A Shock to the System

A week ago GM announced its plans to plug into the alternative-vehicle market with the Chevrolet “Volt,” an electric car Chevy claims will get 230 mpg in city driving. This would make it the first car to break the triple-digit barrier for mileage, and deliver over four times the mpg of the most popular car in the category, Toyota’s Prius. The price tag? Also a lesson in multiplication for car buyers: $40,000, or nearly twice the cost of the entry level Prius II.

While clearly GM needs to restructure the brand in serious ways, there remain some unanswered questions about how the buying public—already jaded with GM products—will respond to an electric car that comes with sticker shock, not to mention the challenge of plugging in, especially for city dwellers whose outlets may be out of range of any power cord. The “build it, they will come” philosophy was never a very good one, and is less so today when our research in the category continues to demonstrate that consumers expect their cars to be increasingly green, while more green stays in their wallets.

And while “green” and “fuel economy” are certainly high-percentage loyalty contributors, the current overall rankings in, for example, the smaller sedan and crossover vehicle segment demonstrates the marketplace reality of the data and match up pretty well to the top sellers in the recent “Cash for Clunkers” program:

1. Toyota
2. Ford
3. Honda
4. Jeep
5. Hyundai/Nissan

Faith, they say, is like electricity. You can’t see it, but can see the light. For consumers recently too often that light has not been a new car, it’s been a train. As Americans, and thus part-owners of General Motors, we would like nothing more than to see it move up in the world. But it will be consumers’ belief, and not faith, that will turn on the GM brand. And that belief will come when the brand delivers against the expectations consumers hold in the category, not before.

Brand Keys, Inc. partner of
Brand Lounge in the Middle East and North Africa

School Shoppers Looking Closely At Retail Value

Consumers will spend about 10% less on back-to-school shopping this year, although the recession is only partly to blame for the decline.

According to brand and customer loyalty research consultancy Brand Keys, shoppers will spend an average of $531 during the back-to-school season, about a 10% decline over last year.
"Despite whispers that the recession is over, consumers are showing steadfast frugality," says Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys. "They are looking at the back-to-school buying [season] by evaluating which retailer is going to offer the best prices for the things the kids really require."

According to the survey of 10,000 U.S. households with school-age children, people were expected to spend about the same on essentials like clothing (an average of $275, about the same as last year), while cutting back on luxuries like computers, software and printers (an average of $189, down 11% from last year). They are also expected to cut back on shoes ($105, down 10%), supplies ($95, down 5%) and books and study aids ($20, down 25%).

Meanwhile, consumers are expected to do more shopping at discount retailers than anywhere else, with 95% saying discount stores were their preferred back-to-school shopping channel -- up 12% from last year. Some 55% cited department and office supply stores as their preferred channel (the same and up 10%, respectively, compared with last year), while half cited online (up 25%). Only 30% cited specialty outlets as a preferred shopping channel, down 6% from last year.
"We've been seeing this pattern since before the recession," Passikoff tells Marketing Daily. "People are being much more laser-targeted about which [retail] brand will provide them the best value."

Among those discount store brands, Wal-Mart remained the most popular, with 70% of consumers citing the store as a preferred store (up 10% from 2008). Half cited Target (about the same as last year), while 40% cited Kmart, down 5% from a year ago.)

Among department stores, Kohl's led among consumer preference with 40% (up 15% from last year), while 35% cited Macy's (down 5% from last year) and Dillard's (about the same). Nearly a third -- 30% -- cited Sears as a preferred retailer (up 5%), while 15% said Sears was a preferred retailer (down 5%).

"Wal-Mart has spent the past decade getting the brand right for themselves," Passikoff says of consumers' continued preference for the retailer. "And they have broader merchandise offerings than they have had before. With all the companies outsourcing production to the same places, the quality is about the same, and Wal-Mart has been able to capitalize on that."

Ultimately, as the recession eases, consumers will still be looking for value, and may have decided that some products will not be worth the extra expense at some retailers. The answer, Passikoff says, will be to have a greater brand definition, both for the merchandisers and the manufacturers. "Consumers are going to be looking for brands that have a resonating meaning and differentiation," Passikoff says. "They're going to have to stand for something more than being a placeholder."


