A Kotlerian Critique

I was given a task of analyzing a food industry product. On the face of it, it was pretty clear that the product had now been commodified and the market was saturated. The question was, how to tackle growth in such markets for such products. I tried for a systematic hunt. I first looked at some HBR classics that had some pioneering theories that answer market-cracking questions. They were nothing short of saturated ideas, just like that food product. "Differentiation" and "job-based positioning" are some of the classic marketer moves, but haven't these already been done? Lost in the vortex of classic literature that I've been taught in class, I realized how none of the ideas that stuck in my mind were enough to trust outside a slide deck.  

After a simple Google search of "How Brands Grow", I got the suggestion of this book by Byron Sharp. I bought it, and I instantly knew I had stumbled onto a genius. The kind of book that ruins other books for you. The ideas were something I'd expect to implement in case studies, something more than the sacred relics- the BCG matrices of uselessness, the 7-s staggering silliness, and whatnot.

Marketing Malpractice talks about job-based positioning and functionality selling. It says-People/consumers need to get things done in their daily life; they don't just buy products—they hire them to perform a role for them. Your job as a marketer is to figure out which moments in your customers' lives trigger a "need," and offer a product that steps in like the perfect hire. Let's see by example. 

In 1960, a market researcher of the company Church & Dwight, Barry Goldblatt, went beyond normal surveys and statistics and began to observe how consumers were using their Arm & Hammer baking soda in daily life. He found a lot of variation in the usage. Many people would just mix the soda with laundry detergents, use it to clean their carpets, mix it with toothpaste, while others would place open boxes in their refrigerators. From all of this, Church & Dwight had multiple job opportunities for their soda. So, they launched a plethora of variations to fullfill those jobs- Arm & Hammer Complete Care toothpaste, Arm & Hammer Fridge-n-Freezer baking soda, Ultra Max deodorant, and Arm & Hammer Laundry Detergent. etc. Obviously, the results were phenomenal. Their market shares increased like the portion of food I'd ask my sibling to share and their sales went up just like Britney Spears' career, and whatnot.  

But this was around the early 2000s, when the internet was like the plot of Inception on your first watch, advertising was fun and unique, not a relentless parade of overproduced insipid reels, and social media wasn't full of crawling self-proclaimed influencers who could barely 'inspire' themselves.  

In this differentiated world of undifferentiated things, does Kotler's adage of "Differentiate or die" still hold true? Byron Sharp argues against this, and he did not hesitate to contain his words. He compares and equates the Kotlerian 'differentiate or die' world view of the marketing world to the humoral imbalance theory by the ancient Greeks (e.g., Hippocrates, Galen) in the medicine world. This theory dominated the medical thinking in Europe and the Middle East for 2000 years because no one tested against it.   

According to Sharp, a brand grows when everyone gets to know it. It has to be on the minds of people. Brands should create specific cues that trigger the consumer's brain to lean towards that particular brand when a memory cue is triggered. He also challenges the idea of consumer loyalty and believes more in market penetration than in overfocusing on retention. For him, Differentiation is sort of given. If you are entering a market, you ought to enter with at least something that is different than the rest.

Most marketing theories overestimate the role of persuasion, Differentiation, loyalty, and targeting and undermine the importance of reach, memory, and both mental and physical availability. Effective branding is less about persuading consumers to purchase through rational or emotional arguments and more about making certain that a brand is memorable, so that advertising can continually refresh and build simple memory structures. In todays world of content overload, differentiation does not enable memorability. Marketers often try to solve problems by using a finely crafted GTM strategies, creating differentiators and narrowing down consumers, who ultimately hardly care to invest so much mentally. Options are good, but when they become abundant, the human mind tries to simplify and dial down, instead of confusing itself. Eg. Who cares if Colgate has a salt range, clove range, sugar range, strawberry vanilla pudding range? I am just buying a toothpaste, it shouldn't be that hard. Look at these toothpastes I saw few days back in a supermarket. It was laughable to me.  

The consumer's mind cannot invest so much in small decisions. While these efforts may seem to raise perception, they do nothing to resolve brand visibility and brand salience to help convince consumers to buy. This results in low response rates and poor brand linkage. Frequent mistakes like changing packaging, changing brand and ad tones, overanalyzing and overinvesting in loyal customers, and/or offering too many discounts and varieties waste resources.  

Growth- the fundamental objective of marketing, rarely comes from squeezing more purchases out of existing customers because loyalty varies little between brands. Larger brands grow mainly through higher penetration, not higher purchase frequency. This Coca-Cola case has quite interesting numbers. Market share expansion is difficult, and firms must "run fast just to stand still," so strategies that aim to increase penetration consistently outperform those focused on niche targeting, retention, or cross-selling. Retention is not necessarily cheaper than acquisition either. Light and occasional buyers matter most because they are numerous and collectively drive sales (see the Coca-Cola case).

Consumers cope with overwhelming choices by using heuristics and "satisficing," not by careful evaluation of 1,000 variations of a vanilla lip-balm. Hence, brand success depends less on being objectively superior and more on being easy to think of and easy to buy. Brands compete primarily through mental availability (salience and rich memory networks built from many relevant associations and cues) and physical availability (distribution and accessibility). Brand assets, such as consistent packaging, colours, logos, associations with value, and cues, help trigger recall. Advertising without distribution is waste, and distribution without salience leaves products unnoticed. Because mental and physical availability accumulate slowly and endure over time, they function as valuable market-based assets that explain why established brands remain resilient, even with unremarkable offerings. Differentiation claims, brand personalities, and minor perceived advantages matter far less than traditional theory suggests. What matters is being present, noticeable, and easy for everyone to buy on many occasions.  

The practical rules are therefore simple: continuously reach all category buyers, maximise distribution, get noticed often (Nike does this brilliantly, I mean look at their ads), build and refresh brand-linked memory structures, use distinctive assets, stay consistent yet fresh, and maintain broad mass appeal so that as many potential customers as possible can easily choose the brand.