Industry thought leader, BITE, asked Ben Mitchell, Chief Strategy Officer at Red Brick Road, whether it’s time to redefine what it means to be a challenger brand.
Adam Morgan’s original challenger principles still hold true. But they have been misinterpreted and misapplied over time.
‘Challenger’ has become a vague term, often now translating into a ‘personality play’: brands simply embracing the superficiality of a ‘lighthouse identity’. Salience and strength of personality matter, of course, but that’s hygiene in the modern communications landscape.
At its heart, ‘being a challenger’ is a strategic business decision, not simply a superficial behaviour.
Challengers’ substance lies in disrupting whole markets, which challenges leaders’ supremacy by default.
True challengers embrace ‘intelligent naivety’: innovation at their heart, seeing categories in a whole new light. Such wholesale change isn’t necessarily attractive for risk-averse business leaders.
Classic challenger Virgin Atlantic took on British Airways with a market-changing customer experience. Airbnb rethought what a hotel could be. Huel crossed the boundaries between food and supplements.
These are challengers with substance. They have rethought categories to undermine the leader’s dominance.
But do we need to challenge market leaders or challenge bigger societal problems nowadays?
The new wave of ‘Change brands’ like Who Gives A Crap, Ecosia and Tony’s are doing the challenging that really matters: disrupting entire supply chains and changing sectors for the greater good.
‘Change’ is a clearer, stronger ambition. And one I think we should all get behind.