Brand Keys, Inc. partner of
Brand Lounge in the Middle East and North Africa

Starbucks Goes Back to Its Roots With Cafe Concept 'Inspired by Starbucks' Coffeehouses to Serve Alcohol, New Food Choices and Live Entertainment

CHICAGO (AdAge.com) -- Starbucks is going back to its premium-coffeehouse roots -- by building premium coffeehouses. The chain, in the latest attempt to negotiate its turnaround, is focusing on stores with smaller-batch coffee, community involvement and entertainment.
Starbucks will remodel three Seattle cafes as part of the initial test.

The first location, opening next week, will be named "Fifteenth Avenue Coffee and Tea, Inspired by Starbucks." Evening revelers can find beer, wine, new food choices, the occasional film screening and a variety of live entertainment, including music, acting and poetry reading. Bleary-eyed,
breakfast-time folks can get a cup of coffee they may not be able to find anywhere else in Seattle.

"It feels like the first time they've done something right in a long time," said Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys. "This has the opportunity of being the next evolution in coffee." He added that while coffee shop as night-time hangout isn't new, Starbucks can offer more by way of community involvement, environmental commitment and friendly baristas without visible tattoos.

This is also the latest in a string of long-closeted ideas that are seeing the light of day. The café concept dates back about 15 years. In February, Starbucks began testing Via, an instant-coffee product more than 20 years in the making.

Major Cohen, a senior project manager with Starbucks, said he's been working on this café concept for nearly 15 years. The idea came from thinking about the "good old days" when they could roast coffee in the morning and have it in a local store by that afternoon. The first three cafés will be in
Seattle, near one of its roasting plants, so they'll be able to offer smaller-batch coffees from far-flung locales such as Thailand, and loose-leaf Tazo teas from places such as India and Japan.

"We clearly want to present ourselves in a different way," Mr. Cohen said. "What we're really trying to do is build on 38 years of experience with great coffee and somehow extend that vision." He acknowledged that "some of us think as grandfathers of the coffee world." But he said, "I think people
know that we're often innovative and we innovate through products."

Changing the Starbucks experience
This project is different in that it's tweaking the Starbucks experience. But don't expect to find these cafés across the street from each other. While the number of "Inspired by Starbucks" locations is likely to grow if the test is successful, not every store is appropriate for a stage, night-time crowd and
alcoholic beverages. So it will be a boutique concept by definition.
Scott Bedbury, founder of Brandstream and former Starbucks marketing chief, noted that one of the primary benefits of such a concept is maximizing profitability per square foot. Starbucks has been known for its real-estate savvy since day one, but locations generally go dormant after dark. Adding an evening occasion is likely to boost profitability for appropriate locations, particularly if they serve alcohol. He said the concept could be Starbucks' next Frappuccino. "It was a godsend because it gave people a reason to come in hot months," Mr. Bedbury said about the frozen beverage. "And it brought in a whole different group of people who didn't even like coffee, which got us into ice cream." The café concept would keep stores open longer, "but you're using that square footage to get more out of it." It also combats Starbucks' critical saturation issue, particularly in the United States. "God knew they didn't want to open more stores, they want to do more with what they have," he said.

Technomic President Ron Paul cheered the move, and said he felt confident the test would be quite successful. However, he predicts the concept will look much different if rolled out on a national stage.

"I still think it's more a of test lab than something they're more serious about rolling out," he said. "That's not a national strategy."
Dennis Lombardi, executive VP-food service at WD Partners, praised the chain's risk-taking moxie. "I love chains that experiment," he said. "But if you're going to experiment, you've got to be wiling to fail fast if it doesn't work." That's why Mr. Bedbury said it's a good idea to start small, and with a different concept. "I think they're smart to walk before they run and not embed it in the consumer-facing brand they have today," he said.

Brand Keys, Inc. partner of
Brand Lounge in the Middle East and North Africa

Espresso Yourself!

Guess Who's Skating Into Town?
Robert Passikoff, Jul 14, 2009 03:02 PM

Tim Hortons Inc., the company founded in 1964 by NHL hall-of-famer Tim Horton, former hockey player for the Toronto Maple Leafs, the New York Rangers and the Buffalo Sabres, just started serving its premium coffee and fresh baked goods for the first time in New York City. It's entering the New York City market with 12 new locations, including 10 in Manhattan.

