The well-built business model

I want to thank Jack Martin Leith, whose 9 September post on Linkedin both sharpened and broadened my understanding of business innovation. Jack recommends Business Model Generation as one of the "must read" books (more like a handbook, really) on the topic. I really appreciate the link to the 72-page preview because it describes "9 building blocks" of any business model and reveals the "business model canvass", which a team can use to conceptualize all the blocks together. (Think yellow post-its on white boards.) It struck me that leaders should document the outcome of this innovative process and review it frequently. I also imagined how use of the canvass could naturally expand the ability of the company's best and brightest, at many levels, to be innovative.

Positioning Complex Innovative Products

Why is positioning especially vexing if your company’s core technology is highly innovative and your products are complex? (By "complex" I mean products that require integrated components.) Perhaps it’s because marketing will be under internal pressure to fragment the positioning--a "let's cover all the bases" mentality--which is perfectly understandable. Nobody really knows how customers will perceive the tradeoffs necessary to adopt the new platform until it has been on the market for a couple of years.  Also, marketing often feels pressured to adopt unconventional labels as product categories, in an effort to create a first mover status. 

Here's how seven-year old Nanostring handles positioning of its highly innovative system. The website displays the tagline "One System...Everything you need" and alternating images of the various system components. The simplicity is effective. Nanostring communicates its position as the leader in providing complete solutions for any application in their chosen market—genetic analysis. There is plenty of content on the site to suggest to me, even as a non-scientist, that Nanostring further differentiates itself as the solution for high-end customers, who need "highly multiplexed" data only they can provide.

So, I am back to the question that prompted this post...Is it good for innovative technology companies to claim one of the known positions in the more mature market they hope to overtake? Or should they strike out boldly with a new category name and previously unperceived positions?

Positioning: Be Perceived as You Really Are

In Marketing High Technology (1986), author and celebrated Intel executive Bill Davidow warns that poorly thought out positioning damages a company's credibility because what the company says it is and what the customer demands do not coincide. So how do you build a long-time leadership position that customers find both authentic and valuable?

First, you must find out what are the most desirable perceptions (positions) that customers have of other companies in your market, and then you must determine whether your company's strengths match up with any of those perceptions. Honesty is essential in this analysis. It's risky to call yourself The Market Leader unless you have a consistent strategy to achieve and dominate a given position. This is the thinking that has to be firmed up BEFORE the promotional plan is defined and carried out.

As a B2B marketing writer, I have experienced first hand the value of positioning  done right--especially when it is clearly stated and communicated throughout the organization. That way, when it's time to write the website copy, script the demo video, create the landing page, write the blog entry--the company's time and money can be spent on creating focused content instead of debating the position du jour.

Here's a really good article on the mechanics of writing a position statement: Marketing is not a Post-Processing Step