The Law of Focus PDF

# The Law of Focus The most powerful concept in marketing is owning a word in the prospect's mind. - **CAVITIES** - **OVERNIGHT** - **DRIVING** - **SAFETY** A company can become incredibly successful if it can find a way to own a word in the mind of the prospect. Not a complicated word. Not an inv...

# The Law of Focus The most powerful concept in marketing is owning a word in the prospect's mind. - **CAVITIES** - **OVERNIGHT** - **DRIVING** - **SAFETY** A company can become incredibly successful if it can find a way to own a word in the mind of the prospect. Not a complicated word. Not an invented one. The simple words are best, words taken right out of the dictionary. This is the law of focus. You "burn" your way into the mind by narrowing the focus to a single word or concept. It's the ultimate marketing sacrifice. **Federal Express** was able to put the word **overnight** into the minds of its prospects because it sacrificed its product line and focused on overnight package delivery only. In a way, the law of leadership — it's better to be first than to be better — enables the first brand or company to own a word in the mind of the prospect. But the word the leader owns is so simple that it's invisible. The leader owns the word that stands for the category. For example, **IBM** owns **computer**. This is another way of saying that the brand becomes a generic name for the category. "We need an IBM machine." Is there any doubt that a computer is being requested? You can also test the validity of a leadership claim by a word association test. If the given words are: - **computer** - **copier** - **chocolate bar** - **cola** The four most associated words are: - **IBM** - **Xerox** - **Hershey's** - **Coke** An astute leader will go one step further to solidify its position. **Heinz** owns the word **ketchup**. But Heinz went on to isolate the most important ketchup attribute. "Slowest ketchup in the West" is how the company is preempting the thickness attribute. Owning the word **slow** helps Heinz maintain a 50 percent market share. If you're not a leader, then your word has to have a narrow focus. Even more important, however, your word has to be "available" in your category. No one else can have a lock on it. You don't have to be a linguistic genius to find a winner. **Prego** went against leader **Ragu** in the spaghetti sauce market and captured a 27 percent share with an idea borrowed from Heinz. **Prego's** word is **thicker**. The most effective words are simple and benefit oriented. No matter how complicated the product, no matter how complicated the needs of the market, it's always better to focus on one word or benefit rather than two or three or four. Also, there's the **halo effect**. If you strongly establish one benefit, the prospect is likely to give you a lot of other benefits, too. A "thicker" spaghetti sauce implies quality, nourishing ingredients, value, and so on. A "safer" car implies better design and engineering. Whether the result of a deliberate program or not, most successful companies (or brands) are the ones that "own a word" in the mind of the prospect. (Some words, like **Volkswagen's fahrvergnugen**, are not worth owning.) Here are a few examples: - **Crest** ... cavities - **Mercedes** ... engineering - **BMW** ... driving - **Volvo** ... safety - **Domino's** ... home delivery - **Pepsi-Cola** ... youth - **Nordstrom**... service Words come in different varieties. They can be **benefit related** (cavity prevention), **service related** (home delivery), **audience related** (younger people), or **sales related** (preferred brand). Although we've been touting that words stick in the mind, nothing lasts forever. There comes a time when a company must change words. It's not an easy task. The recent history of **Lotus Development Corporation** demonstrates the nature of the problem. For a number of years, **Lotus** has owned the word **spreadsheet**. **Lotus** was synonymous with **1-2-3** and **spreadsheet**. But the world of spreadsheets is getting competitive, and the potential for growth is limited. Like other companies, **Lotus** wants to grow. How is the company to get beyond its single-product business? The conventional answer is to expand in all directions, as **IBM** and **Microsoft** did. As a matter of fact, **Lotus** did some conventional line extension with the purchase of **Ami Pro** word processing software and the introduction of a number of new software products. Then **Lotus** regrouped to focus on a new concept called "**groupware**," software products for networked PCs. **Lotus** was the first software company to develop a successful groupware product. If things work out, the company will eventually own a second word in the minds of its prospects. Unlike **Microsoft**, **Lotus** now has a corporate focus. It won't happen overnight, but **Lotus** could develop a powerful long-term position in the software field. What **overnight** did for **Federal Express**, and **safety** did for **Volvo**, **groupware** could do for **Lotus Development Corporation**. You can't take somebody else's word. What makes the **Lotus** strategy plausible is that the **groupware** word is not owned by any other company. Furthermore, there is an enormous industry trend toward networked computers. (More than half of all business computers are connected to a network. There's even a new magazine called Network Computing.) Many companies see the advantage of owning a single word or concept (often called "the corporate vision"), but they neglect to be the first to preempt the word. What won't work in marketing is leaving your own word in search of a word owned by others. This was the case with **Atari**, which owned the words **video game**. But the business turned out to be faddish, so in 1982 it sailed off in a new direction. It wanted **Atari** to mean **computers**. CEO James Morgan laid it all out: "Atari's strength as a name also tends to be its weakness. It is synonymous with video games. Atari must redefine its image and broaden its business definition to electronic consumer products." Unfortunately for Mr. Morgan's strategy, a host of other companies, including **Apple** and **IBM**, owned the word he was after. **Atari's** diversification was a disaster. But the real irony was in that another company arrived in 1986 and took over the concept **Atari** walked away from. The company was **Nintendo**, which today has 75 percent of a multibillion-dollar market. Who knows where **Atari** is these days? The essence of marketing is narrowing the focus. You become stronger when you reduce the scope of your operations. You can't stand for something if you chase after everything. Some companies accept the need to narrow the focus and try to accomplish this strategy in ways that are self-defeating. "We'll focus on the quality end of the market. We won't get into the low end where the emphasis is on price." The problem is that customers don't believe you unless you restrict your business to high-priced products only, like **Mercedes-Benz** or **BMW**. **General Motors** tries to sell quality at all price levels. "Putting quality on the road" is their latest corporate slogan. Every **GM** product includes the "Mark of Excellence." Guess what they're doing at **Ford**? The same thing. "Quality is Job 1," say the **Ford** ads. Over at Chrysler, Lee Iacocca proclaimed, "We don't want to be the biggest, we just want to be the best." (Does anyone really believe that Iacocca doesn't want to be the biggest?) This is great stuff inside the corporation. Total quality, the path to greatness. It makes a terrific theme at dealer meetings, especially with the trumpet flourishes and the dancers. But outside the corporation, the message falls apart. Does any company proclaim itself as the "unquality" corporation? No, everybody stands for quality. As a result, nobody does. You can't narrow the focus with quality or any other idea that doesn't have proponents for the opposite point of view. You can't position yourself as an honest politician, because nobody is willing to take the opposite position (although there are plenty of potential candidates). You can, however, position yourself as the pro-business candidate or the pro-labor candidate and be instantly accepted as such because there is support for the other side. When you develop your word to focus on, be prepared to fend off the lawyers. They want to trademark everything you publish. The trick is to get others to use your word. (To be a leader you have to have followers.) It would be helpful for **Lotus** to have other companies get into the **groupware** business. It would make the category more important and people would be even more impressed with **Lotus's** leadership. Once you have your word, you have to go out of your way to protect it in the marketplace. The case of **BMW** illustrates this very well. For years, **BMW** was the ultimate "**driving**" machine. Then the company decided to broaden its product line and chase **Mercedes-Benz** with large, 700-series sedans. The problem is, how can a living room on wheels be the ultimate driving machine? Not only can you not feel the road, but you'll also crush all the pylons in your driving commercials. As a result, things started downhill for **BMW**. Luckily, it has recently introduced a new small **BMW** and is emphasizing "**driving**" once again. The company has regained its focus. The law of focus applies to whatever you're selling, or even whatever you're unselling. Like drugs, for example. The antidrug crusade on television and in magazines suffers from a lack of focus. There is no one word driven into the minds of drug users that could begin to unsell the drug concept. Antidrug