1

Arguments against brand positioning

Maxwell Winchester & Dr. Byron Sharp

2

Marketing theory or marketing rubbish?

• Most marketing theories developed on single cross-sectional studies

• Rarely replicated– When replicated usually results in contrary

findings » e.g. Hubbard & Armstrong (1994)

• Research & Development Initiative into Marketing (school of empirical generalisationalists)– Study marketing phenomena across MSOD– In different countries– Across different market structures

3

Brand positioning

• First appeared in the Advertising Age– Reis and Trout (1972)

• Now in every marketing textbook– Seen as a fundamental aim of marketing– Yet not scientifically tested

• Position brand in consumers’ minds– Make it the preferred brand for your brand’s

target market

4

The arguments…

1. Brand image varies with usage2. Attributes that are prototypical are

prototypical for every brand3. Attitudes are fickle4. Brand image remains stable over time5. Consumers have repertoires of brands6. There is no brand segmentation

5

1) Brand image varies with usage

• Evaluative brand attributes vary with usage– e.g. “reliable”, “a bank I can trust”, “good

value for money”

• Users respond to an attribute more often than non-users

6

1) Overall scores

Bank 1 Bank 2 Bank 3 Bank 4

Up to date with Technology

58 50 52 49

Offers friendly service 25 20 18 20

Responsive 15 12 9 10

Low fees and charges 6 4 3 4

USAGE 25% 15% 15% 14%

7

2) User & non-user response level

USERS Bank 1 Bank 2 Bank 3 Bank 4

Up to date with Technology

65 59 67 63

Offers friendly service 49 43 33 48

Responsive 31 36 20 25

Low fees and charges 7 7 8 7

NON-USERS Bank 1 Bank 2 Bank 3 Bank 4

Up to date with Technology

56 48 50 48

Offers friendly service 19 16 15 15

Responsive 11 8 7 8

Low fees and charges 3 4 3 3

8

2) Response level and usage?

• Big brands score higher than smaller brands and users respond to attribute more often than non-users– Usage drives brand image/brand attitudes?

• This pattern has held up:– Different countries– Different market structures– Different industries

• If positioning theory held, wouldn’t we expect – Smaller ‘niche’ brands to show significantly higher

response levels on specific attributes (e.g. Volvo - safety)

– This response level would drive usage

9

2) Attributes are protototypical consistently

• Prototypicality comes from taxonomy– How we categorise things– In this case - brands

• Attribute that is scored highly for one brand is so for others– E.g. “Up to date with technology”

10

2) Attributes scores & prototypicality

IMAGE SCORES Bank 1 Bank 2 Bank 3 Bank 4

Up to date with Technology

58 50 52 49

Offers friendly service 25 20 18 20

Responsive 15 12 9 10

Low fees and charges 6 4 3 4

RANK Bank 1 Bank 2 Bank 3 Bank 4

Up to date with Technology

1 1 1 1

Offers friendly service 2 2 2 2

Responsive 3 3 3 3

Low fees and charges 4 4 4 4

11

2) Prototypicality arguments…

• This pattern has held up:– Different countries– Different market structures– Different industries

• If positioning theory held, would we not expect brands to score highly on different attributes?– i.e. the ones they were positioned on

12

3) Attitudes are fickle/unstable

• Only about half of the people who gave a particular attitudinal response on one occasion do so on the second interview

13

4) Brand Attitudes are fickle

Insurer 1

Insurer 2

Insurer 3

Insurer 4

Mean

Provides complete cover 81 58 32 26 49

Easy to understand policies

83 40 45 29 49

Fair on paying claims 74 42 38 43 49

Competitive on price 74 44 46 47 53

• Table of % of respondents who responded on 1st interview who also responded on 2nd interview

14

3) Attitudes are fickle/unstable

• Individuals' responses are as-if random• But this variability cancels out at

aggregate level - this is why so few researchers know about the individual variability

• If positioning theory held, we would expect– Consistent responses to the attributes

brands were positioned on» By the same respondents

15

4) Brand image remains stable over time

• While we have seen at an individual level, image responses are fickle

• At an aggregate level, over time, brand image remains stable in stable markets– Whether it 3 weeks or one year between

interviews results tend to be relatively the same

• These results are from a longitudinal study in the insurance market– Interviews were 3 months apart

16

4) Brand image @ t1 and t2

INTERVIEW 1 Insurer 1 Insurer 2

Insurer 3 Insurer 4

Provides complete cover

65 34 11 3

Easy to understand policies

59 19 7 3

Fair on paying claims 58 18 6 2

Competitive on price 53 26 17 5

INTERVIEW 2 Insurer 1 Insurer 2

Insurer 3 Insurer 4

Provides complete cover

75 36 14 4

Easy to understand policies

65 18 9 2

Fair on paying claims 62 19 6 2

Competitive on price 59 25 20 4

17

4) Brand image remains stable over time

• We see little change in the aggregate results– So brand image does not change much– Except with changes in market share

• If positioning theory held, we would expect– Dramatic changes in brand perceptions as

different competitors re-positioned their brands in the marketplace

18

5) Consumers have repertoires of brands

• Proponents of positioning theory believe:– If you position your brand well, people will

prefer your brand over all of the others

• But!– Consumers have brand repertoires– They are generally not loyal to one brand in

repertoire markets

• “Your buyers are buyers of other brands who occasionally buy you”– Professor Andrew Ehrenberg

19

6) There is no brand segmentation

• Are Ford buyers different from GM buyers?

• A fundamental argument provided by proponents of the positioning theory– Different brands are bought by different types

of people

• Study in Research & Development Initiative into Marketing– Ehrenberg & Kennedy– 42 industries, 200+ segmentation variables– Only minor differences found

20

Credit Card 1 -3 3 3Credit Card 2 -3 3 3Credit Card 3 0 0 0

Credit Card n 2 -2 2

Av. MAD 2 2 2

MADAv.

. . . .. .. ..

. . . .. .. ..

6) There is no brand segmentation

21

• If positioning theory held…– We would expect to see large demographic,

behavioural and psychographic differences between brands

» This assumes we do not hold brand repertoires» This assumes we can target different competing

brands at different segments

• We are not saying that…– You cannot segment markets

» Cat food is generally bought by cat owners!

6) There is no brand segmentation

22

So where does this leave us ?

• Evidence is not conclusive, BUT– You’ve seen a sufficient challenge to the

tradition of brand positioning

• Assumptions about the existence of 'ideal' or 'killer' attributes or image positions may be unfounded

• Users of different brands think pretty much the same thing about their brands– Just because you tell consumers something,

doesn’t mean they’ll act on it!

23

An interesting study…

• Romaniuk & Sharp (2000) found that:– Image perceptions are linked to future

buying behaviour in a systematic and predictable manner

– Mentioning a brand for any attribute means you are slightly more likely to keep buying it

– Mentioning one particular brand attribute does not lead to purchase

24

Where to from here?

• We’re not saying that your brand can not be distinct from other brands

– But we do compete in a competitive market

• More scientific studies required– Such as those conducted as part of the Research and

Development Initiative into Marketing

• The marketing task does not seem to be about repositioning to some desirable spot

– but rather is very much about taking into account what people already think of you

– Building salience for your brand may be the answer

• Perhaps brand positioning is marketing rubbish rather than marketing theory?

– Replicate & extend– Longitudinal studies