1 … 115 116 117 118 119 … 208

To Ignite a Personalization Practice, Run this Prepersonalization Workshop

Published August 7, 2025 | By

Picture this. You’ve joined a squad at your company that’s designing new product features with an emphasis on automation or AI. Or your company has just implemented a personalization engine. Either way, you’re designing with data. Now what? When it comes to designing for personalization, there are many cautionary tales, no overnight successes, and few guides for the perplexed. 

Between the fantasy of getting it right and the fear of it going wrong—like when we encounter “persofails” in the vein of a company repeatedly imploring everyday consumers to buy additional toilet seats—the personalization gap is real. It’s an especially confounding place to be a digital professional without a map, a compass, or a plan.

For those of you venturing into personalization, there’s no Lonely Planet and few tour guides because effective personalization is so specific to each organization’s talent, technology, and market position. 

But you can ensure that your team has packed its bags sensibly.

There’s a DIY formula to increase your chances for success. At minimum, you’ll defuse your boss’s irrational exuberance. Before the party you’ll need to effectively prepare.

We call it prepersonalization.

Behind the music

Consider Spotify’s DJ feature, which debuted this past year.

We’re used to seeing the polished final result of a personalization feature. Before the year-end award, the making-of backstory, or the behind-the-scenes victory lap, a personalized feature had to be conceived, budgeted, and prioritized. Before any personalization feature goes live in your product or service, it lives amid a backlog of worthy ideas for expressing customer experiences more dynamically.

So how do you know where to place your personalization bets? How do you design consistent interactions that won’t trip up users or—worse—breed mistrust? We’ve found that for many budgeted programs to justify their ongoing investments, they first needed one or more workshops to convene key stakeholders and internal customers of the technology. Make yours count.

​From Big Tech to fledgling startups, we’ve seen the same evolution up close with our clients. In our experiences with working on small and large personalization efforts, a program’s ultimate track record—and its ability to weather tough questions, work steadily toward shared answers, and organize its design and technology efforts—turns on how effectively these prepersonalization activities play out.

Time and again, we’ve seen effective workshops separate future success stories from unsuccessful efforts, saving countless time, resources, and collective well-being in the process.

A personalization practice involves a multiyear effort of testing and feature development. It’s not a switch-flip moment in your tech stack. It’s best managed as a backlog that often evolves through three steps: 

  1. customer experience optimization (CXO, also known as A/B testing or experimentation)
  2. always-on automations (whether rules-based or machine-generated)
  3. mature features or standalone product development (such as Spotify’s DJ experience)

This is why we created our progressive personalization framework and why we’re field-testing an accompanying deck of cards: we believe that there’s a base grammar, a set of “nouns and verbs” that your organization can use to design experiences that are customized, personalized, or automated. You won’t need these cards. But we strongly recommend that you create something similar, whether that might be digital or physical.

Set your kitchen timer

How long does it take to cook up a prepersonalization workshop? The surrounding assessment activities that we recommend including can (and often do) span weeks. For the core workshop, we recommend aiming for two to three days. Here’s a summary of our broader approach along with details on the essential first-day activities.

The full arc of the wider workshop is threefold:

  1. Kickstart: This sets the terms of engagement as you focus on the opportunity as well as the readiness and drive of your team and your leadership. .
  2. Plan your work: This is the heart of the card-based workshop activities where you specify a plan of attack and the scope of work.
  3. Work your plan: This phase is all about creating a competitive environment for team participants to individually pitch their own pilots that each contain a proof-of-concept project, its business case, and its operating model.

Give yourself at least a day, split into two large time blocks, to power through a concentrated version of those first two phases.

Kickstart: Whet your appetite

We call the first lesson the “landscape of connected experience.” It explores the personalization possibilities in your organization. A connected experience, in our parlance, is any UX requiring the orchestration of multiple systems of record on the backend. This could be a content-management system combined with a marketing-automation platform. It could be a digital-asset manager combined with a customer-data platform.

Spark conversation by naming consumer examples and business-to-business examples of connected experience interactions that you admire, find familiar, or even dislike. This should cover a representative range of personalization patterns, including automated app-based interactions (such as onboarding sequences or wizards), notifications, and recommenders. We have a catalog of these in the cards. Here’s a list of 142 different interactions to jog your thinking.

This is all about setting the table. What are the possible paths for the practice in your organization? If you want a broader view, here’s a long-form primer and a strategic framework.

Assess each example that you discuss for its complexity and the level of effort that you estimate that it would take for your team to deliver that feature (or something similar). In our cards, we divide connected experiences into five levels: functions, features, experiences, complete products, and portfolios. Size your own build here. This will help to focus the conversation on the merits of ongoing investment as well as the gap between what you deliver today and what you want to deliver in the future.

Next, have your team plot each idea on the following 2×2 grid, which lays out the four enduring arguments for a personalized experience. This is critical because it emphasizes how personalization can not only help your external customers but also affect your own ways of working. It’s also a reminder (which is why we used the word argument earlier) of the broader effort beyond these tactical interventions.

Each team member should vote on where they see your product or service putting its emphasis. Naturally, you can’t prioritize all of them. The intention here is to flesh out how different departments may view their own upsides to the effort, which can vary from one to the next. Documenting your desired outcomes lets you know how the team internally aligns across representatives from different departments or functional areas.

The third and final kickstart activity is about naming your personalization gap. Is your customer journey well documented? Will data and privacy compliance be too big of a challenge? Do you have content metadata needs that you have to address? (We’re pretty sure that you do: it’s just a matter of recognizing the relative size of that need and its remedy.) In our cards, we’ve noted a number of program risks, including common team dispositions. Our Detractor card, for example, lists six stakeholder behaviors that hinder progress.

Effectively collaborating and managing expectations is critical to your success. Consider the potential barriers to your future progress. Press the participants to name specific steps to overcome or mitigate those barriers in your organization. As studies have shown, personalization efforts face many common barriers.

At this point, you’ve hopefully discussed sample interactions, emphasized a key area of benefit, and flagged key gaps? Good—you’re ready to continue.

Hit that test kitchen

Next, let’s look at what you’ll need to bring your personalization recipes to life. Personalization engines, which are robust software suites for automating and expressing dynamic content, can intimidate new customers. Their capabilities are sweeping and powerful, and they present broad options for how your organization can conduct its activities. This presents the question: Where do you begin when you’re configuring a connected experience?

What’s important here is to avoid treating the installed software like it were a dream kitchen from some fantasy remodeling project (as one of our client executives memorably put it). These software engines are more like test kitchens where your team can begin devising, tasting, and refining the snacks and meals that will become a part of your personalization program’s regularly evolving menu.

The ultimate menu of the prioritized backlog will come together over the course of the workshop. And creating “dishes” is the way that you’ll have individual team stakeholders construct personalized interactions that serve their needs or the needs of others.

The dishes will come from recipes, and those recipes have set ingredients.

Verify your ingredients

Like a good product manager, you’ll make sure—andyou’ll validate with the right stakeholders present—that you have all the ingredients on hand to cook up your desired interaction (or that you can work out what needs to be added to your pantry). These ingredients include the audience that you’re targeting, content and design elements, the context for the interaction, and your measure for how it’ll come together. 

This isn’t just about discovering requirements. Documenting your personalizations as a series of if-then statements lets the team: 

  1. compare findings toward a unified approach for developing features, not unlike when artists paint with the same palette; 
  2. specify a consistent set of interactions that users find uniform or familiar; 
  3. and develop parity across performance measurements and key performance indicators too. 

This helps you streamline your designs and your technical efforts while you deliver a shared palette of core motifs of your personalized or automated experience.

Compose your recipe

What ingredients are important to you? Think of a who-what-when-why construct: 

  • Who are your key audience segments or groups?
  • What kind of content will you give them, in what design elements, and under what circumstances?
  • And for which business and user benefits?

We first developed these cards and card categories five years ago. We regularly play-test their fit with conference audiences and clients. And we still encounter new possibilities. But they all follow an underlying who-what-when-why logic.

Here are three examples for a subscription-based reading app, which you can generally follow along with right to left in the cards in the accompanying photo below. 

  1. Nurture personalization: When a guest or an unknown visitor interacts with  a product title, a banner or alert bar appears that makes it easier for them to encounter a related title they may want to read, saving them time.
  2. Welcome automation: When there’s a newly registered user, an email is generated to call out the breadth of the content catalog and to make them a happier subscriber.
  3. Winback automation: Before their subscription lapses or after a recent failed renewal, a user is sent an email that gives them a promotional offer to suggest that they reconsider renewing or to remind them to renew.

A useful preworkshop activity may be to think through a first draft of what these cards might be for your organization, although we’ve also found that this process sometimes flows best through cocreating the recipes themselves. Start with a set of blank cards, and begin labeling and grouping them through the design process, eventually distilling them to a refined subset of highly useful candidate cards.

You can think of the later stages of the workshop as moving from recipes toward a cookbook in focus—like a more nuanced customer-journey mapping. Individual “cooks” will pitch their recipes to the team, using a common jobs-to-be-done format so that measurability and results are baked in, and from there, the resulting collection will be prioritized for finished design and delivery to production.

Better kitchens require better architecture

Simplifying a customer experience is a complicated effort for those who are inside delivering it. Beware anyone who says otherwise. With that being said,  “Complicated problems can be hard to solve, but they are addressable with rules and recipes.”

When personalization becomes a laugh line, it’s because a team is overfitting: they aren’t designing with their best data. Like a sparse pantry, every organization has metadata debt to go along with its technical debt, and this creates a drag on personalization effectiveness. Your AI’s output quality, for example, is indeed limited by your IA. Spotify’s poster-child prowess today was unfathomable before they acquired a seemingly modest metadata startup that now powers its underlying information architecture.

You can definitely stand the heat…

Personalization technology opens a doorway into a confounding ocean of possible designs. Only a disciplined and highly collaborative approach will bring about the necessary focus and intention to succeed. So banish the dream kitchen. Instead, hit the test kitchen to save time, preserve job satisfaction and security, and safely dispense with the fanciful ideas that originate upstairs of the doers in your organization. There are meals to serve and mouths to feed.

This workshop framework gives you a fighting shot at lasting success as well as sound beginnings. Wiring up your information layer isn’t an overnight affair. But if you use the same cookbook and shared recipes, you’ll have solid footing for success. We designed these activities to make your organization’s needs concrete and clear, long before the hazards pile up.

While there are associated costs toward investing in this kind of technology and product design, your ability to size up and confront your unique situation and your digital capabilities is time well spent. Don’t squander it. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

User Research Is Storytelling

Published August 7, 2025 | By

Ever since I was a boy, I’ve been fascinated with movies. I loved the characters and the excitement—but most of all the stories. I wanted to be an actor. And I believed that I’d get to do the things that Indiana Jones did and go on exciting adventures. I even dreamed up ideas for movies that my friends and I could make and star in. But they never went any further. I did, however, end up working in user experience (UX). Now, I realize that there’s an element of theater to UX—I hadn’t really considered it before, but user research is storytelling. And to get the most out of user research, you need to tell a good story where you bring stakeholders—the product team and decision makers—along and get them interested in learning more.

Think of your favorite movie. More than likely it follows a three-act structure that’s commonly seen in storytelling: the setup, the conflict, and the resolution. The first act shows what exists today, and it helps you get to know the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two introduces the conflict, where the action is. Here, problems grow or get worse. And the third and final act is the resolution. This is where the issues are resolved and the characters learn and change. I believe that this structure is also a great way to think about user research, and I think that it can be especially helpful in explaining user research to others.

Use storytelling as a structure to do research

It’s sad to say, but many have come to see research as being expendable. If budgets or timelines are tight, research tends to be one of the first things to go. Instead of investing in research, some product managers rely on designers or—worse—their own opinion to make the “right” choices for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may get teams some of the way, but that approach can so easily miss out on solving users’ real problems. To remain user-centered, this is something we should avoid. User research elevates design. It keeps it on track, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the issues with your product and reacting to them can help you stay ahead of your competitors.

In the three-act structure, each act corresponds to a part of the process, and each part is critical to telling the whole story. Let’s look at the different acts and how they align with user research.

Act one: setup

The setup is all about understanding the background, and that’s where foundational research comes in. Foundational research (also called generative, discovery, or initial research) helps you understand users and identify their problems. You’re learning about what exists today, the challenges users have, and how the challenges affect them—just like in the movies. To do foundational research, you can conduct contextual inquiries or diary studies (or both!), which can help you start to identify problems as well as opportunities. It doesn’t need to be a huge investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about minimum viable ethnography, which can be as simple as spending 15 minutes with a user and asking them one thing: “‘Walk me through your day yesterday.’ That’s it. Present that one request. Shut up and listen to them for 15 minutes. Do your damndest to keep yourself and your interests out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography.” According to Hall, “[This] will probably prove quite illuminating. In the highly unlikely case that you didn’t learn anything new or useful, carry on with enhanced confidence in your direction.”  

This makes total sense to me. And I love that this makes user research so accessible. You don’t need to prepare a lot of documentation; you can just recruit participants and do it! This can yield a wealth of information about your users, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their lives. That’s really what act one is all about: understanding where users are coming from. 

