Just like there are laws of thermodynamics and the universe at large, there are laws for marketing.
Twenty-two to be precise.
In their book, “The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing”, Al Ries and Jack Trout, outline each of these laws in distinct detail.
Let’s look at each of these 22 laws and summarize them for you.
Law #1: The Law of Leadership
It’s better to be first than it is to be better.
If you’re the first one in the market you’re already a step ahead of the rest. The law of leadership applies to any industry, any product or service or any brand.
The idea is to create a category you can be first in, rather than convincing potential prospects your offering is the better choice.
People always recognize the product that got there first as the leader in the market and the better product — and marketing is a clash of perceptions, not products and services.
The research on this is split. In 371 consumer goods businesses, pioneers averaged 29% market share, against 17% for early followers and 12% for late entrants (Robinson and Fornell, 1985). When Peter Golder and Gerard Tellis went back through historical records instead, 47% of pioneers had failed, pioneers averaged 10% share, and the early market leaders entered an average of 13 years after the pioneer (Golder and Tellis, 1993). They argue earlier studies missed the pioneers that died. Being first is no guarantee of leading.
Examples: How many times have you said if you could make a “Xerox” copy? Or get a “Kleenex”? Or buy a “Coke”? Even if the machine is clearly not a Xerox, the tissue paper just a generic brand, and the soda, not Coca-Cola, the brand sticks in your mind. Xerox is a warning, though: it wasn’t first. 3M’s Thermo-Fax copier came out in 1950, and Xerox entered in 1959 (Golder and Tellis, 1993).
Law #2: The Law of Category
If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in.
Most people are interested in what’s new in the market, rather than what’s better.
If the industry you’re in is already saturated and has a lot of competition, you need to start thinking differently.
When launching a new product or service, don’t be focused on how this product is better than what the competition has, but rather what category is this product a “first” in. The idea is to always be first.
And if you’re first in a “new” category, you need to promote that category, and not the product. Then, you won’t have to worry about your competition as you’re already first in that category.
Examples: Although IBM was the leader in computers, Dell was the first to market their computers by phone. Even though Marie Curie was not the first woman scientist, she was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize.
Law #3: The Law of The Mind
It’s better to be first in the mind than it is to be first in the marketplace.
Once you’ve made up your mind about something, how difficult is it to change it?
That’s exactly what this law is about. In marketing, being first in the “mind” is critical and precedes being first in the market.
This law modifies the first law, asserting that being first in the market is only important if you can get into the mind of the consumer first.
Once a mind is made up, no matter how much you spend in marketing, it’s going to be difficult to change it. In fact, it’s one of the most wasteful things you can do.
However, one way to achieve this is to have a simple brand name that resonates with prospects.
Gregory Carpenter and Kent Nakamoto explain why the first brand in the mind is hard to move. As people learn about a new category, the first brand they meet can shape what they want from the whole category. Later brands get judged against it, even when switching is easy (Carpenter and Nakamoto, 1989).
Law #4: The Law of Perception
Marketing is not a battle of products, it’s a battle of perception.
Marketing is nothing but a manipulation of perception in the mind of the prospect. Everything else is just an illusion. There are no “best” products and services.
If you market a product thinking that the product is the champion of the marketing plan and will win or lose based on its merits, you’ve got it all wrong.
Marketing a product or service has nothing to do with its quality or its features, but about how people perceive the product or service. This perception is true reality.
Taste tests back this up. Beer drinkers rated their usual brand higher when they could see the label, and with the labels off they showed almost no preference between brands (Allison and Uhl, 1964). A brain-scanning study found the same with Coke and Pepsi. Knowing a drink was Coke changed both what people preferred and how their brains responded (McClure et al., 2004).
Example: In the United States when you think of Honda you may think of a high-quality reliable car manufacturer, however in Japan, according to Ries and Trout, Honda was best known for its motorcycles and ranked far lower in cars. If quality was all that mattered, then Honda would have had the same position in all markets.
Law #5: The Law of Focus
The most powerful concept in marketing is owning a word in the prospect’s mind.