advertising is all over the map. You'd think the antidrug forces (who, after all, are professionals) would have taken a leaf from the amateurs fighting the abortion issue. Both sides of the abortion issue have focused on single, powerful words - pro-life and pro-choice. The antidrug forces should do the same—focus on a single powerful word. What the campaign ought to do is make drugs what cigarettes are today, socially unacceptable. One word that could do this is the ultimate down word, loser. Since drug usage causes all kinds of losses (of job, family, self-esteem, freedom, life), a program that said " Drugs are for losers" could have a very powerful impact, especially on the recreational user, who is more concerned with social status than with getting high. The law of focus, a marketing law, could help solve one of society's biggest problems. # The Law of Exclusivity Two companies cannot own the same word in the prospect's mind. When a competitor owns a word or position in the prospect's mind, it is futile to attempt to own the same word. As we mentioned earlier, **Volvo** owns **safety**. Many other automobile companies, including **Mercedes-Benz** and **General Motors**, have tried to run marketing campaigns based on safety. Yet no one except **Volvo** has succeeded in getting into the prospect's mind with a safety message. The **Atari** story shows the futility of attempting to move in on the home computer position against well-entrenched competitors. A variation called **game computer** might have been possible because it would have taken advantage of the perception of **Atari** as a creator of computer games. But that's about it. The home computer position belonged to **Apple**, **Commodore**, and others. Despite the disaster stories, many companies continue to violate the law of exclusivity. You can't change people's minds once they are made up. In fact, what you often do is reinforce your competitor's position by making its concept more important. **Federal Express** has walked away from **overnight** and is in the middle of trying to take **worldwide** away from **DHL**. "Overnight Letter" used to be emblazoned on **Federal Express** envelopes. Today you'll find "**FedEx Letter**" instead. And its advertising no longer says, "When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight." Lately the word that has been appearing in **Federal Express** advertising is worldwide. This raises the all-important question: Can **Federal Express** ever own the worldwide word? Probably not. Someone else already owns it: **DHL Worldwide Express**. Its concept: Faster to more of the world. To succeed, **Federal Express** must find a way to narrow the focus against **DHL**. The company can't do it by trying to own the same word in the prospect's mind. Another massive marketing effort aimed at someone else's word can be found in bunny land -- to be specific, the pink **Energizer bunny** that is trying to take the "**long-lasting**" concept away from **Duracell**. No matter how many bunnies **Eveready** throws into the fray, **Duracell** will still be able to hang onto the long-lasting word. **Duracell** got into the mind first and preempted the concept. Even the **Dura** part of the name communicates it. What often leads marketers down this booby-trapped lane is that wonderful stuff called research. Armies of researchers are employed, focus groups conducted, questionnaires tabulated and what comes back in a three-pound report is a wish list of attributes that users want from a product or service. So, if that's what people want, that's what we should give them? What's the biggest problem people have with batteries? They go dead at the most inconvenient times. So, what's the No. 1 battery attribute? Long-lasting, of course. If long-lasting is what people want, that's what we should advertise? Right? Wrong. What researchers never tell you is that some other company already owns the idea. They would rather encourage clients to mount massive marketing programs. The theory is that if you spend enough money, you can own the idea? Right? Wrong. Some years ago **Burger King** started down this slippery slope from which it has never quite recovered. A market study showed that the most popular attribute for fast food was "**fast**" (no big surprise there). So **Burger King** did what most red-blooded marketers do. It turned to its advertising agency and said, "If the world wants fast, our advertising should tell them we're fast." What was overlooked in the research was that **McDonald's** was already perceived as being the fastest hamburger chain in the country. **Fast** belonged to **McDonald's**. Undaunted by this, **Burger King** launched its campaign with the slogan "Best food for fast times." The program quickly became a disaster very nearly on a par with the one that involved "Herb." The advertising agency was fired, management