Adam Morgan asks clients what they hate most about their category
When Adam Morgan wrote Eating the Big Fish: How Challenger Brands Can Compete Against Brand Leaders in 1999, he introduced a new term to the marketing, advertising, and branding worlds: “challenger brand.” Avis, with their “When you’re only No. 2, you try harder” campaign from the 60s, is the most commonly cited example of this concept.
But Adam, also the founder of a brand consultancy named eatbigfish, is quick to point out challenger brands need not be No. 2 in their category. Instead, he defines a challenger brand as “about mindset and attitude…Do you have business ambitions that are bigger than your conventional marketing resources and are you prepared to do something bold and ambitious to close the implications of that gap?”
I was curious about 10 challenger brand “stances” Adam has proposed, such as The Irreverent Maverick, who uses “wit, humor, and sometimes even shock tactics to puncture the category complacency” or The Next Generation, who challenges “the appropriateness of the market leader for the new times we live in.” I asked him whether his list of challenger stances ever changes (it does) and whether he considers the stances mutually exclusive (he doesn’t). I also asked him how he uses the list of challenger stances with clients. Adam explained: “We use it as a shortcut to make [clients] understand that being a challenger is not about ‘me versus another player.’ It’s about challenging something rather than somebody. What we tend to do is choose four of them, just as examples, and say, ‘Let’s look at each of these four lenses in turn and see what it would mean to think like this kind of challenger and that kind of challenger…[It] allows them to start to get a sense of the kind of challenger they feel most comfortable being and then sets the tone for the much more significant piece of work about how you bring that to life.”
It’s about challenging something rather than somebody.
In terms of process, Adam is a big fan of workshops because “you have to create a culture around a strategy at the same time as developing the strategy itself.” In workshops, he likes to help clients articulate what they believe by first asking what they reject or hate in their category. He also recommends an exercise called the “pre-mortem,” advocated by economist Daniel Kahneman.
We wrapped up talking about one of Adam’s favorite brands, BrewDog, and his advice for new strategists and brand consultants: Have an angle.
Below, you’ll find the full transcript of the episode (may contain typos and/or transcription errors).
Click above to listen to the episode, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts or elsewhere to hear every episode of How Brands Are Built.
- Squadhelp. To begin a business name contest with hundreds of business naming experts, check out their services to get a fresh perspective on your company.
- Rev.com. Rev offers fast, reliable, and accurate audio transcriptions. Right now, Rev is offering listeners $10 off their first order. Follow this link for your $10-off coupon.
ROB: Adam Morgan, thank you so much for joining me.
ADAM: Thank you for asking me.
R: You wrote Eating the Big Fish back in 1999 and the subtitle of that book is How Challenger Brands Can Compete Against Brand Leaders. Just to get it started, what is a challenger brand?
A: I define a challenger brand as clearly something primarily about mindset and attitude rather than state of market. Simply because your a second, third, or fourth rank brand doesn’t make you a challenger. Lots of people say that it does but it doesn’t. It’s really about, do you have business ambitions that are bigger than your conventional marketing resources and are you prepared to do something bold and ambitious to kind of close the implications of that gap?
When I was researching, quite clearly looking at brands that had grown, that are profitable, and that were kind of financially robust because I wanted to take an argument to a finance director as much as anybody else. That becomes a hard criteria, as you look at very big, very successful challenges that still have failed to make money for a succession of years but are the darling of Wall Streets.
That third criteria has become harder and harder to live with.
R: Two quick follow up questions on that, am I right that it’s possible to be a challenger brand in some way even if you are the market leader? Or is that not possible?
A: Yeah. I think that’s a really interesting question about once a challenger has become number one, what is it – that situation is? Two people taking two completely different points of view. One is, challenger is just a stage you go through and then you achieve a point of leadership. At that point, you flip into a different kind of behavior and you start becoming a bit more sort of all things to all people—you lose some of that edge and lose some of that culture. You could argue that that is entirely a wrong thing to do.
Actually, the one thing that will keep you number one in what are essentially a lot of very fickle categories all around us is that continued mindset, attitude, and culture that’s taking you there in the first place.
I was reading a news this morning about the head of branding in New Zealand. He was talking about them they were really important to maintain that challenging mindset and approach even in that core market. Even in New Zealand where they are number one, they continue to think and apply the challenger. Because markets change so quickly, they need to have that kind of always agile, slightly paranoid approach to keep them ahead of the competition.
