We view experiences as very incredibly valuable businesses, they are nature and assumption. There is a natural tendency in a company to think of its sphere of business or category as being special, with its own rules, intrinsically different from everyone else’s. However, challenge valued inexperience that is naively intelligent applied. Intelligent naivety is intelligence naively applied. A questioning and insight creation born of dynamically applied inexperience, rather than rich familiarity with the category, that has changed the face of the categories around us in the most profound way. It's the notion that you don't have to be the most experienced in the game to come up with the best idea. There are four benefits of applying intelligent naivety. The first is asking upstream questions that allow us to step back and ask those upstream questions that brands and brand owners more immersed in the category have lost the ability to pose. When challengers star to answer those kinds of questions, to find that fresh way in, they start to use a number of related techniques to formulate their potential solutions. The second key value of intelligent naivety is putting a whole new emotion into the category. Challengers transform a category, our relationship with that category, and in effect our criteria for choice in that category, is to introduce a whole new emotion into it. The benefit of third is overlay that rules and codes of one category onto another can simply be one of initial inspiration. The final value of intelligent Naivety is not knowing what is possible and impossible that is as challengers is that we do not know what is possible and what is not, so we are not going to screen out key opportunities on the grounds that ‘it cannot be done’. The range of potential challenges that we can make lie in one of the following: * Challenging some fundamental dimension or driver of our category * Challenging some aspect of the way the consumer shops for, experiences, or consumes our product * Challenging the culture surrounding the category
* Challenging some broader aspect of contemporary culture * Challenging some dimension or quality of the competition/Market Leader So one way to see this challenge is to ask ourselves very simply: What is the category orthodoxy that we reject? What do we think is wrong, or what will we have to “break” (i.e., prove wrong) in order to succeed? And as we explore it, the way the category currently thinks usually yields a very rich variety of potential sources of challenge. Some Challengers, then, have been very explicit about creating monster that they then oppose.
Marketeers tend to talk as if there is one brand leader in every category. In fact, there are two: the market leader (the brand with the biggest share and the biggest distribution) and the thought leader—the brand that, while it may not be the largest, is the one that everyone is talking about, that has the highest ‘‘sensed momentum’’ in the consumer’s mind. Marketeers surround themselves with rules or conventions that govern the marketing of their product within the category often have little to do anymore with understanding what the consumer really wants or rather might want, but a Challenger enters a market have to differentiate yourself more strongly: you have to offer the consumer a powerful reason to choose you and Challenger has to find a genuinely innovative insight into what the consumer really want. That means Challengers should break the conventions of the category. Advertising is a campaign developed to communicate ideas about products and services to potential consumers in the hopes of convincing them to buy those products and services. It is a process of breaking away from the ‘normal’ approach, developing another creative strategy so that shaking up a new vision of a product or service. For example, in the convention, new retail...