Developing Differentiation with the 3Cs Model
A Distinction without a Difference
I was once challenged with the question is that a distinction without a difference?
This is a question that characterises a lack of clarity in describing differences that is all too common. The terms distinctiveness and differentiation, in particular, are often used interchangeably. In this article we are going to attempt to unravel the difference between distinctiveness and differentiation. We’ll do this first via some definitions, and then by using Kenichi Ohmae’s 3Cs model.
Distinctiveness
Let’s start with distinctiveness. Distinctiveness makes for easy identification and recognition, based on a particular characteristic or set of characteristics. Distinctiveness makes a brand or product stand out from the crowd.
The OED provides the example of: “juniper berries give gin its distinctive flavour.”
Differentiation
Differentiation relates to the act or process of distinguishing between two or more things or people. This is usually part of a choice with a specific purpose in mind. In comparison to distinctiveness, differentiation is less immediate and more deliberate.
Achieving Balance
We believe it is important that both differentiation and distinctiveness are conveyed in ways that matters to the audience. Ideally this should be in an engaging fashion, as a story which can be re-told. It is also important that we get the balance between the two right. Many tech firms claim to be distinct to the point of being unique, but few actually are. Such self-serving claims may resonate well internally but are likely to collapse under buyer scrutiny.
This point of view aligns with one put forward by Professor Mark Ritson in a seminar, entitled Defending Differentiation, which was reported in Marketing Week. In the seminar, Professor Ritson put forward the case that marketers have swayed too far away from differentiation in search of distinctiveness when they should be looking to achieve both. To compensate for this over correction he proposed the concept of “relative differentiation”:
The goal is not to be unique, but instead have “more” of something than other brands do within the category. Marketers should choose to prioritise “attributes and associations that matter to their target consumers” which will prove enough to influence purchase decisions, he said. He accepted this was a more “diluted” version of differentiation but more achievable. “Differentiation is not about uniqueness, it’s about difference,” he added.
Unique or Unicorn Selling Points?
Differentiation not representing uniqueness, but difference makes a lot of sense.
However, this representative is at odds with many descriptions of differentiation which stress identifying and communicating the unique qualities of a product or company. Unique qualities aren’t unheard of, but they are unusual. Unique Selling Points often exist only in the mind of the seller, or may not be sufficiently important to the buyer to form part of the purchase criteria! We like to refer to them as Unicorn Selling Points. This reminds us that USPs are rare, and that if that they are too common in the proposition the buyer is likely to view it as a fairy tale!
Differentiation and Distinction in the 3Cs Framework
In the same article Professor Ritson recommends making use of the 3Cs framework. This, along with Value Curves, is a framework we have found to be extremely useful in establishing differentiation and creating distinctions.
Origin of the 3Cs: Customers, Competitors and Corporation
The 3Cs framework is a simple, foundational framework created by Kenichi Ohmae in the 1982 book, “The Mind of the Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business.”
The model or framework organises 3 factors required for an effective strategy. It was originally drawn as a triangle of three circles, but is now often represented as a Venn Diagram. The circles represent Customers, Competitors, and Company (Corporation in Ohmae’s book). Each C is important, as they form the basis for three sets of Strategies, with customer strategies forming foundation for the other two. Each C also impacts the others. The 3Cs model is usually drawn as a Venn diagram with the intersections representing scenarios.
Figure 1: 3Cs Model – Factors and Scenarios
I first saw the 3Cs model in action at a messaging workshop run by Corporate Visions to determine the messaging for the newly formed EMC Software in the early 2000s.
Corporate Visions’ implementation is called the Value Wedge and it is described in Conversations that win the Complex sale (Petersen and Riesterer, 2011) as a tool to help develop a point of view. The Value Wedge renames two of the Cs: Customer to Prospect, Company to You and assigns attributes to each:
- Important (to your prospect)
- Unique (to you)
- Defensible (versus the competition)
This is represented as a wedge shape with the attributes on each of sides. When you can describe an element of your story that meets these criteria you have what Corporate Visions describes as a Power Position.
Adopting a Buyer’s Perspective
If we revisit Professor Ritson’s assertion that Marketers should choose to prioritise “attributes and associations that matter to their target consumers” which will prove enough to influence purchase decisions we can see how Corporate Visions’ approach to the 3Cs is really helpful in differentiation.
In the parity scenario the buyer has the advantage. Procurement professionals love competitive parity as it hands them a strong negotiation hand and enables them to put pressure on pricing.
To achieve competitive advantage we need to deliver more of what the buyer wants. In terms of the 3Cs these are:
- Factors that contribute to a successful procurement (important)
- Proof points that the procurement will be successful (proven)
- Evidence of why the final vendor was chosen over the competition (differentiated)
Embracing these points, we can draw the 3Cs as follows:
Figure 2: 3Cs – Factors with Attributes and an Additional Scenario
We’ve substituted Audience for Customer and assigned the scenario between You and Competition that is usually blank ‘out of scope’ to remind us to exclude whatever isn’t important to the audience.
The 3Cs in Action – 5 Steps to Effective Differentiation
We see five steps to using this variant of the 3Cs model effectively:
- Gain the deepest possible understanding of what is important to the audience – aim to go deeper than the competition
- Align your message to what is important to the audience – more so than the competition
- Deliver the best proof points you can for all your assertions – aim to provide more evidence than your competitors
- Differentiate from the competition in ways that align tightly to factors that matter to your audience. Recognise that you can differentiate in all three circles of the framework not just one.
- Rigorous adherence to the above is likely to differentiate your approach and potentially to act as a distinction to the those who are more product centric.
Distinctiveness Revisited – The Role of the Brand
If we accept that distinctiveness makes for easy identification and recognition it follows that the brand and its attributes (both tangible and intangible) have a big role to play. Accepting this is helpful in not over doing the search for distinct and unique factors in our propositions.
Conclusion and the Evolution of the 3Cs Model
The winner in any B2B procurement should be the vendor that offers the most value. The 3Cs framework can help us develop that value on our audiences terms and we have found it extremely helpful in rapid proposition development.
In our quest to understand, capture and use value to determine how to win (and where to play!) we have gone deeper by integrating Category into the 3Cs model and also by including some of the basic building blocks of value such as outcomes and capabilities. Stay tuned as we dive deeper in B2B value!