R: Another follow up question. Given that you wrote the book 20 years ago, has your definition of challenger brand changed at all?
A: I wrote the book because the context was very different then from the way it is now. I wrote it because I had a worked on Virgin Atlantic in the very early days when it was just two planes. I’d worked on the launched PlayStation in the States when it was inconceivable at that time it could take on Sega and Nintendo and win, I worked in the relaunch of Apple, when Steve Jobs came back over in Europe.
I was really interested in, why it was that nobody’s writing about these kinds of situations? What they’re writing about was big brands—big companies like GE, Coke, and IBM. What we can learn from leadership and clearly that wasn’t the case for most of us. Most of us were in a very different situation.
What’s happened, as you alluded to, over the last 20 years is that suddenly this concept of challenger has almost become the default positioning. Actually, there’s a lot of people talking about, writing about, challenging thoughts, challenging mindset, who aren’t actually demonstrating. The notion of being a big brand leaders become actually quite unfashionable in terms of what you write and talk about. Even things I wrote about at that time like having a belief lead positioning and having a very clear point of view about what you stand for. Those things that seem to profit a small group of iconoclasts then actually sort of seem to default into kind of normative positioning.
I think what I see happening is an entirely new context for this conversation, which is much more prevalent. Even large companies talk about having a challenger mindset and culture. The question about how you identify and pull apart what is the real challenger approach and real challenger stance within all of that becomes quite important. The second thing I think that has changed is, people used to understand challenger’s about being one brand versus another brand.
I think increasingly, the challenger that last 15 years is less about challenging somebody and more about challenging something. Warby Parker is challenging the way that the category operates, the notion of intermediary, and that middleman who’s artificially inflating the prices for all of you. Airbnb is challenging the way we think about traveling, the way we think about participating in the city, it’s not challenging Hilton or Sheridan or anything like that.
I think that’s the other big change seen in how you define challenges.
R: I see. Do you feel that some of the ideas from your book were a little bit ahead of their time? Or just that the broader world of brand positioning has caught up to some of the things that you presented in your book and they’ve become more mainstream than they were at the time you published?
A: I think the latter. I’m not sure the idea’s ahead of that time because effectually they were simply somebody’s stepping back and looking at what challenges at that time seem to encompass.
R: I supposed your book sales suggest they weren’t ahead of their time. There were some recognition that they were useful then as well.
A: Yeah, exactly. I think it’s more what you say that becomes more mainstream. It’s really disentangling what it means to be a challenger now I think is harder.
R: I suppose there’s a bit of a self-selection bias in your clients. They probably aren’t coming to you unless they think of themselves as challenger brands or want to become challenger brands because they’ve read your book or looked at your website. Broadly speaking, is your goal to make any client that comes to you think like a challenger brand? Or is there even, hypothetically, a case where you would say, “You know what, that’s not actually the right approach for you.”
A: When we started the company, we had a very arrogant idea that what we’ll do is actually we’ve kind of test lives. We’d ask them a set of questions exactly as you’re kind of proposing. Just to see if they were ready because I’m a point where I was that––then what we were, was used effectively. The bread analogy, the bread can’t rise if it isn’t the right temperature. There’s a point of applying a catalyst unless the host is at the right temperature.
It is true that one of the big changes and the question we get asked, so when a client comes to us these days it’s less about—funny enough we like to challenge a strategy, it’s more about we like to challenge a mindset and we like a challenge in culture. Whereas we’re used to say, “You want a challenger strategy? We have to use some cultural work as well.” And they go, “Okay, if it gets us the strategy.” Now we have to say, “You want to challenge their mindset. We have to hang that around. We have to hang it around some positioning, work on strategy so that we can do the cultural work around that.” They’ll go, “Okay, we kind of understand that as well.”
That does get you into the question about, are you really in the right place for this? Is your leadership really committed to it? Are you really in a position to carry this through?
R: You’ve also identified 10 challenger stances which I think are broad positioning approaches that challenger brands can take. How do you make use of these with your actual clients? Do you show them all 10 and sort of get into a workshop and try to figure out which one is the best for them?
A: We use it as a shortcut to make them understand that being a challenger is not about me versus another player. It’s about challenging something rather than somebody. What we tend to do is choose four of them just as examples, and say let’s say let’s look through each of these four lenses in turn and see what it would mean to think like this kind of challenger, then that kind of challenger, and then the third kind of challenger. Let’s see which you feel most comfortable with, which reflects where you come from or where you could go to. Just try one, decide very quickly.