Jared Spool talks about the importance of foundational research and how it should form the bulk of your research. If you can draw from any additional user data that you can get your hands on, such as surveys or analytics, that can supplement what you’ve heard in the foundational studies or even point to areas that need further investigation. Together, all this data paints a clearer picture of the state of things and all its shortcomings. And that’s the beginning of a compelling story. It’s the point in the plot where you realize that the main characters—or the users in this case—are facing challenges that they need to overcome. Like in the movies, this is where you start to build empathy for the characters and root for them to succeed. And hopefully stakeholders are now doing the same. Their sympathy may be with their business, which could be losing money because users can’t complete certain tasks. Or maybe they do empathize with users’ struggles. Either way, act one is your initial hook to get the stakeholders interested and invested.

Once stakeholders begin to understand the value of foundational research, that can open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making process. And that can guide product teams toward being more user-centered. This benefits everyone—users, the product, and stakeholders. It’s like winning an Oscar in movie terms—it often leads to your product being well received and successful. And this can be an incentive for stakeholders to repeat this process with other products. Storytelling is the key to this process, and knowing how to tell a good story is the only way to get stakeholders to really care about doing more research. 

This brings us to act two, where you iteratively evaluate a design or concept to see whether it addresses the issues.

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in act one. This usually involves directional research, such as usability tests, where you assess a potential solution (such as a design) to see whether it addresses the issues that you found. The issues could include unmet needs or problems with a flow or process that’s tripping users up. Like act two in a movie, more issues will crop up along the way. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act. 

Usability tests should typically include around five participants according to Jakob Nielsen, who found that that number of users can usually identify most of the problems: “As you add more and more users, you learn less and less because you will keep seeing the same things again and again… After the fifth user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings repeatedly but not learning much new.” 

There are parallels with storytelling here too; if you try to tell a story with too many characters, the plot may get lost. Having fewer participants means that each user’s struggles will be more memorable and easier to relay to other stakeholders when talking about the research. This can help convey the issues that need to be addressed while also highlighting the value of doing the research in the first place.

Researchers have run usability tests in person for decades, but you can also conduct usability tests remotely using tools like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing software. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You can think of in-person usability tests like going to a play and remote sessions as more like watching a movie. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. In-person usability research is a much richer experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. You also get real-time reactions—including surprise, agreement, disagreement, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors’ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

If in-person usability testing is like watching a play—staged and controlled—then conducting usability testing in the field is like immersive theater where any two sessions might be very different from one another. You can take usability testing into the field by creating a replica of the space where users interact with the product and then conduct your research there. Or you can go out to meet users at their location to do your research. With either option, you get to see how things work in context, things come up that wouldn’t have in a lab environment—and conversion can shift in entirely different directions. As researchers, you have less control over how these sessions go, but this can sometimes help you understand users even better. Meeting users where they are can provide clues to the external forces that could be affecting how they use your product. In-person usability tests provide another level of detail that’s often missing from remote usability tests. 

That’s not to say that the “movies”—remote sessions—aren’t a good option. Remote sessions can reach a wider audience. They allow a lot more stakeholders to be involved in the research and to see what’s going on. And they open the doors to a much wider geographical pool of users. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working. 

The benefit of usability testing, whether remote or in person, is that you get to see real users interact with the designs in real time, and you can ask them questions to understand their thought processes and grasp of the solution. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. Furthermore, you can test hypotheses and gauge whether your thinking is correct. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer picture of how usable the designs are and whether they work for their intended purposes. Act two is the heart of the story—where the excitement is—but there can be surprises too. This is equally true of usability tests. Often, participants will say unexpected things, which change the way that you look at things—and these twists in the story can move things in new directions. 

Unfortunately, user research is sometimes seen as expendable. And too often usability testing is the only research process that some stakeholders think that they ever need. In fact, if the designs that you’re evaluating in the usability test aren’t grounded in a solid understanding of your users (foundational research), there’s not much to be gained by doing usability testing in the first place. That’s because you’re narrowing the focus of what you’re getting feedback on, without understanding the users’ needs. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. It’s only feedback on a particular design in the context of a usability test.  

On the other hand, if you only do foundational research, while you might have set out to solve the right problem, you won’t know whether the thing that you’re building will actually solve that. This illustrates the importance of doing both foundational and directional research. 

In act two, stakeholders will—hopefully—get to watch the story unfold in the user sessions, which creates the conflict and tension in the current design by surfacing their highs and lows. And in turn, this can help motivate stakeholders to address the issues that come up.

Act three: resolution

While the first two acts are about understanding the background and the tensions that can propel stakeholders into action, the third part is about resolving the problems from the first two acts. While it’s important to have an audience for the first two acts, it’s crucial that they stick around for the final act. That means the whole product team, including developers, UX practitioners, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other stakeholders that have a say in the next steps. It allows the whole team to hear users’ feedback together, ask questions, and discuss what’s possible within the project’s constraints. And it lets the UX research and design teams clarify, suggest alternatives, or give more context behind their decisions. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

This act is mostly told in voiceover with some audience participation. The researcher is the narrator, who paints a picture of the issues and what the future of the product could look like given the things that the team has learned. They give the stakeholders their recommendations and their guidance on creating this vision.

Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. “The most effective presenters use the same techniques as great storytellers: By reminding people of the status quo and then revealing the path to a better way, they set up a conflict that needs to be resolved,” writes Duarte. “That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently.”

This type of structure aligns well with research results, and particularly results from usability tests. It provides evidence for “what is”—the problems that you’ve identified. And “what could be”—your recommendations on how to address them. And so on and so forth.

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be visual, like quick mockups of how a new design could look that solves a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the end of the session when you’ve wrapped everything up in the conclusion by summarizing the main issues and suggesting a way forward. This is the part where you reiterate the main themes or problems and what they mean for the product—the denouement of the story. This stage gives stakeholders the next steps and hopefully the momentum to take those steps!

While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. All the elements of a good story are there in the three-act structure of user research: 

  • Act one: You meet the protagonists (the users) and the antagonists (the problems affecting users). This is the beginning of the plot. In act one, researchers might use methods including contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics. The output of these methods can include personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards.
  • Act two: Next, there’s character development. There’s conflict and tension as the protagonists encounter problems and challenges, which they must overcome. In act two, researchers might use methods including usability testing, competitive benchmarking, and heuristics evaluation. The output of these can include usability findings reports, UX strategy documents, usability guidelines, and best practices.
  • Act three: The protagonists triumph and you see what a better future looks like. In act three, researchers may use methods including presentation decks, storytelling, and digital media. The output of these can be: presentation decks, video clips, audio clips, and pictures. 

The researcher has multiple roles: they’re the storyteller, the director, and the producer. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters (in the research). And the stakeholders are the audience. But the most important thing is to get the story right and to use storytelling to tell users’ stories through research. By the end, the stakeholders should walk away with a purpose and an eagerness to resolve the product’s ills. 

So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. Ultimately, user research is a win-win for everyone, and you just need to get stakeholders interested in how the story ends.

From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

Published August 7, 2025 | By

As a product builder over too many years to mention, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen promising ideas go from zero to hero in a few weeks, only to fizzle out within months.

Financial products, which is the field I work in, are no exception. With people’s real hard-earned money on the line, user expectations running high, and a crowded market, it’s tempting to throw as many features at the wall as possible and hope something sticks. But this approach is a recipe for disaster. Here’s why:

The pitfalls of feature-first development

When you start building a financial product from the ground up, or are migrating existing customer journeys from paper or telephony channels onto online banking or mobile apps, it’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of creating new features. You might think, “If I can just add one more thing that solves this particular user problem, they’ll love me!” But what happens when you inevitably hit a roadblock because the narcs (your security team!) don’t like it? When a hard-fought feature isn’t as popular as you thought, or it breaks due to unforeseen complexity?

This is where the concept of Minimum Viable Product (MVP) comes in. Jason Fried’s book Getting Real and his podcast Rework often touch on this idea, even if he doesn’t always call it that. An MVP is a product that provides just enough value to your users to keep them engaged, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming or difficult to maintain. It sounds like an easy concept but it requires a razor sharp eye, a ruthless edge and having the courage to stick by your opinion because it is easy to be seduced by “the Columbo Effect”… when there’s always “just one more thing…” that someone wants to add.

The problem with most finance apps, however, is that they often become a reflection of the internal politics of the business rather than an experience solely designed around the customer. This means that the focus is on delivering as many features and functionalities as possible to satisfy the needs and desires of competing internal departments, rather than providing a clear value proposition that is focused on what the people out there in the real world want. As a result, these products can very easily bloat to become a mixed bag of confusing, unrelated and ultimately unlovable customer experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

The importance of bedrock

So what’s a better approach? How can we build products that are stable, user-friendly, and—most importantly—stick?

That’s where the concept of “bedrock” comes in. Bedrock is the core element of your product that truly matters to users. It’s the fundamental building block that provides value and stays relevant over time.

In the world of retail banking, which is where I work, the bedrock has got to be in and around the regular servicing journeys. People open their current account once in a blue moon but they look at it every day. They sign up for a credit card every year or two, but they check their balance and pay their bill at least once a month.

Identifying the core tasks that people want to do and then relentlessly striving to make them easy to do, dependable, and trustworthy is where the gravy’s at.

But how do you get to bedrock? By focusing on the “MVP” approach, prioritizing simplicity, and iterating towards a clear value proposition. This means cutting out unnecessary features and focusing on delivering real value to your users.

It also means having some guts, because your colleagues might not always instantly share your vision to start with. And controversially, sometimes it can even mean making it clear to customers that you’re not going to come to their house and make their dinner. The occasional “opinionated user interface design” (i.e. clunky workaround for edge cases) might sometimes be what you need to use to test a concept or buy you space to work on something more important.

Practical strategies for building financial products that stick

So what are the key strategies I’ve learned from my own experience and research?

  1. Start with a clear “why”: What problem are you trying to solve? For whom? Make sure your mission is crystal clear before building anything. Make sure it aligns with your company’s objectives, too.
  2. Focus on a single, core feature and obsess on getting that right before moving on to something else: Resist the temptation to add too many features at once. Instead, choose one that delivers real value and iterate from there.
  3. Prioritize simplicity over complexity: Less is often more when it comes to financial products. Cut out unnecessary bells and whistles and keep the focus on what matters most.
  4. Embrace continuous iteration: Bedrock isn’t a fixed destination—it’s a dynamic process. Continuously gather user feedback, refine your product, and iterate towards that bedrock state.
  5. Stop, look and listen: Don’t just test your product as part of your delivery process—test it repeatedly in the field. Use it yourself. Run A/B tests. Gather user feedback. Talk to people who use it, and refine accordingly.

The bedrock paradox

There’s an interesting paradox at play here: building towards bedrock means sacrificing some short-term growth potential in favour of long-term stability. But the payoff is worth it—products built with a focus on bedrock will outlast and outperform their competitors, and deliver sustained value to users over time.

So, how do you start your journey towards bedrock? Take it one step at a time. Start by identifying those core elements that truly matter to your users. Focus on building and refining a single, powerful feature that delivers real value. And above all, test obsessively—for, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker (whomever you believe!!), “The best way to predict the future is to create it.”

An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

Published August 7, 2025 | By

Picture this: You’re in a meeting room at your tech company, and two people are having what looks like the same conversation about the same design problem. One is talking about whether the team has the right skills to tackle it. The other is diving deep into whether the solution actually solves the user’s problem. Same room, same problem, completely different lenses.

This is the beautiful, sometimes messy reality of having both a Design Manager and a Lead Designer on the same team. And if you’re wondering how to make this work without creating confusion, overlap, or the dreaded “too many cooks” scenario, you’re asking the right question.

The traditional answer has been to draw clean lines on an org chart. The Design Manager handles people, the Lead Designer handles craft. Problem solved, right? Except clean org charts are fantasy. In reality, both roles care deeply about team health, design quality, and shipping great work. 

The magic happens when you embrace the overlap instead of fighting it—when you start thinking of your design org as a design organism.

The Anatomy of a Healthy Design Team

Here’s what I’ve learned from years of being on both sides of this equation: think of your design team as a living organism. The Design Manager tends to the mind (the psychological safety, the career growth, the team dynamics). The Lead Designer tends to the body (the craft skills, the design standards, the hands-on work that ships to users).

But just like mind and body aren’t completely separate systems, so, too, do these roles overlap in important ways. You can’t have a healthy person without both working in harmony. The trick is knowing where those overlaps are and how to navigate them gracefully.

When we look at how healthy teams actually function, three critical systems emerge. Each requires both roles to work together, but with one taking primary responsibility for keeping that system strong.

The Nervous System: People & Psychology

Primary caretaker: Design Manager
Supporting role: Lead Designer

The nervous system is all about signals, feedback, and psychological safety. When this system is healthy, information flows freely, people feel safe to take risks, and the team can adapt quickly to new challenges.

The Design Manager is the primary caretaker here. They’re monitoring the team’s psychological pulse, ensuring feedback loops are healthy, and creating the conditions for people to grow. They’re hosting career conversations, managing workload, and making sure no one burns out.

