Why do equestrian brands that talk like catalogues end up competing on price?

Three bags of feed stand side by side on the shelf of a tack shop. Each one lists protein, fibre and fat in the same small table. Each one says "premium formula". Each one shows a horse galloping across a field at sunset. The owner reads all three, compares the numbers, finds them almost identical, and takes the one that costs less, or the one her trainer mentioned last week. None of the three brands had a chance to be chosen for anything else.

The short answer is this. When a brand describes itself only through specifications, it invites comparison on specifications, and the last specification left to compare is price. Many equestrian brands are respected by the people who use them and still rarely desired. What they own, and what brands from outside the stable cannot easily borrow, is meaning built from inside the equestrian world. The move from trusted to desired starts when that knowledge becomes the brand, and the specifications become its proof.

What does it mean for a brand to talk like a catalogue?

It means leading with what the product is, not with what it means to the people who use it. The catalogue voice is easy to recognise: a technical table, a list of materials, a product shot on a white background, a price. It is honest and often necessary. The problem is when it is the only thing a brand says.

Our listening of the equestrian ecosystem shows why so many brands end up there. Manufacturers and retailers put high-quality materials, differentiation and a loyal customer base at the top of their priorities, and name high production costs and counterfeit products among their biggest pains. When costs are high and margins are under pressure, the instinct is to prove value through technical detail. It feels safe, because it is true. But it leaves the brand in the one place where it is easiest to replace.

Why do specifications stop setting a brand apart?

Because rivals can match them. Quality, technology, service and price have become the minimum expected, not reasons to choose. A brand that advertises quality is saying what every competitor also says. Tim Calkins makes a similar point about the empty words that fill so many marketing plans, such as innovation, quality and excellence, which sound strategic and give no direction at all.

Brand theory has a useful pair of terms for this, going back to Kevin Lane Keller: points of parity and points of difference. Parity is what a brand needs to be considered at all, and around horses parity is demanding, since nobody buys a saddle that does not fit or a feed the vet would not approve. Difference is what makes someone choose one brand over another once parity is met. Darren Coleman describes what happens when brands compete only on features: put them side by side and the differences dissolve into a sea of sameness. Functional benefits are the easiest to copy, and the quickest to become a price war.

Our listening adds a nuance that matters. Riders care about price, but they talk about value, not cheapness. They want equipment that is fairly priced for what it delivers, boots that are comfortable from the first ride, products whose origin they can trust. The question behind every specification is a human one: will this be good for my horse, and will I look like I know what I am doing? A catalogue answers the technical question and leaves the human one open.

What do equestrian brands have that others don't?

Meaning, earned from the inside. The horse has moved into fashion and lifestyle, and brands from outside the stable are borrowing its codes. Our listening of lifestyle and luxury brands names their main challenge plainly: their positioning has to feel genuine to people who ride. Equestrian brands start with that problem already solved. They know the routines, the language, the vets and trainers whose opinion counts, the details that separate someone who rides from someone who dresses the part.

Alice Tybout and Brian Sternthal, in their work on positioning at Kellogg, argue that a benefit has to be meaningful, authentic and different to work, and that it does not exist until it exists in the customer's mind. Equestrian brands usually have the first two. What they lack is the third in the customer's mind, because they have never put their knowledge into words people can repeat. As we argued in tradition as curation, a past only becomes an asset when someone decides what it is for. The same is true of expertise.

What does the step from trusted to desired look like?

It looks like a ladder. Brand strategists often use a simple exercise: take a specification and keep asking "which means that…" until you reach something a person actually cares about. A feed with a given protein level, which means steady energy through a long show day, which means the rider can think about the course instead of the horse's condition, which means the owner who chose it is the one who knows. The specification is still there. It has become proof of something bigger.

Some brands in the sport already climb that ladder. The saddler Bates became the FEI's official saddle and built branded content with the dressage champion Isabell Werth, so its craft is shown through the rider who trusts it. Boehringer Ingelheim, the FEI's equine health partner, made a video series, #24HoursWithMyHorse, about the daily care horses need, and in doing so turned a pharmaceutical brand into part of the routine riders recognise as their own. Neither dropped the technical side. Both put it in a story people could see themselves in.

Our Atlas, a set of profiles inferred from patterns in how the medium talks, includes a figure from animal nutrition defined by exactly this task: technical branding that needs to be humanised. It is one of the most common gaps in the category, and one of the most solvable.

Why is this more urgent now?

Because copies are getting better. A counterfeit can reproduce a logo, a colour, a silhouette and sometimes a specification sheet. It cannot reproduce the knowledge, relationships and history behind a brand. The more a brand defines itself only by what can be measured, the easier it is to imitate, and the harder it is for customers to tell the difference.

At the same time, new riders are arriving with less inside knowledge and more exposure to brands from fashion and lifestyle. They cannot judge a saddle tree or a feed analysis on their own. They rely on signals, on people they trust and on brands that explain. A brand that only speaks catalogue has nothing to say to them.

What this means for brands

The step from trusted to desired does not ask a brand to abandon its technical credibility. It asks it to change the order in which things are said. Four moves help.

Where to start

Most brands can begin with an honest inventory. What do customers already recognise as yours, and should be kept? What is dated, generic or shared with every competitor, and can be let go? What territory is still open, where your knowledge gives you the right to lead? The answers usually sit in the way riders, trainers and vets already talk about the brand, which is why listening comes before any new identity or campaign.

Frequently asked questions