It’s a shortcut that allows them to start to get a sense of the kind of challenger they feel most comfortable, being. Then, sets the tone for a much more significant piece of work about how you bring that to life. That’s just really a shortcut.
R: These 10 stances, how stable are they? Have they changed a lot in the past 20 years? Do you occasionally find a new one and add it to the list or kill one off?
A: Yeah. That’s such an interesting question. I’m actually rewriting that book at the moment with PHD who are partners. There is an entirely new narrative that’s become very important which is the Local Hero, for instance. Localness, partly is a rejection of being big and global and international and partly, it is a celebration of our people round here. It’s really important type of challenger narrative all over the world. We are introducing that as a narrative and retiring one of the other ones for instance.
R: To what degree are these potential brand positions, how mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive do you consider the list? You just said there’s, occasionally there’s another stance that you find, but do you feel like there are stances that a brand could take that are maybe in between two or three of them?
A: Completely, yeah. What you tend to find out is that most brands are mostly one stance with a splash of something else. Inevitably, as with all models, it’s slightly artificial forcing apart of the different narratives but it’s useful. All models are wrong but some are useful, in the words of George Bo. It’s a useful model but it’s not complete.
R: If you’re working with the client, once you’ve discovered such and such, a stance is absolutely the right one for this brand and aligned with that, what do you do next? What do you do with that information to help build or strengthen that brand?
A: One thing that’s useful obviously is to say, “Okay well if that’s the kind of neighborhood that we want to be in as a challenger, what do the other kinds of challenges in that neighborhood that we can learn from? They certainly won’t be in your category. They’ll be from completely different categories. But let’s go and look at what they’ve done in their categories to live that narrative and to make that compelling, true, and something that the consumer feels turns into genuine services, products, and ideas that they can relate to and buy into. You then kind of go into a learning journey from those other categories. Of course that’s always irony not because we spend as brand owners as much too much time fixated with our own category.
And again, this competitive analysis or in categories that we can learn huge amounts from that are not enough time looking outside and seeing the opportunities beyond us. We take them on a journey of intelligent naivety to learn from those other categories, learning from those brands, then starting to imagine what would happen if some of those brands were to take over themselves.
Let’s say this other brand in some other category which is this narrative, let’s say, The Feisty Underdog, for the sake of example. If that took over our situation now, what would they do? What are their action plans for the next three years be? What are the things that they would do with our assets that we’re not doing with our assets? It’s such a simple thing to do. It’s a very invigorating, stimulating way to rethink what we’ve got in front of you and the potential of it.
R: Just to carry that example through, not to put you on the spot, but can you think of any examples of The Feisty Underdog so we can kind of think about how you might pull and take advice from what they’re doing?
A: The classic Feisty Underdog at the moment is Wendy’s at the US. Wendy’s sort of woke up a year or so ago. The study started tugging on the tail of McDonalds and in this very entertaining way. It’s not simply about attitude and sass but it’s about calling the amount in terms of having frozen burgers and all sorts of things that Wendy’s doesn’t do and being quite bold but always staying just the right side of obnoxiousness.
What a lot of people are cautious about in adopting the Feisty Underdog narrative in that kind of situation is, “What happens if the big players starts responding to us? What happens if we get on the wrong side of them and their media spend.” Starting to get some confidence and some courage from seeing other people do this before and what kind of line they woke up to and happened to walk over, those become very useful lessons for a brand that wants to walk in those kinds of shoes.
R: I’m curious what else in your mind goes into a comprehensive brand platform so to speak? Beyond understanding which challenger stance a brand might take, do you typically, at eatbigfish, will you write a positioning statement? Will you identify a brand essence and brand personality? All these other terms and categories of ideas used traditionally in brand consulting, where do you sit in all of those?
A: There’s a chapter in Eating the Big Fish which is about having a lighthouse identity. Obviously, positioning is important but the positioning as I was saying earlier on links very much into the internal culture. It’s hard to entirely divorce those two things into challenger. One influences the other and vice versa.
We have a model called the Lighthouse Identity, the challenger is the Lighthouse Identity. There are some different elements. There’s a framing kind of belief system. This is of perspective about what matters in the world and what matters in this category. Very often than not, text is a slightly contrary and point of view to what the rest of the category thinks. In a world of X, we believe in Y.
