Every American Indian tribe (and every Texan and Mexican) feared the Comanches in the 1800s.

Their rise to dominance is in part a story of positioning strategy. I’m just finishing Sam Gwynne’s recent book, Empire of the Summer Moon – a riveting narrative on the rise and fall of one of the most feared tribes in American history. Only the Sioux on the northern plains come close to the Comanches’ ferocity.

The Comanches’ ascent can be traced clearly to their expertise in raising, breaking, and riding horses. Over the course of about 200 years, the tribe developed a specialty in handling horses. Consequently, the Comanches made their living by hunting buffalo and warring against other tribes (stealing their horses) and, eventually, killing the white man. The tribe had no patience for subsistence farming.

At a young age, Comanche boys had a horse to ride. By the time they were in their teens, a young brave could sweep up off the ground a wounded comrade at full gallop. For years, the Comanches raided and slaughtered the frontier settlers, including the Army and even the early Texas Rangers. For example, when chasing and then engaging the Comanches after a raid on a settlement, pursing soldiers would dismount their plodding Army horses to shoot their muskets. It took a minute or so to reload the rifle.

But the Comanches would stay on their mustangs, which were much leaner and faster than the those of the soldiers, and charge into a line of standing soldiers. By the time it took to reload a musket, a Comanche brave could shoot a dozen or more arrows while hanging on to the side of a horse at breakneck speed.

Eventually, the inexorable advance of the white man pushed out the Comanches. The white man slowly learned to ride more like a Comanche warrior – on a fast horse. And then came the game-changer: the Walker Colt, the repeating revolver. Then it was the white man’s turn to slaughter the Indians.

The simple point is that power comes from being really good at something. Ergo, one thing. Consequently, you develop a reputation (and a messaging strategy) for that one thing.

The specialist position is really the only tenable marketing strategy in today’s explosion of organizations, services, and products.

The only thing I despise more than car payments is paying for car repairs.

For the past 17 years, I’ve taken my cars (vans, trucks, etc) to a small garage run by two brothers. The other day when I picked up my truck, the younger brother (who is the boss) had on a shirt with the words: “Specialists in Imports.”

Years ago, my brother-in-law referred me to the garage, saying, “Mello Motors is really good at imports.” That resonated with me since, at the time, my wife drove a Toyota Camry.

I remember, though, thinking, “How will the garage do with my Buick?”

Of course, the Mello brothers had no problem with an American engine.

They had positioned themselves as experts in one thing: imports. It worked. The Mello boys ended up servicing our Camry and our Buick … and every car since.

This is an important point about messaging: You always message specifically to your position. Mello Motors advertised as a specialist in imports. That doesn’t mean the garage won’t service domestic cars.

You always grow by focusing your messaging on your one thing – while still providing services in other areas. The only exception is if you want to lay claim to the generalist position (which is the death knell for most organizations in today’s highly specialized environment).

I’ve found that in general, most organizations fight the strategy to specialize, but it’s the only way to stand out.

To read the first part of this interview, click here.

The surest way to fail is trying to be all things to all people. You can’t stake out your brand with a mish-mash of promises and services.

According to Harry Beckwith, author of Selling the Invisible, and You, Inc, you can only be one thing—and there are eight positions of power an organization can choose from. In this follow-up interview, CZ President Dave Goetz asks Beckwith to differentiate the positions and how to pick one that can work for you:

Brand &Strategy: Are there a limited number of positions your organization can possibly have?

Harry Beckwith: I believe there are eight positions of power in any market—and you start by focusing on one:

• Pioneer/Leader vs. Innovator;
• Premium vs. Discount;
• Specialist vs. Generalist; and,
• Performer vs. Service.

What’s the difference between the Pioneer/Leader and the Innovator?

The industry leader is big and well established, whereas the innovator is small and less established. Industry leaders rely on an established image, like “good,” “solid,” or “consistent.” The innovator, on the other hand, can be riskier. Tired of the old way of doing things, they think and execute outside the box. Apple is an excellent example of this—coming in and going after IBM.

What about the difference between the Premium and Discount position?

It’s based on pricing. It’s the difference between Tiffany’s and Target. Regardless of how you’re positioning, you want to be aware of your pricing and what it communicates. But your pricing, in most cases, doesn’t drive your message.

The premium priced position is desirable in a lot of ways because it communicates your brand quickly. The consumer knows what they’re getting, and even if it’s a lot of money, there’s a sense of security in that.

Why is there security?

No one’s going to fire you for choosing the best. And if you’re the best, you’re the one chosen. Take McKinsey Consulting: They’re master of the universe and will come up with a hell of a solution for you—but it’s going to cost you a lot.

There are also arguments for choosing a low-priced brand: “I’ve only got so much money, but I can’t do it myself.” Or, “Yeah, they’re low priced, but they know more about it than we do. They can help us, and it won’t cost us a fortune.” Let’s face it, there’s always a market for the lowest priced web developer, if all you want is something that runs, and it doesn’t matter what the product looks like.

But generally speaking, the Discount provider is not among those stalwart positions.

Is there also a sense of security when you choose a Specialist over a Generalist?

Yes, because a jack-of-all-trades can’t be a master of one. You want somebody who is highly experienced and highly specialized. All other things being equal, the more they know about something, the more they work with it, the more proficient they probably will be.

If you have a detached retina, you don’t want a general M.D. You want a detached retina specialist! There’s a security that goes with that.

When it comes to choosing a Performance or Service position, what must organizations consider?

The Performer is not concerned about a touchy-feely experience but focused on high levels of performance.

On the other hand, the Service position is client-oriented. They may not offer brilliant solutions, but they provide valuable solutions along with a good experience. When organizations focus on service, clients experience a high degree of comfort.

Why then do people choose the Performer?

Because everybody wants the best. Sometimes all we really want is a positively good outcome.

What if the outcome is great but the experience is terrible?

Some people find that the outcome really wasn’t worth it. I think people consistently underestimate how much we value the experience—and how little we value the performance. Often it’s difficult for us even to tell if it was a great performance.

For example, you hire a contractor to redo your slate in your bathroom. You get six different people in to do it. Now, there could be some real differences, but really I don’t know who does the better job. However, I sure know who I felt better working with. If so-and-so screws up, I like working with him because I can tell him, and he’ll fix it—and fix it properly.

We tend to put on our rational hats that values cost-benefit and performance outcomes. In the process, we lose sight of the fact that we’re human beings who like to be respected, like to feel good, and like working with people we can trust.