But the Lead Designer plays a crucial supporting role. They’re providing sensory input about craft development needs, spotting when someone’s design skills are stagnating, and helping identify growth opportunities that the Design Manager might miss.

Design Manager tends to:

  • Career conversations and growth planning
  • Team psychological safety and dynamics
  • Workload management and resource allocation
  • Performance reviews and feedback systems
  • Creating learning opportunities

Lead Designer supports by:

  • Providing craft-specific feedback on team member development
  • Identifying design skill gaps and growth opportunities
  • Offering design mentorship and guidance
  • Signaling when team members are ready for more complex challenges

The Muscular System: Craft & Execution

Primary caretaker: Lead Designer
Supporting role: Design Manager

The muscular system is about strength, coordination, and skill development. When this system is healthy, the team can execute complex design work with precision, maintain consistent quality, and adapt their craft to new challenges.

The Lead Designer is the primary caretaker here. They’re setting design standards, providing craft coaching, and ensuring that shipping work meets the quality bar. They’re the ones who can tell you if a design decision is sound or if we’re solving the right problem.

But the Design Manager plays a crucial supporting role. They’re ensuring the team has the resources and support to do their best craft work, like proper nutrition and recovery time for an athlete.

Lead Designer tends to:

  • Definition of design standards and system usage
  • Feedback on what design work meets the standard
  • Experience direction for the product
  • Design decisions and product-wide alignment
  • Innovation and craft advancement

Design Manager supports by:

  • Ensuring design standards are understood and adopted across the team
  • Confirming experience direction is being followed
  • Supporting practices and systems that scale without bottlenecking
  • Facilitating design alignment across teams
  • Providing resources and removing obstacles to great craft work

The Circulatory System: Strategy & Flow

Shared caretakers: Both Design Manager and Lead Designer

The circulatory system is about how information, decisions, and energy flow through the team. When this system is healthy, strategic direction is clear, priorities are aligned, and the team can respond quickly to new opportunities or challenges.

This is where true partnership happens. Both roles are responsible for keeping the circulation strong, but they’re bringing different perspectives to the table.

Lead Designer contributes:

  • User needs are met by the product
  • Overall product quality and experience
  • Strategic design initiatives
  • Research-based user needs for each initiative

Design Manager contributes:

  • Communication to team and stakeholders
  • Stakeholder management and alignment
  • Cross-functional team accountability
  • Strategic business initiatives

Both collaborate on:

  • Co-creation of strategy with leadership
  • Team goals and prioritization approach
  • Organizational structure decisions
  • Success measures and frameworks

Keeping the Organism Healthy

The key to making this partnership sing is understanding that all three systems need to work together. A team with great craft skills but poor psychological safety will burn out. A team with great culture but weak craft execution will ship mediocre work. A team with both but poor strategic circulation will work hard on the wrong things.

Be Explicit About Which System You’re Tending

When you’re in a meeting about a design problem, it helps to acknowledge which system you’re primarily focused on. “I’m thinking about this from a team capacity perspective” (nervous system) or “I’m looking at this through the lens of user needs” (muscular system) gives everyone context for your input.

This isn’t about staying in your lane. It’s about being transparent as to which lens you’re using, so the other person knows how to best add their perspective.

Create Healthy Feedback Loops

The most successful partnerships I’ve seen establish clear feedback loops between the systems:

Nervous system signals to muscular system: “The team is struggling with confidence in their design skills” → Lead Designer provides more craft coaching and clearer standards.

Muscular system signals to nervous system: “The team’s craft skills are advancing faster than their project complexity” → Design Manager finds more challenging growth opportunities.

Both systems signal to circulatory system: “We’re seeing patterns in team health and craft development that suggest we need to adjust our strategic priorities.”

Handle Handoffs Gracefully

The most critical moments in this partnership are when something moves from one system to another. This might be when a design standard (muscular system) needs to be rolled out across the team (nervous system), or when a strategic initiative (circulatory system) needs specific craft execution (muscular system).

Make these transitions explicit. “I’ve defined the new component standards. Can you help me think through how to get the team up to speed?” or “We’ve agreed on this strategic direction. I’m going to focus on the specific user experience approach from here.”

Stay Curious, Not Territorial

The Design Manager who never thinks about craft, or the Lead Designer who never considers team dynamics, is like a doctor who only looks at one body system. Great design leadership requires both people to care about the whole organism, even when they’re not the primary caretaker.

This means asking questions rather than making assumptions. “What do you think about the team’s craft development in this area?” or “How do you see this impacting team morale and workload?” keeps both perspectives active in every decision.

When the Organism Gets Sick

Even with clear roles, this partnership can go sideways. Here are the most common failure modes I’ve seen:

System Isolation

The Design Manager focuses only on the nervous system and ignores craft development. The Lead Designer focuses only on the muscular system and ignores team dynamics. Both people retreat to their comfort zones and stop collaborating.

The symptoms: Team members get mixed messages, work quality suffers, morale drops.

The treatment: Reconnect around shared outcomes. What are you both trying to achieve? Usually it’s great design work that ships on time from a healthy team. Figure out how both systems serve that goal.

Poor Circulation

Strategic direction is unclear, priorities keep shifting, and neither role is taking responsibility for keeping information flowing.

The symptoms: Team members are confused about priorities, work gets duplicated or dropped, deadlines are missed.

The treatment: Explicitly assign responsibility for circulation. Who’s communicating what to whom? How often? What’s the feedback loop?

Autoimmune Response

One person feels threatened by the other’s expertise. The Design Manager thinks the Lead Designer is undermining their authority. The Lead Designer thinks the Design Manager doesn’t understand craft.

The symptoms: Defensive behavior, territorial disputes, team members caught in the middle.

The treatment: Remember that you’re both caretakers of the same organism. When one system fails, the whole team suffers. When both systems are healthy, the team thrives.

The Payoff

Yes, this model requires more communication. Yes, it requires both people to be secure enough to share responsibility for team health. But the payoff is worth it: better decisions, stronger teams, and design work that’s both excellent and sustainable.

When both roles are healthy and working well together, you get the best of both worlds: deep craft expertise and strong people leadership. When one person is out sick, on vacation, or overwhelmed, the other can help maintain the team’s health. When a decision requires both the people perspective and the craft perspective, you’ve got both right there in the room.

Most importantly, the framework scales. As your team grows, you can apply the same system thinking to new challenges. Need to launch a design system? Lead Designer tends to the muscular system (standards and implementation), Design Manager tends to the nervous system (team adoption and change management), and both tend to circulation (communication and stakeholder alignment).

The Bottom Line

The relationship between a Design Manager and Lead Designer isn’t about dividing territories. It’s about multiplying impact. When both roles understand they’re tending to different aspects of the same healthy organism, magic happens.

The mind and body work together. The team gets both the strategic thinking and the craft excellence they need. And most importantly, the work that ships to users benefits from both perspectives.

So the next time you’re in that meeting room, wondering why two people are talking about the same problem from different angles, remember: you’re watching shared leadership in action. And if it’s working well, both the mind and body of your design team are getting stronger.

The Secret Weapon of Great Brands

Published August 6, 2025 | By

The Secret Weapon of Great Brands written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

Listen to the full episode: Overview In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Laura Ries, globally recognized branding strategist, bestselling author, and president of Ries & Ries. Laura shares insights from her new book, “The Strategic Enemy: How to Build and Position a Brand Worth Fighting For.” The conversation explores […]

The Secret Weapon of Great Brands written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

Listen to the full episode:

Overview

In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Laura Ries, globally recognized branding strategist, bestselling author, and president of Ries & Ries. Laura shares insights from her new book, “The Strategic Enemy: How to Build and Position a Brand Worth Fighting For.” The conversation explores why brands need a focused enemy, how to find and define it, and how legendary brands—from Liquid Death to Tesla—win by creating real contrast and bold positioning. Laura breaks down her proven framework for entrepreneurs and established businesses alike, showing why focus, differentiation, and a compelling “enemy” are the keys to winning the battle for the mind.

About the Guest

Laura Ries is a globally recognized branding strategist, bestselling author, and president of Ries & Ries. Together with her father, Al Ries, Laura has helped Fortune 500s and ambitious startups win through bold, focused brand positioning. She’s a sought-after speaker, trusted advisor, and author of “The Strategic Enemy,” a book that helps brands of any size build a message—and a business—worth fighting for.

Actionable Insights

  • A strategic enemy isn’t just a competitor; it’s a problem, category, or alternative that provides contrast and focus.
  • Brands without focus have no enemy—and without an enemy, they lack meaning and energy in the market.
  • The enemy can be a product feature (plastic bottles), an outdated process (taxis), or simply “the way it’s always been done.”
  • Great positioning starts with knowing who you are for—and who you are not for.
  • Legendary brands like Liquid Death, Uber, Oatly, and Tesla win by breaking category conventions and boldly defining what they’re against.
  • The first step for any brand: narrow your focus, say “no” to what you’re not, and stake out a clear enemy to create differentiation.
  • Entrepreneurs and challengers have an edge—they can outmaneuver larger brands by focusing on a single idea and exploiting big company weaknesses.
  • Visual hammers and clear metaphors make positioning “stick” (think: Liquid Death, White Claw, or even the Duct Tape Marketing brand itself).
  • Beware of “foe enemies”—don’t invent rivals that aren’t real. Your enemy must be genuine, tangible, and tied to customer pain or desire.
  • Big brands can stay relevant by launching new brands to attack new categories (instead of extending old ones).

Great Moments (with Timestamps)

  • 02:39 – Strategic Enemy vs. Competitor
    Laura explains why brands need a contrast, not just a list of rivals.
  • 03:08 – Liquid Death, Uber, and the Power of Defining the Enemy
    How bold brands win by naming and attacking what they’re against.
  • 04:36 – The Enemy as Problem, Not Just a Company
    Positioning can be about fighting a pain or outdated alternative.
  • 05:57 – Why Brands Without Focus Lack Energy
    The risk of trying to be everything to everyone.
  • 07:55 – Focus First: Who You’re For, and Who You’re Not
    The role of clarity and saying “no” in setting up your enemy.
  • 08:53 – Category Over Brand: Why Tesla and Red Bull Won
    How owning a category and pioneering a new idea creates leadership.
  • 12:14 – Entrepreneur Advantage: The Power of Courage and Focus
    Why challengers can outmaneuver incumbents with sharper positioning.
  • 16:22 – Multiple Brands Beat Line Extensions
    Big brands should create new brands to fight new battles.
  • 18:04 – Subcategories and Visual Hammers
    Why new subcategories (like hard seltzer or nonalcoholic beer) and visual metaphors drive market momentum.
  • 20:31 – The Danger of “Foe Enemies”
    Laura cautions against inventing fake rivals—your enemy must be real.
  • 22:29 – Making Positioning Visual and Memorable
    The power of metaphors, visual hammers, and simple storytelling.

Pulled Quotes

“Brands without enemies are brands without energy. Focus first, then pick the enemy that brings your brand to life.”
— Laura Ries

“Legendary brands win by creating real contrast—fighting a problem, a category, or the ‘way it’s always been done.’”
— Laura Ries

Email

Download

New Tab

John Jantsch (00:01.144)

Hello and welcome to another episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. This is John Jantsch and my guest today is Laura Ries. She’s a globally recognized branding strategist, bestselling author and president of Reiss and Reiss, the firm she runs with her father, legendary positioning pioneer Al Reiss. Laura’s guided Fortune 500 companies and fast growing startups alike on how to win the battle in the mind through bold, focused brand positioning. We’re going to talk today about her latest book,

the strategic enemy, how to build and position a brand worth fighting for. So Laura, welcome back to the show.

Laura Ries (00:37.082)

Well, thanks so much. It’s a pleasure to be here. And to see you again.

John Jantsch (00:40.586)

Likewise. And you know, there are very few people I can say this to, but you know, when I was just getting started, father’s book was very instrumental read for me as well. I’m sure you’ve heard that more than once.

Laura Ries (00:55.45)

and it was a very instrumental book for me as well. It’s what got me here, got me interested in falling in love with positioning. so it’s such a pleasure to have had the chance to work with him for so many years.

John Jantsch (01:09.13)

And as you and I have talked before, my daughter actually is our CEO and has worked with me for 15 years. it’s kind of that, you know, it’s funny people who maybe haven’t done that before, you know, have a lot of questions about like, how does that work? So I’m curious for you. I mean, for us, it’s been great. We have a great personal relationship. don’t take that. I mean, we do take it into business because I trust her at a level that I don’t think I would ever trust anyone else in business.

and things of that nature, you know, doesn’t, some of the drama that people are used to, just, we’ve never experienced it as that. I get the sense that you’re probably in that same boat.

Laura Ries (01:48.6)

Yeah, no, you do have that long-term trust and you’re in it for the long haul for your family, you hope. And so that longevity and history and all that you bring into it. But yeah, you do have to love what you do. I think that’s the most important thing. I love positioning. wasn’t that I just, my dad was cool, right? But I also really enjoyed, I loved learning from him. And then of course, I enjoyed to teach him a few tricks as well too.

