Olivia: Jackson, I have a number for you. In 1972, the average American was hit with about $110 worth of advertising a year. What do you think the equivalent is today? Jackson: Oh, wow. Given that I can't watch a 30-second video without seeing three ads, I’m going to guess… a lot more. Maybe $500? Olivia: Try over $880. We are absolutely drowning in messages. And what’s fascinating is that a couple of ad guys saw this coming fifty years ago and realized the solution wasn't to shout louder. Jackson: Okay, I'm hooked. Who were these prophets of the ad-pocalypse? Olivia: They were Al Ries and Jack Trout, and their diagnosis became one of the most influential marketing books ever written. Today, we are diving deep into Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. Jackson: I feel like I’ve heard that title whispered in marketing meetings. What’s the story behind it? Weren't these guys straight out of the Mad Men era? Olivia: Exactly. Ries and Trout were New York ad executives in the thick of it. They saw the writing on the wall: as the world got louder, brands were becoming invisible. Their book was a direct response to that chaos. It’s been widely acclaimed as a foundational text, though some critics today say its examples feel a bit dated. Jackson: Well, that number you just gave me doesn't feel dated at all. It feels like my Tuesday. So what was their big, revolutionary idea for cutting through all that noise?

Olivia: Their central idea is both simple and profound. They argued that the real battlefield for any product or company isn't the marketplace; it's the consumer's mind. Jackson: What does that actually mean, though? Isn't that where all advertising is aimed? Olivia: Yes, but their approach was different. They said the goal isn't to communicate more, because we live in an "overcommunicated society." The mind, as a defense mechanism against this flood of information, simply rejects almost everything. It's like a fortress with the drawbridge up. Jackson: Huh. So it’s not about getting your message to people, it’s about getting it past their mental guards. Olivia: Precisely. And they backed this up with staggering numbers even back then. They talked about the "product explosion"—the average supermarket in their day had 40,000 different items. And the "media explosion"—the Sunday edition of a major newspaper contained half a million words. It would take a speed-reader all day to get through it. Jackson: And that was before the internet. That's terrifying. Olivia: It is. And it leads to their core definition of positioning. They famously wrote, "Positioning is what you do to the mind of the prospect." It's not about changing your product. It's about changing the perception of your product that already exists in the mind. Jackson: Okay, but isn't more information and more choice a good thing? I like having options. Don't people want to be fully informed before they buy something? Olivia: That's the logical assumption, but it’s not how our brains work. The book argues the mind only accepts new information that matches its prior knowledge or experience. It looks for things that fit into the little boxes it's already created. If it doesn't fit, it gets rejected. Jackson: So you’re saying it’s a filtering system. Olivia: A ruthless one. They use a great, if cautionary, example: Chevrolet. For years, General Motors spent more money advertising Chevrolet than any other brand in the world. They had the Camaro, the Caprice, the Chevette, the Corvette... a model for everyone. Jackson: Sounds like a solid strategy. Cover all the bases. Olivia: But it was a disaster. Because in the consumer's mind, Chevrolet had no clear position. What was a Chevrolet? A sports car? A family sedan? A cheap compact? The message was so muddled that people couldn't place it. And while they were trying to be everything, Ford was busy owning the clear position of America's best-selling car. Chevrolet's attempt to communicate everything resulted in communicating nothing. Jackson: Wow. So by trying to appeal to everyone, they ended up with a weaker position than if they had just focused on one thing. Olivia: Exactly. They fell into the trap of thinking more is more. But in the battle for the mind, more is less.

Jackson: Okay, so if the mind is a fortress, and you can only get in with a very simple, targeted message, how do you actually do it? How do you find that one secret password to get past the guards? Olivia: This leads to their most powerful, and as you said, most controversial idea. To get into the mind, you have to understand how it organizes information. They use the metaphor of a "product ladder." For every category—cars, soda, rental cars—the mind has a little ladder with a few rungs. The brand on the top rung is the leader. Jackson: Like Coke for colas, or Hertz for rental cars back in the day. Olivia: Exactly. And this brings us to their number one rule of positioning, which still ruffles feathers today: "It's better to be first than it is to be better." Jackson: Hold on. That sounds completely backwards. You're telling me it's better to have the first mediocre product than the second, much-improved one? Olivia: In terms of owning a position in the mind, yes. Think about it. Who was the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic? Jackson: Charles Lindbergh, of course. Olivia: Right. Now, who was the second? Jackson: Uh... no idea. I'm guessing he was a pretty good pilot, though. Olivia: He was a fantastic pilot! His name was Bert Hinkler. He was actually a better pilot in many ways, with a more distinguished career. But Lindbergh was first. He got the top rung on the "transatlantic pilot" ladder in our collective mind, and it’s almost impossible to knock him off. The first one in gets imprinted. Jackson: That is a powerful and slightly depressing point. So if you're not first, you've already lost? What do you do then? Olivia: Ah, this is where the strategy gets brilliant. If you can't be first on the main ladder, you have two options. The first is to create a new ladder where you can be first. For example, when Amelia Earhart couldn't be the first person to fly the Atlantic, she became the first woman to do it. New ladder, new top rung. Jackson: Okay, that makes sense. Find a niche. But what if the ladder is already established, like with rental cars? Hertz was number one. You can't just invent a new category. Olivia: This is where the genius of repositioning the competition comes in. And the classic story here is Avis. For years, they were the struggling number two to Hertz. They tried advertising that they had better cars, better service—but no one was listening. It was just noise. Jackson: Because Hertz already owned the "leader" position. Olivia: Precisely. So their ad agency came up with a radical idea. Instead of fighting their number two status, they embraced it. They launched a campaign with the slogan: "Avis is only No. 2 in rent-a-cars. So why go with us? We try harder." Jackson: That's incredible. They just admitted they were the underdog. Olivia: And it was a masterstroke! It did two things. First, it acknowledged the reality in the customer's mind—everyone already knew they were number two. Second, it repositioned Hertz. Suddenly, Hertz wasn't just the leader; they were the big, complacent giant that didn't have to try. Avis was the scrappy, hungry underdog. It was a position no one else could claim. Jackson: And it worked? Olivia: It was one of the most successful campaigns in history. They went from losing money for over a decade to being profitable in a single year. They found a hole, or what the authors call a "creneau." Jackson: A creneau? That sounds like a French pastry. Olivia: (laughing) It does, but it just means a hole or a gap in the market. 7-Up did the same thing. They couldn't compete with Coke and Pepsi on the "cola" ladder. So what did they do? They created a new ladder right next to it. They positioned themselves as "The Uncola." Jackson: The Uncola! I remember that. It's brilliant because it uses the leaders' own identity against them. It defines itself by what it's not. Olivia: Exactly. It hooks into the massive "cola" position that already exists in the mind and presents itself as the refreshing alternative. You don't fight the leader head-on; you find a space they can't occupy.

