How Crassus lost an empire (and his life) – and what it teaches us about brand strategy

By Dan George, Senior Director, Deputy Head of Brand, Insight and Strategy 

What does a doomed Roman general have to teach us about brand strategy? Quite a lot, actually. This post explores how Crassus’s fatal mistake mirrors modern marketing missteps – and why research, not bravado, is the real key to competitive success. Before you position, prepare. Or risk becoming a cautionary tale. 

We’re all familiar with Julius Caesar, but what do you know about Marcus Licinius Crassus, a man who was once his equal?  

Crassus was the richest man of his era and no less ambitious. In time, he’d established himself as one of the First Triumvirate, an alliance with Caesar and their mutual rival, Pompey, to dominate the Senate and rule Rome.  

Of course this was no friendly alliance and the three were soon vying for power, with Caesar’s military successes winning him widespread acclaim. Striving to keep up, Crassus launched a campaign of his own against the powerful Parthian Empire in modern-day Iran. But all was to end in failure – and Crassus’s own death on the battlefield. 

For all his ambition, Crassus neglected arguably the most important factor determining the success of any campaign: research and reconnaissance. Blindly following advisors who, unbeknown to him, were in the Parthians’ pocket rather than researching conditions himself, Crassus was totally unprepared to deal with either the opponent’s tactics or the terrain upon which the fight would take place.  

First, his force was led into the desert, far from any water. Then they were beset by fleet-footed mounted archers for which his strong but slow heavy infantry was woefully ill-equipped. The war was over in the blink of an eye.  

So, why am I writing about this on a marketing consultancy’s blog, beyond using the excuse to nerd out? Because brands make this very same mistake time and time again. 

A tale as old as time 

Crassus’s defeat teaches us a fundamental lesson that is as true now as it was thousands of years ago: if it’s not based on rigorous research, your strategy is certain to fail. 

Let’s take brand positioning and messaging for example. All too often, brands position themselves against a laundry list of generic attributes they imagine may be relevant to their sector. An oilfield services firm might claim its solutions are safe, efficient and environmentally conscious. A SaaS business may say its products are quick, cost-effective and easily integrated into existing systems.  

This approach to messaging and positioning almost never works. There are too many attributes to remember, they’re undifferentiated from the competition and often disconnected from the most important concerns motivating customers’ purchasing decisions. 

A better approach is what we call “relative positioning”, wherein we compare our brand to a competitor against an attribute where we know we’ll be proven superior and that this superiority will meaningfully impact customer preference. 

The formula basically boils down to “[Brand] is more [attribute] than [competitor]”. To take the oilfield services example from above, that could then become “Stark Industries is more carbon-efficient than Acme”. 

This is much more specific, and results in more memorable messaging that is easier to campaign on. But it requires one thing to work: rigorous research. 

How to pick your battles 

Effective relative positioning requires a brand to answer the following questions: 

• Which of our customers’ needs are most critical to their purchasing decisions? 
• Against these needs, where are we stronger than our competitors? 
• How credibly (and creatively) can we make those claims and prove our superiority? 

Get the wrong answers to these questions and you’ll fight the wrong opponent on the wrong battlefield with the wrong weapons and end up no better off than Crassus.  

Research can be scaled up or down depending on the complexities of the scenario and the needs of the market but needn’t be expensive. A lot of intel can be gleaned through a simple competitor review and by taking the time to speak to customers and employees with their boots on the ground.  

The central point is that this cannot be done by gut feeling or guesswork. Investing in research is the only way to de-risk the engagement, guaranteeing the success of a campaign and maximizing its potential return on investment.  

If Crassus had invested just a fraction of his fortune in reconnaissance, history might have remembered him among Rome’s greatest conquerors. Instead, he’s its most famous cautionary tale. If brands are willing to spend huge sums on campaigns they should heed the warning, spend a little on research and make sure they’re equipped to win.

---

Key takeaways 

Why did Crassus’s campaign fail? 

Crassus ignored research and reconnaissance, leading him into a trap where his army was unprepared for enemy tactics and terrain. 

What can brands learn from Crassus? 

That strategy without research is doomed to fail. Like Crassus, brands often pursue campaigns based on assumptions rather than insights. 

What is relative positioning in branding? 

It’s a strategic approach where a brand compares itself to competitors based on a key attribute that matters to customers and proves its superiority.