BRAND POSITIONING

Brand positioning refers to “target consumer’s” reason to buy your brand in

preference to others. It is ensures that all brand activity has a common aim; is
guided, directed and delivered by the brand’s benefits/reasons to buy; and it focuses
at all points of contact with the consumer.

In marketing, positioning has come to mean the process by which marketers

try to create an image or identity in the minds of their target market for its product,
brand, or organization.

Re-positioning involves changing the identity of a product, relative to the

identity of competing products, in the collective minds of the target market.

De-positioning involves attempting to change the identity of competing

products, relative to the identity of your own product, in the collective minds of the
target market.

The original work on Positioning was consumer marketing oriented, and was
not as much focused on the question relative to competitive products as much as it
was focused on cutting through the ambient "noise" and establishing a moment of
real contact with the intended recipient.

Brand positioning must make sure that:

 Is it unique & distinctive vs. competitors?

 Is it significant and encouraging to the niche market?
 Is it appropriate to all major geographic markets and businesses?
 Is the proposition validated with unique, appropriate and original products?
 Is it sustainable - can it be delivered constantly across all points of contact
with the consumer?
 Is it helpful for organization to achieve its financial goals?
 Is it able to support and boost up the organization?
 In order to create a distinctive place in the market, a niche market has to be
carefully chosen and a differential advantage must be created in their mind. Brand
positioning is a medium through which an organization can portray it’s customers
what it wants to achieve for them and what it wants to mean to them. Brand
positioning forms customer’s views and opinions.

There are various positioning errors, such as-

1. Under positioning

This is a scenario in which the customer’s have a blurred and unclear

idea of the brand.

2. Over positioning

This is a scenario in which the customers have too limited a

awareness of the brand.

3. Confused positioning

This is a scenario in which the customers have a confused opinion of

the brand.

4. Double Positioning

This is a scenario in which customers do not accept the claims of a

brand.
 MEASURING THE POSITIONING

Positioning is facilitated by a graphical technique called perceptual mapping,

various survey techniques, and statistical techniques like conjoint analysis, and logit
analysis.

Conjoint Analysis

Conjoint analysis is a statistical technique used in market research to

determine how people value different features that make up an individual product or
service.

The objective of conjoint analysis is to determine what combination of a

limited number of attributes is most influential on respondent choice or decision
making. A controlled set of potential products or services is shown to respondents
and by analysing how they make preferences between these products, the implicit
valuation of the individual elements making up the product or service can be
determined.

Conjoint originated in mathematical psychology and was developed by

marketing professor Paul Green at the University of Pennsylvania and Data Chan.
Other prominent conjoint analysis pioneers include professor V. “Seenu” Srinivasan
of Stanford University who developed a linear programming (LINMAP) procedure for
rank ordered data as well as a self-explicated approach, Richard Johnson (founder
of Sawtooth Software) who developed the Adaptive Conjoint Analysis technique in
the 1980s and Jordan Louviere (Ph.D., University of Iowa) who invented and
developed Choice-based approaches to conjoint analysis and related techniques
such as MaxDiff.

Today it is used in many of the social sciences and applied sciences including
marketing, product management, and operations research. It is used frequently in
testing customer acceptance of new product designs, in assessing the appeal of
advertisements and in service design. It has been used in product positioning, but
there are some who raise problems with this application of conjoint analysis.
 o Conjoint Design

A product or service area is described in terms of a number of attributes. For

example, a television may have attributes of screen size, screen format, brand, price
and so on. Each attribute can then be broken down into a number of levels. For
instance, levels for screen format may be LED, LCD, or Plasma.

Respondents would be shown a set of products, prototypes, or pictures

created from a combination of levels from all or some of the constituent attributes
and asked to choose from, rank or rate the products they are shown. Each example
is similar enough that consumers will see them as close substitutes, but dissimilar
enough that respondents can clearly determine a preference. Each example is
composed of a unique combination of product features. The data may consist of
individual ratings, rank orders, or preferences among alternative combinations.

o Types of conjoint analysis

The earliest forms of conjoint analysis were what are known as Full Profile
studies, in which a small set of attributes are used to create profiles that are shown
to respondents, often on individual cards. Respondents then rank or rate these
profiles. Using relatively simple dummy variable regression analysis the implicit
utilities for the levels can be calculated.

Two drawbacks were seen in these early designs.

Firstly, the number of attributes in use was heavily restricted. With large
numbers of attributes, the consideration task for respondents becomes too large and
even with fractional factorial designs the number of profiles for evaluation can
increase rapidly.

The second drawback was that the task itself was unrealistic and did not link
directly to behavioural theory. In real-life situations, the task would be some form of
actual choice between alternatives rather than the more artificial ranking and rating.
 o Information collection

Data for conjoint analysis is most commonly gathered through a market

research survey, although conjoint analysis can also be applied to a carefully
designed configuration or data from an appropriately design test market experiment.
Market research rules of thumb apply with regard to statistical sample size and
accuracy when designing conjoint analysis interviews.