was fired, the company was sold, and downward momentum was maintained. Many people have paid the price for violating the law of exclusivity. # The Law of the Ladder The strategy to use depends on which rung you occupy on the ladder. - Hertz - Avis - National While being first into the prospect's mind ought to be your primary marketing objective, the battle isn't lost if you fail in this endeavor. There are strategies to use for No. 2 and No. 3 brands. All products are not created equal. There's a hierarchy in the mind that prospects use in making decisions. For each category, there is a product ladder in the mind. On each rung is a brand name. Take the car rental category. **Hertz** got into the mind first and wound up on the top rung. **Avis** got in second and **National** got in third. Your marketing strategy should depend on how soon you got into the mind and consequently which rung of the ladder you occupy. The higher the better, of course. Take **Avis**, for example. For years the company advertised the high quality of its rent-a-car service. "Finest in rent-a-cars" was one of its campaigns. The reader looked at the ad and wondered, How could they have the finest rent-a-car service when they're not on the top rung of my ladder? Then **Avis** did the one thing you have to do to make progress inside the mind of the prospect. They acknowledged their position on the ladder. "Avis is only No. 2 in rent-a-cars. So why go with us? We try harder." For 13 years in a row, **Avis** had lost money. Then, when it admitted to being No. 2, it started to make money, lots of money. Shortly thereafter, the company was sold to ITT, which promptly ordered up the advertising theme, "Avis is going to be No. 1." No, they're not, said the prospect. They're not on the top rung of my ladder. And to make the point, many picked up the phone and called **Hertz**. The campaign was a disaster. Many marketing people have misread the **Avis** story. They assume the company was successful because it tried harder (i.e., it had the better service). But that wasn't it at all. **Avis** was successful because it related itself to the position of **Hertz** in the mind. (If trying harder were the secret of success, Harold Stassen would have been president many times over.) Many marketers make the same mistake as **Avis** did. Currently, **Adelphi University** in **Garden City**, **Long Island**, is comparing itself (favorably) with **Harvard**. Wait a minute, says the high school senior, **Adelphi** is not on my college ladder. As you might expect, Adelphi is not very successful in attracting the top students. The mind is selective. Prospects use their ladders in deciding which information to accept and which information to reject. In general, a mind accepts only new data that is consistent with its product ladder in that category. Everything else is ignored. When **Chrysler** compared its cars with **Honda**, very few people traded in their **Preludes** and **Accords** for **Plymouths** and **Dodges**. The headline of one Chrysler ad said: "Comparing a used **Dodge Spirit** to a new **Honda Accord** seemed a little ridiculous. Until we saw the results." According to the ad, 100 people were asked to compare a **Dodge Spirit** with 70,000 miles on it to a new **Honda Accord**. The majority (58 out of 100) chose the used **Dodge**. Ridiculous. (But not necessarily untrue.) What about your product's ladder in the prospect's mind? How many rungs are there on your ladder? It depends on whether your product is a high-interest or a low-interest product. Products you use every day (cigarettes, cola, beer, toothpaste, cereal) tend to be high-interest products with many rungs on their ladders. Products that are purchased infrequently (furniture, lawn mowers, luggage) usually have few rungs on their ladders. Products that involve a great deal of personal pride (automobiles, watches, cameras) are also high-interest products with many rungs on their ladders even though they are purchased infrequently. Products that are purchased infrequently and involve an unpleasant experience usually have very few rungs on their ladders. Automobile batteries, tires, and life insurance are three examples. The, ultimate product that involves the least amount of pleasure and is purchased once in a lifetime has no rungs on its ladder. Ever hear of Batesville caskets? Probably not, although the brand has almost 50 percent of the market. There's a relationship between market share and your position on the ladder in the prospect's mind. You tend to have twice the market share of the brand below you and half the market share of the brand above you. For example, **Acura** was the first Japanese luxury car **Lexus** was second. **Infiniti** was third. In a recent year, **Acura** sold 143,708 cars in the United States, **Lexus** sold 71,206 cars, and **Infiniti** sold 34,890. The