John Jantsch (02:03.853)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (02:09.23)

you

John Jantsch (02:15.874)

Yeah, of course you wouldn’t stick around if I wouldn’t think if you loved it. It’s a grind. be. So you got to have some passion for it. So let’s jump right into the book. One of my first questions, I think I know, well, I know the answer to this, but I want you to clarify. How would you differentiate between a strategic enemy and say a competitor?

Laura Ries (02:39.652)

companies have lots of competitors. Right? So that’s the reality. But a strategic enemy is strategic in terms of it’s very important in your strategy. It’s always important to understand the enemy. But like I said, there’s many, but you want to pick that one. And the most important thing is you want to show what the contrast is. And so that is, for example, you have Liquid Death, right? One of the hottest new water brands. They pick not other water brands, but

John Jantsch (02:41.506)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (03:04.663)

Right.

Laura Ries (03:08.634)

Plastic water bottles as the enemy death to plastics is their slogan So they said no to something they didn’t offer it in plastic and they very pointedly said that you know We are killing the earth with plastic aluminum is much more infinitely recyclable and sadly We don’t even recycle much plastic anymore even though they can be so very important message and of course they have

brilliant snazzy marketing along with it, but it is backed by something very specific, very tangible, and very much a difference from the enemy that they have set up. Another is, for example, Uber. The original name was ubercab.com, if you remember back in the day.

John Jantsch (03:45.449)

funny. No, I actually don’t know that I knew that one.

Laura Ries (03:49.262)

Yeah, no, I didn’t either, but you know, I do my research on these books. if you have a name like Uber cab, how can taxis be the enemy? The strongest thing to rally consumers for your cause is not so much to say, you know, come with us, we’re great, but let’s fight somebody else. Let’s fight those taxi cabs out there and we have a better way. Our way is that new category, which is always the best way to build a brand. And that was, you know, Uber with the ride sharing.

John Jantsch (03:51.502)

Right.

John Jantsch (04:07.661)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (04:18.124)

You know, it’s really interesting because I’m sure most people’s minds go to the enemy being like, you know, the, people that beat you out, you know, for, whatever, you know, work that you get. And as I listened to you to this, it’s probably in some ways the enemy can just be a problem that your ideal client is facing. Right.

Laura Ries (04:36.314)

Absolutely. like I say, it’s not evil corp is the enemy, right? That it’s a really big bad guy or thing or something out there. It is, yeah, two things, either a problem that you’re going to solve or just the alternative. There’s not just one way to do something. mean, think about mouthwash. Listerine, it’s medicine breath is what Scope said because they were selling good tasting mouthwash. But, know, Listerine, the fact that taste you hate twice a day, I mean, that

John Jantsch (04:40.526)

Right.

Laura Ries (05:04.505)

Talk to the efficacy. mean, it was very strong. That’s what was killing all the germs. So there’s two sides of every coin. And that’s the important part of strategy and of thinking about positioning in a way that it’s not just what we are, but what is the contrasting alternative that puts us in a better light? And there’s always multiple ways to look at things. I mean, some people like regular cow’s milk. It’s delicious. But then you have Oatly coming in with, wow, no cow, and selling, you know, this is milk for humans, you know, made from oats.

John Jantsch (05:34.904)

So it’s, it’s all, well, I shouldn’t say it almost. is, I mean, you’re a really key point of this book is you’re saying that brands need to actually maybe go looking for this enemy, find it, right? I mean, not necessarily make it up, but like without it, you even go as far as what was your statement or your brands without enemies or brands without energy that, that, that we actually need to go find this thing, right?

Laura Ries (05:49.818)

That’s right.

Laura Ries (05:57.518)

without meaning and here’s the biggest problem is most companies aren’t focused enough to have an enemy. They do too many things in too many markets and try to appeal to too many people. When you do that, you don’t have a focus and without a focus, you don’t have an enemy. So sometimes the first thing is looking at yourself and saying, what can we say no to? If you say no to something that tends to put you in a direction where you can find an enemy. What did Southwest do? They said no to first class being the coach class only.

John Jantsch (06:16.92)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (06:26.99)

that was, you know, they had more affordable seating. They also made the whole, you know, theme of the airline being about fun and games and they, you know, the stewardesses and airline attendants would make jokes and crack jokes. But, you know, you can’t crack jokes if you got a first class and a curtain and then us back in the coach, right? So that focus can very much help you define what your identity is and position against what that, you know, enemy you have put out there. And, companies too often get in trouble because

John Jantsch (06:45.006)

You

Laura Ries (06:56.332)

What is Southwest doing today? They’re adding first class and premium seating. All of that is going to undermine the bags don’t fly. And here’s the thing, seat assignments, I’m all for. That’s going to get rid of the chaos. But bags not flying free, that was something that they could anchor their brand on and say, everybody else is charging for bags, but here bags fly free. And listen.

John Jantsch (06:58.647)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (07:02.254)

Charging for bags.

Laura Ries (07:21.71)

That has an operational efficiency too, because if the bags fly free, people will check them. And then you could board the plane. Otherwise, everyone’s carrying all their bags on with them and that slows down everything. So it is very sad when companies lose their focus and we’re trying to fight that fight to help them stay focused.

John Jantsch (07:26.606)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (07:40.952)

So sounds like I hear you saying that really the first step too is that as you said, you’ve got to know who you are first before you can go out there and find the enemy maybe. But in a lot of ways, it probably starts with narrowing your focus, right? Here’s who we’re for. So here’s who we’re not for. It’s probably step one, isn’t it?

Laura Ries (07:55.801)

Absolutely.

That’s right. Yeah, it’s a balance between knowing who you are, what you can say no to. But at the end of the day, focus has always been the key critical element of positioning itself. And the enemy is line extension, going in too many directions, diluting what your brand is. And when companies do focus, then they can make use of that strategic enemy. And it’s creating the contrast of the peak

people can better understand because listen, people don’t have time. We’ve got to make these communications very simple, very clear so that people understand and also understand the choice. For example, you’ve got edible arrangements, which now goes by edible, which I don’t always shorten your name because edible today has a very different connotation. That’s not what they’re selling. There you go. That’s not what they’re selling.

John Jantsch (08:48.11)

I live in Colorado and it’s, you know, it’s…

Laura Ries (08:53.418)

They are selling edible fruit arrangements, which has a fantastic strategic enemy. Why buy flowers that will die, right? When you can send a delicious edible bouquet. But edible arrangements as a name is very, very strong. But again, it’s the category that really matters because people care more about the category than they do about brands. I hate to tell you.

But while they speak in brands, we think, people love a Tesla. No, they don’t love the Tesla brand. It’s the category that they dominate, which is EV electric vehicles, the category that is booming right now. And people still buy them despite what they think of Elon Musk and all of his shenanigans. But very strong brand that did absolutely do many of the things we preach about, being first in pioneering a category and only focusing on EVs, which here’s the problem.

Originally, this was a tiny market. The major automobile makers, they thought it was niche and they ignored it for many, many years. And that allowed Tesla to get in, not so much build the market initially, but build the mind of the consumer that Tesla was the car that stood for it. So, you can take advantage of the big companies are slow on these things. Another one was Red Bull. Coca-Cola ignored Red Bull for years until after 10 years, it was a hundred million dollars and they woke up and said, oops,

But when they competed late, you know, it was too late to the game. Full throttle, tab energy, all of the others they try to launch were big losers. The brand that pioneers it, particularly when they do it with a good name, a good strategy, and a strong message, you know, it gives you wings if you didn’t know.

John Jantsch (10:21.816)

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

John Jantsch (10:32.878)

A lot of those big companies just go out and buy the competition that’s nipping at their heels.

Laura Ries (10:38.874)

Well, that’s not a bad idea. if you’ve got the money, I mean, today, what has Coca-Cola done? They can’t launch their, they even tried Coca-Cola energy, if you could believe that. But they have made, you know, they put a stake into Monster, which is the only brand that has successfully competed against Red Bull. And today, it’s a very strong leader globally in the energy drink market. How did they do it? They didn’t copy Red Bull. They didn’t try to be better. They came at a 16 ounce can. Now, is that better? Who knows? It’s different.

John Jantsch (10:46.54)

Ha ha.

John Jantsch (11:04.28)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (11:06.81)

And it’s visually different and not only that they combined it with a great name a simple visual hammer the green claw They’ve got you know monster motocross and truck events and all sorts of things They’ve they’ve utilized that strategy to unify their anchor as to what they stand for against their competitor Red Bull But how do you compete with that? Well, the big number three today is Celsius They’re hot in the energy drink market by not going the masculine male approach as you know what?

mostly Red Bull and Monster have done, but it’s a more unisex, fitness friendly, no sugar, and they’ve taken on a very good chunk of the market by going and being different.

John Jantsch (11:49.166)

So we’re talking about big brands essentially right now, but you’ve developed a framework that is really quarter the book. Do you want to kind of walk us through some of the steps? And like, have you walked into a company and let’s put the big brands aside? You walked into a company that is kind of trying to make their way now and trying to, know, what are kind of some of the steps you would take somebody through? And again, obviously I didn’t give you a type of company or anything, but typically.

Laura Ries (12:14.186)

No, well, I mean, you’ve got tons of examples and listen, I love working with entrepreneurs. I mean, that is actually the most exciting. They have such creative new ideas and potential. And not only that, most importantly, they have the courage and the balls to really do something different, something that the big companies usually don’t have. For example, in the moist toilet paper market, the early pioneers were, know, cottonel fresh wipes, which never really went anywhere because it had a, you

It was cottonel, Kleenex, fresh wipes, something or other. They were trying to position a dual, you need two things, you need wet and dry, which never really resonated until one guy was living in a post-college apartment with a bunch of dudes eating, as he says, lots of burritos, drinking late nights, and they needed some heavy duty cleaning up in the bathroom. So on his weekly trip to Costco, he picked up the usual, baby wipes and a bunch of other stuff that the guys like to use, and he said, wait a minute,

John Jantsch (12:51.982)

Yeah. Yeah.

Laura Ries (13:12.974)

Why isn’t there a company that makes a product I want to use that’s meant for me and my guy friends and cleans up like a baby wipe does, but is also flushable and environmentally friendly? And he did that. He just pioneered that category. It’s called Dude Wipes. It has over $350 million a year, but it was just a guy with an idea. But first and foremost, he saw a problem, right? It didn’t create the category, but he said everyone is not doing it in the right way. They’re not focused and they’re not strongly

John Jantsch (13:36.034)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Laura Ries (13:42.97)

calling out an enemy. I Cottonelle can’t say, you know, dry toilet paper sucks, but Dude Wipes can. Dude Wipes says, you’re wasting your time with that. You’re just smearing it around. I mean, they say all sorts of crazy things, but a very powerful message by narrowing the focus, by taking on the enemy. And, you know, going in with entrepreneurs, it is so exciting because you can really take on the big guys.

John Jantsch (13:50.03)

Right, right. Yeah

John Jantsch (14:08.835)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (14:09.058)

You don’t have to be a big guy because you leverage where they’re weak and in every strength there is always some kind of weakness. Even in Amazon, if you can believe it, a bunch of entrepreneurs launched Shopify and they said, you know, Amazon is not really serving the merchants, right? They’re all about the customer and they do such a great job on that. But they’re kind of given the short shaft to the merchant. So, know, Shopify is the merchant hero. They’re setting it up so merchants can have their own stores.

John Jantsch (14:26.7)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right.

Laura Ries (14:37.976)

making it totally seamless, easy to do, giving them all the tools, support they need, and they’ve been a very strong competitor to helping companies sell their goods on the internet.

John Jantsch (14:48.616)

And of course their connected network has now made them even more powerful.

Laura Ries (14:52.186)

It took time, literally it was just a bunch of guys who tried to sell their own website and said, instead of, was it surfing stuff? I can’t remember. But instead of selling this, mean, they gave that up quick and said, we’re just gonna sell the software, the backbone of this. And they added incrementally all the other things and bells and whistles that went along with it. But it’s that key one idea.

John Jantsch (14:56.77)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (15:07.308)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Laura Ries (15:16.762)

Airbnb was the same way. mean, it was, you know, a bunch of guys living in San Francisco that said, wait a minute, you know, it hot periods of conferences, it’s impossible and very costly to get a hotel. Why don’t we put some air mattresses in our living room? We’re going to call it air bread and breakfast and rent out the room. And, you know, today they are they are taking on hotels in a big way.

John Jantsch (15:35.15)

funny.

John Jantsch (15:40.686)

Oh yeah. Oh, a hundred percent. Yeah. In fact, you’re seeing some hotels actually now try to get into that business a little bit, you know, to, instead of just having their rooms, you know, actually buying houses and things to, get into that business. Yeah. Yeah.

Laura Ries (15:53.302)

Is that the right idea? Because listen, I’ve stayed in an Airbnb, I’ve stayed in a hotel, there’s advantages to hotels. I kind of like the fresh towels and the very clean sheets and the service that goes along with it. I mean, there’s no one way to do something. Instead of thinking about how can we copy Airbnb, how can we make hotels a better deal? And celebrate what is a very nice experience in a hotel.

