Brands and political parties hinge on effective positioning. The essence of a brand’s positioning lies in what it represents, while a political party’s positioning reflects its underlying ideology. Understanding the nuances that define local and national identities is crucial; however, many brands and parties fail to invest the necessary time to get this right.
- Local brands need to excel and cater to their immediate consumer base before contemplating expansion into regional or national markets. A common pitfall is overextending geographically, which can strain resources and overwhelm management capabilities. Often, being the dominant player in a smaller market proves more beneficial than being a minor player in a larger one. Unfortunately, pride can cloud judgment; take, for instance, a ride-sharing service that expanded into multiple countries and ultimately retreated, or a watch brand that attempted global reach only to refocus on India after facing challenges.
- Understanding the local context is essential. Brands must leverage their strengths; directly competing with national brands rarely leads to victory. The optimal strategy for strong local brands is to remain local. In contrast, national brands may adopt regional strategies as necessary. For example, Campbell Soup was innovative in its approach by creating a national brand with regional variations. Indian tea brands like Red Label and Taaza also exemplified similar strategies. While national parties can navigate complex blends, local parties must stick to a singular focus. This concentrated approach is not detrimental, as over-diversification often leads to dilution, causing a local brand to act as if it were a national one.
- Both performance and public perception are critical for brands and political parties. Lengthy presence in the market becomes irrelevant if perception falters despite solid performance. Perception acts as an additional layer on top of acceptable performance. We often witness attempts to tarnish rivals by throwing mud, hoping something will resonate. Brands evolve their packaging and products regularly, every couple of years. Political parties would benefit from adopting a similar philosophy, continually refreshing their messages and capabilities. Being stagnant and relying on historical success does not satisfy citizens who are keen to see plans for the future. The ‘incumbency effect’ hampers brands and political forces when they fail to adapt to changing times.
- Identifying target audiences and strategic partnerships is crucial. Waging battles on multiple fronts can lead to confusion and wasted energy. It’s essential for brands to maintain focus—otherwise, they risk becoming fragmented, allowing national leaders to dominate the marketplace. This is a frequent error witnessed among brands ranked second to sixth in any category, where they stretch themselves too thin in hopes of gaining a small share at the expense of credibility and resources.
- Local brands must engage in a ‘guerilla’ strategy, which emphasizes agility and a merciless approach to exploiting the market leader’s weaknesses. This strategy does not rely on matching the leader blow for blow, as the leader usually has superior resources. An exemplary case is the deodorant brand Fogg from Gujarat.
- Brands that fail to maintain appeal must embrace technology, harness the next wave of innovation, and connect with a new generation of consumers to remain relevant. Competing for the same audience as the market leader will only dilute their impact. For a lesser brand, merely copying others without a unique angle renders them insignificant and unlikely to thrive.
It is imperative for brand managers across the political landscape to reassess their strategies. Instead of aggressively attacking, a strategic retreat to reevaluate and refine their approach may yield better results.
(Shiv Shivakumar is an Operating Partner at Advent International and former head of Pepsico India and Nokia India)