relationship among the three brands is almost a mathematically correct 4-2-1. (The **Acura-Lexus-Infiniti** battle is in its early stages, where the cars are new and there's a lot of interest among the public and the press. In the long run, when the products are no longer exciting, another phenomenon occurs. See the next chapter: The Law of Duality.) Marketing people often talk about the "three leading brands" in a category as if it were a battle of equals. It almost never is. The leader inevitably dominates the No. 2 brand and the No. 2 brand inevitably smothers No. 3. In baby food, it's **Gerber**, **Beech-Nut**, and **Heinz**. In beer, it's **Budweiser**, **Miller**, and **Coors**. In long-distance telephone service it's **AT&T**, **MCI**, and **Sprint**. What's the maximum number of rungs on a ladder? There seems to be a rule of seven in the prospect's mind. Ask someone to name all the brands he or she remembers in a given category. Rarely will anyone name more than seven. And that's for a high-interest category. According to Harvard psychologist Dr. George A. Miller, the average human mind cannot deal with more than seven units at a time. Which is why seven is a popular number for lists that have to be remembered. Seven-digit phone numbers, the seven wonders of the world, seven-card stud, Snow White and the seven dwarfs, the seven danger signals of cancer. Sometimes your own ladder, or category, is too small. It might be better to be a small fish in a big pond than to be a big fish in a small pond. In other words, it's sometimes better to be No. 3 on a big ladder than No. 1 on a small ladder. The top rung of the lemon-lime soda ladder was occupied by **7-Up**. (**Sprite** was on the second rung.) In the soft-drink field, however, the cola ladder is much bigger than the lemon-lime ladder. (Almost two out of three soft drinks consumed in America are cola drinks.) So **7-Up** climbed on the cola ladder with a marketing campaign called "The Uncola." As tea is to coffee, **7-Up** became the alternative to a cola drink. And **7-Up** sales climbed to where the brand was the third largest-selling soft drink in America. Unfortunately, in recent years **7-Up** lost its grip on third place by violating one of the laws yet to be discussed (chapter 12: The Law of Line Extension). The ladder is a simple, but powerful, analogy that can help you deal with the critical issues in marketing. Before starting any marketing program, ask yourself the following questions: Where are we on the ladder in the prospect's mind? On the top rung? On the second rung? Or maybe we're not on the ladder at all. Then make sure your program deals realistically with your position on the ladder. More on how to do this later. # The Law of Duality In the long run, every market becomes a two-horse race. - Coke - Pepsi - Royal - Who? Early on, a new category is a ladder of many rungs. Gradually, the ladder becomes a two-rung affair. In batteries, it's **Eveready** and **Duracell**. In photographic film, it's **Kodak** and **Fuji**. In rent-a-cars, it's **Hertz** and **Avis**. In mouthwash, it's **Listerine** and **Scope**. In hamburgers, it's **McDonald's** and **Burger King**. In sneakers, it's **Nike** and **Reebok**. In toothpaste, it's **Crest** and **Colgate**. When you take the long view of marketing, you find the battle usually winds up as a titanic struggle between two major players — usually the old reliable brand and the upstart. Back in 1969, there were three major brands of a certain product. The leader had about 60 percent of the market, the No. 2 brand had a 25 percent share, and the No. 3 brand had a 6 percent share. The rest of the market included either private label or minor brands. The law of duality suggests that these market shares are unstable. Furthermore, the law predicts that the leader will lose market share and No. 2 will gain. Twenty-two years later, the leader dropped down to 45 percent of the market. The No. 2 brand has 40 percent, and No. 3 has 3 percent. The products are **Coca-Cola**, **Pepsi-Cola**, and **Royal Crown cola**, respectively, but the principles apply to brands everywhere. Look at the three long-distance telephone companies. **AT&T** has 65 percent of the market, **MCI** has 17 percent, and **Sprint** has 10 percent. Who will win and who will lose in the telephone wars? While the future is unknowable (chapter 17: The Law of Unpredictability), a betting person would put his or her money on **MCI**. **MCI** has won the battle with **Sprint** for second place, so now **MCI** ought to become the upstart alternative to old, reliable **AT&T**. **Sprint** is probably feeling very comfortable on the third rung of the ladder. Nine percent doesn't sound like much, but it translates to $6 billion in annual sales. And the market has been growing rapidly. For the long term, however, **Sprint** is in serious trouble. Look