We’ll have a sense about what the real product offer is in that context. If that’s what we believe, our real product, service, or offer, is about this. I will have a sense of how the brand needs to behave. It’s less about positioning personality and more about how we’re going to behave in the marketplace. Clearly it includes aspects of personalities but it goes beyond that because ultimately how a challenger acts, how they talk, is going to be the thing that really defines what makes them different in their success.
Then, there’ll be kind of an essential thought, cause, mission, or rallying cry that they’re all about consistency.
R: What process do you think is best for filling that out? I know that you have some of these content that the end of Eating the Big Fish and maybe some of your other books, but is it a series of workshops or is it a lot of independent work on the part of an agency to do research around the category or some combination of those two things?
A: One of the reasons I’m a great believer in workshops is because I think you have to create a culture around the strategy at the same time developing the strategy itself. In other words, you need to get all the people who’re going to live the strategy. Typically, you work with a group of, let’s say, 25 people. It would include a cross-functional client teams and not simply marketers but sales sometimes finance, innovation, PRs, communications—a cross-functional mix. It will include the key business partners. Sometimes it includes some intelligent people who aren’t actually from the category who are just going to sit there and kind of keep us honest. Typically, that might include a research for instance with the very deep understanding of consumer even if they haven’t have a deep understanding of the brand.
We’ll go through a series of workshops that will allow the team to collectively arrive at the solution by looking through various exercises and frameworks that will push them, test them, and develop the ideas and amplify the differences, to collectively arrive for solutions. First of all, they feel like they’ve got their fingerprints all over it and they have. They feed their ideas around somebody else’s idea. Secondly, they’ll start to get an understanding of how we’re going to need to work together as a team to give us a chance to live, breathe, and succeed.
Indeed, when we hit a road bump, because we might walk into a road bump and we might come from inside of the organization or the outside of the organization, how are we as a team can respond to that and manage that?
R: One of the exercises that you might do in that workshop, regardless of what the actual exercise is, but you will be trying to answer a question such as, what is it that we believe about the world or about the category? That was the first element that you identify of the Lighthouse Identity, is that right?
A: Absolutely. Actually, that might be the second question, funny enough, because very often, it’s easier to get to what you believe by working out what you reject first. A very good exercise is getting people to think about from a category point of view, from a brand point of view, what is it that we hate the most about this? Actually, by working out what you hate and reject, it’s amazing—the energy that comes out of that. People love hating.
Then you can say, if that’s what we reject, what is it then we’re going to stand for what we believed in? That becomes a much easier question to answer.
R: How careful are you about the phrasing of the answers to these questions? I know we’ve all been in workshops or been doing brand work where it feels like you get to the stage of wordsmithing and people are debating whether there should be a comma there. Do you get down to a final statement? I am asking this partly because it was such a large group that you said you bring into the workshop and consensus gets harder and harder the more people you have in the room.
A: Yeah, I think it’s a brilliant observation. I think in the workshop, there’s a limit to democracy. In the workshop, you want to get energy, direction, and agreement about the direction of travel. You’re not going to get complete agreement about exactly what the right set of words is. That’s going to happen outside it, the workshop, or the next workshop after that will now align around and agree with but you’re not going to get 25 people to copyright your sentence together. It’s just not going to be a good use of their time.
R: You mentioned the exercises and the way that you’ve tried to make a challenger brand thinking more substantive giving a process. I’m just curious, these days, is there specific exercise that you’re especially enjoying using or that you feel like you’re getting a lot of value out of anything that you would specifically recommend?
A: I love the hate exercise. The other exercise which is not ours is an exercise that’s on YouTube. You can find it at Daniel Kahneman exercise which is very good. It’s the pre-mortem. I don’t know if any of the previous people had talked about the pre-mortem exercise.
R: No and Daniel Kahneman, the economist?
A: Yeah. You’re thinking fast and slow. In it he says, this is an exercise essentially about trying to guarantee success of an enterprise. He says, “Just before you’re about to commit to something, sit down as a group and you’re going to imagine a situation 18 months from now where you’ve done whatever it is we’re proposing to do. Launched this positioning in the new marketplace, for instance and it has been a complete disaster.” Looking back from that 18 month – in the future, retrospective, why was it a disaster? What should we have thought about at that point 18 months ago? And what would you have done differently?