Tim Hortons has more than 500 locations in the U.S. and sells about 2 billion cups of coffee annually. With 3,000 stores in Canada, it accounts for more than seven of every 10 cups of quick serve coffee sold in Canada, but Manhattan poses a challenge with an already over- caffeinated market. Both Dunkin Donuts and McDonald's have more than 100 locations within five miles of each other, while Starbucks has more than 80.

But it's not all about the real estate. Something else drives customers, more than convenient locations. It's the "something else" that showed up in our metrics three years ago, allowing us to predict the decline of Starbuck's before anyone would believe it. Let's just say here that it's a lot
more centered on customer experience than it is what corner you're standing on. This is how the brands currently rank in the annual Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement

Index:
1. Dunkin' Donuts
2. McDonald's
3. Starbucks
4. Krispy Kreme

Should the new team worry current players? Well, for the six months that ended in February, Dunkin' had posted a 9% growth in system-wide sales and a 4% increase in U.S. same-store sales.

For that same period, Dunkin' Donuts had total sales of $1.55 billion, and offered such new items as caramel iced coffee and an expanded rollout of scones. But McDonald's is expanding the coffee portion of its business in the U.S. and Canada too, and has installed McCafé mini-coffee shops featuring recreational coffee beverages at more than 10,000 U.S. restaurants It will test its in-store McCafé coffee shop concept in Canadian locations later this
year. McDonald's also recently launched a promotion for its Premium Roast coffee in Canada and, this week, McDonald's began a U.S. summer promotion called Mocha Mondays that gives customers a free iced or hot mocha beverage at participating stores.

Meanwhile, Starbucks, once first in our rankings, reported reductions in net revenues, comparable store sales, operating income, operating margin, and net earnings during Q2 2009, and is continuing with plans to close about 800 company-owned stores in the U.S. this year. But it's offering ice cream now, and via Facebook is promoting its ice cream by offering 20,000 pints of it free each day, at a rate of 800 per hour. This offer ends on Sunday.

Krispy Kreme isn't faring a whole lot better. It slipped slightly for the entire system, of which company-owned stores account for 29%, and same-store sales are down 2.4% for combined company-owned and non- company-owned -- and that's after closing what supposedly were its
"bad" stores. At the company's annual meeting, Krispy Kreme says it's planning to test "proprietary" ice cream in stores in cones, cups and shakes. And a doughnut sundae.

Advice for Tim Hortons? Well, hockey great Wayne Gretzky once noted, "Some people skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is going to be," and the same is true about engendering loyalty. If you have predictive consumer metrics, you always know where consumer values are going to end
up. And winning and keeping customers is a goal to which every brand should aspire.

Dr. Robert Passikoff
Founder & President - Brand Keys, Inc. partner of
Brand Lounge in the Middle East and North Africa

Differentiate Or Die

Differentiate or Die
Jack Trout, President & Founder Trout & Partners Ltd.
posted by Hasan Fadlallah, Managing Director Brand Lounge

What has changed in business over recent decades is the amazing proliferation of product choices in just about every category. Its been estimated that there are 1,000,000 SKU’s (Standard Stocking Units) out there in America. An average supermarket has 40,000 SKU’s. Now for the stunner. An average family gets 80 to 85% of their needs from 150 SKU’s. That means there’s a good chance we’ll ignore 39,850 items in that store.

The dictionary defines “tyranny” as absolute power that often is harsh or cruel.
So it is with choice. With the enormous competition, markets today are driven by choice. The customer has so many good alternatives that you pay dearly for your mistakes. Your competitors get your business and you don’t get it back very easily. Companies that don’t understand this will not survive. (Now that’s cruel.)

Just look at some of the names on the headstones in the brand graveyard: American Motors, Burger Chef, Carte Blanc, Eastern Airlines, Gainesburgers, Gimbels, Hathaway Shirts, Horn & Hardart, Mr. Salty Pretzels, Philco, Trump Shuttle, VisiCalc, Woolworth’s.

And this is only a short list of names that are no longer with us.
In this global killer economy you have to find a way to differentiate yourself or you better have a very low price. To do this, here are the steps you must follow:


Step one. The context.

