In every category, it’s virtually inevitable that the brands and companies that market them will become more and more alike. In the seamlessly connected world of today, this phenomenon is both accelerated and exaggerated. Studies show that an increasing number of categories are becoming more commodity-like in the eyes of consumers. In categories ranging from home improvement to insurance, brands are seen as becoming less differentiated.

The copying mechanism

The underlying explanation is the “copying” mechanism that has allowed humans to survive and evolve for the past few millions years. The work of social observers like Mark Earls demonstrates the simple truth that humans are social creatures, not independent agents, and that as such rely on copying to learn and survive in society. In fact, says Earls, “Copying is our species’ number one learning and adaptive strategy.”

Thus products and product features are mostly copied rather than invented. Copying is perceived as less risky, and risk is what most humans strenuously seek to avoid.

There is, of course, an important difference between real risk and perceived risk; in marketing the real risk is simply copying what other brands do. Copying leads to undifferentiated brands, commoditization of entire categories, and erosion of pricing power.

Duplicating success?

The temptation to copy in business is irresistible. We logically conclude that we can replicate another company’s success by duplicating their features, attributes and capabilities. But copying diverts companies and brands from doing what they do best and instead puts them on what has been called “the long road to unfocus.”

The illogic of all-in-one

The other force at play that leads brands to become homogeneous is the natural tendency to define their value proposition solely in terms of product attributes. Believing that the more product attributes a brand can claim the more valuable it will be to the customer, brands continue to add more and more features until they become “all-in-one solutions”.

The problem is, of course, nobody buys a product because it can do everything, but rather because it can do something. Nowhere is this more apparent than in packaged goods, where most categories ultimately produce a “total solution” brand. Witness Colgate Total, Crest Complete, Olay Total Effects, and Tide Total Care. Can one laundry detergent really stand for protecting color, enhancing softness, cleaning thoroughly, fighting stains, and preserving fabrics?

After years of marching down the “complete” path, P&G is realizing that a single benefit brand is often stronger for the simple reason that it stands for something. It promises to do a specific job extremely well instead of attempting to do a lot of jobs moderately well.

What’s true for package goods brands is true for agency brands. There is no competitive advantage in doing simply what others do; or worse, attempting to do everything others do.

One Response to “The urge to copy”