what happened to **Royal Crown cola**. Back in 1969, the **Royal Crown** company revitalized its franchise system, 350 bottlers strong, and hired the former president of **Rival Pet Foods** and a veteran of both **Coke** and **Pepsi**. The company also retained **Wells, Rich, Greene**, a high-powered New York advertising agency. "We're out to kill **Coke** and **Pepsi**, " declared Mary Wells Lawrence, the agency's head, to the **Royal Crown** bottlers. "I hope you'll excuse the word, but we're really out for the jugular." The only brand that got killed was **Royal Crown**. In a maturing industry, third place is a difficult position to be in. Take the domestic automobile industry. In spite of heroic measures undertaken by Lee Iacocca, **Chrysler** is in trouble. In the long run, marketing is a two-car race. Take video games. In the late eighties, the market was dominated by **Nintendo** with a 75 percent share. The two also-rans were **Sega** and **NEC**. Today **Nintendo** and **Sega** are neck and neck, and **NEC** is way behind. In the long run, marketing is a two-game race. Time frames, however, can vary. The fast-moving video game market played itself out in two or three seasons. The long-distance telephone market might take two or three decades. Take the airline industry. **American Airlines**, with 20 percent of the market, got its nose out in front and will probably wind up as the **Coca-Cola** of the skies. The interesting battle is between **Delta** and **United**, tied at 18 percent apiece. One of these two will take off like **Pepsi** — the other is headed down with **Royal Crown**. In the long run, marketing is a two-airline race. Are these results preordained? Of course not. There are other laws of marketing that can also affect the results. Furthermore, your marketing programs can strongly influence your sales, provided they are in tune with the laws of marketing. When you're a weak No. 3, like **Royal Crown,** you aren't going to make much progress by going out and attacking the two strong leaders. What they could have done is carved out a profitable niche for themselves (chapter 5: The Law of Focus). Knowing that marketing is a two-horse race in the long run can help you plan strategy in the short run. It often happens that there is no clearcut No. 2. What happens next depends upon how skillful the contenders are. Take the laptop computer field. **Toshiba** is in first place with 21 percent of the market. But there are five companies in second place. **Zenith**, **Compaq**, **NEC**, **Tandy**, and **Sharp** each have between 8 and 10 percent of the market. It ought to be fun to watch six horses come around a turn where there's room for only two. **Toshiba** and who? Which one will finish second? What's especially tragic from the economy's point of view are the resources wasted in many high-visibility categories like laptop computers. Currently there are 130 laptop brands on the market. The law of duality will see to it that very few of these brands will be around in the twenty-first century. Look at the history of the automobile in the United States. In 1904, 195 different cars were assembled by 60 companies. Within the following 10 years, 531 companies were formed and 346 perished. By 1923, only 108 car makers remained. This number dropped to 44 by 1927. Today, **Ford** and **General Motors** dominate the domestic industry, with **Chrysler's** future in doubt. Successful marketers concentrate on the top two rungs. Jack Welch, the legendary chairman and CEO of **General Electric**, said recently: "Only businesses that are No. 1 or No. 2 in their markets could win in the increasingly competitive global arena. Those that could not were fixed, closed, or sold." It's this kind of thinking that built companies like **Procter & Gamble** into the powerhouses they are. In 32 of its 44 product categories in the United States, **P&G** commands the No. 1 or No. 2 brands. Early on, in a developing market, the No. 3 or No. 4 positions look attractive. Sales are increasing. New, relatively unsophisticated customers are coming into the market. These customers don't always know which brands are the leaders, so they pick ones that look interesting or attractive. Quite often, these turn out to be the No. 3 or No. 4 brands. As time goes on, however, these customers get educated. They want the leading brand, based on the naive assumption that the leading brand must be better. We repeat: The customer believes that marketing is a battle of products. It's this kind of thinking that keeps the two brands on top: "They must be the best, they're the leaders." # The Law of the Opposite If you're shooting for second place, your strategy is determined by the leader. In strength there is weakness. Wherever the leader is strong, there is an opportunity for a would-be No. 2 to turn the tables. Much like a wrestler uses his