Arguments are never made in a vacuum. There are always surrounding competitors trying to make arguments of their own. Your message has to make sense in the context of the category. It has to start with what the marketplace has heard and registered from your competition.
The context also includes what’s happening in the market. Is the timing for your idea right?
Nordstrom’s differentiating idea of “better service” played perfectly into the context of a department store world which was reducing its people and service as a way to cut costs.

Lotus launched the first successful network on “groupware software” called Notes just as Corporate America was networking its PC’s. (IBM ended up buying Lotus and Notes for 2.5 billion dollars.)

It’s like riding a wave. If you’re too early or late you’ll go nowhere. Catch it just right and you’ll get a long and profitable ride for your difference.


Step two. The differentiating idea.

To be different is to be not the same. To be unique is to be one of its kind.
So you’re looking for something that separates you from your competitors. The secret to this is understanding that your differentness does not have to be product related.

Consider a horse. Yes, horses are quickly differentiated by their type. There are race horses, jumpers, ranch horses, wild horses and on and on. But, in racehorses you can differentiate them by breeding, by performance, by stable, by trainer and on and on.
A product or service can be differentiated by feature, leadership, preference, heritage, specialty, how it’s made and on and on. ( I wrote a book on this subject if you want more ways to differentiate your brand.)



Step three. The credentials.

To build a logical argument for your difference, you must have the credentials to support your differentiating idea. To make it real and believable.
If you have a product difference, then you should be able to demonstrate that difference. The demonstration, in turn, becomes your credentials. If you have a leak-proof valve, then you should be able to have a direct comparison with valves that can leak.
Claims of difference without proof are really just claims. For example, a “wide-track” Pontiac must be wider than other cars. British Air as the “world’s favorite airline” should fly more people than any other airline. Coca-Cola as the “real thing” has to have invented colas. When it’s “Hertz and not exactly” there should be some unique services that the others don’t offer.
You can’t differentiate with smoke and mirrors. Consumers are skeptical. They’re thinking, “Oh yeah, Mr. Advertiser? Prove it!” You must be able to support your argument.


Step four. Communicate your difference.

Just as you can’t keep your light under a basket, you can’t keep your difference under wraps.
If you build a differentiated product, the world will not automatically beat a path to your door. Better products don’t win. Better perceptions tend to be the winners. Truth will not out unless it has some help along the way.
Every aspect of your communications should reflect your difference. Your advertising. Your brochures. Your website. Your sales presentations.

In marketing, the rich often get richer because they have the resources to drive their ideas into the mind. Their problem is separating the good ideas from the bad ones, and avoiding spending money on too many products and too many programs.
Unfortunately, without the proper resources, even the best differentiating idea won’t get off the ground. Look what happened to AT&T in recent years. They failed to differentiate themselves from Sprint and MCI. The result: A price war which ended in the ignominy of being bought by a Baby Bell.

As I said, Differentiate or Die.


With more than 40 years of experience in advertising and marketing, Jack Trout is the acclaimed author of many marketing classics, including Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, Marketing Warfare, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, Differentiate or Die, Big Brands, Big Trouble, A Genie's Wisdom and his latest, Trout on Strategy. He is president of marketing consultancy Trout & Partners and has consulted for such companies as AT&T, IBM, Southwest Airlines, Merck, Procter & Gamble and others. Recognized as one of the world's foremost marketing strategists, Trout is the originator of "Positioning" and other important concepts in marketing strategy.With more than 40 years of experience in advertising and marketing, Jack Trout is the acclaimed author of many marketing classics, including Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, Marketing Warfare, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, Differentiate or Die, Big Brands, Big Trouble, A Genie's Wisdom and his latest, Trout on Strategy. He is president of marketing consultancy Trout & Partners and has consulted for such companies as AT&T, IBM, Southwest Airlines, Merck, Procter & Gamble and others. Recognized as one of the world's foremost marketing strategists, Trout is the originator of "Positioning" and other important concepts in marketing strategy.

Tales From The Marketing Wars (3)

Branding Lessons From GM: What Not To Do
Jack Trout, President & Founder Trout & Partners Ltd.
posted by Hasan Fadlallah, Managing Director Brand Lounge

Toyota is about to pass General Motors' seven-decade reign as the world's largest car producer by volume. That’s right 70 years of leadership coming to an end. Today, Toyota has America’s best selling car, the Camry, and GM is struggling to make dwindling brands, such as Buick and Pontiac, mean something to consumers.

