tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4194953473349372956.post9034745349613370873..comments2024-01-15T18:18:29.592+11:00Comments on Serviette Scribbles | A scribble about advertising: Why it pays to be a cheating jerkChristopher Otthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03893366002185338456noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4194953473349372956.post-17890694285787546902014-11-27T18:23:11.710+11:002014-11-27T18:23:11.710+11:00Cheers for the question! I'd redefine their ca...Cheers for the question! I'd redefine their category for them so they don't have 70% share. Nike's a good example. They probably had very high market share in the 'sportswear' category. So what did they do? They made their market bigger by redefining it to include 'lifestyle' and 'street wear'. Essentially increasing the number of category buyers to pursue - and letting them continue to go after penetration. Cheers, Chris. Christopher Otthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03893366002185338456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4194953473349372956.post-61982406028766745142014-11-26T22:28:52.020+11:002014-11-26T22:28:52.020+11:00Hi Chris, I'm a big believer in Double Jeopard...Hi Chris, I'm a big believer in Double Jeopardy and How Brands Grow. I implore brand managers to have their brand plans to focus on penetration, not frequency. But they're a skeptical lot, with strong traditional marketing backgrounds (a bright bunch too!). Even with data in front of them. The question they ask is, if we already have market penetration of 70% - can we really get more people to use us? They believe there is a ceiling and that frequency/loyalty is easier to get than penetration. I've managed this by asking them to focus on stabilising penetration (we've seen some decline) before focusing on increasing frequency. But maybe I"m selling myself out...<br />AlanaMarketing plan nudgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065994594758073302noreply@blogger.com