John Jantsch (16:09.581)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (16:13.102)

Sure.

Yeah, yeah,

Laura Ries (16:22.66)

Here’s the other thing. The best thing you can do as a big company or when you get to that size, if you’re an entrepreneur listening, is multiple brands. Give birth to your own enemy is a better strategy. Not trying to put one brand on many things, instead having multiple brands. And you see even great examples. So Mike’s Hard Lemonade was a big, big success at the turn of the century.

John Jantsch (16:44.386)

Yep.

Laura Ries (16:46.87)

As kids were turning away, young drinking adults were turning away from beer and other things. They enjoyed the Mike’s Hard Lemonade. But as a few years went by, we realized it had just as much sugar as a Coke almost and a ton of calories and we all were cutting carbs. So what did they do? Instead of line extending Mike’s into, well, they also did that honestly, into Mike’s Light Lemonade, they launched White Claw.

John Jantsch (17:00.194)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (17:15.994)

the first hard seltzer and this is the typhoon of seltzers of billions of dollars. And listen, it doesn’t even taste very good, but it is a new category. And as a hard seltzer, that again, naming the category is incredibly important. Zima, mean, you’re as old as I am, you know it, remember Zima, they didn’t know what it was. What was it?

John Jantsch (17:16.035)

Mm.

John Jantsch (17:26.626)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (17:35.884)

Yeah? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I do.

Laura Ries (17:41.562)

I mean, it was similar to, you know, again, what White Claw is selling, but, they didn’t quite name the category and explain to us what it is. And when we don’t know what something is, doesn’t always taste very good. And that was one of the experiences of the Zemas.

John Jantsch (17:44.77)

Yeah, yeah.

John Jantsch (17:57.72)

Yeah, that seltzer category is probably booming like beer, my craft beer was at one point.

Laura Ries (18:04.428)

Absolutely. And not only that, there’s a huge, there’s always opportunity out there, which is what makes marketing and business and entrepreneur so exciting. You think, like, I never thought there could be another water brand. I mean, how many hundreds of water brands? And then came Liquid Death. And you thought like beer, how many beer brands? But have you heard of this athletic brewing?

This is the hottest new thing. It’s beer without alcohol. What fun is that? But anyway, there’s a big trend into drinking less. And do you really want to drink a Heineken Zero or a Bud Zero? I mean, come on. But this new brand owns the category and celebrates it and says, you know, live an athletic lifestyle.

John Jantsch (18:39.918)

You

Laura Ries (18:47.466)

no hangovers. And one of the things they did as an important part of the strategy is they knew they needed credibility, that this was something that was not just non-alcoholic. mean, there was O’Doul’s and kind of other brands out there, but it was a good tasting quality beer. And so they aggressively entered it into competitions. And that drove a lot of the PR. In fact, one of the competitions, they beat beer with alcohol. And they have just a great way of talking about it.

John Jantsch (18:59.159)

Mm-hmm, right.

John Jantsch (19:05.998)

Mmm.

John Jantsch (19:11.426)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (19:16.442)

pointing out that enemy which is, know, why bother with the alcohol? Why not live for a better tomorrow?

John Jantsch (19:21.91)

Well, it’s interesting because they created a subcategory, non-alcoholic beer that tastes good, because I think the category was there’s non-alcoholic beer, right? That was the category. So if they got lumped into that category, they probably weren’t going to go anywhere. They’re not going to fight. didn’t has their brush, probably. So I think they kind of…

Laura Ries (19:29.338)

That’s right. Yeah.

Laura Ries (19:37.562)

No. Yeah, not being a line extension and not trying to look like a beer. The other thing they did that was very brilliant and visuals matter, visuals are incredibly important. Athletic only comes in cans. All of the other brands, of course they offer it, but they promote the glass because they feel it looks premium and it does.

But athletic, I mean, what’s their position? mean, athletic lifestyles, you can’t bring gas, a glass bottle on a camping trip or a boat. need the can. And the can in bright pastel colors was a distinctive difference that also communicated how different they were than all the other products.

John Jantsch (20:05.752)

Right, right, yeah.

John Jantsch (20:16.012)

Yeah. So I want to end with a, know, because I think a lot of people listening right now are getting very fired up about their who, how they’re going to go out there and create their enemy. What’s the risk of creating you call foe enemies? I mean, just kind of like making them up.

Laura Ries (20:23.322)

I hope so.

Laura Ries (20:31.802)

you can’t make them up. Of course they do. course they… No, the rivalry has to be real. But it doesn’t have to be something, for example, I’ve got a phone case, it’s called Flaunt. What’s their big difference? It’s a square case.

John Jantsch (20:33.166)

But certainly people try, right? I mean, it’s like, it’s like, here’s our rivalry, but it’s like, they really? Yeah, yeah.

Laura Ries (20:53.562)

And that’s an instantly visible difference, but they promote that as you know, they’re they’re positioning their difference, you know, what makes them great and I love a square case. It looks cool. It’s fun. I stick my iPhone in there. But yeah, that absolutely it has to be not just you know, claiming a boogeyman out there as the enemy but something that that is real. That’s a tangible problem a tangible enemy and there’s always more than ways

John Jantsch (20:53.964)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (21:18.358)

more than one way to do something. mean, sometimes you want the very best, right? A high price can be a benefit, but sometimes, you know, also the ease of and the shopping experience, for example, going to Costco. People love Costco. Even the Kirkland brand is rising, right? Because people are saying they’re making a statement and the companies focus on producing very high quality and also, you know, the ease of not over, you know, there’s only 4,000 items. It really makes it much easier to choose when there’s

John Jantsch (21:33.88)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (21:46.82)

fewer things to choose from.

John Jantsch (21:48.046)

That’s funny because, course, not every brand, not every everybody’s going to like every brand. I don’t like Costco. I think it’s a terrible shopping experience. I go in there and I can’t find anything.

Laura Ries (21:54.901)

See you.

Laura Ries (21:58.97)

Well, you know they do that on purpose because they want you to wander the aisles and see I love the discovery of it But that’s the point there is no one and here’s the problem Most companies like Kmart, right? They’re trying to appeal to everyone They want people that you know want the the bulk kind of Costco They want people that want the simple shopping or they try to be everything It’s much better to take a very narrow stance and not worry if it doesn’t appeal to everybody

John Jantsch (22:05.068)

Yeah. Yeah.

John Jantsch (22:27.062)

I did love a good blue light special though. You got to admit that was amazing.

Laura Ries (22:29.018)

It was a visual idea. See, if you can give your strategy some way to visualize it, it makes it much more powerful. mean, think about duct tape. I mean, what a great way to communicate something that’s instantly understand in the mind. We know what we do with duct tape. We know how great duct tape is. It can fix anything. what a, know, using metaphors like that are a great way to do branding.

John Jantsch (22:41.112)

Right?

John Jantsch (22:47.288)

Yep. Yeah.

John Jantsch (22:55.382)

Awesome. Well, Laura, I appreciate you taking a few moments to drop by the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. Where would you invite people to connect with you and find out more, certainly about strategic enemy, but also your courses and the things that you do around it?

Laura Ries (23:01.274)

Absolutely. Well, of course you can visit us online at reese.com and that’s r i e s dot com. We’ve got strategicenemy.com and I’ve just launched a sub stack. Yay. Exciting newsletters. I’ve got even the Reese hotline where companies are calling in. Well, it’s fake. Don’t tell anybody, but I pretend like companies are coming in and I give them really great advice. So check out those videos, check out my book and let’s do positioning together and nail those strategic enemies.

John Jantsch (23:23.118)

You

John Jantsch (23:34.211)

Well, again, appreciate you stopping by and hopefully we’ll run into you on these days soon out there on the road.

Laura Ries (23:38.852)

Absolutely.

Scroll back to top

powered by

Should You Hire a Fractional CMO? Here’s Who It’s For (and Who It’s Not For)

Published August 6, 2025 | By

Should You Hire a Fractional CMO? Here’s Who It’s For (and Who It’s Not For) written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

After working with thousands of business owners over the last three decades, I can tell you one thing with certainty: the marketing leader you hire, or don’t hire, can make or break your growth. TL;DR A Fractional CMO can be a game-changer for businesses with clear growth objectives, leadership buy-in, and a team ready to […]

The Secret Weapon of Great Brands written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

Listen to the full episode:

Overview

In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Laura Ries, globally recognized branding strategist, bestselling author, and president of Ries & Ries. Laura shares insights from her new book, “The Strategic Enemy: How to Build and Position a Brand Worth Fighting For.” The conversation explores why brands need a focused enemy, how to find and define it, and how legendary brands—from Liquid Death to Tesla—win by creating real contrast and bold positioning. Laura breaks down her proven framework for entrepreneurs and established businesses alike, showing why focus, differentiation, and a compelling “enemy” are the keys to winning the battle for the mind.

About the Guest

Laura Ries is a globally recognized branding strategist, bestselling author, and president of Ries & Ries. Together with her father, Al Ries, Laura has helped Fortune 500s and ambitious startups win through bold, focused brand positioning. She’s a sought-after speaker, trusted advisor, and author of “The Strategic Enemy,” a book that helps brands of any size build a message—and a business—worth fighting for.

Actionable Insights

  • A strategic enemy isn’t just a competitor; it’s a problem, category, or alternative that provides contrast and focus.
  • Brands without focus have no enemy—and without an enemy, they lack meaning and energy in the market.
  • The enemy can be a product feature (plastic bottles), an outdated process (taxis), or simply “the way it’s always been done.”
  • Great positioning starts with knowing who you are for—and who you are not for.
  • Legendary brands like Liquid Death, Uber, Oatly, and Tesla win by breaking category conventions and boldly defining what they’re against.
  • The first step for any brand: narrow your focus, say “no” to what you’re not, and stake out a clear enemy to create differentiation.
  • Entrepreneurs and challengers have an edge—they can outmaneuver larger brands by focusing on a single idea and exploiting big company weaknesses.
  • Visual hammers and clear metaphors make positioning “stick” (think: Liquid Death, White Claw, or even the Duct Tape Marketing brand itself).
  • Beware of “foe enemies”—don’t invent rivals that aren’t real. Your enemy must be genuine, tangible, and tied to customer pain or desire.
  • Big brands can stay relevant by launching new brands to attack new categories (instead of extending old ones).

Great Moments (with Timestamps)

  • 02:39 – Strategic Enemy vs. Competitor
    Laura explains why brands need a contrast, not just a list of rivals.
  • 03:08 – Liquid Death, Uber, and the Power of Defining the Enemy
    How bold brands win by naming and attacking what they’re against.
  • 04:36 – The Enemy as Problem, Not Just a Company
    Positioning can be about fighting a pain or outdated alternative.
  • 05:57 – Why Brands Without Focus Lack Energy
    The risk of trying to be everything to everyone.
  • 07:55 – Focus First: Who You’re For, and Who You’re Not
    The role of clarity and saying “no” in setting up your enemy.
  • 08:53 – Category Over Brand: Why Tesla and Red Bull Won
    How owning a category and pioneering a new idea creates leadership.
  • 12:14 – Entrepreneur Advantage: The Power of Courage and Focus
    Why challengers can outmaneuver incumbents with sharper positioning.
  • 16:22 – Multiple Brands Beat Line Extensions
    Big brands should create new brands to fight new battles.
  • 18:04 – Subcategories and Visual Hammers
    Why new subcategories (like hard seltzer or nonalcoholic beer) and visual metaphors drive market momentum.
  • 20:31 – The Danger of “Foe Enemies”
    Laura cautions against inventing fake rivals—your enemy must be real.
  • 22:29 – Making Positioning Visual and Memorable
    The power of metaphors, visual hammers, and simple storytelling.

Pulled Quotes

“Brands without enemies are brands without energy. Focus first, then pick the enemy that brings your brand to life.”
— Laura Ries

“Legendary brands win by creating real contrast—fighting a problem, a category, or the ‘way it’s always been done.’”
— Laura Ries

Email

Download

New Tab

John Jantsch (00:01.144)

Hello and welcome to another episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. This is John Jantsch and my guest today is Laura Ries. She’s a globally recognized branding strategist, bestselling author and president of Reiss and Reiss, the firm she runs with her father, legendary positioning pioneer Al Reiss. Laura’s guided Fortune 500 companies and fast growing startups alike on how to win the battle in the mind through bold, focused brand positioning. We’re going to talk today about her latest book,

the strategic enemy, how to build and position a brand worth fighting for. So Laura, welcome back to the show.

Laura Ries (00:37.082)

Well, thanks so much. It’s a pleasure to be here. And to see you again.

John Jantsch (00:40.586)

Likewise. And you know, there are very few people I can say this to, but you know, when I was just getting started, father’s book was very instrumental read for me as well. I’m sure you’ve heard that more than once.

Laura Ries (00:55.45)

and it was a very instrumental book for me as well. It’s what got me here, got me interested in falling in love with positioning. so it’s such a pleasure to have had the chance to work with him for so many years.