When something like this happens to a company of this stature, it's important to discover why this occurred. These are important lessons as George Santayana warned, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I mentioned the GM brand schizophrenia problem in an earlier column. Here’s a more detailed analysis of what went wrong.

When Alfred Sloan joined GM in 1924 as operating vice president, he inherited what he called an "irrational product line"--one that had no guiding policy for the marketing of its many brands. The company's only objective was to sell the cars. The brands stole volume from each other and, with the exception of Buick and Cadillac, all lost money.

Sloan immediately realized that GM had too many models and too much duplication and lacked a product policy. In one of the earliest examples of market segmentation, he reduced GM’s offerings to five models, separated them by price grades and emphasized individual brand image to entice customers into the GM family and move them up.

These distinct and strong brands allowed GM to capture more than 57% of the U.S. market by 1955. Aware that pursuing more market share could lead to antitrust actions and the threat of a breakup, GM fatefully shifted its strategy from making better cars to making more and more money from a relatively stable number of sales.

Nothing dramatized this new direction more than the concept of "badge engineering," or selling identical vehicles under different model names. This invention of GM's finance staff was a way to increase profits through uniformity, by, among other things, making parts interchangeable. Slowly but surely, the different brands lost the individual personalities that the company had so painstakingly established. At the same time, to improve their numbers (and bonuses), the GM divisions began to push the boundaries of the product policies that defined their brands: Chevrolet went up in price with fancier models, as did Pontiac. Buick and Oldsmobile offered cheaper versions. In time, GM was once again producing multiple cars of different brands that both looked and were priced alike. For GM, it was 1921 all over again, with brands that look alike and are priced alike.

Like BMW, Toyota (nyse: TM - news - people ) pushed one brand in many forms. All these cars benefited by sharing in one powerful differentiating idea: reliability. And when they went up into the super-premium category, it became a Lexus with all "Toyota" identity carefully eliminated. Also, they are quick to invest in new innovations such as the hybrid (Prius) and, coming soon, the wheelchair friendly Porte, aimed at Japan’s elderly population.

The bottom line is that in the branding business, less is more.

A successful brand has to stand for something. And the more variations to attach to it, the more you risk standing for nothing. This is especially true when what you add actually clashes with your perception. If Altira's (nyse: MO - news - people ) Marlboro stands for cowboys out in Marlboro Country, how can it sell Marlboro Menthol or Marlboro Ultra Light cigarettes? Real cowboys don’t smoke Menthols or Ultra Lights.

If Coca-Cola (nyse: KO - news - people ) is the company that invented cola and the owner of that special formula, how can it be the "Real Thing" when the company offers a parade of new things including one called "Zero"? Why change that unique formula?

Should Wal-Mart Stores (nyse: WMT - news - people ) try to sell more up-market products to compete with Target (nyse: TGT - news - people )? No, that's not its market.

Should Porsche risk its sports car image by selling SUVs? No, it's an iconic sports car brand.

Should Dell (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ) try to sell home electronics to compete with the Japanese and Koreans in this category? No, it sells computers directly to businesses.

Until companies come to grips with the simple fact that they don’t really have an inordinate need to grow, but an inordinate desire to grow (because of Wall Street), bad things will continue to happen. Slowly but surely, brands will lose their meaning as they try to become more.

What is happening to General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) should be a lesson to all companies no matter how big and powerful they are. You cannot be everything for everybody, and the more you try, the more you risk sinking the ship.

As I say to many senior executives as a reminder of what can happen, put a simple sign on the wall that reads: Remember the Titanic.

With more than 40 years of experience in advertising and marketing, Jack Trout is the acclaimed author of many marketing classics, including Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, Marketing Warfare, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, Differentiate or Die, Big Brands, Big Trouble, A Genie's Wisdom and his latest, Trout on Strategy. He is president of marketing consultancy Trout & Partners and has consulted for such companies as AT&T, IBM, Southwest Airlines, Merck, Procter & Gamble and others. Recognized as one of the world's foremost marketing strategists, Trout is the originator of "Positioning" and other important concepts in marketing strategy.

