Who you aren't (see my last post) often comes up when discussing who you are.
A brilliant comment to that post from my friend Marijean Jaggers (of Standing Partnership, a PR firm) inspires me to post more on this subject.
The result of the "who are you" question ends up being a specialization definition. Problem is, the bigger a firm is, the less comfortable they are "eliminating" anyone. Seat squirming begins.
To illustrate, I'll use some extremes. How about this firm, not only BOLDLY illustrating whom they DO serve, but using copy to entice (hmmm, perhaps a bad word choice?) their prospective clients by stating that they should no longer be shunned by other firms.
"Have an adult business your accountant doesn't understand or wish to deal with..."
Hey, I said it was an extreme example.
Anyway, my point is, the specializing approach isn't going away. In fact, more and more firms, particularly newly emerging boutique firms, are employing this strategy. It makes sense! As laws and regulations get more and more complex, it's just getting too expensive, and FAR too risky, to "generalize."
So, here is a much more tame example focusing on the restaurant industry.
Again, my point -- stated in a different way -- is that nothing is more compelling than representing your limits.
- All things to all people is compelling to absolutely no one.
- A couple things for a couple groups is somewhat more compelling.
- All things for one group is significantly more compelling.
- A limited number of really strong things for one group is the most compelling.