Click for details Introduction: Lies are always exposed The phrase "the biggest idea in the history of American marketing" has led countless people to learn about and admire positioning theory, at least for Lao Miao. In previous articles, whenever I mentioned positioning, I would also quote this phrase. It's simple, direct, effective, and instantly makes one feel impressive. But in recent years, more and more discoveries have made people suspect: is this so-called "biggest influence in history" a fabricated lie? Is it "bullying us Chinese for having no relatives in America"?

  1. This famous quote only appears in the Chinese translation of positioning books, not in the original American editions.
  2. Searches on the websites of the American Marketing Association and the American Marketing Society found no record of it.
  3. The details of how this seemingly grand "hat" was selected, who the judges were, what criteria were used, and what other concepts were considered are vague in domestic sources and absent in foreign sources.
  4. Domestic records on this matter are chaotic; some say it defeated brand image theory and competitive strategy, while others directly claim it defeated Kotler, Michael Porter, and Ogilvy. It's embarrassing to read.
  5. Among top American marketing scholars, positioning has always been controversial. The debate between Ries and David Aaker is known to everyone; Schultz, the founder of integrated marketing communications, bluntly said positioning is nonsense, with the exact words being "positioning is brand babble"; Kotler is the patron of positioning, but in recent editions of Marketing Management, content on positioning has been reduced edition by edition, and the master Kotler places positioning within the STP marketing strategy and Keller's brand management system. In this context, calling positioning "the biggest influence on American marketing" clearly lacks persuasiveness; saying it is "the most controversial" or "the most questioned" would be more credible.
  6. Compared to "the idea that most influenced America," positioning companies have never been successful in the US. Whether it's the advertising agency Ries founded earlier (where Trout worked as an AE) or the consulting firms they later established separately, they don't rank in the American advertising or consulting industries. In contrast, in China, because of this "biggest influence on America," many people have flocked to it, and business is booming. A young friend, once a devoted fan of positioning, asked in a positioning group: "If positioning has the biggest influence in America, why didn't Trout's legacy continue in America, but instead he found a Chinese person to inherit his business?" He was then kicked out of the group.
  7. I consulted several people with American marketing backgrounds and some senior Taiwanese marketers, and they all said they were unaware of this so-called "biggest influence in history." Of course, these are just suspicions and cannot 100% prove that "the biggest influence in history" is specifically designed to deceive Chinese marketers, because proving that something didn't happen is extremely difficult. I once wrote an article questioning this, hoping that those who fabricated these claims would provide solid evidence, and I promised that if evidence existed, I would publish it to set the record straight. Lao Miao sincerely hopes my doubts are wrong, because I don't want to be fooled for so many years like an idiot. The evidence never came, but two funny things happened: one, someone rigged the voting in my little test; two, a positioning company called me, very emotional, saying they would send a lawyer's letter and sue me. The lawyer's letter still hasn't arrived, forcing me to write another questioning article to urge them. Alas, these positioning bigwigs are less bold than Quanjian Company; bad review. If this phrase "the biggest influence in history" is proven to be a lie, it's easy to understand the current behavior and atmosphere of positioning believers in China. An organization built on lies naturally tends to be a motley crowd, full of chaos and filth. In 2017, when Trout passed away, domestic believers mourned him, and the most significant tribute was "quoting" a report from one of America's largest print media, The New York Times. In China, it looked like this: "The New York Times reported on Jack Trout's deeds and life on a full page!" It gave the impression of an absolutely full-page, front-page headline, but on the official website of The New York Times, the only information found was a simple notice. Although website content and print content may not be exactly the same, the discrepancy is too large. Shouldn't those positioning gurus who promoted the "full-page report" come out and explain? Is this also "bullying us Chinese for having no relatives in America"? Over the past two decades, the performances of positioning disciples in China have been spectacular, rivaling the entertainment industry. They criticize Ogilvy, McKinsey, Porter, and Kotler; they attack Apple and Xiaomi. When they get fierce, they split into two factions—the Ries faction and the Trout faction—and criticize each other. In China, there's no doubt the Trout faction is dominant, almost stealing all of Ries's credit. Various records and documents are clear: the prototype of positioning theory was Ries's company's working philosophy, originally called "the rock," meaning "an unquestionable idea." Later, when Trout joined the company, he suggested to Ries to name it "positioning" (position), and with Ries's support, wrote the first article on positioning. In the subsequent positioning series books, Ries was the first author and Trout the second. That Ries is the founder of positioning theory, with Trout second, is a fact and a public consensus, and neither party objected. However, in China, everything changed. Many marketers only know Trout, not Ries. Trout became the initiator of positioning theory and the "father of positioning," because he named it. So naming has so many benefits! Grabbing the spotlight and the right to interpret is just a small case; the more impressive move is grabbing cases. When Wang Laoji (now JDB) originally approached Chengmei to shoot an ad, Chengmei created "Afraid of getting heaty? Drink Wang Laoji," which helped Wang Laoji achieve early success. After Wang Laoji (now JDB) succeeded, they found a positioning company and started playing the "authentic herbal tea," "leading strategy," and "every ten cans of herbal tea, seven are JDB" games. Due to the massive publicity, it almost covered up the fact that Chengmei had provided key services to Wang Laoji back then, forcing