Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Marketing warfare


Published on

Book Review - Marketing Warfare

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Marketing warfare

  1. 1. Review by:- Sabish Parameswaran
  2. 2. Author’s Jack TroutJack Trout Al RiseAl Rise The marketing concept states that a firm's goal should be to identify and profitably satisfy customer needs. In Marketing Warfare Al Ries and Jack Trout argue that marketing is war and that the marketing concept's customer- oriented philosophy is inadequate. Rather, firms would do better by becoming competitor-oriented.
  3. 3. 2500 Years of War • There is much that marketers can learn from military strategy. Ries and Trout tell the story of several famous battles in history that illustrate lessons of warfare. • These battles range from Marathon in 490 B.C. when the Greeks used the phalanx to defeat the more numerous Persian invaders, to the Normandy invasion of the second world war. • The lessons from these famous battles illustrate the concepts of planning, maneuvering, and overpowering the opposing side. • These principles are relevant not only to warfare, but also to marketing. In Marketing Warfare, Ries and Trout quote Karl von Clausewitz and apply his principles to marketing.
  4. 4. Prussian general, Karl Von Clausewitz had written a book by the name “On War” in 1832 which outlines the strategic principles behind all wars. The weapons in the marketing world would be different but warfare everywhere remains the same. Marketing is no different than war.Marketing is no different than war. A marketing war is a totally intellectual war and the battleground is the mind. The tanks and artillery of today’s marketing war is advertising. Until you know how to use advertising at the tactical level, you are at a severe disadvantage as a marketing strategist.
  5. 5. Clausewitz 1st principle:- The principle of Force. Smaller companies must recognize the principle of force and attempt to win the battle by means of a superior strategy, not by brute force. Clausewitz 2nd principle:- The superiority of Defence. Being on the defence is very beneficial for any leader to retain its position. Providing time for the competitor to retaliate to the attack can be a downfall for the attacker.
  6. 6. The different warfare’s that a company can undertake are as follows:-
  7. 7. Defensive Warfare
  8. 8. Offensive Warfare
  9. 9. Flanking Warfare
  10. 10. Guerrilla Warfare
  11. 11. • In 1915 Coca-Cola introduced its unique 6-1/2 ounce bottle that became closely associated with the brand. • The size and shape was just right to fit the hand, and this bottle and its association with Coca-Cola was a major strength. • However, when Pepsi introduced a larger bottle for the same price as the smaller bottle of Coke, Coke did not have many options to respond. • Because of the way the size and shape of the bottle fit the hand, it could not be enlarged easily. • Furthermore, the dispensing machines for Coke were designed for nickels only, so the price could not easily be changed. • These weaknesses were a direct result of Coke's strength and illustrate the second principle of offensive warfare: the challenger should seek a weakness in the leader's strength. • Many of the successes and failures of the Coke vs. Pepsi cola wars can be explained by principles of marketing warfare, including the success and failures of smaller challengers such as 7-Up (the Uncola) and Royal Crown Cola. The Cola War
  12. 12. The Cola War Year :- 1902 Market Leader :- Coca ColaCoca Cola Competitor :- No major competitor Bottle size :- 6 ½ ounce6 ½ ounce Price :- A nickelA nickel Year :- 1939 Enter PepsiPepsi Bottle size :- 12 ounces12 ounces Price :- A nickelA nickel Year :- 1960 Market lead of Coca ColaCoca Cola reduced to HALFHALF Coca ColaCoca Cola introduced 10, 12 & 2610, 12 & 26 ounce bottles.
  13. 13. • Flanking attack. • McDonald's was the leader, and Burger King tried offensive maneuvers. The moves that were unsuccessful were those that extended the product line and that copied McDonald's. • The campaigns that were successful differentiated Burger King from McDonald's. For example, Have it your way attacked a weakness in McDonald's consistent production line process that had the flip side of being inflexible. • Even more successful were the advertisements emphasizing the fact that Burger King's burgers were flame-broiled while McDonald's were fried. The Burger War
  14. 14. The Burger War Market leader :- McDonald’sMcDonald’s Strength :- Instant delivery, excellent assembly line & UNIFORMITYUNIFORMITY Weakness :- Any special order takes time to be prepared Competitor :- Burger KingBurger King Strength :- Have your burger your way.
  15. 15. • White Castle was the low-end guerrilla who limited their geographic scope, did not add a confusing array of other products, and maintained a high level of sales in each establishment. • White Castle observed the guerrilla principle of never acting like the leader, and as a result was able to coexist peacefully. The Burger War
  16. 16. MARKETING WARFARE SUMMARY As in military warfare, the appropriate marketing warfare strategy depends on the firm's position relative to its opponents. In developing its strategy, the firm must objectively determine its position in the market. Once this is done, a defensive, offensive, flanking, or guerrilla strategy can be selected depending on the firm's position relative to the competition. Ries and Trout have identified interesting and useful commonalities between military strategy and marketing strategy.