: in these examples, prestige, hipness and healthiness.

Finally, what about reputation? Clearly consumers favor brands with better reputations. Why not use reputation on a positioning map? The answer is the same: it stands for something else. Consider BMW and Kia. Which has the better reputation? Well, the buyers of Bimmers certainly think that BMW has a good reputation—otherwise they wouldn't be buyers. And, in general, it could be conceded that BMW has a better "reputation" than Kia. But what about the Kia buyers? They bought Kia because they felt it had the best reputation. To them reputation probably meant value for money; they may think that BMW's are way overpriced for what you get. So reputation is the result of consumers evaluating brands on different evaluative dimensions and then making purchase decisions. Reputation results from something else— perhaps performance for BMW, perhaps value for Kia.

You always want to use the core evaluative dimensions in your positioning analysis. That way you can use the analysis to derive your core benefit proposition.

What would a core benefit proposition of "high quality, high image, high reputation" tell a brand manager about how to position a brand? Not as much as a core benefit proposition for BMW of "high performance, prestigious and (reputation for) high fit and finish."

Sales Response to Distribution

A classmate in Spring, 2004, wrote: "I was just wondering if you could clarify something for me please. I know that you repeatedly answered this question during class but I must have not quite grasped the correct answer. When we were talking about Tupperware and how they hurt their sales due to increasing their distribution, you said it was because they were a certain type of product. Can you clarify this again for me? Thanks I would really appreciate it."

Just ask yourself what type of product, if any, could be "overdistributed." Razor blades can't, Coke can't, Time magazine can't, etc. Nothing about the brand's positioning changes with intensive distribution. In each of these cases the more distribution the better. Of course, at some point, increases in sales level off and that's why what diminishing returns is. But sales do not go down.

The only type of product that could possibly have sales go down if distribution increased "too much" is a product where the positioning of the product would change as a result of the overdistribution such that it's image, aura, exclusivity, cachet, etc. changed. Georgio perfume lost its cachet as it appeared in more and more outlets. Tupperware lost its "party plan" exclusivity. (And the distribution in Target made it more difficult to recruit salespeople.)

Don't show sales going down for increases in distribution unless you can make the argument that positioning changes because of that.

Common Errors

What are the most common errors made in Marketing Management on exams and in workbooks?

Common errors applying the Problem Solving Format:

  • Not explaining what a focus market is
  • Not motivating a segmentation analysis
  • Forgetting where the target market comes from
  • Not recognizing the logical relationships among the 3 P's
  • Not interpreting MAGIC as a way to protect your plan against competition

Common product-market growth matrix errors:

  • Calling a product "current" even though it has a new name and was just (or is about to be) launched
  • Not calling a product new if is new to the company but currently offered by another company
  • Calling a market new if it doesn't involve an expansion of market potential
  • Not understanding that brand extensions are new brands

Common segmentation errors:

  • Not knowing the purpose of a segmentation circle/analysis
  • Using segmentation variables that cannot define possible products
  • Confusing segmentation variables with evaluative dimensions

Common errors with Buyer Behavior Flow Charts (BBFC):

  • Not recognizing that the BBFC is for all consumers and all brands in the target market
  • Not showing all "branches" of the BBFC
  • Not explaining the difference between evaluative dimensions at the top vs. the bottom of the BBFC
  • Using high and low quality, image or reputation as evaluative dimensions

Common errors with stating behavioral premises:

  • Not a challenge to a company's plan
  • Brand or person specific
  • An obvious assumption
  • A compound statement

Common errors with positioning:

  • Forgetting that all existing brands must have some preferences
  • Drawing "little circles" around individual brand perceptions as if each brand had its own preference circle
  • Mixing up "yellow" and "green" arrows
  • Assuming that all back holes are in the center of a positioning map
  • Using high and low quality, image or reputation as evaluative dimensions
  • Not using the size of preference circles to denote the relative size of markets
  • Defining a Core Benefit Proposition that has more or less evaluative dimensions than those used for positioning

Common errors with market response:

  • Mixing up planning and forecasting with market response models
  • Mislabeling the axes on a market response graph
  • Showing a supersaturation effect when none exists

Common errors setting the 3 P's:

  • Not expressing them as strategies
  • Not deriving them from a brand's core benefit proposition
  • Not making sure they are consistent
  • Forgetting what a brand's business model is based on

Common errors applying the MAGIC:

  • Not noting that MAGIC is a hierarchy with the strongest actions at the top
  • Saying that a trademarked brand name is a strong MAGIC strategy without explaining why (otherwise, it's lame)
  • Misinterpreting Gamesmanship (which requires understandable, short-term and targeted actions)
  • Assuming that all MAGIC strategies are good

Common errors applying the concept of Natural Markets:

  • Not putting yourself in other people's shoes
  • Calling something a natural market when the product is readily available
  • Not recognizing that an area on a positioning map with preferences but no brands is a natural market

Common errors applying implementation concepts:

  • Not choosing the most relevant concept based on evidence in an article
  • Equating ego involvement with resistance to change

Internalize!

What does it mean to internalize a marketing concept?

 Suppose your friend has started a new business and asks you, as a marketing major, how she can grow her sales. Which of these would be the best answer?

  1. I don't know.
  2. Hire a clown.*
  3. Well...there are four ways to grow sales based on current vs. new products and current vs. new markets.
Obviously the last answer is based on marketing knowledge and, if you give it, is 100% correct. So you begin with something that you know is true. Your friend is impressed (because they didn't know this) and you have time—a few moments will do—to think about what you may say next.

If the business is a one-location restaurant that is doing well, you could just suggest market development by saying that one thing that could be done is to expand to different geographic markets. Or, if sales are not as high as they might be, you could say that a market penetration strategy may be called for by increasing sales of the current product to current customers.

If the latter is your path, you might then think about increased advertising or promotion to increase awareness of the restaurant. At that point, something creative could be added such as "hire a clown!"

The point is that, if you internalize just a few basic marketing concepts that you know to be true, you can answer any question based on marketing knowledge. Your friend (or job interviewer or employer) will be impressed and your confidence will increase. You know more about marketing than your friend, and by applying marketing concepts you can learn about how they fit with any particular business situation.

This is what it means to internalize!

By the way, you can only get good at this through the practice of applying these basic concepts to real-world situations. What you really need is a course based on the real world, opportunities to apply the concepts repeatedly—as with Wall Street Journal applications—and feedback that fuels your confidence. Hey...this course! :>)

_______________
*This is not an off-the-wall idea. An MBA student suggested on an exam that a company "hire a clown" to solve a promotion problem. Is this an A answer, a C, a D? How could such an answer be graded? So the point is that there is only one way to answer a question: base the answer on something you know to be true.



Home Page
© Randall L. Schultz. All Rights Reserved.