It’s a really good way of anticipating what the elephant’s in the room, what nobody is talking about, the loud stuff to come out that just says, “Okay, this is great.” Some of you actually aren’t entirely comfortable with how far are we going with this idea or some of you might think we’re not going fast enough. You feel like we need more concrete product support to be able to launch this, great. Let’s put that in place. Brilliant exercise for flushing out the preconditioned for success before you launch.
R: I like that both of the exercises you have identified have some degree of negativity toward them not just in that sort of negative thinking but even the nature of the challenger brand is negative in terms of identifying what you’re not or what you’re opposed to.
A: I think it’s very healthy. We interviewed one of the founders of Urban Outfitters. He was talking about how in the very early days, they had another brand in the United States—another retail brand in the United States. What they wanted to be the complete opposite of. They hated its whole crappy work and bottom line colors and all that kind of stuff and they said, “We’re going to be the antithesis of this.” He never talked about it to consumers. Actually, after 18 months, they didn’t talked about it themselves anymore to themselves. For the first 18 months, it was like a rocket booster that pulled it out the gravitational pull of the earth’s field and allowed it to get it into free space and then find its own orbit.
I’m not suggesting that negativity […] for anybody to live with but just initially, the energy that you can get from that just to align in your own orbit and definition can be very useful.
R: I’d love to get your take on – you’ve mentioned this earlier, but your transition from challenger status to being a market leader. I supposed now, I’m asking this with full knowledge that as a market leader, you can still have that challenger brand ethos. I’m specifically curious about Apple, just a brand we’ve all witnessed experiencing incredible growth and success but really transitioning from guys who can get away with 1984 ad to being that market leader—so dominant that they could never say anything like that anymore. How should it be managed? How do you feel Apple has managed that either well or not well?
A: I think when you become a big brand like that, you have to recognize that at the very least, you need to understand where you need to be a challenger and where you need to be a leader.
You look at Amazon for instance, I think that was a really interesting example isn’t it? Amazon is in a number of places acting like a challenger. It’s being very innovative. It’s changing the rules of category, it’s being very dramatic about the way it’s doing that. In other areas, it’s being like a very big consolidated leader. If you look at a large airline, for instance, most of the large national airline last year, and they were saying in our home market we need to think and behave like a leader. But when we are in a big European market, we are a challenger in the larger business, so we need to understand how to flex between a leader behavior and a challenger behavior within a same brand.
I think the interesting question about Apple is it seems to lost the ability to do that. At one level, it’s very hard to argue with the commercial value of Apple. They seemed to done remarkably well for someone who’s forgotten to be a challenger. At the same time, it seems that in the general sense that unless they start to renew themselves and stop relying on the iPhone business, for instance, and when do launch into new areas, generally we’re discovering some of that challenger mojo, they’re not really going to succeed and compete. If you take that with you, then I do think there is a bit of DNA that they need to rekindle.
R: Just a couple of wrap-up questions here, we’ve talked about Apple and some of the things they’re not doing well. Are there any brands that you think are doing everything right? I know that’s a highbar so we’ll leave it, let’s say, 99% of everything right. Whether that means they’re specially unique or meaningful or bold or consistent.
A: I think one of the brands I most admire particularly in this side of the pond is BrewDog. BrewDog is a bear brand that was launched in Scotland in 2008. What’s interesting is how they’ve managed constraints brilliantly, how they’ve turned the natural constraints that many challengers face. They’ve turned them into an advantage. Very famously of course, they couldn’t get any funding from the bank to launch because people for some reasons, in 2008, didn’t seemed inclined to lend money to a small Scottish brewer. They thought there are enough brewers already out there. They set up the whole equity for park stores.
They went and got their users effectively to fund them. That created not only the financial pool without people from banks leaning over their shoulders and telling them how to spend and not to spend it but also they created this incredible bond between them and their users. They recognized that they don’t have a big marketing budget so they did these series of really iconic, bold move from the world’s strongest beer to brewing beer underwater called Sunk Punk. At the time of the Olympics, they launched a beer called Never Mind the Anabolics that includes every banned substance in the Olympics in it.
