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… Brand image varies with usage
Attributes that are prototypical are prototypical for every brand
Attitudes are fickle
Brand image remains stable over time
Consumers have repertoires of brands
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
Responsive 15 12 9 10
Low fees and charges 6 4 3
USAGE
25%
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 8
NON-USERS
Bank 1
Bank 2
Bank 3
Bank 4
Up to date with Technology 56 48 50
Offers friendly service 19 16 15
Responsive 11 8 7
Low fees and charges 3 4

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
Responsive 15 12 9 10
Low fees and charges 6 4 3
RANK
Bank 1
Bank 2
Bank 3
Bank 4
Up to date with Technology 1
Offers friendly service 2
Responsive 3
Low fees and charges 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
Can image attributes give some indication of future buying propensity? The use of image surveys to indicate ‘brand health’ or advertising effectiveness is based on the assumption that image perceptions guide future behaviour.
It is very normal for marketers to expect image studies to show how the brand is doing in terms of reaching a special image position. Some image attributes are seen as more desirable than others, ie, more strongly linked to buying behaviour. Image analysis, usually in terms of some sort of correlation modelling, is sometimes used to reveal these desirable attributes, alternatively they are simply identified by judgement.
Yet, we know of no successfully documented cases where particular image attributes could be used to predict individuals’ non-repetitive future buying behaviour. This is not surprising given recent discovery that individuals are surprisingly fickle when it comes to giving attitudinal responses in image surveys. Only around half of the people who gave a particular response on one survey give the same response when surveyed again {Dall'Olmo Riley, #5197; Dall'Olmo Riley, 1997 #5197}.

13. 4) Brand Attitudes are fickle
Table of % of respondents who responded on 1st interview who also responded on 2nd interview
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
Fair on paying claims 74 42 38 43
Competitive on price 44 46 47 53

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
Can image attributes give some indication of future buying propensity? The use of image surveys to indicate ‘brand health’ or advertising effectiveness is based on the assumption that image perceptions guide future behaviour.
It is very normal for marketers to expect image studies to show how the brand is doing in terms of reaching a special image position. Some image attributes are seen as more desirable than others, ie, more strongly linked to buying behaviour. Image analysis, usually in terms of some sort of correlation modelling, is sometimes used to reveal these desirable attributes, alternatively they are simply identified by judgement.
Yet, we know of no successfully documented cases where particular image attributes could be used to predict individuals’ non-repetitive future buying behaviour. This is not surprising given recent discovery that individuals are surprisingly fickle when it comes to giving attitudinal responses in image surveys. Only around half of the people who gave a particular response on one survey give the same response when surveyed again {Dall'Olmo Riley, #5197; Dall'Olmo Riley, 1997 #5197}.

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
Provides complete cover 65 34 11 3
Easy to understand policies 59 19 7
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
Competitive on price 59 25 20

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. 6) There is no brand segmentation
Av.
MAD
Credit Card
Credit Card
Credit Card
Credit Card n
Av. MAD
So we have a Av MAD of 2 for gender for credit cards
This analysis was repeated for every variable for every brand. Here we only present the average MADs across all demographics, attitudes and the like due to the sheer volume of analysis.

21. 6) There is no brand segmentation
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!

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!
Perhaps we throw out the USP?
We kill positioning?

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
It is common for managers to look at image scores and compare their brand to competitors (“did we score better or worse than them?”). Yet, this is usually very misleading, because image scores largely reflect market share (or amounts of users in the survey).
Discoveries over the past forty years are starting to come together,
a picture of brand image research that is at odds with the textbook discussion of the topic
These discoveries also refute many of the assumptions that underpin current practice in the analysis and interpretation of image data:
- Big brands don’t hold special ‘strong’ brand images they simply have more users who happen to think of their brand much the same as the users of smaller brands think of theirs.
- There are no ‘special’ image attributes. All attitudinal image attributes show much the same association with future buying.

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
The marketing task does not seem to be to re-position to some highly desirable brand image position as opposed to taking into account what people already think of you