John Jantsch (01:09.13)

And as you and I have talked before, my daughter actually is our CEO and has worked with me for 15 years. it’s kind of that, you know, it’s funny people who maybe haven’t done that before, you know, have a lot of questions about like, how does that work? So I’m curious for you. I mean, for us, it’s been great. We have a great personal relationship. don’t take that. I mean, we do take it into business because I trust her at a level that I don’t think I would ever trust anyone else in business.

and things of that nature, you know, doesn’t, some of the drama that people are used to, just, we’ve never experienced it as that. I get the sense that you’re probably in that same boat.

Laura Ries (01:48.6)

Yeah, no, you do have that long-term trust and you’re in it for the long haul for your family, you hope. And so that longevity and history and all that you bring into it. But yeah, you do have to love what you do. I think that’s the most important thing. I love positioning. wasn’t that I just, my dad was cool, right? But I also really enjoyed, I loved learning from him. And then of course, I enjoyed to teach him a few tricks as well too.

John Jantsch (02:03.853)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (02:09.23)

you

John Jantsch (02:15.874)

Yeah, of course you wouldn’t stick around if I wouldn’t think if you loved it. It’s a grind. be. So you got to have some passion for it. So let’s jump right into the book. One of my first questions, I think I know, well, I know the answer to this, but I want you to clarify. How would you differentiate between a strategic enemy and say a competitor?

Laura Ries (02:39.652)

companies have lots of competitors. Right? So that’s the reality. But a strategic enemy is strategic in terms of it’s very important in your strategy. It’s always important to understand the enemy. But like I said, there’s many, but you want to pick that one. And the most important thing is you want to show what the contrast is. And so that is, for example, you have Liquid Death, right? One of the hottest new water brands. They pick not other water brands, but

John Jantsch (02:41.506)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (03:04.663)

Right.

Laura Ries (03:08.634)

Plastic water bottles as the enemy death to plastics is their slogan So they said no to something they didn’t offer it in plastic and they very pointedly said that you know We are killing the earth with plastic aluminum is much more infinitely recyclable and sadly We don’t even recycle much plastic anymore even though they can be so very important message and of course they have

brilliant snazzy marketing along with it, but it is backed by something very specific, very tangible, and very much a difference from the enemy that they have set up. Another is, for example, Uber. The original name was ubercab.com, if you remember back in the day.

John Jantsch (03:45.449)

funny. No, I actually don’t know that I knew that one.

Laura Ries (03:49.262)

Yeah, no, I didn’t either, but you know, I do my research on these books. if you have a name like Uber cab, how can taxis be the enemy? The strongest thing to rally consumers for your cause is not so much to say, you know, come with us, we’re great, but let’s fight somebody else. Let’s fight those taxi cabs out there and we have a better way. Our way is that new category, which is always the best way to build a brand. And that was, you know, Uber with the ride sharing.

John Jantsch (03:51.502)

Right.

John Jantsch (04:07.661)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (04:18.124)

You know, it’s really interesting because I’m sure most people’s minds go to the enemy being like, you know, the, people that beat you out, you know, for, whatever, you know, work that you get. And as I listened to you to this, it’s probably in some ways the enemy can just be a problem that your ideal client is facing. Right.

Laura Ries (04:36.314)

Absolutely. like I say, it’s not evil corp is the enemy, right? That it’s a really big bad guy or thing or something out there. It is, yeah, two things, either a problem that you’re going to solve or just the alternative. There’s not just one way to do something. mean, think about mouthwash. Listerine, it’s medicine breath is what Scope said because they were selling good tasting mouthwash. But, know, Listerine, the fact that taste you hate twice a day, I mean, that

John Jantsch (04:40.526)

Right.

Laura Ries (05:04.505)

Talk to the efficacy. mean, it was very strong. That’s what was killing all the germs. So there’s two sides of every coin. And that’s the important part of strategy and of thinking about positioning in a way that it’s not just what we are, but what is the contrasting alternative that puts us in a better light? And there’s always multiple ways to look at things. I mean, some people like regular cow’s milk. It’s delicious. But then you have Oatly coming in with, wow, no cow, and selling, you know, this is milk for humans, you know, made from oats.

John Jantsch (05:34.904)

So it’s, it’s all, well, I shouldn’t say it almost. is, I mean, you’re a really key point of this book is you’re saying that brands need to actually maybe go looking for this enemy, find it, right? I mean, not necessarily make it up, but like without it, you even go as far as what was your statement or your brands without enemies or brands without energy that, that, that we actually need to go find this thing, right?

Laura Ries (05:49.818)

That’s right.

Laura Ries (05:57.518)

without meaning and here’s the biggest problem is most companies aren’t focused enough to have an enemy. They do too many things in too many markets and try to appeal to too many people. When you do that, you don’t have a focus and without a focus, you don’t have an enemy. So sometimes the first thing is looking at yourself and saying, what can we say no to? If you say no to something that tends to put you in a direction where you can find an enemy. What did Southwest do? They said no to first class being the coach class only.

John Jantsch (06:16.92)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (06:26.99)

that was, you know, they had more affordable seating. They also made the whole, you know, theme of the airline being about fun and games and they, you know, the stewardesses and airline attendants would make jokes and crack jokes. But, you know, you can’t crack jokes if you got a first class and a curtain and then us back in the coach, right? So that focus can very much help you define what your identity is and position against what that, you know, enemy you have put out there. And, companies too often get in trouble because

John Jantsch (06:45.006)

You

Laura Ries (06:56.332)

What is Southwest doing today? They’re adding first class and premium seating. All of that is going to undermine the bags don’t fly. And here’s the thing, seat assignments, I’m all for. That’s going to get rid of the chaos. But bags not flying free, that was something that they could anchor their brand on and say, everybody else is charging for bags, but here bags fly free. And listen.

John Jantsch (06:58.647)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (07:02.254)

Charging for bags.

Laura Ries (07:21.71)

That has an operational efficiency too, because if the bags fly free, people will check them. And then you could board the plane. Otherwise, everyone’s carrying all their bags on with them and that slows down everything. So it is very sad when companies lose their focus and we’re trying to fight that fight to help them stay focused.

John Jantsch (07:26.606)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (07:40.952)

So sounds like I hear you saying that really the first step too is that as you said, you’ve got to know who you are first before you can go out there and find the enemy maybe. But in a lot of ways, it probably starts with narrowing your focus, right? Here’s who we’re for. So here’s who we’re not for. It’s probably step one, isn’t it?

Laura Ries (07:55.801)

Absolutely.

That’s right. Yeah, it’s a balance between knowing who you are, what you can say no to. But at the end of the day, focus has always been the key critical element of positioning itself. And the enemy is line extension, going in too many directions, diluting what your brand is. And when companies do focus, then they can make use of that strategic enemy. And it’s creating the contrast of the peak

people can better understand because listen, people don’t have time. We’ve got to make these communications very simple, very clear so that people understand and also understand the choice. For example, you’ve got edible arrangements, which now goes by edible, which I don’t always shorten your name because edible today has a very different connotation. That’s not what they’re selling. There you go. That’s not what they’re selling.

John Jantsch (08:48.11)

I live in Colorado and it’s, you know, it’s…

Laura Ries (08:53.418)

They are selling edible fruit arrangements, which has a fantastic strategic enemy. Why buy flowers that will die, right? When you can send a delicious edible bouquet. But edible arrangements as a name is very, very strong. But again, it’s the category that really matters because people care more about the category than they do about brands. I hate to tell you.

But while they speak in brands, we think, people love a Tesla. No, they don’t love the Tesla brand. It’s the category that they dominate, which is EV electric vehicles, the category that is booming right now. And people still buy them despite what they think of Elon Musk and all of his shenanigans. But very strong brand that did absolutely do many of the things we preach about, being first in pioneering a category and only focusing on EVs, which here’s the problem.

Originally, this was a tiny market. The major automobile makers, they thought it was niche and they ignored it for many, many years. And that allowed Tesla to get in, not so much build the market initially, but build the mind of the consumer that Tesla was the car that stood for it. So, you can take advantage of the big companies are slow on these things. Another one was Red Bull. Coca-Cola ignored Red Bull for years until after 10 years, it was a hundred million dollars and they woke up and said, oops,

But when they competed late, you know, it was too late to the game. Full throttle, tab energy, all of the others they try to launch were big losers. The brand that pioneers it, particularly when they do it with a good name, a good strategy, and a strong message, you know, it gives you wings if you didn’t know.

John Jantsch (10:21.816)

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

John Jantsch (10:32.878)

A lot of those big companies just go out and buy the competition that’s nipping at their heels.

Laura Ries (10:38.874)

Well, that’s not a bad idea. if you’ve got the money, I mean, today, what has Coca-Cola done? They can’t launch their, they even tried Coca-Cola energy, if you could believe that. But they have made, you know, they put a stake into Monster, which is the only brand that has successfully competed against Red Bull. And today, it’s a very strong leader globally in the energy drink market. How did they do it? They didn’t copy Red Bull. They didn’t try to be better. They came at a 16 ounce can. Now, is that better? Who knows? It’s different.

John Jantsch (10:46.54)

Ha ha.

John Jantsch (11:04.28)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (11:06.81)

And it’s visually different and not only that they combined it with a great name a simple visual hammer the green claw They’ve got you know monster motocross and truck events and all sorts of things They’ve they’ve utilized that strategy to unify their anchor as to what they stand for against their competitor Red Bull But how do you compete with that? Well, the big number three today is Celsius They’re hot in the energy drink market by not going the masculine male approach as you know what?

mostly Red Bull and Monster have done, but it’s a more unisex, fitness friendly, no sugar, and they’ve taken on a very good chunk of the market by going and being different.

John Jantsch (11:49.166)

So we’re talking about big brands essentially right now, but you’ve developed a framework that is really quarter the book. Do you want to kind of walk us through some of the steps? And like, have you walked into a company and let’s put the big brands aside? You walked into a company that is kind of trying to make their way now and trying to, know, what are kind of some of the steps you would take somebody through? And again, obviously I didn’t give you a type of company or anything, but typically.

Laura Ries (12:14.186)

No, well, I mean, you’ve got tons of examples and listen, I love working with entrepreneurs. I mean, that is actually the most exciting. They have such creative new ideas and potential. And not only that, most importantly, they have the courage and the balls to really do something different, something that the big companies usually don’t have. For example, in the moist toilet paper market, the early pioneers were, know, cottonel fresh wipes, which never really went anywhere because it had a, you

It was cottonel, Kleenex, fresh wipes, something or other. They were trying to position a dual, you need two things, you need wet and dry, which never really resonated until one guy was living in a post-college apartment with a bunch of dudes eating, as he says, lots of burritos, drinking late nights, and they needed some heavy duty cleaning up in the bathroom. So on his weekly trip to Costco, he picked up the usual, baby wipes and a bunch of other stuff that the guys like to use, and he said, wait a minute,

John Jantsch (12:51.982)

Yeah. Yeah.

Laura Ries (13:12.974)

Why isn’t there a company that makes a product I want to use that’s meant for me and my guy friends and cleans up like a baby wipe does, but is also flushable and environmentally friendly? And he did that. He just pioneered that category. It’s called Dude Wipes. It has over $350 million a year, but it was just a guy with an idea. But first and foremost, he saw a problem, right? It didn’t create the category, but he said everyone is not doing it in the right way. They’re not focused and they’re not strongly

John Jantsch (13:36.034)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Laura Ries (13:42.97)

calling out an enemy. I Cottonelle can’t say, you know, dry toilet paper sucks, but Dude Wipes can. Dude Wipes says, you’re wasting your time with that. You’re just smearing it around. I mean, they say all sorts of crazy things, but a very powerful message by narrowing the focus, by taking on the enemy. And, you know, going in with entrepreneurs, it is so exciting because you can really take on the big guys.

John Jantsch (13:50.03)

Right, right. Yeah

John Jantsch (14:08.835)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (14:09.058)

You don’t have to be a big guy because you leverage where they’re weak and in every strength there is always some kind of weakness. Even in Amazon, if you can believe it, a bunch of entrepreneurs launched Shopify and they said, you know, Amazon is not really serving the merchants, right? They’re all about the customer and they do such a great job on that. But they’re kind of given the short shaft to the merchant. So, know, Shopify is the merchant hero. They’re setting it up so merchants can have their own stores.

John Jantsch (14:26.7)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right.

Laura Ries (14:37.976)

making it totally seamless, easy to do, giving them all the tools, support they need, and they’ve been a very strong competitor to helping companies sell their goods on the internet.

John Jantsch (14:48.616)

And of course their connected network has now made them even more powerful.

Laura Ries (14:52.186)

It took time, literally it was just a bunch of guys who tried to sell their own website and said, instead of, was it surfing stuff? I can’t remember. But instead of selling this, mean, they gave that up quick and said, we’re just gonna sell the software, the backbone of this. And they added incrementally all the other things and bells and whistles that went along with it. But it’s that key one idea.

John Jantsch (14:56.77)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (15:07.308)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Laura Ries (15:16.762)

Airbnb was the same way. mean, it was, you know, a bunch of guys living in San Francisco that said, wait a minute, you know, it hot periods of conferences, it’s impossible and very costly to get a hotel. Why don’t we put some air mattresses in our living room? We’re going to call it air bread and breakfast and rent out the room. And, you know, today they are they are taking on hotels in a big way.

