There are market where 2 brands can't fulfill all the demand (there are more than 2 well-known car manufacturers). The other problem is that it isn't universally true and the book again makes a big simplification of reality and it tries to support this simplified picture with selectively chosen examples. 3 company, I should just quit and apply for a job in No. The only conclusion I can make is that if I were a marketing person and worked for No. Even if that was universally true, how does it help a marketing person? There's little a marketing person can do about the position of his company in the market. In the long run, every market becomes a two-horse race. Marketing might be an important factor but certainly not dominant. I can see how this point of view can be attractive for marketing people but I would think that success depends on more factors. I don't think that good or bad marketing campaign can make or break a company. that there is strong correlation between Avis profits and the kind of marketing campaign) I find it hardly unlikely that there's a causality relationship. Additionally their examples feel like they oversimplify complex reality. However the book says very little about what kind of strategy one should use in a given position (except for a few examples). I agree with the premise (kind of marketing depends on your position in the market). Then they had another disastrous campaign when they started claiming "Avis is going to be No. That had profit when they switched to "Avis is only No. 2 in car rental and when they advertised as "finest in rent-a-cars" the had losses because their marketing wasn't credible (you can't be "finest" being No. 2 you use different strategy than when you're No. Marketing strategy depends on your position in the market. If your car breaks down every 10 miles no amount of marketing will convince people that it has high quality. Maybe having the desired reality is not enough to achieve desired perception but it's hard to argue that you can create any perception you want regardless of reality. Therefore one way of changing the perception is to change the reality (e.g. After all if it's raining not many people will maintain the perception that it's wonderfully sunny day. However our perception is mostly grounded in objective reality. I fully accept the premise (that perceptions is our reality). Therefore what's important is that marketing should be focused on changing the perception. In Japan, however, people perceive Honda as a manufacturer of motorcycles. If the quality of the car was the most important thing it should have the same position in all markets. Honda is a leading Japanese car manufacturer in US but only third in Japan (after Toyota and Nissan). Reality doesn't exists, what we call "reality" is just a perception of reality that we create in our minds. Marketing is not about products (their features or quality) but about perceptions (how people perceive products). But it's very hard and usually requires the leader to make huge mistakes. first spreadsheet isn't the dominant spreadsheet, first word processor isn't the dominant word processor) so there are (many) cases showing that n-th product can overtake early leaders. There are many examples from computer industry that disapprove this rule (i.e. It's rather obvious that it doesn't matter that you're first to market if no-one needs your product or if your product is very bad. I think it's better to say that being first gives one extremely big advantage over competition but doesn't guarantee the success. Being first doesn't matter if the idea/product is not good. Same for Miller Lite, first domestic light beer. Heineken was the first imported beer in USA and still is No. Being first in the market is better than having a better product than a competition.Įxamples: we all remember who first flew over Atlantic or who was the first man on the moon but almost no-one knows who was the second.