What’s the first word that comes to mind when you think of IBM? You might have said “computers.” What about Intel? You probably said “computer chips.”
The true essence of marketing is “narrowing” your focus and what you stand for.
The premise being that if you chase after everything, you won’t be remembered for anything.
The simpler this focus or this “word”, the better.
Large corporations who are already the leaders in their market (as per the law of leadership) already have a word in their category, such as FedEx owns the word “overnight.”
If you’re not a leader in your market, you need to pick a word with a narrow, benefit-oriented focus — no matter how complicated your product is.
Once you have your word, you must do everything you can to protect it in the market.
Law #6: The Law of Exclusivity
Two companies cannot own the same word in the prospect’s mind.
Following the law of focus, picking a unique word that applies only to you, comes the law of exclusivity: Don’t try to take over a word that is already taken.
If the word is already “owned” by your competition, and already in the “mind” of prospects, it’s highly unproductive to try to take over that word — no matter what efforts you take or how much money you spend.
Example: Burger King could not compete with their major competitor McDonald’s when they tried to take over the word “fast.” FedEx could not take over the word “worldwide” from their competitor DHL.
Law #7: The Law of The Ladder
The strategy to use depends on which rung you occupy on the ladder.
Your marketing strategy should depend on which rung you occupy on the ladder, or where your unique position is in the market.
It’s no secret that when a prospect makes decisions they have a hierarchy in mind.
It can be disastrous to claim something that you are clearly not, as you have to remember as per Law 3, the mind of the prospect is already made up.
If you’re No. 2 or 3 or further down the ladder, you need to acknowledge that and use a different marketing strategy to your advantage.
Example: Although McDonald’s is first in fast-food, Wendy’s did not claim to be “fast” but adopted the campaign “fresh, never frozen,” to carve their niche and compete with the big fast-food chains.
Law #8: The Law of Duality
In the long run, every market becomes a two-horse race.
In the beginning, when you carve your way into a new category you may be on a ladder with many rungs.
But eventually, the ladder will turn into one that has two rungs, with the top two companies competing for market share. This is true for every market.
Examples: Microsoft and Apple. Coca-Cola and Pepsi. McDonald’s and Burger King. FedEx and UPS.
Not quite every market. A study of more than 160 industries found that mature markets often settle around three large generalist firms, with specialists around them. Industries shaped that way tended to perform better than ones with fewer or more generalists (Uslay, Altintig and Winsor, 2010).
Law #9: The Law of The Opposite
If you’re shooting for second place, your strategy is determined by the leader.
This law states that when the leader is strong, it’s a good time for the competitor second in line to catch the leader off-guard and turn the tables.
Doing this means two things:
First, No. 2 should not emulate the leader, but rather do the exact opposite to stand out. Being different matters more than being better.
Second, turning the leader’s strength into a weakness takes courage, so No. 2 cannot afford to go into this battle being coy and fearful.
Example: Coca-Cola’s time-honored brand was met by Pepsi marketing itself as the choice of the young generation.
Law #10: The Law of Division
Over time, a category will divide and become two or more categories.
As time progresses, one category will split into more categories.
If you take computers, you’ll find there are category leaders in each separate category of what it takes to make a computer — from the processor to the RAM, to the graphics card.
Similarly, if you take aircraft, what started out as a single category is now divided into passenger airplanes, cargo planes, helicopters, private jets and more.
If a leader wants to keep its lead, when it enters a new category, it needs to go in with a new brand name. It rarely works if a brand name that has been successful in one category, will be successful in another.
Example: When Toyota wanted to create a new luxury car, they created and marketed it under a new brand, Lexus.
Law #11: The Law of Perspective
Marketing effects take place over an extended period of time.
In marketing, long-term planning should not necessarily be sacrificed for short-term gains.
Example: When a company holds a sale it may see increases to its balance sheet in the short-term, however in the long-run what it is actually doing is indirectly telling its customers that the best time to buy its products is when there’s a sale, hurting profits and their bottom line in the long-term.
