Holocaust Supremacism in the Light of Marketing Principles Ries

Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind: How to Be Seen and Heard in the Overcrowded Marketplace, by Al Ries, Jack Trout. 2001

Inadvertent Clues as To How to the Holocaust Became Dominant, and Remains Dominant, in the American Mind, Over All Other Genocides

Although this book [my review based on the 2001 edition] is centered on the selling of products and services, the authors realize that the principles have much broader application. They write, “If it works in advertising, most likely it will work in politics, religion, or any other activity that requires mass communication…Or any form of human activity which involves influencing the minds of other people. Whether you want to promote a car, a cola, a computer, a candidate, or your own career.” (p. 2).

And so it is with genocides. I formulate my review to adapt the principles of this classic book to help the reader understand the emergence and maintenance of Holocaust supremacism.

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE ITEM BEING PROMOTED: IT IS ABOUT WHAT THE PUBLIC IS LED TO THINK ABOUT THE ITEM BEING PROMOTED

Authors Ries and Trout comment, “But positioning is not what you do to a product. Positioning is what you do to the mind of the prospect.” (p. 2). They add that, “Successful companies found that reputation, or image, was more important in selling a product than any specific product feature.” (p. 24). That is, “…the position that the product owns in the prospect’s mind.” (p. 48).

THE POSITION OF THE HOLOCAUST IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MIND

The Holocaust (6 million Jews) is just one of countless 20th century genocides that collectively have claimed more than 100 million non-Jewish lives. Yet the Holocaust has successfully been positioned, in the minds of most Americans, as unique, special, or otherwise as more worthy of recognition than all the genocides of the 100 million non-Jews.

THE SPECIAL BRAND NAME REINFORCES THE POSITION THE ITEM OWNS IN THE PUBLIC MIND

The authors remark, “Each brand is uniquely positioned to occupy a certain location in the mind of the prospect.” (p. 49). He elaborates on this, “A well-known name got well known because it stood for something. It occupies a position in the prospect’s mind…One name can’t stand for two distinctly different products. When one goes up, the other goes down. Xerox means copier, not computer. (If you asked your secretary to get you a Xerox copy, you’d be upset if you got a reel of mag tape.)…Xerox is more than a name. It’s a position. Like Kleenex, Hertz, and Cadillac. Xerox represents a position of enormous long-term value.” (pp. 98-99).

The foregoing can be extended to the subject of trademarks. It is no wonder that companies so jealously protect their trademarks! They are on the lookout not only for trademark infringement but also for trademark dilution.

THE HOLOCAUST BRAND NAME STANDS FOR THE GENOCIDE OF JEWS AND NO OTHER

When the Holocaust began widely entering the American public discourse, various Jewish groups successfully fought off attempts, by other deserving victim groups, to have the term Holocaust include Nazi genocides of non-Jews, such as those of the Gypsies (Sinti and Roma), and Poles. The term Holocaust effectively became a brand name for the Jews’ genocide and that of Jews alone. In time, the Jews’ genocide assumed a dominant position in the American mind owing to its proprietary term (Holocaust), as supported with constant advertising (in the media, entertainment industry, and the educational system).

[Other genocides have their own brand names (e. g, the Holodomor, Aghet, and Porajmos). However, owing to a lack of “advertising” publicity, very few non-specialists have even heard of them, let alone have they entered the public consciousness.]

ONCE AN ITEM ASSUMES A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE PUBLIC MIND, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DISLODGE

Ries and Trout write, “History shows that the first brand into the brain, on average, gets twice the long-term market share of the No. 2 brand and twice again as much as the No. 3 brand. And the relationships are not easily changed. The leader brand in category after category outsells the number two brand by a wide margin. Hertz outsells Avis, General Motors outsells Ford, Goodyear outsells Firestone, McDonald’s outsells Burger King, General Electric outsells Westinghouse.” (p. 43).

The authors give some examples of the usual immovability of the first-place holder. They comment, “IBM is a much bigger company than Xerox and has awesome resources of technology, work force, and money. Yet what happened when IBM introduced a line of copiers competitive with those of Xerox? Not much. Xerox still has a share of the copier market several times that of IBM. And supposedly Kodak was going to cream Polaroid when the Rochester colossus got into the instant camera business. Far from it. Kodak managed to take only a small share, at the expense of a substantial loss in its conventional camera business.” (p. 44).

WHAT IF NON-JEWISH GENOCIDES SOMEHOW BECAME WIDELY PUBLICIZED? PROBABLY NOT MUCH

It is sometimes argued that, were non-Jews to promote public awareness of their genocides as much as the Jews have theirs, genocide recognition equality would exist. Yet, even if non-Jews could acquire the same media resources as Jews, this would still be most unlikely.

Consider genocide memorial museums in the light of victimhood competition. Let us focus specifically on the attempts to open an Armenian Genocide Museum of American in Washington D. C. Once it opens, it will directly compete with the long-established USHMM (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) for visitors. Both museums will enjoy the prestige of being located in Washington, D. C., and both will potentially have a huge tourist base of potential visitors. So will they split 50/50? Not very likely. Owing to the long-entrenched privileged position, in the American mind, of the Holocaust, it is more likely that visitors that go to either museum will break 90%/10% in favor of the USHMM.

And, were more high-quality genocide memorial museums to open in Washington, D. C., this probably would not change. All these new genocide memorial museums would likely compete with each other without putting a substantial dent in the overwhelming “market share” of the USHMM.

CONCLUSION

If Holocaust supremacism is ever to come to an end, it is unlikely to happen by means of some victim group or groups “getting the word out” about non-Jewish genocides. It will only happen because of arduous national and international political activism.