In the movie "The Matrix", an enigmatic figure by the name of Morpheus confronts protagonist and future savior of humanity Thomas Anderson (Neo) with a choice: "You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

Okay, we're talking about a Hollywood script here, but it seems that even out here in the real world (including the Marketing world), we are increasingly being comfronted with such a choice:

The first - the blue pill - is about preserving the status quo, following the proven methodology, and perpetuating a command & control Marketing model that - while effective ten years ago - is becoming a whole lot less so in a world where a) TiVo, blogs, podcasts, and pay-per-download and b) an increasing distrust of mass media and corporate communications are changing the way companies and potential customers communicate.

The second - the red pill - is about facing the fact that the landscape, the rules and the tools of the trade are changing, and that this evolution is creating real changes in the way that customers choose, interact with, and judge the companies they opt to do business with. We are talking about cultural changes here. One thing you can be certain of is that while some of today's "new" tools won't be around anymore in ten years, the public's ability to control what they can tune out - and what is actually said about certain companies and products - will continue to increase.

The reason these changes shouldn't be taken lightly or dismissed by traditional marketing professionals is that they truly are cultural. The same way that cell phones, text messaging and social network tools are technologies that are quickly changing the world of politics around the world, accessible, consumer-friendly technologies and communications tools are now being used every day by the public to a) tune out messages they don't want to hear, and b) create the types of messages they do want to hear about... and speak about.

The tools are irrelevant to this particular discussion. The shifting balance of power is not. Blue pill vs. red pill. Command & Control marketing vs. Marketing 2.0. Monlogue vs. dialogue. The notion that what worked ten years ago will still work ten years from now vs. the understanding that Marketing, like technology, culture, products, brands and markets sometimes evolve much faster than some of us would like.

Case in point: Jack Trout's latest Forbes.com article, "Leadership: A Powerful Differentiator" addresses the impact that leadership (or rather "being no.1") has on the power of a brand. In his own words:

"Leadership is the most powerful way to differentiate a brand. The reason is that it's the most direct way to establish a brand's credentials. And these credentials are the collateral you put up to guarantee performance.

"Also, when you have leadership credentials, your prospects are likely to believe almost anything you say about your brand. (Because you're the leader.) Humans tend to equate "bigness" with success, status and leadership. We give respect and admiration to those that are the biggest."

Perhaps twenty years go, but not anymore. Big Business doesn't inspire all that much trust these days. Think Enron. Think FEMA. Think big oil and big tobacco. Think about the negative press that follows large bureaucracies, shifty lobbying practices and ridiculously large golden parachutes. Big business does mean success, but too often at the cost of being equated with corporate scandals, increasingly poor service, and a steady decline in product quality. (Think back to when you were a kid, or when your parents were your age. Watches lasted a lifetime. Clothes and shoes lasted years. Cameras and pens got better with age.) Times have changed.

If you don't buy into this line of thought, realize that many of your customers (and your competitors' customers) do.

Fortunately, more and more companies have caught on and are making the sorts of changes that will secure not only their survival but their success in decades to come. These changes focus on product innovation, customer engagement, and lifestyle-driven product design, to name a few.

Although I don't entirely agree with Jack's conclusions... or definition of success, what is talking about isn't off the mark. In his own recap, he explains that:

"When you do get on top, make sure the marketplace knows it. Too many companies take their leadership for granted and never exploit it. All this does is leave the door open for the competition. If you get the chance, slam the door in your competition's face."

He's right. I've worked for two companies who were market leaders. They had the best product. They had the largest marketshare... But they never capitalized on those facts because they refused to address the issue head-on and articulate it clearly. Their lesser competitors made claims of leadership, and we watched as their market share started eating into ours.

As much as I hate tadmit it, it's true: People would rather do business with #1 than #3 or #15.

Where I don't necessarily agree with Jack is in what makes a company #1. Are we talking about size? Annual sales? Growth rate? Crash test ratings? Quality? Customer love? Ease of use? Peer-2-peer recommendations? Market leadership isn't necessarily measured in marketshare.

(Huh?)

Some companies are opting to drive or otherwise influence their markets without actually taking them over (or at least not right away). These types of companies make a choice not to grow beyond a certain size so that they can preserve their identities and continue to maintain a specific level of service and performance. I see them all around me. Restaurants. Retail outlets. Gyms. Spas. Advertising agencies. Professional Services firms. Publishers. Event production companies. Schools.

Their focus: Making customers happy to do business with them.

Their new measure of success: their freakishly high rate of WOM-driven new business.

For these types of businesses, being #1 has nothing to do with being as big as possible. It has everything to do with being the best in the business.

Quality vs. Quantity.

There are millions of businesses in the US alone. Not everyone can be as big as Microsoft, Walmart or Ford. Not everyone cane be that kind of #1. Leadership is a very subjective term.