They have arranged the end of history which was beer bottles stuffed in roadkill. They just did a series of really extraordinary PR initiatives in the guise of innovation. That got everybody in the UK interested in what they’re doing. Got all the media keen to interview the founders. It created a platform for them to talk about, why they think that beer doesn’t have to stop with Heineken and end with steroids. It created this platform to get their points of view about. They’ve gone on and they created a TV show, BrewDogs, in the States. They created a beer hotel with a beer on top of your room should you want that. They’ve just been masters of using the constraints that they have to actually make them better marketers, more vivid, more exciting as a brand than anybody else. They maintained that momentum for 10 years. It’s really a remarkable thing to have done.
R: That’s great. I know one of your other books, A Beautiful Constraint, speaks to that sort of idea of how those constraints can inspire creativity and innovation.
A: I agree. I think actually that’s a very exciting thing for us to be honest as human species in the civilization as we face quite profound constraints. I think it’s very exciting to learn from them and recognize, “Actually you know what? This can be better this way rather than worse. This is not going to limit us. This could certainly open a new door to a new possibility and let’s embrace that.”
R: Right. If BrewDogs can solve climate change I will drink to that.
A: Yeah, exactly.
R: Adam, as an author, other than your own books, what are some branding or business books that you recommend? Something you’ve read recently maybe or just a classic that has really informed your whole approach.
A: Wow. I love books, funnily enough, about the classics. I love books that are about brands that existed and built themselves before there was mass media, advertising, or communication for instance. In the very early days, I think they’ve kind of godparent of all challenges is really Avis because they were the first to make being number two cool.
There’s a fantastic story in that about the night before DDB, which was the agency, presented that for the first time to Avis that was an argument to the agency between the account team and the creatives. The account director in the business tried to kill the idea of number two so we tried harder because they felt it was un-American. They felt that America was all out winning and nobody’s going to celebrate being number two. I think, A, that’s a fabulous story, B, it shows that actually these kinds campaigns and these kinds ideas don’t just naturally come.
Not everybody recognizes their brilliance. There’s lots of internal fighting that you have to push through to kind of get there.
Secondly, just for me, it’s a champion of challenges. It just shows how far the world has come because you could argue that we completely flipped now. We love the underdog. We love the scrappy challenger and that’s become as much a part of the American culture or in culture. That’s a big big change in the way we see the world.
R: Out of curiosity, is there a book about that DDB campaign or anything that someone could turn to if they want to learn more?
A: That particular book is out of print. The CEO of Avis at that time, he wrote a couple of great books. One is called Up the Organization, and he wrote a follow up of that as well, which is really about very revolutionary challenging cultural thinking in 1962-1963. It’s just a cracking reading now.
R: Last question, what advice do you give young people who are interested in becoming brand strategists or getting into brand consulting?
A: I think you can have an angle. I’ve got a friend in the States who’s a writer and has been a journalist and writes speeches, called Paul Pendergast. He has a model he calls scoop, angle, voice.
Essentially it says , if you’re writing a story, there are three things you can have. First is you can have a scoop. You can notice something happening that nobody’s reported on before but very few people can have a scoop. Very few people get a scoop ever in their lives as marketers, or brands, or journalists.
The second thing you can have is an angle. You can have a perspective on that story that nobody’s had before. You can have a view about why it happened or what should happen as a result—that kind of thing. Most great journalism is about people taking a very particular restrictive angle.
The third is you can have a voice. You can have that depth, the robustness, with the way you discuss it that nobody’s ever had. I am very struck by in the consultancy business how few people have an angle. I’m very struck by, in the consultancy business, how few people have an angle. I’m struck by how in the agency business, have few advertising agencies who spend all their time advising clients about brand positioning, how few of them have an angle, they don’t. They talk about ideas, “We believe in great ideas.”
Well, everybody believes in great ideas, what’s your angle? I think have an angle and stick to it. Then, do the research around it that gives you confidence and authority and kind of mandate to pursue it. It’s such a simple and obvious idea. It’s startling how little happens.
R: That’s great. It also seems like an analogy for brand positioning in general. You can have a scoop, you could literally be creating a category having a product that nobody has ever seen before but as you said, few brands or businesses really have that. Is the angle in your mind similar to just positioning or challenger brand thinking?
A: I think that’s absolutely right. I think most challengers actually don’t scoop. They have a unique angle on a category or a product or a product usage and that’s how they break through.
R: Great. What’s good for the brand is good for the brander. We’ll leave it there. Adam, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me. I hope we can connect again soon.
A: Love to. Thank you very much.