The length of the research questionnaire depends on the number of attributes

to be assessed and the method of conjoint analysis in use. A typical Adaptive
Conjoint questionnaire with 20-25 attributes may take more than 30 minutes to
complete. Choice based conjoint, by using a smaller profile set distributed across the
sample as a whole may be completed in less than 15 minutes. Choice exercises may
be displayed as a store front type layout or in some other simulated shopping
environment.

o Analysis

Any number of algorithms may be used to estimate utility functions. These

utility functions indicate the perceived value of the feature and how sensitive
consumer perceptions and preferences are to changes in product features. The
actual mode of analysis will depend on the design of the task and profiles for
respondents. For full profile tasks, linear regression may be appropriate, for choice
based tasks, maximum likelihood estimation, usually with logistic regression are
typically used.

Advantages

 estimates psychological tradeoffs that consumers make when evaluating

several attributes together
 measures preferences at the individual level
 uncovers real or hidden drivers which may not be apparent to the respondent
themselves
 realistic choice or shopping task
 able to use physical objects
Disadvantages

 designing conjoint studies can be complex

 with too many options, respondents resort to simplification strategies
 difficult to use for product positioning research because there is no procedure
for converting perceptions about actual features to perceptions about a
reduced set of underlying features
 respondents are unable to articulate attitudes toward new categories, or may
feel forced to think about issues they would otherwise not give much thought
to
 poorly designed studies may over-value emotional/preference variables and
undervalue concrete variables
 does not take into account the number items per purchase so it can give a
poor reading of market share
 Logit analysis

Logit analysis is a statistical technique used by marketers to assess the scope

of customer acceptance of a product, particularly a new product. It attempts to
determine the intensity or magnitude of customers' purchase intentions and
translates that into a measure of actual buying behaviour. Logit analysis assumes
that an unmet need in the marketplace has already been detected, and that the
product has been designed to meet that need. The purpose of logit analysis is to
quantify the potential sales of that product.

Logit analysis defines the functional relationship between stated purchase

intentions and preferences, and the actual probability of purchase. A preference
regression is performed on the survey data. This is then modified with actual
historical observations of purchase behaviour. The resultant functional relationship
defines purchase probability.

This is the most useful of the purchase intention/rating translations because

explicit measures of confidence level and statistical significance can be calculated.
Other purchase intention/rating translations include the preference-rank translation
and the intent scale translation. The main disadvantage is that the software is not
easy to find.

Perceptual mapping

Perceptual mapping is a graphics technique used by asset marketers that

attempts to visually display the perceptions of customers or potential customers.
Typically the position of a product, product line, brand, or company is displayed
relative to their competition.

Perceptual maps can have any number of dimensions but the most common
is two dimensions. Any more is a challenge to draw and confusing to interpret. The
first perceptual map below shows consumer perceptions of various automobiles on
the two dimensions of sportiness/conservative and classy/affordable. This sample of
consumers felt Porsche was the sportiest and classiest of the cars in the study (top
right corner). They felt Plymouth was most practical and conservative (bottom left
corner).

Perceptual Map of Competing Products

Cars that are positioned close to each other are seen as similar on the
relevant dimensions by the consumer. For example consumers see Buick, Chrysler,
and Oldsmobile as similar. They are close competitors and form a competitive
grouping. A company considering the introduction of a new model will look for an
area on the map free from competitors. Some perceptual maps use different size
circles to indicate the sales volume or market share of the various competing
products.

Displaying consumers’ perceptions of related products is only half the story.

Many perceptual maps also display consumers’ ideal points. These points reflect
ideal combinations of the two dimensions as seen by a consumer. The next diagram
shows a study of consumers’ ideal points in the alcohol/spirits product space. Each
dot represents one respondent's ideal combination of the two dimensions. Areas
where there is a cluster of ideal points (such as A) indicates a market segment.
Areas without ideal points are sometimes referred to as demand voids.
 Perceptual Map of Ideal Points and Clusters

A company considering introducing a new product will look for areas with a
high density of ideal points. They will also look for areas without competitive rivals.
This is best done by placing both the ideal points and the competing products on the
same map.

Some maps plot ideal vectors instead of ideal points. The map below,
displays various aspirin products as seen on the dimensions of effectiveness and
gentleness. It also shows two ideal vectors. The slope of the ideal vector indicates
the preferred ratio of the two dimensions by those consumers within that segment.
This study indicates there is one segment that is more concerned with effectiveness
than harshness, and another segment that is more interested in gentleness than
strength.
 Perceptual Map of Competing Products with Ideal Vectors

Perceptual maps need not come from a detailed study. There are also
intuitive maps (also called judgmental maps or consensus maps) that are created by
marketers based on their understanding of their industry. Management uses its best
judgment. It is questionable how valuable this type of map is. Often they just give the
appearance of credibility to management’s preconceptions.