Jackson: It sounds so simple and powerful when you lay it out like that. Find a hole, own it, be first. Why don't more companies get this right? It seems like a lot of brands today are more confused than ever. Olivia: That's the million-dollar question, and the book dedicates a lot of time to the common, seductive traps that companies fall into. The biggest and most dangerous one is the "Line-Extension Trap." Jackson: What’s that? It sounds like something you'd do at a bank. Olivia: It's the seemingly logical idea of taking the name of a successful product and putting it on a new one. The thinking is, "Our brand name is famous and respected, so it will give this new product a free ride to success." Jackson: Right, that makes perfect sense. Why build a new brand from scratch when you have one people already love? Olivia: Because, as the authors say, a brand name is like a rubber band. You can stretch it, but the more you stretch it, the weaker it becomes. Eventually, it snaps. Jackson: Give me an example. This feels like something I see every day. Olivia: Oh, it is. The book uses the classic case of Alka-Seltzer. A hugely famous brand, owned a clear position in the mind for "fast relief for upset stomach." Then, the company developed a new cold remedy. Instead of giving it a new name, they called it "Alka-Seltzer Plus." Jackson: I see the logic. It’s Alka-Seltzer… plus a cold medicine. Olivia: But what happened in the consumer's mind? The name "Alka-Seltzer" was so strongly tied to stomach relief that people didn't see "Alka-Seltzer Plus" as a serious cold medicine. It was just a souped-up version of the original. It failed to take market share from the cold medicine leaders like Contac, and worse, it confused and diluted the original Alka-Seltzer brand. The rubber band got stretched too thin. Jackson: It's like when a great, gritty crime novelist suddenly writes a fantasy epic under the same name. You just don't trust it in the same way. The brand promise is broken. Olivia: That's a perfect analogy. Another great example is Scott Paper. For decades, "Scott" meant toilet paper. They were the leader. But then they fell into the line-extension trap. They launched ScotTowels, Scotties facial tissues, Scotkins napkins. The name "Scott" was stretched across so many products that it lost its sharp focus. Jackson: And what happened? Olivia: Procter & Gamble came along with a new brand, Charmin, and a very focused, memorable position built around softness—and Mr. Whipple telling you "Please don't squeeze the Charmin." They completely took over the leadership position in toilet tissue, and Scott never recovered it. They blurred their own position into oblivion. Jackson: It’s a cautionary tale about how success can breed the very habits that lead to failure. You get confident, you think your name is invincible, and you stretch it until it means nothing. Olivia: Exactly. And it's tied to another trap they warn about: the "No-Name Trap," which is the obsession with using initials. Companies see IBM and GE and think, "If we become 'U.S. Global Corp,' we'll sound big and important." But they forget that IBM was first International Business Machines and GE was General Electric. The fame came first, the initials came later. You can't start with the initials. Jackson: It’s confusing cause and effect. You don't become successful because you have initials. You're so successful that people give you initials. Olivia: You've got it. It all comes back to the same principle: clarity and focus in the mind of the prospect. Anything that blurs that focus, whether it's line extension or a meaningless name, is a step toward failure.

Jackson: This has been fascinating. It feels like these ideas from 50 years ago are more relevant than ever in our hyper-cluttered digital world. If you had to boil it all down, what's the single biggest takeaway from Positioning? Olivia: I think the core idea is ultimately a lesson in intellectual humility. It’s the profound admission that you cannot, through sheer force of will or a massive ad budget, change a person's mind. The human mind is not a blank slate you can write on; it's a crowded territory you have to navigate. Jackson: So it's less about being a conqueror and more about being a cartographer. You have to map the existing landscape of the mind first. Olivia: That's a beautiful way to put it. The book's true insight is that you have to respect the perceptions that are already there. You have to understand the world that already exists inside someone's head and then find your unique, unoccupied place within it. It’s about being a surgeon with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Jackson: I love that. It feels more strategic and, honestly, more respectful of the audience. So, for everyone listening who is now seeing these mental ladders everywhere, what's one thing they can do this week to put this into practice? Olivia: Here's a simple but powerful exercise. Pick one brand you love—or one you can't stand. And ask yourself: what single word or idea does that brand "own" in your mind? Is it "safety" for Volvo? "Search" for Google? "Magic" for Disney? It's a fun game that reveals just how deeply this principle operates in our daily lives. Jackson: That's a great challenge. I'm already thinking of a few. Share your answers with us on our socials! We'd love to see what positions you all come up with and what brands are owning space in your minds. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.