Brand Relevance: Making Competitors Irrelevant - always yours

More documents

Recommendations

Info

230 BRAND RELEVANCE uptime statistics, which was running at 99.99 percent in 2009. Salesforce.com evolved to have a broad range of applications, including those involving customer relationship management (CRM) as described in the Seibel sidebar. However, there was a demand for applications much broader in scope and variety than salesforce.com could possibly deliver. So in 2005 salesforce.com , an operating platform for the Internet, was launched. It offered a way for everyone, including customers and developers, to create applications online by using a salesforce.com as a platform as a service (PaaS). Morgan Stanley, for example, used it to build a recruiting platform, and others used it to create accounting programs all linked into the salesforce.com platform, which made the relationship with salesforce.com even closer. The platform liberated a host of developer activities. To make its products more readily available, salesforce.com created AppExchange, a marketplace for solutions where software makers can make available applications they develop. BusinessWeek called it the “ eBay for business software. ” 2 In 2008 there were over eight hundred applications from over 450 partners on AppExchange. Salesforce.com was positioned as a feisty underdog competitor trying to introduce a new way of computing, “ cloud competing, ” to the firms using such conventional enterprise computing software as that of Siebel Systems that were not cloud based. Such an underdog personality, which creates energy and reinforces brand position, was used to great advantage by Apple, Virgin Airlines, and many other brands. Toward that end, sales force.com did several stunts to make the point. During a huge Siebel Users Group conference at the Moscone Center in San Francisco in February 2000, salesforce.com hired people to picket the hall with signs reading “ No software ” and “ Software is obsolete. ” Fake TV reporters provided more hype. One ad showed the contrast between a vintage biplane (Siebel) and a modern jet fighter ( salesforce.com ) and others associating the “cloud” with “incredibly easy” (see Figure 8.1). Of course sales force.com was just delivering software in a different manner, but
Page 4:
“ What always amazes me about Dav
Page 8:
Brand Relevance
Page 14:
Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & S
Page 20:
Contents Preface xiii 1. Winning th
Page 24:
CONTENTS xi Does the Offering Have
Page 28:
Preface During the last ten years,
Page 32:
PREFACE xv There are dozens of othe
Page 36:
You do not merely want to be consid
Page 42:
2 BRAND RELEVANCE whereas the other
Page 46:
4 BRAND RELEVANCE and being the num
Page 50:
6 BRAND RELEVANCE Figure 1.2 The As
Page 54:
8 BRAND RELEVANCE new tools, a new
Page 58:
10 BRAND RELEVANCE The fi rst and m
Page 62:
12 BRAND RELEVANCE There are a host
Page 66:
14 BRAND RELEVANCE Figure 1.3 Brand
Page 70:
16 BRAND RELEVANCE differentiation,
Page 74:
18 BRAND RELEVANCE the competitor
Page 78:
20 BRAND RELEVANCE the one UPS has
Page 82:
22 BRAND RELEVANCE to some other st
Page 86:
24 BRAND RELEVANCE A major risk is
Page 90:
26 BRAND RELEVANCE The New Brand Ch
Page 94:
28 BRAND RELEVANCE In the case of a
Page 98:
30 BRAND RELEVANCE the brand role m
Page 102:
32 BRAND RELEVANCE innovation. Or t
Page 106:
34 BRAND RELEVANCE into a sustainab
Page 110:
36 BRAND RELEVANCE newness (defi ne
Page 114:
38 BRAND RELEVANCE A highly differe
Page 118:
40 BRAND RELEVANCE champions of the
Page 122:
42 BRAND RELEVANCE These works and
Page 126:
44 BRAND RELEVANCE and transformati
Page 132:
2 UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE Cat
Page 136:
UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE 49 ch
Page 140:
UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE 51 ex
Page 144:
UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE 53 Th
Page 148:
UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE 55 Cu
Page 152:
Page 156:
UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE 59 th
Page 160:
UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE 61 wa
Page 164:
Page 168:
UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE 65 su
Page 172:
UNDERSTANDING BRAND RELEVANCE 67 th
Page 178:
70 BRAND RELEVANCE Retailers have s
Page 182:
72 BRAND RELEVANCE but functional.
Page 186:
74 BRAND RELEVANCE statement agains
Page 190:
76 BRAND RELEVANCE business grows b
Page 194:
78 BRAND RELEVANCE advantages. So h
Page 198:
80 BRAND RELEVANCE would affect the
Page 202:
82 BRAND RELEVANCE and related cont
Page 206:
84 BRAND RELEVANCE go that involve
Page 210:
86 BRAND RELEVANCE The Subway Story
Page 214:
88 BRAND RELEVANCE The totality of
Page 218:
90 BRAND RELEVANCE There were fi ft
Page 222:
92 BRAND RELEVANCE hang from the ce
Page 226:
94 BRAND RELEVANCE elusive synergy
Page 232:
4 MARKET DYNAMICS IN THE AUTOMOBILE
Page 236:
MARKET DYNAMICS IN THE AUTOMOBILE I
Page 240:
Page 244:
Page 248:
Page 252:
Page 256:
Page 260:
Page 264:
Page 268:
Page 272:
Page 276:
Page 280:
Page 284:
Page 288:
Page 292:
5 THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS It is us
Page 296:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 129 We sta
Page 300:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 131 Crete
Page 304:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 133 how to
Page 308:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 135 McDona