There’s long-term data on this. Carl Mela, Sunil Gupta and Donald Lehmann studied over eight years of household purchases in one packaged-goods category. Their results fit the idea that shoppers became more sensitive to price and promotions as brands cut advertising and ran more deals (Mela, Gupta and Lehmann, 1997).
Law #12: The Law of Line Extension
There’s an irresistible pressure to extend the equity of a brand.
When a company is running successfully, it may decide to take a line extension.
This is taking its brand name and putting it on a new product that it plans to put out in the market.
This could eventually lead to a successful, profitable brand that is focused on one flagship product or service losing money over more offerings.
The key is to be the best in your niche, and not try to be all things to all people.
Less is always more. The narrower the focus, the better you’ll be able to fortify your position in the mind of the prospect.
In order to address new markets, create a new brand, rather than extending the equity of your current brand into the new market.
The research is less absolute than the book. A study of 75 line extensions from 34 cigarette brands over 20 years found that extensions from strong parent brands did best, and the extra sales seemed worth it even after some cannibalization (Reddy, Holak and Bhat, 1994). People also rate an extension better when it fits the original product and the original brand is seen as high quality (Aaker and Keller, 1990).
Law #13: The Law of Sacrifice
You have to give up something in order to get something.
The Law of Sacrifice is actually the opposite of Law 12, the law of line extension. What the Law of Sacrifice states is that in order to be successful you need to give up something.
There are three things that you can sacrifice if you want to keep succeeding doing what you do:
- Target market
- Product line
- Constant change
Law #14: The Law of Attributes
For every attribute, there is an opposite, effective attribute.
Many times a company may try to follow, be like or imitate the leader or the competition and fail miserably.
In order to succeed, you need to find your own “word,” or your own attribute.
The key is to find an attribute that is actually opposite to what the leader is using — a similar attribute will not work.
You also have to realize that all “words” or attributes are not created equal. Some will be more important in the eyes of the prospect.
When competing, you must try to find the most significant attribute that will hold value to the customer. You never know which attribute will work, so never scoff at one.
Law #15: The Law of Candor
When you admit a negative, the prospect will give you a positive.
It might go against everything you think you know as a marketer, but one of the best ways to get into the mind of a consumer is to admit to a problem.
Being able to honestly admit a negative, automatically makes it the truth, as no proof is needed for admitting to something that is negative.
This immediately catches a prospect’s attention and is a great way to get into the mind of a prospect.
When you admit to something negative, it requires skill, and you instantly have to back it up with something positive — and the prospect has to agree to it.
A meta-analysis by Mike Allen supports the second half of this law. Messages that admit a negative and then answer it persuade better than one-sided messages. Messages that admit a negative and leave it there persuade worse (Allen, 1991).
Example: Avis openly admitted that it is No. 2 after Hertz in rent-a-cars, by using the slogan “We Try Harder.”
Law #16: The Law of Singularity
In each situation, only one move will produce substantial results.
As a marketer, you may think that success in marketing will be achieved after a long journey of well-executed marketing efforts, but the truth is that all it takes is one good shot.
Just like the 80/20 rule, the Law of Singularity states that in marketing, only one move can generate sizable results.
For marketers, the key is to always know what is going on in the marketplace and to strike where the competitor is most vulnerable.
Law #17: The Law of Unpredictability
Unless you write your competitor’s plans, you can’t predict the future.
One of the most futile things a company can do is to predict what their competition might do and draw out their marketing plans based on this assumption.
Nobody can predict the future, so the best thing you can do is to build enough flexibility into your company and your marketing strategy so that you can respond quickly to any situation you may be faced with.
Experience doesn’t fix this. In experiments on strategic marketing predictions, experts with richer knowledge of a market were more overconfident, and humbling feedback on earlier predictions made people more accurate (Mahajan, 1992).
Law #18: The Law of Success
Success often leads to arrogance, and arrogance to failure.
When it comes to successful marketing, there’s one major enemy — ego.
Often, when people taste success they become less objective, replacing their own judgment for what the market demands.
In order to be an effective marketer, you need to be objective and not let your ego get in the way. Drop your arrogance, and be objective.