them to issue a statement: "We did the Wang Laoji back then." Look at the cases done by positioning gurus in recent years; they are almost all "far ahead," "leader," "leading," "mid-to-high-end," "expert in something," "designed specifically for something," or they create a new category out of thin air. In short, they just advertise, using massive ads to occupy these concepts. A well-known brand in the building materials industry, because it "innovated a category," invested huge advertising fees, and to this day operates with great difficulty, owing a media company over ten million yuan in advertising fees that it cannot repay. A certain used-car platform, with years of overwhelming ads that left nowhere to hide, was easily caught up by Renrenche in 2018. By the end of the year, it was fined 12.5 million yuan for improper use of the "far ahead" promotional language. Many netizens who love to watch the fun are still not satisfied, thinking the platform's "no middleman to earn the difference" is an even bigger "false advertisement." "Sellers sell for more, buyers spend less"—what a strange idea. I really want to know how they do it! Do they secretly learn from Lei Feng and subsidize both sides? Or do they print money themselves? We're about to enter the third decade of the 21st century, and they're still using such anti-business-common-sense ads to challenge public intelligence. With such performances from the bigwigs in the positioning circle, the vast number of believers are even more lively. For them, positioning theory is not just about beating Porter and kicking Kotler; it's the only truth in business, the first truth of the universe. "The Communist Party of China succeeded by using positioning theory," "Chairman Mao succeeded by using positioning theory," "America succeeded by using positioning theory," "Shakyamuni succeeded by using positioning theory," "Cao Cao, Liu Bei, and Sun Quan all succeeded by using positioning theory"... And all business failures are attributed to not doing positioning correctly. Across five thousand years of history and eight thousand miles, "positioning magic"—those who follow it prosper, those who oppose it perish. These are a bunch of "delusional people" with hammers, nailing nails everywhere. "China's first positioning person," "world's first positioning person," "catering industry's first positioning person," "food industry's first positioning person," "investment promotion's first positioning person," "northwest's first positioning person," "first positioning person of such-and-such province"... They're everywhere. Positioning is called a "cult" in the industry, also because of its severe exclusivity and its touching logic. When you question it, you typically face three divine replies: First, "You don't understand positioning," "Have you read all twenty-two positioning books?" They don't discuss specific issues with you; they use the "Cultural Revolution-style" logic of depriving you of the right to speak to defeat you. Since there are over twenty books in the positioning series, the explanations are vast, and they can always find arguments to support their views. Then you're classified as not understanding positioning and unqualified to question it. This method can eliminate most people. Even Kotler has been questioned by some domestic marketing believers for not understanding positioning, which is truly chilling. If they encounter a tough opponent who has read most positioning books, has deep industry experience, and sharp insights, they resort to the second move—"You're using positioning to oppose positioning." This also takes advantage of the many positioning books; your insights can always find echoes in positioning books. Although I can't beat you in facts and reasoning, you're still using "positioning," so positioning is correct, and your questioning is wrong. If the first two moves fail, they bring out their trump card—"motive theory." Your opposition to positioning is for attention, to ride on traffic; your criticism of positioning, Lao Miao, is to promote Ye Maozhong's conflict theory; your questioning of positioning is out of jealousy of positioning companies' success. Once it's elevated to motives, those who question positioning become malicious, and they can be criticized and smeared. Turning issue discussions into disgusting motive theory and qualification theory is blatant hooliganism. This is the more decent-looking behavior; the uglier behavior is outright cursing. In the first half of 2018, Shou Wenbin wrote an anti-positioning article, and because of its huge influence, he was subjected to various personal attacks and foul language from positioning believers. The positioning circle once organized people to refute Shou Wenbin's article, but embarrassingly, most believers could only wave flags and insult family members; very few could engage in real discussion. Some experts rose to refute, but their influence combined probably wasn't as great as that one article. This circle's lack of ambition and its murky atmosphere have reached this point. No wonder, in earlier years, companies often came to us saying they wanted to reposition their brands or how to position their companies, but in recent years, if you tell a company to do "positioning," you're more likely to get a wary look, as if they're looking at a scammer. "Positioning" is conceptually very clever: when a brand operates successfully, it usually leaves a deep impression in users' minds and becomes a priority association for a category. But this is the result of brand operations, not necessarily the cause of brand success. Many positioning believers, however, mistake the result for the cause, calling a deer a horse, and use whether something conforms to people's so-called minds or fits positioning theory to measure whether a brand is successful, pretending to be "old Chinese medicine doctors" everywhere. The result is naturally "easy to understand, wrong when used, and harmful to enterprises." Positioning is a tool, a methodology, and has its own value. What Lao Miao opposes is exaggerating the role of any tool, being a frog at the bottom of a well, leading others astray, and even fabricating rumors, using false propaganda to distort right and wrong and confuse the public. In the internet age, information transparency has increased. Not only are fake foreign diploma degrees useless in China, but even creating foreign halos to fool people domestically is easily exposed. Facing these people, to make the domestic marketing environment less murky, we should still point at them and say: "Look, he really isn't wearing any clothes, yeah!" Source: Lao Miao Tears Apart Marketing (ID: yiheyingxiao) -END-