Arguments against brand positioning Maxwell Winchester & Dr. Byron Sharp

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

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

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

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

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%

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

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

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”

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

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

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, 1997 #5197; Dall'Olmo Riley, 1997 #5197}.

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

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, 1997 #5197; Dall'Olmo Riley, 1997 #5197}.

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

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

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

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

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

6) There is no brand segmentation Av. MAD Credit Card 1 -3 3 3 Credit Card 2 -3 3 3 Credit Card 3 0 0 0 Credit Card n 2 -2 2 Av. MAD 2 2 2 . . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. 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.

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!

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?

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.

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