When detailed marketing research studies are done methodological problems

can arise, but at least the information is coming directly from the consumer. There is
an assortment of statistical procedures that can be used to convert the raw data
collected in a survey into a perceptual map. Preference regression will produce ideal
vectors. Multi dimensional scaling will produce either ideal points or competitor
positions. Factor analysis, discriminate analysis, cluster analysis, and logit analysis
can also be used. Some techniques are constructed from perceived differences
between products; others are constructed from perceived similarities. Still others are
constructed from cross price elasticity of demand data from electronic scanners.
 PEPSI Brand Development 2000 to 2003
As a result of Pepsi’s introduction to the US marketplace, 13 years after Coca-
Cola was first launched and had the opportunity to become entrenched in American
culture, Pepsi’s brand position is as a challenger to Coca-cola.

This has presented Pepsi with the opportunity to constantly evolve and
innovate in an attempt to take market share from Coke and pressurising Coca-Cola
to aggressively defend its position. This happened most famously when Coca-Cola
was forced to introduce a ‘New Coke’ and stop production of its original product for a
time, as a result of result of Pepsi’s relentless global campaign ‘The Pepsi
Challenge’.

The competitive nature of the soft drinks market place has forced Pepsi to be
a hard working brand, look for niche markets and carry its brand values across all
aspects of its business. The Pepsi-Cola Company, encapsulates its brand through
its products, its corporate social responsibility, its stance on promoting ethnicity and
diversity, its commitment to environmental policy and in the staff recruited.

Currently, Coca-Cola retains its spot as the No. 1 soft drink in the US market,
with 17.9 percent market share. Pepsi is the No. 2 drink, an 11.5 percent share.

This is a market position which Pepsi may always have to accept. In his
recent article for the Independent On-line, Steve Connor, Science Editor, details a
recent study which demonstrates the way in which brand recognition affects the
workings of the human brain.

“A well-known label is so influential, say researchers, that it can alter

consumers' perception of the product's taste. They believe the findings are
particularly important given the role that sugared soft drinks have on the epidemic of
childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes.

A recent laboratory-controlled version of the Pepsi Challenge, has revealed

that flavour seems to be the last thing that consumers rely on in their preference for
Pepsi or Coca-Cola.
In a blind tasting they showed no preference, but when the participants were shown
company logos before they tasted, the Coke label had a dramatic impact: three-
quarters of the tasters declared they preferred Coke.

At the same time the researchers found that the Coke label, the most famous,
stimulated a huge increase in activity in parts of the brain associated with cultural
knowledge, memory and self-image - so much that the scientists were able to use
brain scans to predict which soft drink the participant was likely to prefer. The Pepsi
label produced no such increase.

It is believed to be the first time that brand marketing has been shown to have
a direct effect on the brain's capacity to make a choice”.

These results indicate that Pepsi will just have to continue in its position as a
challenger brand, looking for innovative ways to challenge Coca-Cola.

The table below illustrates the changes in Pepsi slogans since 2000

2000 The Joy of Pepsi

2001 A little twist on a great thing

2003 Pepsi. It's the Cola

 How you position your brand, product, or company might be the
most important aspect of a marketing communications plan.

Positioning is the act of designing the company’s offering and the

image to occupy a distinctive place in the minds of the target markets.

Positioning is not created by the marketer or the individual brand

itself, but by how others perceive it.

Positioning is the art of creating a brand that can persuade and

realistically demonstrate its relevance to a customer's daily life to become his
or her regular choice.

Positioning requires determining a frame of reference by identifying

the target market and the competition and identifying the ideal points-of-parity
and points-of-difference brand associations.

o Points-of-Difference (PODs):-
Points-of-difference (PODs) are attributes or benefits consumers
strongly associated with a brand, positively evaluate, and believe they could
not find the same extent with a competitive brand.

o Points-of-Parity (POPs):-
Point-of-parity (POPs) is associations that are not necessarily unique
to the brand but may in fact be shared with other brands. These types of
associations come in two basic forms:
 Category points-of-parity represents necessary but not sufficient
conditions for brand choice.
 Competitive points-of-parity are associations designed to negate
competitors’ points-of-difference.

o Points-of-parity versus points-of-difference:-

 For an offering to achieve a points-of-parity (POP) on a particular
attribute or benefit, a sufficient number of consumers must believe the brand
is “good enough” on that dimension. There is a zone or range of tolerance or
acceptance with points-of-parity. The brand does not literally need to be seen
as equal to competitors, but consumers must feel that the brand does well
enough on that particular attribute or benefit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Philip kotler (2009), marketing management, 13 th edition

 www.va-interactive.com
 www.wikipedia.org