John Jantsch (15:35.15)

funny.

John Jantsch (15:40.686)

Oh yeah. Oh, a hundred percent. Yeah. In fact, you’re seeing some hotels actually now try to get into that business a little bit, you know, to, instead of just having their rooms, you know, actually buying houses and things to, get into that business. Yeah. Yeah.

Laura Ries (15:53.302)

Is that the right idea? Because listen, I’ve stayed in an Airbnb, I’ve stayed in a hotel, there’s advantages to hotels. I kind of like the fresh towels and the very clean sheets and the service that goes along with it. I mean, there’s no one way to do something. Instead of thinking about how can we copy Airbnb, how can we make hotels a better deal? And celebrate what is a very nice experience in a hotel.

John Jantsch (16:09.581)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (16:13.102)

Sure.

Yeah, yeah,

Laura Ries (16:22.66)

Here’s the other thing. The best thing you can do as a big company or when you get to that size, if you’re an entrepreneur listening, is multiple brands. Give birth to your own enemy is a better strategy. Not trying to put one brand on many things, instead having multiple brands. And you see even great examples. So Mike’s Hard Lemonade was a big, big success at the turn of the century.

John Jantsch (16:44.386)

Yep.

Laura Ries (16:46.87)

As kids were turning away, young drinking adults were turning away from beer and other things. They enjoyed the Mike’s Hard Lemonade. But as a few years went by, we realized it had just as much sugar as a Coke almost and a ton of calories and we all were cutting carbs. So what did they do? Instead of line extending Mike’s into, well, they also did that honestly, into Mike’s Light Lemonade, they launched White Claw.

John Jantsch (17:00.194)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (17:15.994)

the first hard seltzer and this is the typhoon of seltzers of billions of dollars. And listen, it doesn’t even taste very good, but it is a new category. And as a hard seltzer, that again, naming the category is incredibly important. Zima, mean, you’re as old as I am, you know it, remember Zima, they didn’t know what it was. What was it?

John Jantsch (17:16.035)

Mm.

John Jantsch (17:26.626)

Yeah.

John Jantsch (17:35.884)

Yeah? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I do.

Laura Ries (17:41.562)

I mean, it was similar to, you know, again, what White Claw is selling, but, they didn’t quite name the category and explain to us what it is. And when we don’t know what something is, doesn’t always taste very good. And that was one of the experiences of the Zemas.

John Jantsch (17:44.77)

Yeah, yeah.

John Jantsch (17:57.72)

Yeah, that seltzer category is probably booming like beer, my craft beer was at one point.

Laura Ries (18:04.428)

Absolutely. And not only that, there’s a huge, there’s always opportunity out there, which is what makes marketing and business and entrepreneur so exciting. You think, like, I never thought there could be another water brand. I mean, how many hundreds of water brands? And then came Liquid Death. And you thought like beer, how many beer brands? But have you heard of this athletic brewing?

This is the hottest new thing. It’s beer without alcohol. What fun is that? But anyway, there’s a big trend into drinking less. And do you really want to drink a Heineken Zero or a Bud Zero? I mean, come on. But this new brand owns the category and celebrates it and says, you know, live an athletic lifestyle.

John Jantsch (18:39.918)

You

Laura Ries (18:47.466)

no hangovers. And one of the things they did as an important part of the strategy is they knew they needed credibility, that this was something that was not just non-alcoholic. mean, there was O’Doul’s and kind of other brands out there, but it was a good tasting quality beer. And so they aggressively entered it into competitions. And that drove a lot of the PR. In fact, one of the competitions, they beat beer with alcohol. And they have just a great way of talking about it.

John Jantsch (18:59.159)

Mm-hmm, right.

John Jantsch (19:05.998)

Mmm.

John Jantsch (19:11.426)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (19:16.442)

pointing out that enemy which is, know, why bother with the alcohol? Why not live for a better tomorrow?

John Jantsch (19:21.91)

Well, it’s interesting because they created a subcategory, non-alcoholic beer that tastes good, because I think the category was there’s non-alcoholic beer, right? That was the category. So if they got lumped into that category, they probably weren’t going to go anywhere. They’re not going to fight. didn’t has their brush, probably. So I think they kind of…

Laura Ries (19:29.338)

That’s right. Yeah.

Laura Ries (19:37.562)

No. Yeah, not being a line extension and not trying to look like a beer. The other thing they did that was very brilliant and visuals matter, visuals are incredibly important. Athletic only comes in cans. All of the other brands, of course they offer it, but they promote the glass because they feel it looks premium and it does.

But athletic, I mean, what’s their position? mean, athletic lifestyles, you can’t bring gas, a glass bottle on a camping trip or a boat. need the can. And the can in bright pastel colors was a distinctive difference that also communicated how different they were than all the other products.

John Jantsch (20:05.752)

Right, right, yeah.

John Jantsch (20:16.012)

Yeah. So I want to end with a, know, because I think a lot of people listening right now are getting very fired up about their who, how they’re going to go out there and create their enemy. What’s the risk of creating you call foe enemies? I mean, just kind of like making them up.

Laura Ries (20:23.322)

I hope so.

Laura Ries (20:31.802)

you can’t make them up. Of course they do. course they… No, the rivalry has to be real. But it doesn’t have to be something, for example, I’ve got a phone case, it’s called Flaunt. What’s their big difference? It’s a square case.

John Jantsch (20:33.166)

But certainly people try, right? I mean, it’s like, it’s like, here’s our rivalry, but it’s like, they really? Yeah, yeah.

Laura Ries (20:53.562)

And that’s an instantly visible difference, but they promote that as you know, they’re they’re positioning their difference, you know, what makes them great and I love a square case. It looks cool. It’s fun. I stick my iPhone in there. But yeah, that absolutely it has to be not just you know, claiming a boogeyman out there as the enemy but something that that is real. That’s a tangible problem a tangible enemy and there’s always more than ways

John Jantsch (20:53.964)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (21:18.358)

more than one way to do something. mean, sometimes you want the very best, right? A high price can be a benefit, but sometimes, you know, also the ease of and the shopping experience, for example, going to Costco. People love Costco. Even the Kirkland brand is rising, right? Because people are saying they’re making a statement and the companies focus on producing very high quality and also, you know, the ease of not over, you know, there’s only 4,000 items. It really makes it much easier to choose when there’s

John Jantsch (21:33.88)

Yeah.

Laura Ries (21:46.82)

fewer things to choose from.

John Jantsch (21:48.046)

That’s funny because, course, not every brand, not every everybody’s going to like every brand. I don’t like Costco. I think it’s a terrible shopping experience. I go in there and I can’t find anything.

Laura Ries (21:54.901)

See you.

Laura Ries (21:58.97)

Well, you know they do that on purpose because they want you to wander the aisles and see I love the discovery of it But that’s the point there is no one and here’s the problem Most companies like Kmart, right? They’re trying to appeal to everyone They want people that you know want the the bulk kind of Costco They want people that want the simple shopping or they try to be everything It’s much better to take a very narrow stance and not worry if it doesn’t appeal to everybody

John Jantsch (22:05.068)

Yeah. Yeah.

John Jantsch (22:27.062)

I did love a good blue light special though. You got to admit that was amazing.

Laura Ries (22:29.018)

It was a visual idea. See, if you can give your strategy some way to visualize it, it makes it much more powerful. mean, think about duct tape. I mean, what a great way to communicate something that’s instantly understand in the mind. We know what we do with duct tape. We know how great duct tape is. It can fix anything. what a, know, using metaphors like that are a great way to do branding.

John Jantsch (22:41.112)

Right?

John Jantsch (22:47.288)

Yep. Yeah.

John Jantsch (22:55.382)

Awesome. Well, Laura, I appreciate you taking a few moments to drop by the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. Where would you invite people to connect with you and find out more, certainly about strategic enemy, but also your courses and the things that you do around it?

Laura Ries (23:01.274)

Absolutely. Well, of course you can visit us online at reese.com and that’s r i e s dot com. We’ve got strategicenemy.com and I’ve just launched a sub stack. Yay. Exciting newsletters. I’ve got even the Reese hotline where companies are calling in. Well, it’s fake. Don’t tell anybody, but I pretend like companies are coming in and I give them really great advice. So check out those videos, check out my book and let’s do positioning together and nail those strategic enemies.

John Jantsch (23:23.118)

You

John Jantsch (23:34.211)

Well, again, appreciate you stopping by and hopefully we’ll run into you on these days soon out there on the road.

Laura Ries (23:38.852)

Absolutely.

Scroll back to top

powered by

Wednesday Season 2 Part 1 Review: No Sophomore Slump in Sight

Published August 6, 2025 | By

This Wednesday season 2 part 1 review contains no spoilers. The few series still hanging around the world of teen TV often squeeze themselves to death with overly complex plot lines without enough time to wrap them up neatly. Meanwhile, Wednesday is a straightforward comfort. Many shows with a mystery at the center struggle with […]

The post Wednesday Season 2 Part 1 Review: No Sophomore Slump in Sight appeared first on Den of Geek.

Anyone who has seen at least one SNL Digital Short has a favorite SNL Digital Short.

That’s the brilliance of the short-form video format pioneered for Saturday Night Live by The Lonely Island (Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer) in the mid aughts. Each and every brief clip is creatively crafted yet utterly bizarre, perfect for appealing to all sorts of comedic sensibilities … provided those comedic sensibilities appreciate a good dick joke.

cnx.cmd.push(function() {
cnx({
playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

}).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
});

Some folks’ favorite digital short is the nautical banger “I’m On a Boat.” For others, early phenomenon “Lazy Sunday” takes the crown. When then-SNL head writer Seth Meyers put together a March Madness-style tournament of the shorts, The Lonely Island’s peers selected “Motherlover” as the best of all time. While this online debate about the best SNL Digital Short is fun (and takes up space on the internet that would otherwise go to something unsavory) it also leaves out some pretty important voices: The Lonely Island themselves.

Thankfully Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer have recently begun delving into their digital works alongside Meyers on the aptly-named “The Lonely Island and Seth Meyers Podcast.” Every week, the four friends make their way through the SNL Digital Short canon in chronological order to discuss the creation of the work and their thoughts all these years later. As the podcast goes along (and the quad creates an increasingly complex database of memetic references involving actor Jack Quaid’s eating habits and the 2008 action film Righteous Kill), it feels as though it’s all building to the ultimate reveal of which short is The Lonely Island’s true favorite.

We couldn’t wait that long. That’s why, when Samberg and writer Neil Campbell stopped by Den of Geek Studio at San Diego Comic-Con 2025 to discuss the second season of their Comedy Central series Digman!, we requested that Samberg just go ahead tell us his favorite digital shorts. He kindly obliged, offering up unquestioned all-time classic, another modest hit, and one short that is truly off the beaten path of internet discourse.

“I have a bunch of them that I’m very fond of,” Samberg said. “I really like ‘Jack Sparrow.’ I feel like that one kind of encapsulates everything that we do and is still appreciated by true comedy heads. I really like the one we do called ‘Great Day’ where I’m on Commerce Street just gacked out of my mind. There’s one I did from my last season with Jake Szymanski and Jonah Hill called ‘Tennis Balls.’ That’s one that makes me laugh so hard. It was Jonah’s idea cuz there was actually a science video online of a guy who’s like ‘This is what happens when you get hit in the nuts with a tennis ball.’ We took it and ran very far with it.”

Surely, “Jack Sparrow” and “Great Day” are natural considerations for any list of the best SNL Digital Shorts. The former should always have a place in anyone’s top 10 and the latter is an underappreciated gem. “Tennis Balls,” on the other hand, is a real wild card choice from Samberg. This one hasn’t really cracked the cultural zeitgeist like other digital shorts. But based on a rewatch of the clip in question, perhaps it should!

The Jonah Hill and Samberg-starring clip is a touch longer than the average SNL Digital Short, approaching four minutes. But the extra time here is more than well spent as tennis ball after tennis ball is fired into Hill’s gonads as the camera examines the testicular trauma from countless angles. The short also makes time for a visit from some ghost hunters and then both kills and resurrects Hill via direct strikes to the nuts. Simply put: it’s a damn good time.

The best part of it, however, might just be its fidelity to the original clip in question. As Samberg mentioned, “Tennis Balls” was inspired by an episode of the FSN/ESPN series Sports Science (hosted by the wonderful John Brenkus who unfortunately died earlier this year). If you thought that Hill’s character’s striking goatee, lengthy cargo shorts, and dorky sandals were a creative flourish, get a load of this specimen:

Whether the goal is scientific study or comedic amusement, there is clearly no uniform more fitting for getting blasted in the balls.

Digman! season 2 premieres new episodes Wednesdays at 10:30 p.m. ET on Comedy Central.

The post Andy Samberg Has a Surprising Candidate For Favorite SNL Digital Short appeared first on Den of Geek.

