Immutable Laws of Marketing Made to be Broken?
Posted in Uncategorized on March 25th, 2010 by fubarrioTags: beauty, health care, immutable laws of marketing, skin
I was doing some basic research into the beauty, and more specifically the skin care, market and was struck by the fact that it seems like every company in the space has a myriad of products living under the same brand.
Seemingly every company in the space seemed to be breaking one of the supposed fundamental, ‘immutable’ laws of marketing as laid out by Ries and Trout’s seminal 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing.
In their book they tout the ‘law of focus’ and ‘the law of line extension’.
In short, the law of focus and the law of line extension say that while there is irresistible pressure to extend the equity of a brand through “line extensions”, that proper branding focuses the brand on one word or word phrase and works to own that (key)word phrase in the prospects mind.
In the face of this logical argument, I’m struck by the myriad of products that each of the successful skin care and beauty lines has produced. L’Oreal, Clarins, Este Lauder, Clarins…basically, all of them. Even the old standby, single product, Vaseline couldn’t resist taking it’s petroleum jelly and extending it into a line of lotions and skin care.
So if it’s such an ill-fated, short term strategy, why is every brand under the sun doing it and getting away with it?
The only reason I can imagine is that it is such a highly fragmented market of bogus claims, smoke, mirrors, and vanity, that it becomes very difficult to get a foothold in the prospects mind, much less beauty counter shelf space. If a store is going to dedicate shelf space to a brand they almost *demand* that the company create more skus so that the consumer will drive the average ticket price up.
I know there are probably more forces at work here that I don’t quite understand, so if you have any insight, sound off! I’ll give you a dofollow link and you too can join the legions of entrepreneurs in the beauty market with more skus than employees! 
I think there is also a lack of brand loyalty among consumers nowadays. It is getting harder and harder to have a brand associated with a particular word or phrase now due to the large number of advertising venues and consumer options.
yeah, of course charles you’re right.
what the authors of the 22 laws say is that over time the market will just ‘niche out’ and new things that no one ever thought of will become brands with a brand loyalty.
for example, first there were phones, then later corporate phone systems, then, small biz phone systems (like your company)….pretty soon someone will realize that by specializing into phone systems for dentist offices is a big enough market that if they can find a ‘hook’ or just be able to talk the dental office manager’s language they can sop up all of those sales and create brand loyalty within an albeit smaller sub niche.
the authors actually say that this is the way you should go about branding….instead of trying to own ‘cars’, volvo went after ’safe cars’ and won…and in the process kicked GM’s ass….quick, try to think of a word phrase that defines GM (besides bankrupt or crappy). when you are everything to everyone you are nothing to no one.
r8r
Good article, You 2 are right, there’s lack of brand loyalty as well and really segmentation or microsegmentation to the audience is the big issue now I believe..
David
It is getting harder and harder to have a brand associated with a particular word or phrase now due to the large number of advertising venues and consumer options.
I disagree with charles that there is a lack of brand loyalty, I think brand and quality will still drive return customers to you
i am agree with you that there is no company follow 100% rule of internet marketing.i think everyone broke the rule at some points
yeah i am agree with you that there is no company follow 100% rule of internet marketing.