"Service" is a Lousy Positioning

ne of ways stores and companies try to find their strongest positioning is by asking
people what they want. And of course that’s good. But they should look hard at the
results of their research.

As I said earlier, you can’t wish a position, you have to earn it.

Many studies confirm that “Service” is what customers want, so OK, says the store
or a manufacturer, we’ll say that’s what we give. But “Under-service” and “No
Service” doesn’t cut it, and that’s what customers frequently get.

The promise of service is fraught with danger, embodied with every employee,
tested with every encounter. The worst sin of marketers is to not deliver what is
promised. If they fall short, they have broken a trusted relationship.

I can think of two companies that could proclaim good service as their claim to fame:
Nordstrom and Ritz-Carlton. They deliver it every day. It is part of their culture.
Can you think of any more?

So until a company is known for its service, and they live it every day, they should talk about something else.

“Lowest Price” is also a losing positioning. There can only be one lowest price
player in every category. Wal*Mart owns that game. If you go that route, be ready
to get undercut.

The same is “Value.” That word is worthless, the king of vagueness.

I’m certainly not saying that “Service” is bad; they should be pursued and treasured.

Once a company delivers it, unbroken, for about five years, then it could be shouted
from the roof.

I was with an ad agency that had a hotel client. We sold them a “Service” strategy
and created one of the worst campaigns of all time: “If it’s not your mother, it must
be us.” Their service was lousier than their positioning. We lost that account.