Distinctiveness versus Differentiation

Many marketers struggle with the comparison of brand distinctiveness, from brand differentiation, their relationship to patterns within a customer base, and the workings of human memory. The following is an extract from our core text and is a reading from module 3 of the Mini MBA in Customering.

Distinctiveness: Connecting and creating memory structures: non-rational

Differentiation: Contrasting a brand or offering with the alternatives

Brand distinctiveness is key to creating market-level memorability. It is the emotional, less rational working of the human mind. To do that, brands seek to create distinct elements or associations such as the following examples from Byron Sharp’s book: ‘How Brands Grow’:

• Colors – such as the Coca-Cola and Vodafone red.
• Logos – such as McDonald’s golden arches.
• Taglines – such as Nike’s “Just do it”.
• Symbols/characters – such as Tiger Woods for Nike.
• Adverting styles – such as MasterCard’s “priceless” campaign.

One of the greatest sporting brands in the world is New Zealand’s national rugby team, the All Blacks; one of the most successful sporting teams of all time, sustaining a near 80% win record over more than 130 years. 

The global growth of rugby audiences and media has enshrined them as an iconic brand that has transcended the sport itself. Not surprisingly, it has been a central part of the Adidas sporting stable for many years, and their distinctive all-black playing kit, the silver fern on the left chest (a national symbol), and the famous “haka”, a cultural mark of respect originating from the country’s indigenous Māori people, are all central to its history, its legacy, and now its commercial brand codes. 

But this kind of salience could not be achieved by differentiation alone, such as the All Blacks’ winning record. It required the ongoing distinctive elements that provide the personality and respect (for example) that mark the brand’s emotional memorability and marketability. It is even reinforced by the way that the team plays the game, which is regarded as part of its brand identity. For example, at the 2023 Rugby World Cup it scored more than 100 points more than the next best team, scored 49 tries while the next best was 35, etc.

In other words, the team plays exciting, attacking, attractive rugby, dominating the sponsor’s highlight reels, and here’s where the rubber hits the road: they attract audiences. The All Blacks have fans all over the world, many of whom aren’t general rugby followers, and many of whom have a national rugby team that plays against the All Blacks.

Establishing brand distinctiveness relies on this kind of persistency and consistency, and it allows a company to refresh the way that it reminds consumers of core messages, instead of laboring for new points of difference, which are invariably inconsequential from the consumer’s perspective. 

Let’s look at another example. 

The multi-billion-dollar brand M&Ms, manufactured and marketed by Mars Incorporated, is, at a product level, identical to the Nestle’s Smarties product, a seriously delicious, candy-coated chocolate pebble. And yet M&Ms is many orders of magnitude more successful – with an acquisition rate well above the average – than Smarties. 

The reason? The M&Ms characters. 

As I write this, and as you read it, I don’t even have to explain what they are because most likely you are already picturing them in your mind. In comparison, you are probably unable to recall anything about Smarties. That is the power of brand. It is the seeding of memories, which is powered in the main, by distinctiveness.

It does seem strange that marketers struggle with the distinction between the two, because the courts don’t. 

The legal system protects the interests of the consumers first and foremost, and so, even if Smarties had tried to claim that Mars had stolen the idea of the product, the court would cite benefit to the consumer and allow Mars to continue. The only caveat to this, of course, is when a company has a patent – but even then, patents are not typically granted in perpetuity and eventually retire. 

On the other hand, if, for argument’s sake, Nestle copied the M&Ms characters, the courts would say that these are protected symbols of Mars Incorporated, that they communicate to consumers where the product is coming from, and would protect Mars from the theft of those characters. Thus, in general, the law does not protect differentiation, but it does protect distinctiveness.