Finance has a name for this. Richard Roll’s hubris hypothesis says executives who bid for other companies often overpay because they trust their own valuation over the market’s. He argued the takeover evidence supports that explanation as well as it supports the usual ones, such as tax benefits and synergy (Roll, 1986).
Law #19: The Law of Failure
Failure is to be expected and accepted.
There’s no easy way to put this — but drop things that don’t work. What most companies will do is to try and fix things or “reorganize” to fix the situation, which rarely ever works.
What this law states is that it is better to recognize failure for what it is and cut your losses early.
Cutting losses is harder than it sounds. In a field study, theater-goers who paid more for season tickets went to more performances over the next six months than people who got them at a discount (Arkes and Blumer, 1985). In a role-play, business students put the most money into a failing investment when they’d been personally responsible for the original decision (Staw, 1976).
Law #20: The Law of Hype
The situation is often the opposite of the way it appears in the press.
Often when things are going well, a company rarely needs hype or attention. When it does need it, however, is when things are not going its way, and definitely when the company is in trouble.
It’s also important to remember that hype is not directly proportional to the success of a product or service.
Example: Google Glass was heavily hyped, but it didn’t live up to consumer expectations.
Law #21: The Law of Acceleration
Successful programs are not built on fads, they are built on trends.
A fad is a brief surge in fame for any product, that has a short lifespan. Think of fad diets, clothes, and toys. Once the novelty is gone, the fad quickly goes out of mind, for the prospect.
Trends, on the other hand, can go on for years. For example, instead of a fad diet, the trend of eating healthy organic food is sure to go on for much longer.
So, if you’re faced with a business that seems more like a fad, the best thing to do is to dampen it out and stretch it, to make it more of a trend.
Law #22: The Law of Resources
Without adequate funding, an idea won’t get off the ground.
It’s no secret that all marketing requires adequate resources. It takes money to get into the mind of a prospect. And it may take even more money to keep that place.
Once you have an idea, you will need the resources to develop it. Don’t expect your idea to take off without sufficient funding.
How To Use “The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing” To Get Leads & Make Sales
Here are a few guidelines to wrap up:
- Come up with one focus “word” for your product or service, or a category that you can be the “first” in.
- Think about which rung you occupy on the ladder along with your competition and then craft out your marketing plan accordingly
- If you already have a successful brand and are looking to expand, consider a new brand name to enter a new category
- Ask yourself how you can gain in the long-term rather than looking at only short-term gains
- If you need to sacrifice a new product line to be the leader in your industry – do it.
- Don’t try to emulate the leader, do something different to stand out.
- Execute your marketing efforts with one bold stroke instead of smaller weaker ones.
- Be flexible with your marketing plans, and willing to change when needed.
- If something does not work, drop it.
Got any ideas of what to start doing or do differently?
Sources
- Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27–41. doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400102
- Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(4), 390–404. doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374395
- Allison, R. I., & Uhl, K. P. (1964). Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(3), 36–39. doi.org/10.1177/002224376400100305
- Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
- Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 285–298. doi.org/10.1177/002224378902600303
- Golder, P. N., & Tellis, G. J. (1993). Pioneer advantage: Marketing logic or marketing legend? Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 158–170. doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000203
- Mahajan, J. (1992). The overconfidence effect in marketing management predictions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 329–342. doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900304
- McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Montague, P. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44(2), 379–387. doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.019
- Mela, C. F., Gupta, S., & Lehmann, D. R. (1997). The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 248–261. doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400205
- Reddy, S. K., Holak, S. L., & Bhat, S. (1994). To extend or not to extend: Success determinants of line extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 243–262. doi.org/10.1177/002224379403100208
- Robinson, W. T., & Fornell, C. (1985). Sources of market pioneer advantages in consumer goods industries. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(3), 305–317. doi.org/10.1177/002224378502200306
- Roll, R. (1986). The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. The Journal of Business, 59(2), 197–216. doi.org/10.1086/296325
- Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44. doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2
- Uslay, C., Altintig, Z. A., & Winsor, R. D. (2010). An empirical examination of the “rule of three”: Strategy implications for top management, marketers, and investors. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 20–39. doi.org/10.1509/jm.74.2.20