Page 312:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 137 found
Page 316:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 139 the po
Page 320:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 141 vigoro
Page 324:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 143 less r
Page 328:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 145 Mills
Page 332:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 147 • In
Page 336:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 149 have a
Page 340:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 151 of lig
Page 344:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 153 extra
Page 348:
THE FOOD INDUSTRY ADAPTS 155 • An
Page 354:
158 BRAND RELEVANCE It was a produc
Page 358:
160 BRAND RELEVANCE silos confused
Page 362:
162 BRAND RELEVANCE challenge the K
Page 366:
164 BRAND RELEVANCE With that backg
Page 370:
166 BRAND RELEVANCE Sometimes there
Page 374:
168 BRAND RELEVANCE base was undoub
Page 378:
170 BRAND RELEVANCE Figure 6.2 Find
Page 382:
172 BRAND RELEVANCE service is gene
Page 386:
174 BRAND RELEVANCE examined in slo
Page 390:
176 BRAND RELEVANCE of ethnographic
Page 394:
178 BRAND RELEVANCE sleepy brand in
Page 398:
180 BRAND RELEVANCE product or serv
Page 402:
182 BRAND RELEVANCE that decision,
Page 406:
184 BRAND RELEVANCE Tata Chemicals,
Page 410:
186 BRAND RELEVANCE • Nice ’ n
Page 414:
188 BRAND RELEVANCE competitor was
Page 418:
190 BRAND RELEVANCE Timing is parti
Page 422:
192 BRAND RELEVANCE if any of these
Page 426:
194 BRAND RELEVANCE Figure 6.3 Prio
Page 432:
7 EVALUATION A great company is mor
Page 436:
EVALUATION 199 Segway disliked the
Page 440:
EVALUATION 201 potential to be game
Page 444:
EVALUATION 203 of the many market f
Page 448: EVALUATION 205 buy products. She al
Page 452: EVALUATION 207 Predictions of a che
Page 456: EVALUATION 209 car or the failure t
Page 460: EVALUATION 211 middle - aged athlet
Page 464: EVALUATION 213 are not willing to s
Page 468: EVALUATION 215 values - driven moti
Page 472: EVALUATION 217 because fading busin
Page 476: EVALUATION 219 A key issue is often
Page 480: EVALUATION 221 Overcrowding is a re
Page 484: Barriers to Entry EVALUATION 223 A
Page 488: EVALUATION 225 For Discussion Pick
Page 494: 228 BRAND RELEVANCE referred to as
Page 500: DEFINING AND MANAGING THE CATEGORY
Page 548:
DEFINING AND MANAGING THE CATEGORY
Page 552:
Page 556:
Page 560:
Page 564:
Page 568:
Page 572:
Page 578:
270 BRAND RELEVANCE computers. Tech
Page 582:
272 BRAND RELEVANCE his help in bri
Page 586:
274 BRAND RELEVANCE heritage, its p
Page 590:
276 BRAND RELEVANCE Figure 9.2 Crea
Page 594:
278 BRAND RELEVANCE Delivering an o
Page 598:
280 BRAND RELEVANCE Brand Equity Br
Page 602:
282 BRAND RELEVANCE always been an
Page 606:
284 BRAND RELEVANCE resent a brand
Page 610:
286 BRAND RELEVANCE Maine, Sam Adam
Page 614:
288 BRAND RELEVANCE Branded Feature
Page 618:
290 BRAND RELEVANCE a branded servi
Page 622:
292 BRAND RELEVANCE Involving the C
Page 626:
294 BRAND RELEVANCE Link the Brand
Page 630:
296 BRAND RELEVANCE brand; energizi
Page 634:
298 BRAND RELEVANCE a strong market
Page 638:
300 BRAND RELEVANCE not only favore
Page 642:
302 BRAND RELEVANCE This chapter wi
Page 646:
304 BRAND RELEVANCE lingering memor
Page 650:
306 BRAND RELEVANCE The stick - to
Page 654:
308 BRAND RELEVANCE introducing Chi
Page 658:
310 BRAND RELEVANCE investment is r
Page 662:
312 BRAND RELEVANCE handicap becaus
Page 666:
314 BRAND RELEVANCE diffi cult to a
Page 670:
316 BRAND RELEVANCE externally sour
Page 674:
318 BRAND RELEVANCE Branded Social
Page 678:
320 BRAND RELEVANCE Beware of makin
Page 682:
322 BRAND RELEVANCE their Genesis s
Page 686:
324 BRAND RELEVANCE the Year award
Page 692:
11 THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION In m
Page 696:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 329 emp
Page 700:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 331 Fig
Page 704:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 333 Fig
Page 708:
Entrepreneurial Culture THE INNOVAT
Page 712:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 337 als
Page 716:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 339 the
Page 720:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 341 pro
Page 724:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 343 sub
Page 728:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 345 org
Page 732:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 347 com
Page 736:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 349 exi
Page 740:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 351 imp
Page 744:
THE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION 353 3.
Page 750:
356 EPILOGUE It is true that avoidi
Page 756:
Notes Chapter One 1. From a talk gi
Page 760:
NOTES 361 Across - Category Conside
Page 764:
NOTES 363 3. “ Lexus 400, ” Toy
Page 768:
NOTES 365 5. Tom Kelly, The Art of
Page 772:
NOTES 367 18. Andrew S. Grove, Keyn
Page 776:
NOTES 369 8. Pallavi Gogoi and Mich
Page 780:
INDEX A A.1. steak sauce, 28 Aaker,
Page 784:
INDEX 373 Chux, 32-33 Circuit City,
Page 788:
INDEX 375 work” concept, 330; Ima
Page 792:
INDEX 377 Magee, D., 327, 329 Marig
Page 796:
INDEX 379 Rakuten, 70-71 Ralph Laur
Page 800:
INDEX 381 offerings, 124, 155; over
show all

Brand Relevance: Making Competitors Irrelevant - always yours

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?