opponent's strength against him, a company should leverage the leader's strength into a weakness. If you want to establish a firm foothold on the second rung of the ladder, study the firm above you. Where is it strong? And how do you turn that strength into a weakness? You must discover the essence of the leader and then present the prospect with the opposite. (In other words, don't try to be better, try to be different.) It's often the upstart versus old reliable. **Coca-Cola** is a 100-year-old product. Only seven people in the history of the world have known the Coke formula, which is kept locked in a safe in Atlanta. **Coca-Cola** is the old, established product. However, using the law of the opposite, **Pepsi-Cola** reversed the essence of **Coca-Cola** to become the choice of a new generation: the **Pepsi Generation**. When you look at customers in a given product category, there seem to be two kinds of people. There are those who want to buy from the leader and there are those who don't want to buy from the leader. A potential No. 2 has to appeal to the latter group. In other words, by positioning yourself against the leader, you take business away from all the other alternatives to No.1. If old people drink **Coke** and young people drink **Pepsi**, there's nobody left to drink **Royal Crown cola**. Yet, too many potential No. 2 brands try to emulate the leader. This usually is an error. You must present yourself as the alternative. **Time** built its reputation on colorful writing. So **Newsweek** turned the idea around and focused on a straightforward writing style: "We separate facts from opinions." In other words, **Newsweek** puts its opinions in the editorial columns, not in the news columns. Sometimes you need to be brutal. **Scope**, the good-tasting mouthwash, hung the "medicine breath" label on its **Listerine** competition. But don't simply knock the competition. The law of the opposite is a two-edge sword. It requires honing in on a weakness that your prospect will quickly acknowledge. (One whiff of **Listerine** and you know that your mouth would smell like a hospital.) Then quickly twist the sword. (**Scope** is the good-tasting mouthwash that kills germs.) Also in the mouthwash field is an interesting example of the futility of trying to emulate the leader. In 1961, **Johnson & Johnson** introduced **Micrin** mouthwash, focusing on its "scientific" virtues. Within months **Micrin** became the No. 2 brand. But with its germ-fighting approach, **Listerine** was also a scientific brand. So, in 1965, when **Procter & Gamble** introduced **Scope**, it had the "opposite" position to itself. **Scope** went on to become the No. 2 mouthwash. By 1978, when **Johnson & Johnson** withdrew the product from the market, **Micrin's** share had fallen to 1 percent. When **Beck's** beer arrived in the United States, it had a problem. It couldn't be the first imported beer (that was **Heineken**), nor could it be the first German imported beer (that was **Lowenbrau**). It solved its problem by repositioning **Lowenbrau**. "You've tasted the German beer that's the most popular in America. Now taste the German beer that's the most popular in Germany." Today **Beck's** is the second largest-selling European beer in America. (When it comes to beer, Americans trust German mouths more than they do their own mouths.) This is a rare example of overturning the law of leadership and manipulating perceptions in the mind. (All this is academic today, since **Lowenbrau** is now brewed in America.) As a product gets old , it often accrues some negative baggage. This is especially true in the medical field. Take aspirin, a product introduced in 1899. With thousands of medical studies conducted on aspirin, someone was bound to find flaws in the product. Sure enough, they found stomach bleeding — just in time for the 1955 launch of **Tylenol**. With all the "stomach bleeding" publicity, **Tylenol** quickly was able to set itself up as the alternative. "For the millions who should not take aspirin," said the **Tylenol** advertising. Today **Tylenol** outsells aspirin and is the largest-selling single product in American drugstores. **Stolichnaya** was able to hang the label of "fake Russian vodka" on American vodkas such as **Smirnoff**, **Samovar**, and **Wolfschmidt** by simply pointing out that they come from places like **Hartford** (Connecticut), **Schenley** (Pennsylvania), and **Lawrenceburg** (Indiana). **Stolichnaya** comes from **Leningrad** (Russia), making it the real thing. There has to be a ring of truth about the negative if it is to be effective. One of the classic examples of hanging a negative on a competitor is an advertisement that **Royal Doulton China** ran about its main U.S. competitor. The headline said it all: "Royal Doulton, the china of **Stoke-on-Trent**, England vs. Lenox, the china of **Pomona**, New