Tales From The Marketing Wars (2)

Differentiate Or Be Fired
Jack Trout, President & Founder Trout & Partners Ltd.
posted by Hasan Fadlallah, Managing Director Brand Lounge

Chief marketing officers (CMOs) have a shorter tenure than NFL coaches. In fact, as you can see by the chart, they barely get beyond two years before they move on.
Average number of months at a position
CEO 44
CFO 39
CIO 36
CMO 26

"The job is radioactive," according to a recent article in BusinessWeek. The problem, it said, is that 70% of companies don't know what they're looking for when they recruit a CMO.

The chief marketer at Gap (nyse: GPS - news - people ) for two years, Jeff Jones, reported that he discussed 22 CMO positions over a five-month period. Not one, he says, spelled out coherently what he or she would be accountable for.
It's gotten so bad that Advertising Age editorialized: "Perhaps we should just call for the end of the CMO position." They went on, "Put the job out of its misery. It isn't really working anyway, is it?"

All this caught my attention, so I've decided to take a closer look at the problem and figure out what's going on. I'm starting with a quotation from legendary management consultant Peter Drucker that's worth repeating: "Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two--and only these two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business."

So there it is. The father of business consulting pointed out that the CMO has one of the most important jobs in a company. And he even went on to describe its function, which is to develop "the distinguishing, unique function of the business." In other words, what is it that makes the company or product unique and different? That's the CMO's assignment. So, in simple language, marketing's role is to turn the one idea that differentiates your brand or product from all competitors into a full-scale program. The idea is the nail. The program is the hammer that drives it into the mind of the prospect. What could be simpler? Why all the fuzziness? In fact, my book on this subject, Differentiate or Die, lays out how to do all this in great detail.

Then, one day, I opened the Nov. 26 issue of Advertising Age and came across an interesting set of data culled from senior marketers. Anderson Analytics surveyed 1,657 senior marketing executives. Six hundred replied. Wow, I thought, that should tell me what's going on. And sure enough, it did.

The researchers asked respondents to rank the marketing concepts to which they devote time in their working day. The following list shows where they spend the most time:
Top 10 Percentage
Customer satisfaction 88%
Customer retention 86%
Segmentation 83%
Competitive Intelligence 82%
Brand loyalty 82%
Search engine optimization 81%
Marketing ROI 80%
Quality 79%
Data mining 78%
Personalization (one-to-one marketing) 79%

There, in graph form, is why CMOs are being fired left and right. "Differentiation" doesn't even make it onto the chart. While they are worrying about customers or segmentation or return on investment (ROI) or search-engine optimization, their brands are sinking into a sea of commoditization. Drucker told them what to do, and they ignored him.

Forget all about data-mining or number slicing or niche segmenting. Why should a customer buy your company's product instead of the 10 or so other competitive choices? That's the question you should be answering. Build a program around that answer.

But be careful. Don't expect the advertising agency to come up with this answer. Chances are, they will try to sell emotion, or entertainment, or something that doesn't supply that critical reason to buy. I saw another study by a well-known research company that analyzed 340 commercials shown in prime time and identified a differentiating brand message in only 7% of those ads. Ugh. (If you look at much television, I'm sure you'll agree with that observation.)

Figuring out the right positioning strategy is only the beginning. Next, a CMO will have to convince the CEO and chief financial officer that building or even maintaining a brand is a long-term process that requires patience and incremental change. They will have to avoid line extensions that just undermine what the brand stands for in the mind. And Wall Street's emphasis on quarterly and monthly results is a problem that you will have to tackle. I never said it would be easy.
All you can do to fight off the financial sharks is to point out that without that point of difference--what Drucker calls "distinguishing and unique"--you'd better charge very low prices. There's nothing in the middle. And low prices mean very low profits.

Following Drucker's advice is how CMOs can move from "radioactive" to influential. That's a far better place to be.

With more than 40 years of experience in advertising and marketing, Jack Trout is the author of many marketing classics, including Positioning: The Battle For Your Mind; Marketing Warfare; The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing; Differentiate or Die; Big Brands, Big Trouble; and his latest, Trout on Strategy. He is president of marketing consultancy Trout & Partners and has consulted for such companies as AT&T, IBM, Southwest Airlines, Merck, Procter & Gamble and others. Recognized as one of the world's foremost marketing strategists, Trout is the originator of "positioning" and other concepts in marketing strategy.