In light of everything we just discussed, Jack's next comment seems a little... um... "blue pill":

"What makes a company strong is not the product or the service. It's the position it owns in the mind of the consumer. The strength of the Hertz brand is in its leadership position, not the quality of its rent-a-car service. It's easier to stay on top than to get there."

Hmmm... Ouch.

Actually, no. What makes Hertz the top brand today is the fact that their service has to be better than Budget, Avis and Enterprise. Otherwise, Hertz will watch its customers run to its competitors faster than you can blog about poor service.

I personally had a wonderful experience with Hertz last time I traveled to California. I was so pleasantly surprised that I dedicated a blog post to it. Hertz is #1 because it deserves to be. Because it hasn't forgotten that its products and services are at the core of what makes Hertz... well, Hertz.

Sometimes, market leadership has much more to do with how long a company has been around than how good it actually is. Think about Walmart vs. Target. Look at their respective histories and their growth rate. Now think about where you would rather shop. Think about where you would rather buy a $12 pair of pants for your seven-year-old daughter, or a $14 picture frame for your desk. Where would you rather buy your next pair of sunglasses, or your next digital camera or your next iPod or your next set of outdoor plates?

How do you really define #1? Is it really possible to define relevance by looking at who makes the most bucks at the end of every fiscal year?

Tim Pollak and Marc Babej (in their own Forbes.com column) aren't entirely in agreement with Jack's theories either. In their opinion:

"At stake is one of the fundamental questions of marketing: Is perception reality, or is reality reality? Trout believes that "What makes a company strong is not the product or service. It's the position it owns in the mind of the consumer." We beg to differ. With the partial exception of truly image-driven categories (such as fashion, perfume or liquor), which offer no tangible benefit to speak of, companies become and remain leaders by offering consumers a tangible reason to choose them over the competition. Soon after they fail to deliver, they fall from grace."

Absolutely.

If you're still on Jack's side of the fence, consider this (again, from Tim and Marc):

"Leadership can bring a measure of credibility--but only if it’s credentialed and confers a real benefit to consumers. Cingular’s larger GSM network gives it an advantage over T-Mobile--because its phones work in many places where T-Mobile’s don’t. British Airways (nyse: BAB - news - people ) enjoys an edge over competitors on the New York to London route--because it offers more flights. Target (nyse: TGT - news - people ) leads other mass merchandisers when it comes to attracting a hipper, younger clientèle--because it offers hipper, younger items.

"Microsoft Office is the leader in office software--because interoperability is a key benefit to end users of that category. When everybody you know uses Word, Excel and PowerPoint, an alternative is simply not feasible. If a competitor claimed leadership in speed, reliability and features for its word processing or presentation software, would you switch? Unlikely. Would it become the market leader? Unlikely again."

(Although I did make the switch from explorer to firefox this year, and that was pretty painless.)

"Leadership claims are not a prerequisite for success. Ask the marketers at Hertz --one of the better-known #1s. Their promise of "there's Hertz…and there's 'not exactly'" isn't a tribute to its #1 position, but a claim of superior service."

In terms of being #1 in the eyes of your customers, size only matters when it is substantiated by superior quality or service or design. Size in and of itself is no longer a guarantee of success. Quite the contrary. Once a company reaches a certain size (we're talkin megacorp here), growth becomes incremental. Change becomes difficult. Establishing and fostering a dialogue with your customers become a whole lot more difficult. Honest and insightful feedback from the field becomes nearly impossible to manage (or even encourage, for that matter).

Worst of all, when being #1 in terms of market share (or holding on to that position) becomes a company's primary goal, it stops doing the things that got it there to begin with. Its focus changes. It starts concerning itself with what its competitors are doing a whole lot more than it needs to. It starts trying to be all things to all people. It starts to justify shortcuts in design, manufacturing, quality control and customer service. The product development cycle is shortened. Sales (and to some extent aquisitions) become the center of attention, to the detriment of the company's other crucial activities. The balance between design, production, service goes right out the window. Because "We're #1" as a message will only get you so far, because every product can be #1 in something ("the #1 comedy in America", "the #1 scary movie of the year", "the #1 minivan", "the #1 recommended toothpaste", "the #1 supplier of rubber bands in Arkansas"), the relevance and power of being #1 or being the biggest fish in the pond isn't what it used to be.

The new (if you can even call it "new") relevance is this: Who makes the best product? Who provides the best service? Whose design works best for my needs? What brands and company cultures do I want to be associated with? What companies do I actually trust to deliver on their promises?

Not "who is the biggest?"

Blue pill vs. red pill.

Goliath vs. David.

Hype vs. performance.

You get the idea. Command & Control Marketing is dying. As customers role in shaping not only the message of brands but also the way products are made continues to increase, which companies do you think will we be talking about in ten years? Those whose marketing strategy consists of letting everyone know they're #1... or those who engage in a real dialogue with their customers, create fantastic products for them, provide them with the most stellar service they could ever expect, and drive changes in the markets and cultures in which they evolve?

Hmmm... I wonder.

Red pill or blue pill. Your choice.