Weapons Review: The Most Twisted Studio Movie of the Year

Published August 6, 2025 | By

Zach Cregger’s Weapons does not always feel like a horror movie, and for large stretches it isn’t one. The enigmatic genre piece begins and ends with a mystery: Why would 17 elementary schoolers, all from the same class, wake up  in their disparate childhood bedrooms at 2:17 in the morning and then vanish into the […]

The post Weapons Review: The Most Twisted Studio Movie of the Year appeared first on Den of Geek.

Anyone who has seen at least one SNL Digital Short has a favorite SNL Digital Short.

That’s the brilliance of the short-form video format pioneered for Saturday Night Live by The Lonely Island (Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer) in the mid aughts. Each and every brief clip is creatively crafted yet utterly bizarre, perfect for appealing to all sorts of comedic sensibilities … provided those comedic sensibilities appreciate a good dick joke.

cnx.cmd.push(function() {
cnx({
playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

}).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
});

Some folks’ favorite digital short is the nautical banger “I’m On a Boat.” For others, early phenomenon “Lazy Sunday” takes the crown. When then-SNL head writer Seth Meyers put together a March Madness-style tournament of the shorts, The Lonely Island’s peers selected “Motherlover” as the best of all time. While this online debate about the best SNL Digital Short is fun (and takes up space on the internet that would otherwise go to something unsavory) it also leaves out some pretty important voices: The Lonely Island themselves.

Thankfully Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer have recently begun delving into their digital works alongside Meyers on the aptly-named “The Lonely Island and Seth Meyers Podcast.” Every week, the four friends make their way through the SNL Digital Short canon in chronological order to discuss the creation of the work and their thoughts all these years later. As the podcast goes along (and the quad creates an increasingly complex database of memetic references involving actor Jack Quaid’s eating habits and the 2008 action film Righteous Kill), it feels as though it’s all building to the ultimate reveal of which short is The Lonely Island’s true favorite.

We couldn’t wait that long. That’s why, when Samberg and writer Neil Campbell stopped by Den of Geek Studio at San Diego Comic-Con 2025 to discuss the second season of their Comedy Central series Digman!, we requested that Samberg just go ahead tell us his favorite digital shorts. He kindly obliged, offering up unquestioned all-time classic, another modest hit, and one short that is truly off the beaten path of internet discourse.

“I have a bunch of them that I’m very fond of,” Samberg said. “I really like ‘Jack Sparrow.’ I feel like that one kind of encapsulates everything that we do and is still appreciated by true comedy heads. I really like the one we do called ‘Great Day’ where I’m on Commerce Street just gacked out of my mind. There’s one I did from my last season with Jake Szymanski and Jonah Hill called ‘Tennis Balls.’ That’s one that makes me laugh so hard. It was Jonah’s idea cuz there was actually a science video online of a guy who’s like ‘This is what happens when you get hit in the nuts with a tennis ball.’ We took it and ran very far with it.”

Surely, “Jack Sparrow” and “Great Day” are natural considerations for any list of the best SNL Digital Shorts. The former should always have a place in anyone’s top 10 and the latter is an underappreciated gem. “Tennis Balls,” on the other hand, is a real wild card choice from Samberg. This one hasn’t really cracked the cultural zeitgeist like other digital shorts. But based on a rewatch of the clip in question, perhaps it should!

The Jonah Hill and Samberg-starring clip is a touch longer than the average SNL Digital Short, approaching four minutes. But the extra time here is more than well spent as tennis ball after tennis ball is fired into Hill’s gonads as the camera examines the testicular trauma from countless angles. The short also makes time for a visit from some ghost hunters and then both kills and resurrects Hill via direct strikes to the nuts. Simply put: it’s a damn good time.

The best part of it, however, might just be its fidelity to the original clip in question. As Samberg mentioned, “Tennis Balls” was inspired by an episode of the FSN/ESPN series Sports Science (hosted by the wonderful John Brenkus who unfortunately died earlier this year). If you thought that Hill’s character’s striking goatee, lengthy cargo shorts, and dorky sandals were a creative flourish, get a load of this specimen:

Whether the goal is scientific study or comedic amusement, there is clearly no uniform more fitting for getting blasted in the balls.

Digman! season 2 premieres new episodes Wednesdays at 10:30 p.m. ET on Comedy Central.

The post Andy Samberg Has a Surprising Candidate For Favorite SNL Digital Short appeared first on Den of Geek.

Andy Samberg Has a Surprising Candidate For Favorite SNL Digital Short

Published August 6, 2025 | By

Anyone who has seen at least one SNL Digital Short has a favorite SNL Digital Short. That’s the brilliance of the short-form video format pioneered for Saturday Night Live by The Lonely Island (Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer) in the mid aughts. Each and every brief clip is creatively crafted yet utterly bizarre, […]

The post Andy Samberg Has a Surprising Candidate For Favorite SNL Digital Short appeared first on Den of Geek.

Anyone who has seen at least one SNL Digital Short has a favorite SNL Digital Short.

That’s the brilliance of the short-form video format pioneered for Saturday Night Live by The Lonely Island (Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer) in the mid aughts. Each and every brief clip is creatively crafted yet utterly bizarre, perfect for appealing to all sorts of comedic sensibilities … provided those comedic sensibilities appreciate a good dick joke.

cnx.cmd.push(function() {
cnx({
playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

}).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
});

Some folks’ favorite digital short is the nautical banger “I’m On a Boat.” For others, early phenomenon “Lazy Sunday” takes the crown. When then-SNL head writer Seth Meyers put together a March Madness-style tournament of the shorts, The Lonely Island’s peers selected “Motherlover” as the best of all time. While this online debate about the best SNL Digital Short is fun (and takes up space on the internet that would otherwise go to something unsavory) it also leaves out some pretty important voices: The Lonely Island themselves.

Thankfully Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer have recently begun delving into their digital works alongside Meyers on the aptly-named “The Lonely Island and Seth Meyers Podcast.” Every week, the four friends make their way through the SNL Digital Short canon in chronological order to discuss the creation of the work and their thoughts all these years later. As the podcast goes along (and the quad creates an increasingly complex database of memetic references involving actor Jack Quaid’s eating habits and the 2008 action film Righteous Kill), it feels as though it’s all building to the ultimate reveal of which short is The Lonely Island’s true favorite.

We couldn’t wait that long. That’s why, when Samberg and writer Neil Campbell stopped by Den of Geek Studio at San Diego Comic-Con 2025 to discuss the second season of their Comedy Central series Digman!, we requested that Samberg just go ahead tell us his favorite digital shorts. He kindly obliged, offering up unquestioned all-time classic, another modest hit, and one short that is truly off the beaten path of internet discourse.

“I have a bunch of them that I’m very fond of,” Samberg said. “I really like ‘Jack Sparrow.’ I feel like that one kind of encapsulates everything that we do and is still appreciated by true comedy heads. I really like the one we do called ‘Great Day’ where I’m on Commerce Street just gacked out of my mind. There’s one I did from my last season with Jake Szymanski and Jonah Hill called ‘Tennis Balls.’ That’s one that makes me laugh so hard. It was Jonah’s idea cuz there was actually a science video online of a guy who’s like ‘This is what happens when you get hit in the nuts with a tennis ball.’ We took it and ran very far with it.”

Surely, “Jack Sparrow” and “Great Day” are natural considerations for any list of the best SNL Digital Shorts. The former should always have a place in anyone’s top 10 and the latter is an underappreciated gem. “Tennis Balls,” on the other hand, is a real wild card choice from Samberg. This one hasn’t really cracked the cultural zeitgeist like other digital shorts. But based on a rewatch of the clip in question, perhaps it should!

The Jonah Hill and Samberg-starring clip is a touch longer than the average SNL Digital Short, approaching four minutes. But the extra time here is more than well spent as tennis ball after tennis ball is fired into Hill’s gonads as the camera examines the testicular trauma from countless angles. The short also makes time for a visit from some ghost hunters and then both kills and resurrects Hill via direct strikes to the nuts. Simply put: it’s a damn good time.

The best part of it, however, might just be its fidelity to the original clip in question. As Samberg mentioned, “Tennis Balls” was inspired by an episode of the FSN/ESPN series Sports Science (hosted by the wonderful John Brenkus who unfortunately died earlier this year). If you thought that Hill’s character’s striking goatee, lengthy cargo shorts, and dorky sandals were a creative flourish, get a load of this specimen:

Whether the goal is scientific study or comedic amusement, there is clearly no uniform more fitting for getting blasted in the balls.

Digman! season 2 premieres new episodes Wednesdays at 10:30 p.m. ET on Comedy Central.

The post Andy Samberg Has a Surprising Candidate For Favorite SNL Digital Short appeared first on Den of Geek.

Le Labo: Bottling the Soul of Cities, with a Sustainable Touch

Published August 6, 2025 | By

Le Labo is redefining luxury fragrance with a sustainable twist—using natural ingredients, refillable packaging, and a slow, artisanal approach to perfumery. This article explores the brand’s eco-conscious values and its coveted City Exclusive collection, now available globally for a limited time.

The post Le Labo: Bottling the Soul of Cities, with a Sustainable Touch appeared first on Green Prophet.

Germany wind power, offshore wind Germany, German energy transition, wind turbine supply chain, permanent magnets wind turbines, rare earths Germany, China wind supply, German renewable energy, clean tech Europe, wind energy Europe, Net-Zero Industry Act, EU wind manufacturing, German wind targets, Habeck wind policy, resilient energy infrastructure, wind power news 2025, EU clean tech investment, Germany energy security, European wind turbine strategy, wind energy diversification

German offshore wind

Germany has announced a landmark strategy to break its near-total dependence on Chinese-made components for offshore wind turbines, particularly the permanent magnets essential to the industry. This move, unveiled by the Economy Ministry, forms part of a broader plan to build a more resilient and geopolitically secure renewable energy infrastructure. The Resilience Roadmap aims for 30 percent of permanent magnet supply to come from alternative sources by 2030, increasing to 50 percent by 2035. China currently supplies about 90 percent of these components globally, mostly through its dominance in the rare earth metals market.

Related: China and Russia building a nuclear power plant and base on the moon

To meet its ambitious climate and energy goals, Germany is targeting an offshore wind capacity of 30 gigawatts by 2030—triple its current levels. Offshore wind already contributes around 5 percent of Germany’s electricity supply, and the government hopes renewables will account for 80 percent of national electricity production by the end of the decade. The shift away from China is not merely about energy diversification; it represents a strategic reshoring of the energy transition and a rejection of supply chains vulnerable to geopolitical risk.

This German announcement fits into a broader European trend. Across the continent, governments are accelerating investment in clean technology, aiming to secure domestic manufacturing capacity and reduce exposure to international bottlenecks. The global cleantech market, valued at approximately $916 billion in 2024, is projected to double to $1.84 trillion by 2030, with an annual growth rate of nearly 13 percent. In the European Union alone, clean energy investments are expected to reach nearly $390 billion in 2025.

Related: Chinese submarine finds rare life in deepest ocean trench

Venture capital trends in the EU’s cleantech sector reflect the momentum. After a slow start to the year, venture funding rebounded in the second quarter of 2025, reaching €2.5 billion—the strongest quarterly performance since early 2024. The average deal size has also grown, reflecting increasing investor confidence in scale-up technologies and manufacturing. While early-stage funding remains cautious, the appetite for industrial decarbonization and infrastructure-linked technologies is clearly rising.

Policymakers are backing this momentum with sweeping industrial legislation. Under the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act, passed in June 2024, the bloc aims to produce at least 40 percent of its annual net-zero technology needs domestically by 2030. The act also sets a target for Europe to produce 15 percent of the world’s clean-tech equipment by 2040. However, this ambition comes in response to a stark reality: Europe’s share of global wind turbine manufacturing fell from 58 percent in 2017 to just 30 percent in 2022. Solar panel manufacturing remains even more concentrated outside the continent, despite EU efforts to reshore production.

In terms of deployment, Europe is making strong progress. In 2024, renewables supplied nearly half of the EU’s electricity, with wind and solar leading the charge. Solar photovoltaic capacity alone reached around 269 gigawatts by the end of 2023, and the EU is targeting 600 gigawatts by 2030. The Clean Industrial Deal, launched earlier this year, promises to push 100 gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity annually through 2030, while also funding green innovation and supporting the transition of energy-intensive industries.

Germany’s strategy to secure its wind industry against supply shocks highlights a key shift in clean-tech policy. While markets once favored the cheapest global supplier—often China—the future is likely to reward regional resilience, strategic partnerships, and closed-loop value chains. Germany is already in talks with Japan and Australia to source rare earths more sustainably and with less environmental and political risk.

As the EU mobilizes hundreds of billions of euros to decarbonize its economy, challenges remain. Permitting delays, rising material costs, and global competition for critical minerals could still slow the pace of change. Yet Germany’s move to de-risk its offshore wind supply chain is an unmistakable signal: in the energy transition, security and sustainability must go hand in hand.

The post Europe’s Clean-Tech Pivot: Germany Leads Supply Chain Shift Amid €390B Investment Surge appeared first on Green Prophet.

1 … 115 116 117 118 119 … 208


Place Important Links Here

Copyright © 2020 - All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimers And Legal Stuff Here

Powered by WordPress and Simple Affiliate WordPress Theme